It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Man didn't evolve from fish or monkeys

page: 26
13
<< 23  24  25    27  28  29 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 22 2016 @ 04:13 PM
link   
a reply to: TerryDon79

Every human skull I've seen is "pretty close" to the fragments termed "homo habilis".

Some share more resemblance to the reconstructed images than others yes. contemporary microencephalites spring to mind.

Bone structure varies, and is not a reliable indicator of the nature of the creature it was a part of, especially when broken and partial, and certainly not of the creature's abilities.

Don't take it from me, the phrenologists have recanted their own theory that skulls do this:

fr.wikipedia.org...




posted on Mar, 22 2016 @ 04:17 PM
link   
a reply to: wisvol

So you think the skull of Homo Habilis is very similar to Homo Sapiens?

(Just an FYI, every Homo genus is human)



posted on Mar, 22 2016 @ 04:23 PM
link   
a reply to: TerryDon79

No, I think the concept of homo habilis as being millions of years old or a half monkey is nuts, and it has been justified to massacre aborigines in Australia who "kind of looked different" and are not half monkeys either.



posted on Mar, 22 2016 @ 04:28 PM
link   
a reply to: wisvol

Considering the skull of Homo Habilis looks nothing like ANY modern Homo Sapiens, that makes your argument a moot point.

I'd just like to add that you haven't once tried to refute evolution with science. You tried with the coal, diamond, dinosaur bone thing that has been explained 1000s of times over the course of 40+ years. Just because you don't accept something doesn't mean it's not true.

Try actually proving it wrong.
edit on 2232016 by TerryDon79 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 22 2016 @ 04:36 PM
link   
a reply to: TerryDon79

You're thinking of another poster.

Although it is true that carbon dating was first tested in the 1950s, and that in twenty years the relative concentrations, assumed as being constant, of the isotope had doubled.


By 1965, atmospheric 14C concentrations were double their pre "atomic age" values.


from physics.info...

Now while it may be hypothesised that only explosions change the relative concentrations of 14C, which is a sophomoric assumption to make, it does invalidate the notion that current levels determine the age of dead things.

Furthermore, other radiometric dating is based on the premise that stable elements somehow "have to" be decayed products from unstable elements, which is not the case and makes the theory, while interesting, unscientific.



posted on Mar, 22 2016 @ 04:40 PM
link   
a reply to: wisvol

And what I'm about to say has been explained over and over and over again just in this one thread.

C-14 dating IS NOT USED to date anything older than 50,000 years

Even when C-14 dating is used to date something only a couple of thousand years old, it is not the only test done to determine the age of an object. To do just one test is dishonest.



posted on Mar, 22 2016 @ 04:40 PM
link   
a reply to: wisvol




you haven't once tried to refute evolution with science.


Absolutely: the burden of proof belongs to the party making the allegation.

I never refute anything with science, science serves to prove things.

In the case of "evolution" taken as the origin of species being other species, since you believe it to be true, proving it belongs to you.



posted on Mar, 22 2016 @ 04:41 PM
link   
a reply to: TerryDon79

Even if 14C is used to date something four hundred years old, the relative concentrations of 14C would have to be constant, which isn't the case.



posted on Mar, 22 2016 @ 04:41 PM
link   
a reply to: wisvol

You're saying evolution is false. You make the claim so it is up to you to prove it wrong.



posted on Mar, 22 2016 @ 04:44 PM
link   
a reply to: wisvol

You don't read do you?

C-14 ISN'T THE ONLY TEST DONE TO COME TO THE CONCLUSION OF THE AGE OF AN OBJECT!



posted on Mar, 22 2016 @ 04:48 PM
link   
a reply to: TerryDon79


In a scientific context evidence is experimental or empirical data (although in some branches, well thought out mathematics may suffice). For example, in identifying a chemical compound, an analyst may present a spectrum to support their hypothesis but a reviewer may point out that it is insufficient, explain why by offering an alternative interpretation and state more data is needed, usually suggesting specific data that would be required. This sort of procedure happens constantly in the scientific method, repeating until everyone is happy that the data and explanation match.


from rationalwiki.org...

Your allegation is that the origin of species is other species, by association since youdidn't come upo with it, but are repeating it.

If your "evidence" is cranial differences with dead people (or even dead monkeys) and radiometry, I voice my concern that you may be taking indoctrination for facts, because the origin of species is not other species.

A compelling analogy is anyone who claims anything illogical, such as a child who says there's a monster under his bed.

When shown that the monster isn't observable, the child may say "prove that it didn't happen", to which the adult replies "that's not how proof works"



posted on Mar, 22 2016 @ 04:50 PM
link   
a reply to: TerryDon79

All caps eh? That always adds weight to the point.

Of course it isn't. Who said anything else?



posted on Mar, 22 2016 @ 04:51 PM
link   
a reply to: wisvol

Evolutionary scientists (covers all the sciences behind evolution) have already proved evolution. A few of us have also showed you information and pointed you and others to studies that proves evolution. Evolution is a scientific fact. The theory of evolution is the explanation of the fact.

Now, try proving it's not true.



posted on Mar, 22 2016 @ 04:53 PM
link   
a reply to: TerryDon79

What you construe as proof is a series of texts and images, which when analysed logically fail to demonstrate the premise that the origin of species is other species.

A key point of our specific correspondence has been speciation: many texts about it were provided, that admitted for the most part that they were redefining speciation in order to prove it, then proved that individuals differ from their parents in ways not including their species.



posted on Mar, 22 2016 @ 04:53 PM
link   
a reply to: wisvol

Considering you keep bringing it up as a "death to the theory of evolution" and keep saying how it's flawed over and over again, I thought I would all caps and bold it so you could see it, again.



posted on Mar, 22 2016 @ 04:56 PM
link   
a reply to: TerryDon79

I have not said any such thing.

Evolution is a word predating the theory that the origin of species would be other species.
A useful word I also make use of.



posted on Mar, 22 2016 @ 04:56 PM
link   
a reply to: wisvol

I'm done with you.

You've obviously made up your mind and no matter what proof we give you you will just shrug it off because it doesn't fit your story.

Good luck with life.



posted on Mar, 22 2016 @ 04:57 PM
link   
a reply to: TerryDon79

Thank you for your conclusion.

Have a good one



posted on Mar, 22 2016 @ 05:34 PM
link   
a reply to: wisvol

Neigthbour, if by beating, you mean using my education and the facts? You are in for a shock in the real world.



posted on Mar, 22 2016 @ 05:35 PM
link   
a reply to: wisvol

Phrenology is a pseudoscience, and no one with ANY credibility follows it today.




top topics



 
13
<< 23  24  25    27  28  29 >>

log in

join