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: 35
13
<< 32  33  34    36  37  38 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 24 2016 @ 07:19 PM
link   
a reply to: 5StarOracle

That's not a citation
one needs to post the source! The creationists demand itvboifvus thus they need tondobiut too. Specifically show no difference in function between ,900ish cc vs 1500!




posted on Mar, 24 2016 @ 07:34 PM
link   
a reply to: Noinden

Heh
Einstien had an average size brain yet his thought process was no where near average...
Brain size is not an accurate indication of intelligence...
Now if certain areas of the brain are larger as was the case for Einstien then because of his brain it is believed to make an intellectual difference...



posted on Mar, 24 2016 @ 11:06 PM
link   
a reply to: Barcs

Great reply
Suddenly you have to justify your comments

You know it could be God and evolution, I just don't see the evidence of evolution

Barcs, you don't know what really happened 100 yeqr ago never mind thousands of years ago

It's all assumption

I dismiss you



posted on Mar, 24 2016 @ 11:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: 5StarOracle

That's not a citation
one needs to post the source! The creationists demand itvboifvus thus they need tondobiut too. Specifically show no difference in function between ,900ish cc vs 1500!


Creationists are not calling their beliefs a science, the onus of proof is on you
Prove they were not human

We had this issue 10 years ago, Neanderthal was a rock ape and then suddenly they are as human as we are, the same as us

You are going to have to do better than demand the burden of proof from those who believe by faith

I believe they are human, I don't need to change my mind unless evidence suggests otherwise
The burden is on scientists to find evidence
That's how science works

I can dismiss your evidence in seconds

Not to blow my own trumpet but toot toot



posted on Mar, 24 2016 @ 11:20 PM
link   
a reply to: Raggedyman

You really meant you can just ignore the evidence.

Everyone sees you for the fool you are. Whether it is real or just for show, we don't know, but we still see you are a fool.

Go crawl under a rock to hide from the science you're so scared of.



posted on Mar, 24 2016 @ 11:30 PM
link   
a reply to: Raggedyman

Why are you threatened by the idea of evolution?



posted on Mar, 24 2016 @ 11:32 PM
link   
a reply to: TerryDon79

How long have you believed you are more than one person?
Was this an evolutionary process in your expert opinion?



posted on Mar, 24 2016 @ 11:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: 5StarOracle
a reply to: TerryDon79

How long have you believed you are more than one person?
Was this an evolutionary process in your expert opinion?



2 people because I called him what he is? Clever. Come up with that yourself or did god tell you to say it?



posted on Mar, 24 2016 @ 11:38 PM
link   
a reply to: TerryDon79

You are the one talking on behalf of everyone...
We this we that...
"Everyone sees you for the fool you are"



posted on Mar, 24 2016 @ 11:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: 5StarOracle
a reply to: TerryDon79

You are the one talking on behalf of everyone...
We this we that...
"Everyone sees you for the fool you are"


Oh I'm sorry master. Did I speak out of turn master? How would you like me to talk master?



posted on Mar, 24 2016 @ 11:47 PM
link   
a reply to: TerryDon79

I'll let you know...
until then I want you to write down "I will not speak on behalf of others" 200 times...



posted on Mar, 24 2016 @ 11:50 PM
link   
Dear terry don

Oh Td, that's just nasty and personal now.

Imagine if you could have me labeled a witch, burned at the stake
Am I blaspheming your god, am I disrespecting your faith belief, don't I have a right to demand evidence
Evidently not when I question your faith, does me questioning your God hurt you, is science that important it is beyond question, fundamentalism in no disguise

Best I go crawl under my rock and leave your religion unchallenged

Scared of science, unlike you I demand science be held accountable, I push science, I expect from science.
You bow down to it, venerate science as if it was a god, beyond question, never to be questioned

You clearly fear science, to scared to question your god



posted on Mar, 24 2016 @ 11:53 PM
link   
a reply to: Raggedyman

We've shown you proof. You ignore it.

We've explained how science isn't a religion. You ignore it.

We've explained how evolution works. You've ignored it.

You say how evolution is wrong and science is a religion yet you use science every single day. Hypocrit much?



posted on Mar, 24 2016 @ 11:54 PM
link   
a reply to: PhotonEffect

I am not
As I have said many times, many Christians accept evolution
Christians are allowed to believe in evolution

I just don't see the evidence

Why are you scared of science, evidence, truth, questioning and learning truth

Why do you accept humans evolved from dirt and water, how can you believe that, never mind think it's science

I don't expect an answer




posted on Mar, 24 2016 @ 11:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: TerryDon79

originally posted by: 5StarOracle
a reply to: TerryDon79

You are the one talking on behalf of everyone...
We this we that...
"Everyone sees you for the fool you are"


Oh I'm sorry master. Did I speak out of turn master? How would you like me to talk master?


I see that you are distressed and are now just fighting for the fights sake

Attacking in a nasty way, to bad you can't win this argument with evidence, real science instead of acting like a school child



posted on Mar, 25 2016 @ 12:00 AM
link   
a reply to: Raggedyman

Like we haven't tried to explain it to you.

You just ignore it and pretend it will go away.

This thread was just a troll on every scientific minded person on this site.

I'm out of this thread now.

Good luck with your trolling.



posted on Mar, 25 2016 @ 12:04 AM
link   
Evolution is not mathematics...
it can not be proven and thus may not be true to the theory of evolution...
So Raggedyman is right Evolution can only be whole heartedly believed in if you are willing to take a leap of faith and accept the conclusions which are purposed through partial observations and supposition...
One can not prove evolution anymore than I can prove God...
And even if evolution somehow miraculously becomes a fact and is proven well that still does nothing to disprove God or creation...



posted on Mar, 25 2016 @ 12:13 AM
link   
a reply to: TerryDon79

Oh dear boy
This was a thread about exposing the sheer stupidity of people who believe humans evolved from dirt and water
The absolute sheer stupidity that humans lineage is star dust and star water

You know why ghost left, he was exposed to the stupidity of the belief, good idea you tuck tail as well.

Trolling, it's exposing false science and blind religios faith mixed with fundamentalism

Stardust and starwater, good idea you run from that



posted on Mar, 25 2016 @ 12:43 AM
link   

originally posted by: Raggedyman

Creationists are not calling their beliefs a science, the onus of proof is on you
Prove they were not human


The true crux of the problem here is little more than you not understanding the finer points of semantics. What we consider human in Anthropology is apparently not the same as what you attempt to imply human to mean. All members of the genus Homo are considered humans. Perhaps I wrong, but you give the impression that to you "human" is a direct corollary for HSS. Please correct me if I am wrong. I'm not here to tell you what you believe.


We had this issue 10 years ago, Neanderthal was a rock ape and then suddenly they are as human as we are, the same as us


This isn't true at all. Rock apes huh? I wasn't aware that science was so arbitrary that you got to create your own nomenclatures to suit whichever bridge the Troll chooses to call home that day. The misunderstanding of HN that you seem to be colloquialising is based the remains of an older male specimen found in 1908 in La Chapelle aux-Saints Framce, who had severe osteoarthritis which when assembled, gave his remains the appearance of a stooped over, semi-erect posture with a knee bent gait which became synonymous with the stereotype of a "caveman" further popularized by children's cartoons. The analysis of these remains was the result of sloppy work by Macellin Boule, a French paleontologist. This poor work and mischaracterization of an entire species of human held on for roughly half a century until these specific remains were sent to Johns Hopkins in 1957 where an in depth reevaluation was completed and the true nature of these post cranial remains became apparent.

Your assessment of Neanderthal = "rock ape" hasn't been a "thing" outside of the Scientifically illiterate and those hell bent on slandering Modern Evolutionary Synthesis, for just short of 60 years. Just a smidge off from your claim of 10 years ago no?

The only thing to have changed in the last decade was the groundbreaking work done by Svante Paabo and his team at the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Biology that allowed for isolation of contaminants and the amplification of and increased genomic coverage that finally allowed for us to decode the genome of an extinct hominid. This then allowed us to isolate the HN genome and compare it to the genome of HSS donor samples from across the entire world with the end result being definitive proof of hybridization and admixture events beyond isolated instances based solely on morphological and phenotypic comparisons. It also allowed us to determine conclusively the most recent common ancestor of HN and HSS as well as establish a molecular clock to further substantiate the data.

But no, HN were not "rock apes" until a decade ago. The only thing that changed in the last decade is having conclusive proof that HN and HSS had successful admixture events and that there were more members of our genus than we initially considered possible with the discovery of H. Altaiensis amd H. Floresiensis and our mysterious plus 1. But that's a whole separate topic.



posted on Mar, 25 2016 @ 02:54 AM
link   
a reply to: peter vlar

No, again no and again NO

I don't believe they are not humans, sapien sapiens

Can you understand that simple uncomplex statement

I believe they could be homo sapien sapiens, simple, no?

Just different race

Neanderthal had a larger brain capacity compared to us. Does that make them less human, not sapien sapiens

Evidence not assumption



new topics

top topics



 
13
<< 32  33  34    36  37  38 >>

log in

join