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: 37
13
<< 34  35  36    38  39  40 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 25 2016 @ 05:55 PM
link   
a reply to: peter vlar

Thank you Peter

Well done, great logic thought pattern, congrats

Now let me see if we are on the same page

No evidence
I believe by assumption Habilis is sapien sapien
No evidence

Now you are saying I am assuming that habilis is a sapien sapien
Correct
Then you say I am assuming
Correct
I am assuming and will till there is evidence otherwise

Are pygmys sapien sapien, Asians, Australia aboriginals, Eskimos, are they all different races, lets add habilis and Neanderthal to that list, now they are all different but all sapien sapien
Now try follow the simplicity on offer, now try to follow what I assume without evidence
If I am wrong then evidence, real science, not religiousy mum bought jumbo can change my mind. Not cheap parkour tricks and silly assumption made by people who think they know better because they went to a special,school
Evidence

Now PV I am allowed to believe what I want to believe, your religious mind control tricks don't work on me
I want scientific evidence not assumption as is always foisted on the gullible, I can see through you

I am just a keyboard warrior with bunched up panties, so are you, please join the club,you are no different from me, just believe the opposite, it's pathetic really, you see yourself as a hero riding a white charger, petty little keyboard warrior with twisted knickers who demands others bow down to your god
No thanks




posted on Mar, 25 2016 @ 06:07 PM
link   
a reply to: Noinden

Wow, you must be very short

I will accept any valid evidence and I will change my position

It has to be more than assumption

Please catch up



posted on Mar, 25 2016 @ 06:19 PM
link   
Every time I see a picture, image of HH it has a funny little snout thing

Is there any evidence that this snout look is valid, that HH didn't have a normal nose
Did the artist just imagine it looking that way, just draw what they thought or did they find a HH mask, fossil, face somewhere

What evidence is there that HH actually looked the way the artist rendered it

Just more lies from a few scientists my bet

Again, it's just an assumption, a lie perpetrator end on the gullible, to feed the machine of evolution religion



posted on Mar, 25 2016 @ 06:23 PM
link   
a reply to: Raggedyman

www.nytimes.com...

www.nature.com...

www.cbsnews.com...

Walking fish

Thread here
edit on 25-3-2016 by PhotonEffect because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 25 2016 @ 09:23 PM
link   
a reply to: Raggedyman

Ahh more attacks on the poster and not the comments? Despite these comments from you the evidence says otherwise.



posted on Mar, 25 2016 @ 09:30 PM
link   
a reply to: 5StarOracle

You missed the point. But that is to be expected neighbour.

"Evolutionist" implies that evolution is merely an unsupported belief ultimately interchangeable with creationism. In fact, most scientists "believe" in evolution because the of the great amount of research and empirical evidence that supports it.
edit on 25-3-2016 by Noinden because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 25 2016 @ 10:17 PM
link   
a reply to: Noinden

Evolutionist is a word you said it was not...
I'm glad to hear your belief In evolution requires your faith to believe in it...
Because that is the point...
because what you just said, is that you lack proof...
But I don't expect you to understand that foreigner...
Lmao
edit on 25-3-2016 by 5StarOracle because: Word



posted on Mar, 26 2016 @ 12:27 AM
link   
a reply to: 5StarOracle

As I said you reading comprehension is weak! You don't understand the points made. If I am an evolutionist then I am also a thermodynamist, gravationalist and moist certainly a Sn1ist.

One does not believe science it just is!
edit on 26-3-2016 by Noinden because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 26 2016 @ 01:22 AM
link   

originally posted by: Raggedyman
a reply to: peter vlar

Thank you Peter

Well done, great logic thought pattern, congrats


Well one of us has to use logic and it isn't you.


Now let me see if we are on the same page


With the exception that we can both agree that you have not supported a single claim you make, no We're not on the same page.


No evidence
I believe by assumption Habilis is sapien sapien
No evidence


This has been patently obvious from your first post.


Now you are saying I am assuming that habilis is a sapien sapien
Correct
Then you say I am assuming
Correct



I'm not saying it, you are. I was simply seeking clarification that this was indeed your position. Aside from your elementary level outbursts on the core of all of the biological sciences being a religion, you haven't been very clear on any of your points.


I am assuming and will till there is evidence otherwise



And your assumptions are based on what exactly aside from lack of understanding of science? You have yet to substantiate a single claim or position. Are you saying that there isn't actually any science or evidence period that supports this contention?


Are pygmys sapien sapien, Asians, Australia aboriginals, Eskimos, are they all different races,


No, they are not all different races. They are all members of the human race, their genus us Homo their race, in every single case listed above is Sapiens. I'm not sure why this is such a difficult thing for you to follow along with.


lets add habilis and Neanderthal to that list, now they are all different but all sapien sapien


Why are they all HSS? You keep insisting this is the case. OK... based on what? Pygmies, Eskimos, Asians, Australian Aboriginals are all genetically HSS. Neanderthal are NOT. We don't have any DNA from 2.8 MA HH to make a comparison so I can't comment on their genetic make up but their temporal existence


Now try follow the simplicity on offer, now try to follow what I assume without evidence


I don't follow along with anything without evidence. That's not science.


If I am wrong then evidence, real science, not religiousy mum bought jumbo can change my mind. Not cheap parkour tricks and silly assumption made by people who think they know better because they went to a special,school
Evidence


The evidence has been presented, many times, by multiple parties. You refuse to look at it per your own admissions. Modern Evolutionary Synthesis is the most evidenced, supported, tested, repeated and observed Scientific Theory in the history of science. If you refuse to acknowledge it then you should be disavowing all other science because it has even less evidence to support it.


Now PV I am allowed to believe what I want to believe,


Absolutely. What you aren't allowed to do however is claim repeatedly and ignorantly that the science behind all of this is wrong without supporting those statements beyond strawman arguments and ad hominem attacks. Well I guess you are allowed to but it's ludicrous to do so and makes your position even weaker than it already was. If you believe that all members of the genus Homo are really misidentified HSS, then support the position. Why do you refuse to do so? The only possible answer is that you are actually incapable of doing such because you don't understand enough about biology and genetics to put forth a cognizant argument that holds up to scientific scrutiny. If you were able to do this you would be eligible for a Nobel.


your religious mind control tricks don't work on me


I wish I had Jedi powers like you try to give me. Life would be a whole lot simpler if this were the case.


I want scientific evidence not assumption as is always foisted on the gullible, I can see through you


The science is there, if you were capable of understanding the science you would know this for yourself. There is nothing here for you to see through but again, thanks for thinking I have these glorious Jedi mind powers available to me.


I am just a keyboard warrior with bunched up panties,


I guess I was wrong and there actually is one other thing we can agree on.


so are you, please join the club,you are no different from me, just believe the opposite,


This statement could not be farther from the truth. The entire sum of your knowledge, specifically on hominid evolution and more generally on evolutionary theory as a whole is entirely based on quote mined information from creationist websites and perpetrated by people with a singular agenda, pushing ignorance and scientific illiteracy on people because the willfully ignorant are more easily controlled.

I am very different from you. I haven't learned all of my information from the internet and I'm not just regurgitating some tripe I've read elsewhere. I didn't just go to some fancy school to lurn me sum evulushunarry spells at Hogwarts. I have actually handled the remains of people who have been expired for 10's of thousands of years. I've done the actual work, I've done the BS assigned to newbies like measuring long bones of HN and run the numbers to estimate and determine the size and mass of their musculature. I've reconstructed post cranial remains, I've worked under people who were at the forefront of Hominid evolution. I've formulated hypothesis, I've run the tests and crunched the numbers. I've had to defend my work and I've been wrong. I've done the actual legwork and put the time in. I specialized in Pleistocene Hominids and worked exclusively on Neanderthals with particular emphasis on Levantine cohabitation of HN and HSS 80 KA. I've written on the complexity of Mousterian tools used by HN that were of better design and construct than those used by HSS and how the HSS who had recently left continental Africa learned from the Neanderthals and through that increased the complexity of their own lithic skills. What have you done? All you have done is deny science. All you have done is ignore science. All you have done is show the depth of your scientific illiteracy. All you have done is refuse to support your positions that are utterly devoid of fact and science while demanding that others present evidence that you have not produced. At the end of the day, you've done nothing a 9th grade biology student hasn't done better and with more understanding of the science they argue for or in some cases, yes, against. I've seen more in depth scientific presentations at the local Methodist Churches summer 'Archaeology Camp'. At least they don't settle into assumptions and will listen to actual evidence.



posted on Mar, 26 2016 @ 01:44 AM
link   
Neil DeGrass Tyson says that there is only one tree of life on this planet, in which evolution on the tree is all related, and all life can be traced all the way to it's roots. However, the root itself may have come from somewhere else .

We have meteorites from Mars here on Earth that most likely have bacteria locked up inside them. The debate is critical, as it could prove life from elsewhere without having to find it by being there...

There must have been early introduction of life from "elsewhere", it just makes so much sense.



posted on Mar, 26 2016 @ 07:57 AM
link   
a reply to: peter vlar

Goodness me
I am not reading all that

I deny your quack religious science
It's manufactured assumption

Show the evidence, not speculation and not pseudo science, I am not denying science, I am denying religious science

I asked for evidence the HH nose was accurate in its artistic portrayal or it's an assumption
No answer, no surprise
Assumption?

Also they are portrayed as hairy, how do we know that from fossils, got some photos have they

This is so boring

Your argument is so impotent



posted on Mar, 26 2016 @ 07:59 AM
link   
a reply to: charlyv

Even if they come from Mars, where did the life come from before Mars, another planet and then another
Where did it come from, stardust and,well you know



posted on Mar, 26 2016 @ 08:03 AM
link   
a reply to: PhotonEffect

Oh look a fish that wiggles
It proves a fish can wiggle on the ground

Can you show me some evidence other than a wiggly fish

It's proof of wiggly fish, hardly proof of evolution



posted on Mar, 26 2016 @ 11:30 AM
link   
a reply to: Noinden

You believe in the theory of evolution wholeheartedly...
that makes you an evolutionist...
I see you are the one who has comprehension problems...
It is a word... you were wrong about that...
The definition is short read a few times out loud in your head...
I'm sure it will sink in after a few days...
It is after all...a description of you foreigner...


edit on 26-3-2016 by 5StarOracle because: Word



posted on Mar, 26 2016 @ 12:53 PM
link   
a reply to: Noinden

Filthy Sn1'ist... follow the true path of Sn2!



posted on Mar, 26 2016 @ 01:06 PM
link   
a reply to: iterationzero

Only if the holy solvent approves!



posted on Mar, 26 2016 @ 01:18 PM
link   
a reply to: 5StarOracle

Foreigner? Nice but relevant how?

Again you miss the point. It's a word that is nonsensically used. You can not selectively believe theories of science. Next you shall say gravity is something you believe in.

So go pray on this. My gods do not have the fragile ego of Jehovah Allah



posted on Mar, 26 2016 @ 01:41 PM
link   
a reply to: Noinden

Actually let's make it simple for ou.

The reason evolutionist is a nonsensical word is because the definition you showed has the word believe involve. As a scientific theory it has supporting evidence and lots of it. Thus the word is invalid. If you look at the etemology of the word you will see it was really only used in the Victorian era, and then was dropped. When evolution moved from a hypothesis to a theory.

Now again my foreignness matter s how?


(post by 5StarOracle removed for a manners violation)

posted on Mar, 26 2016 @ 02:09 PM
link   
a reply to: 5StarOracle

Yet more name calling. Your little deity must be very happy!

Again. You are missing the point. A colloquial dictionary does not usually have scientific definitions. Beyond this science is evidence based not faith based. My faith is my faith and my science is my job. Neither requires or is threatened by the other.

But back on topic what do you believe?




top topics



 
13
<< 34  35  36    38  39  40 >>

log in

join