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.

 

Evolutionists, how do you explain this?

page: 20
17
<< 17  18  19    21  22 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 2 2017 @ 12:54 AM
link   
a reply to: TzarChasm

Brilliant!!

End of 2nd Line !




posted on Jun, 2 2017 @ 06:44 AM
link   

originally posted by: AlphaDraconianX
a reply to: Masterjaden

They must have found other fossil evidence of its existence besides a molar though.


Of course they did. They've found dozens of teeth and partial jaw bones. Masterjaden is being either painfully ignorant or deceptively intellectually dishonest.



posted on Jun, 2 2017 @ 11:02 AM
link   
a reply to: GetHyped




posted on Jun, 2 2017 @ 03:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: Masterjaden
a reply to: AlphaDraconianX

exactly, however, in the case of gigantopithecus, the molar is indistinguishable from a human molar except that it is larger.

Jaden


This is completely false. Is your position regarding evolutionary theory really so tenuous that you have to resort to outright lies because your worldview is that threatened by multiple scientific disciplines and their interpretations of the evidence? It's pretty pathetic.

For the record, you keep saying "Gigantopithecus" as if it's a species of extinct ape. So right out of the starting gate, you're already making errors which just compound themselves further and further as you continue to dig deeper into your well of ignorance. Gigantopithecus is actually the Genus. It would be as if you walked around calling every human from the last 2 million years "Homo".

There are 3 species of Gigantopithecus. The largest of the 3, Gigantopithecus Blacki, is the largest ape ever seen in the fossil record and would stand approximately 3 meters/10 feet were it bipedal. It is highly unlikely that G. Blacki was bipedal but it's not possible to say for sure without at least a cranium to see the angle at which the spine attached to the back of the head.

Now back to your comments regarding G. Blacki and their "molar". First, there are dozens of fossilized teeth and a few complete mandibles. So the entire Genus was hardly identified based on a single molar. To continue to insist otherwise only makes you look silly. Second, I would agree that the recovers G. Blacki dentition is extremely close and nearly indistinguishable from a modern, extant species. The match isn't with H. Sapiens though. It is a match with Orangutan's. Between the morphological similarities and the age of the oldest Gigantopithecus remains (~9 MA before present) and it's pretty clear that they are far more closely related to Orangutan than any of the extant African apes because Gigantopithecus were already in Asia before the LCA of the Pan Genus and our own split off into Pan and possibly Saehlanthropus Tchadensis

Just so everyone else can see what we are talking about, this is a G. Blacki mandible


This is the mandible of a modern H. Sapiens Sapiens -


Can anyone other than masterjaden try to claim with a straight face that there is no difference other than the size?
edit on 2-6-2017 by peter vlar because: I added purdy pichurz



posted on Jun, 3 2017 @ 07:26 PM
link   
a reply to: Tinystarlight

Just by chance, aren't keys made for opening locks ?

So...did I just "kinda" proved that jawbones were made to open locks, like a key was ?




posted on Jun, 3 2017 @ 07:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: Tinystarlight

originally posted by: SaturnFX

originally posted by: Tinystarlight
a reply to: SaturnFX

Is that what you would tell Legion? In fact, did Legion have a purpose? Was he created? Do you know who Legion really is?

I would tell my toaster, if it cared to ask, that its purpose is to toast bread.
I would tell legion the same...it is a failed sexbot with a stupid flashlight for a head


The comparison is made of complete fail btw.


Legion became sentient. And knew who his creator was. Even though they were many. And Shepard showed him and the Qurians how to live in peace. Perhaps.

But no, it is not a fail.

Your very avatar shows a lifeform that was created, and you knew it was, and you knew it was for a reason.

But you still didn't know who the real Legion was.


Are you using a fictional character to support the existence of another Fictional Character ?

I can now ask you "are you for real" and the circle will be complete.

Lol
edit on 3/6/2017 by Jokatgulm because: typo



posted on Jun, 3 2017 @ 09:20 PM
link   
a reply to: firefromabove

They find a bone and they try to relate it to organisms they already know in shape, structure, size, etc. I've never seen a scientist do this and say "this is exactly what it looked like" only "this is what it could have looked like".



posted on Jun, 19 2017 @ 07:52 PM
link   
a reply to: Masterjaden

Get back to me when you understand science



posted on Jun, 19 2017 @ 09:05 PM
link   
It's easy to provide evidence for a "theory" when you can literally make it up as you need it, which is exactly what these artistic extrapolations of minuscule bone fragments amounts to.



posted on Jun, 20 2017 @ 06:33 AM
link   

originally posted by: TheNewsMan
It's easy to provide evidence for a "theory" when you can literally make it up as you need it, which is exactly what these artistic extrapolations of minuscule bone fragments amounts to.


It's even easier to pull random words out of your leather cheerio when you have no true comprehension pertaining to the topic in which you're replying.

Lucky for the world, people like you will go extinct and the world of tomorrow won't bother to try and put together your fossilized remains.

edit on 20-6-2017 by ReyaPhemhurth because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 20 2017 @ 08:14 AM
link   

originally posted by: Tinystarlight

originally posted by: Vector99

originally posted by: Tinystarlight

originally posted by: Vector99

originally posted by: Tinystarlight

originally posted by: Vector99
a reply to: MonkeyFishFrog


To the average person a bone is just a bone. How much can one learn from a thigh bone? An immense amount. Right off the bat the shape and angle of the femur head along with the length of the femur neck will tell you how an animal walked or stood.

I liked this part so I figured I'd help with a visual reference.



Now as we see we have 2 similar objects we can recognize, keys. Most people can discern the top key goes to a car and the bottom key goes to a door, but they are both keys. We can tell what goes to what because we have interacted with those objects regularly and are familiar with them.

That's how an archaeologist sees bones.


Kinda proving the point that the bones were created, just like a key was.

Correct!

Bones were created from cellular division.


What created cellular division. A mind. Just like a mind created digital software like the one we are using.

No, a mind didn't create cellular division. Cells aren't very complicated, but once they divide they can become pretty complex.


Even the most basic cell is very complicated. Either you are uneducated or are lying to yourself. Either way that is a false answer.

Some cells are simpler than others. Some complex cells today contain a nucleus and organelles, with those organelles being tiny specialized "organ-like" parts within a complex cell that do specialized jobs within the cell. These cells that contain a nucleus and organelles are called "eukaryotic cells" (organisms with these cells are called "eukaryotes".

However, there are also simple more basic cells called "Prokaryotes". Bacteria falls under the category of Prokaryotes. These cells lack a true nucleus and organelles, and are composed of a a cell wall wrapped around the DNA.

Simple prokaryote cells are considered the earliest type of life on Earth, mainly because the structure and functions are very basic.



posted on Jun, 20 2017 @ 10:48 AM
link   

originally posted by: TheNewsMan
It's easy to provide evidence for a "theory" when you can literally make it up as you need it, which is exactly what these artistic extrapolations of minuscule bone fragments amounts to.


There's a big difference between looking at an online picture as a layman, and analyzing bones/fossils as a certified trained expert that has seen many and can point out all the similarities and differences. It's not like they just take a random guess. Nothing is just made up. If you have a better explanation based on the evidence, I'd love to hear it, but the fact remains you don't. You assume god did it and call it a day with no further investigation, only blind science denial and appeals to ignorance. Sorry but that's a bad attitude to have. Intellectual laziness/dishonesty like this is one of the biggest problems in the world today.



posted on Jun, 20 2017 @ 01:20 PM
link   
a reply to: Noinden

LOL. Oh I'm not the one who doesn't understand science, obviously. Get back to me when you can explain how an immeasurable phenomena fits into the scientific method without being an non-falsifiable theory.

Jaden



posted on Jun, 20 2017 @ 07:29 PM
link   
a reply to: Masterjaden

Son, I work as a scientist.

Evolution is observable (its just a very long process) and measurable (if you understood bioinformatics you would understand this) . You are either (a) Ignorant (willfully or unknowingly) or (b) grinding an axe, based on your own biases.

Next time, try to keep up.



posted on Jun, 21 2017 @ 07:49 AM
link   

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: Masterjaden

Son, I work as a scientist.

Evolution is observable (its just a very long process) and measurable (if you understood bioinformatics you would understand this) . You are either (a) Ignorant (willfully or unknowingly) or (b) grinding an axe, based on your own biases.

Next time, try to keep up.


There's no excuse for unknowingly being ignorant when they obviously have a wealth of information at their fingertips on the net. So, I'd go with they''re willfully ignorant. Anyone 'trying' to argue against the science that is being spelled out to them within this thread (and anyone who refuses to do any research on the same computer they're posting on here with) is willfully ignorant.

Scary, huh?



posted on Jun, 21 2017 @ 03:47 PM
link   
a reply to: Noinden

Yes, and bioinformatics suffers from the same problem that predictive climate change has had. The software used to do the analysis is programmed by biased, paradigm infused individuals usually promoting a specific agenda and/or trying to get funding for research and/or wanting to sell the software to people who are pardigmically entrenched. Biases will be involved and statistics? lol. There are lies, damn lies and statistics.

Please get back to me when you fully understand the meaning of empirical data, bioinformatics, :slapping knee: lol

Jaden



posted on Jun, 21 2017 @ 03:51 PM
link   
a reply to: ReyaPhemhurth

No what is scary are the people who are so biased that all they can say is :science: without even being able to logically evaluate what is true and what is biased opinion.

Geez, people need to wake up and realize that modern scientific paradigms are the modern equivalent to middle aged flat earth theory and geocentric and heliocentric thought.

Until science is focused more on rational, logical evaluation and less on pardigmical regurgitation, we are going to be in a bad place as a society.

Jaden

p.s. who is more willfully ignorant, those who decide to evaluate likelihood of conclusions based on evidences themselves, or those who accept conclusions from others based on their paradigmical indoctrination?
edit on 21-6-2017 by Masterjaden because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 21 2017 @ 03:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: firefromabove
How is it that evolutionist "scientists" look at a single jawbone or a thigh bone of some extinct animal and then somehow just "know" what the rest of the animal looked like?

Most images we have of extinct animals are artist renderings, based on one jawbone or thighbone!

Anybody can see that evolutionists operate not on evidence but on imagination and assumptions. If you feel otherwise please explain.





explain?....why don't you spend a couple of decades of doing the study and work that they do, and maybe you'll be able to explain.

by the way, do you have any evidence to the contrary?



posted on Jun, 21 2017 @ 04:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: ReyaPhemhurth

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: Masterjaden

Son, I work as a scientist.

Evolution is observable (its just a very long process) and measurable (if you understood bioinformatics you would understand this) . You are either (a) Ignorant (willfully or unknowingly) or (b) grinding an axe, based on your own biases.

Next time, try to keep up.


There's no excuse for unknowingly being ignorant when they obviously have a wealth of information at their fingertips on the net. So, I'd go with they''re willfully ignorant. Anyone 'trying' to argue against the science that is being spelled out to them within this thread (and anyone who refuses to do any research on the same computer they're posting on here with) is willfully ignorant.

Scary, huh?


well said....ignorance is the new "cool" in certain segments of the population. if one cannot figure it out for themselves, they assume nobody could be smarter than they are, and thus, they look at the claim with suspicion, and disbelief.



posted on Jun, 21 2017 @ 04:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: Masterjaden
a reply to: ReyaPhemhurth

No what is scary are the people who are so biased that all they can say is :science: without even being able to logically evaluate what is true and what is biased opinion.

Geez, people need to wake up and realize that modern scientific paradigms are the modern equivalent to middle aged flat earth theory and geocentric and heliocentric thought.

Until science is focused more on rational, logical evaluation and less on pardigmical regurgitation, we are going to be in a bad place as a society.

Jaden

p.s. who is more willfully ignorant, those who decide to evaluate likelihood of conclusions based on evidences themselves, or those who accept conclusions from others based on their paradigmical indoctrination?


And, in your opinion, what is the 'likelihood based on evidence'? Because that is where most people who choose to follow science get their information. They get it from actual evidence gained from actual research. They get it from tailored theories that are not merely grabbed out of one's ass but from information gathered over time from these same scientists.

What is paradigmatic about modern science? I'm willing to bet a lot of people who actually work within the scientific community would have a good laugh at you saying it's no different than middle-age flat earth theories. It's willfully ignorant to say that we haven't come further than those days. If anything, you sound indoctrinated.

And furthermore, what would be more 'rational' in your opinion?



new topics




 
17
<< 17  18  19    21  22 >>

log in

join