Top Ten Scientific Facts : Evolution is False and Impossible.

page: 55
92
<< 52  53  54    56  57  58 >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 3 2012 @ 03:37 PM
link   
Double Post
edit on 3-3-2012 by ButterCookie because: (no reason given)




posted on Mar, 3 2012 @ 03:44 PM
link   
reply to post by stereologist
 


Yes. I resort to myths as history.

Why?

Because mythology actually occured. But oh no...scientists, evolutionists, and the Establishment would never have you to believe that there could have actually been beings that existed more powerful/advanced than us oh-so-special humans....

I have a hard time believing that many civilizations, with oceans and mountains between them, were all 'hallucinatating' or imagining the exact same events; gods, chariots, and celestial battles.

See, here's the thing. Evolutions/ arrogant atheists say that primitive men were solely responsible for the giant megaliths and the geometrically correct pyramids- yet, they say that these same men were ignorant of the world around them, so they created myths to explain things.....



posted on Mar, 3 2012 @ 03:46 PM
link   
reply to post by ButterCookie
 



See, that is the problem with atheist/evolutionist. They are not willing to pick the bible back up; after all, they have spent a long time discounting it.

You might be surprised to learn that most evolutionists are not atheists.


They have become convinced that humans are the pinnacle of the universe, both physically and figuratively, and that any other living thing in the universe must be primitive and inferior to them.

Again that is a mistaken belief. Evolutionists do not believe that.


Funny how when I talk to my fellow atheist friends ( who do not subscribe to the AAT) they get uncomfortable when discussing the vastness of the cosmos and extraterrestrial life.....

What makes them uncomfortable? Is it the vastness of the cosmos and the possibility of life out there or is it something else such as suggesting that aliens are meddling with us as a species?


So, you see, its evolutionists who discount the AAT because they are no longer interested in the bible.

You've begun with a number of false premises.

Evolution happens. Look at the fossil evidence. Once there were no fish. Later there were fish. Once there were no land animals. Now there are. Life on Earth has changed and in amazing ways. Evolution happens. The question is the mechanism. I do not see the need to invoke aliens for one species when much more amazing changes have occurred on Earth.

The bible and other religious texts are rather new compared to the time Homo Sapiens have been around.
edit on 3-3-2012 by stereologist because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 3 2012 @ 04:02 PM
link   
reply to post by ButterCookie
 



Because mythology actually occured. But oh no...scientists, evolutionists, and the Establishment would never have you to believe that there could have actually been beings that existed more powerful/advanced than us oh-so-special humans....

I have a hard time believing that many civilizations, with oceans and mountains between them, were all 'hallucinatating' or imagining the exact same events; gods, chariots, and celestial battles.

See, here's the thing. Evolutions/ arrogant atheists say that primitive men were solely responsible for the giant megaliths and the geometrically correct pyramids- yet, they say that these same men were ignorant of the world around them, so they created myths to explain things.....

Myths did not occur. A common myth is a flood. There is no evidence of a global flood. Another is that people and animals could talk to each other. Another is that people were made along with all other life as we see it today. The evidence says that isn't true.

Were different groups seeing the same thing? No. The flood kills all but a few. Sometimes it kills only a few. Sometimes it isn't even a water flood. Are all of the god groups the same? No. Different gods have different shapes. Some are human. Some are bits of pieces of other animals. Some are nondescript. Chariots is a good one. No wheels in the Americas let alone chariots.

Those darn scientists claiming ancient people were as smart as we are today going around building structures using their brains. Can you imagine that?

Those that can't understand the incredible minds we humans have and can't understand how well we are able to apply available technologies needs to go back to elementary school. I'm serious. Hardly anyone learns math that was not done by the ancient Greeks. The Sumerians were capable of mathematics way beyond the average person alive today. The ancient Egyptians could organize work crews to construct pyramids. These structures dazzle us today. How was it done? They were smart. They were capable and they certainly didn't need aliens to screw up the work they were so capable of doing on their own.



posted on Mar, 3 2012 @ 04:09 PM
link   
reply to post by stereologist
 


Yes indeed they were smart.

Math
Science
They knew of the stars, like Sirius B, that we have only recently discovered.
An accurate calendar
Drawings of the solar system drawn to scale

But they needed to create 'myths' to understand things?????



posted on Mar, 3 2012 @ 04:20 PM
link   
reply to post by Rocketman7
 



Why do humans all have different faces when no other form of life has different faces including apes?

This is a joke right? There are several golden retrievers on my street and they all look different to me.


Why are there elongated skulls in Peru which have no fontanel? In fact their skulls are not plated in the same way homo sapiens are, In fact then, they are not homo sapiens.

Not sure what dolt came up with t his claim, but the skulls do have fonatelles. You were aware that you misspelled the name of the structure, right? Did you look for yourself?

So on to number 3. Which was rather suspicious the way it was laid out. I did find the article from Nature.

Geochronology: Age of Mexican ash with alleged 'footprints' pE7

Paul R. Renne, Joshua M. Feinberg, Michael R. Waters, Joaquin Arroyo-Cabrales, Patricia Ochoa-Castillo, Mario Perez-Campa and Kim B. Knight

www.nature.com...

The article in question has the following abstract:

A report of human footprints preserved in 40,000-year-old volcanic ash near Puebla, Mexico (www.royalsoc.ac.uk...), was the subject of a press conference that stirred international media attention1. If the claims (www.mexicanfootprints.co.uk...) of Gonzalez et al. are valid, prevailing theories about the timing of human migration into the Americas would need significant revision. Here we show by 40Ar/39Ar dating and corroborating palaeomagnetic data that the basaltic tuff on which the purported footprints are found is 1.30±0.03 million years old. We conclude that either hominid migration into the Americas occurred very much earlier than previously believed, or that the features in question were not made by humans on recently erupted ash.

www.nature.com...
www.nature.com...
www.nature.com...

So how this pan out?



posted on Mar, 3 2012 @ 04:22 PM
link   
reply to post by ButterCookie
 



They knew of the stars, like Sirius B, that we have only recently discovered.

Actually they did not. That info was picked up the Dogon in the 1930s.


Drawings of the solar system drawn to scale

Can you substantiate this?



posted on Mar, 3 2012 @ 04:29 PM
link   
Pretty interesting... To me, seeing theirs 7billion+ plus thousands of years of humans on this planet, and a one of a kind proves to me we are not from here. We didn't evolve from anythang here as far as we know. I'm not gonna elaborate because I'm hungover, good post tho
edit on 3-3-2012 by dayve because: Yapp.. ✨



posted on Mar, 3 2012 @ 04:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by stereologist
reply to post by ButterCookie
 



They knew of the stars, like Sirius B, that we have only recently discovered.

Actually they did not. That info was picked up the Dogon in the 1930s.


Drawings of the solar system drawn to scale

Can you substantiate this?


Lol...Yes.

First, the Dogon tribe dodn't describe Sirius B in the 1930's...two French anthropologists, Marcel Griaule and Germain Dieterlen, who recorded it from four Dogon priests in the 1930's. Maybe you did a quick google search and just didn't read the full article.

Sirius B's existence was suspected as early as 1844 and seen was through a telescope in 1862. It doesn't seem to explain a 400-year old Dogon artifact that apparently depicts the Sirius configuration nor the ceremonies held by the Dogon since the 13th century to celebrate the cycle of Sirius A and B. It also doesn't explain how the Dogons knew about the super-density of Sirius B, a fact only discovered a few years before the anthropologists recorded the Dogon stories.

So ya see, Sirius B had been discovered by the dogon even before the 13th century...



posted on Mar, 3 2012 @ 05:32 PM
link   
reply to post by ButterCookie
 



First, the Dogon tribe dodn't describe Sirius B in the 1930's...two French anthropologists, Marcel Griaule and Germain Dieterlen, who recorded it from four Dogon priests in the 1930's. Maybe you did a quick google search and just didn't read the full article.

Actually you misread something or read some hoax site because the Dogon stated that these 2 priests told them about the newly discovered star.


It doesn't seem to explain a 400-year old Dogon artifact that apparently depicts the Sirius configuration nor the ceremonies held by the Dogon since the 13th century to celebrate the cycle of Sirius A and B.

What you claim does not exist. There are hoax sites which bastardize Dogon artifacts and remove all but something which the Dogon do not claim is Sirius B.


It also doesn't explain how the Dogons knew about the super-density of Sirius B, ...

But the Dogon did not.


So ya see, Sirius B had been discovered by the dogon even before the 13th century...

No. The Dogon did not know about it until 2 priests told them about the star.



posted on Mar, 3 2012 @ 05:34 PM
link   
reply to post by dayve
 



We didn't evolve from anythang here as far as we know.

That's not true. We evolve just as all life on Earth has evolved.



posted on Mar, 3 2012 @ 05:46 PM
link   
reply to post by dayve
 


This is incorrect:


We didn't evolve from anythang here as far as we know.


The DNA and genome of Humans, as well as many other species have been studied, and sequenced. The chromosomes are able to be compared, and it is clear without any doubt that Humans share a commonality with every other mammal on the planet.

Even in other phyla, there are still basics that exist.

We Humans share ~98% of our chromosomes with the Chimpanzee, for Pete's sake!!!





posted on Mar, 3 2012 @ 08:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by stereologist
This is a joke right? There are several golden retrievers on my street and they all look different to me.



"They all look different to me", is not a sensible scientific reply.

They all look like this...
www.gibdogpetsuppliesblog.com...

They look like clones. All animals look like clones. You can measure their facial features, face recognition software works on humans only. So basically I guess you have no answer. So you don't need to quote every point, when you don't know, just say, I don't know.

I mispelled fontanel, no my spell checker spelled it that way.
www.medterms.com...

So, thats strike 2, one more strike you get a Bible passage. (Just look at it like a gong)

How did that pan out?

The facts are there. Fact A, Fact B, and Fact C. What do you mean how did that pan out?
It was established, by members of the Royal Society through thorough study that there are footprints of modern man, in Central Mexico in volcanic ash/lava, and that ash was dated by Renne, to be 1.3 million years old.

And then of course everyone tried to make that go away, since that disproves the descent of man, and disproves the Out of Africa hypothesis, and disproves evolutionary theory as presented world wide.

Its an unpopular discovery.

Saying that since they are 1.3 million years old they can't possibly be footprints, is not a scientififc argument.
They were determined to be human footprints by the Royal Society members and British Museum, and so they held a special exhibit on them in 2005.
Re-read the quote I gave you. They said they are human footprints and should be preserved.

And there are elongated skulls that have no fontanel in Peru.
edit on 3-3-2012 by Rocketman7 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 3 2012 @ 08:49 PM
link   
I will just make a new thread so everyone can play. This thread would be too large for people to read from scratch because it is older than Darwin.



posted on Mar, 3 2012 @ 09:07 PM
link   
reply to post by edsinger
 


Kudos, I thought for sure this would be yet another: Monkeys didn't make humans!!!! thread.

Actual fair and specific flaws in the theory of evolution.



posted on Mar, 3 2012 @ 09:53 PM
link   
reply to post by Rocketman7
 



They look like clones. All animals look like clones. You can measure their facial features, face recognition software works on humans only. So basically I guess you have no answer. So you don't need to quote every point, when you don't know, just say, I don't know.

Your statement is a sham. Dogs are not clones. They do not look the same.

Facial recognition software is not good at all. It stinks. It makes all sorts of mistakes. If it only works on humans that simply tells us that it has been developed for a specific purpose.

So you used an alternate spelling and I used a preferred spelling. You are still wrong on the Peruvian skull which did not lack fontanelles.

So you failed again. Not unexpected.


It was established, by members of the Royal Society through thorough study that there are footprints of modern man, in Central Mexico in volcanic ash/lava, and that ash was dated by Renne, to be 1.3 million years old.

Now you are lying. It was determined that the prints were not primate prints.


They were determined to be human footprints by the Royal Society members and British Museum, and so they held a special exhibit on them in 2005.

Provide evidence. So far you've failed with the face claim, the fontanelle claim, and it seems that you choose to blatantly lie about the footprints.


And there are elongated skulls that have no fontanel in Peru.

Provide your evidence. I know that this is not true so I am calling your bluff.



posted on Mar, 3 2012 @ 11:08 PM
link   
The following link shows why the "footprints" are not hominid footprints.

www.archaeologydaily.com...



posted on Apr, 2 2012 @ 02:36 PM
link   
reply to post by stereologist
 


Just show us the missing link or close your strawman mouth.
Otherwise you are flogging a dead-horse (ie evolution)
edit on 2-4-2012 by WatchRider because: replace edit



posted on Apr, 2 2012 @ 02:39 PM
link   
reply to post by WatchRider
 


Your post makes no sense in regards to the link I provided that shows that the so-called footprints are footprints.



posted on Apr, 2 2012 @ 05:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by stereologist
The following link shows why the "footprints" are not hominid footprints.

www.archaeologydaily.com...



That article is nothing more than snake oil. Based on nothing more than a belief, they are stating the footprints cannot be footprints. They are too old to be footprints, so they aren't footprints.

Karl Popper would rollover in his grave. Luther would nail a petition to their foreheads and ask for a re-count.
Lenin would send them to Siberia, and Lysenko (were he alive) would want them to come to dinner and join his revolution of pretend science.

Real scientists said the footprints were real and staked their reputation on it.
Professors at university, PhD's a long list of collaborators who assisted in putting together the exhibition as well as the research teams, who studied the prints in the field, and made virtual models of the footprints using topographic laser techniques.
It was all done completely scientifically and the results are abundantly clear, that for those who cannot recognize footprints in lava ash, (most people have seen footprints on the beach and as such know what footprints look like) but for those who have not seen footprints before, they went over the prints with a microscope, and did every test.
They are footprints. I think people need to get over it and just start over from the beginning again, with Francis Bacon, and this time, they should try not to make stuff up, they should just let the 'data', speak for itself.

There are something like 60 footprints like this and some in stride, showing steps and the size of the foot and the length of the stride and positioning of the feet, and the depth of the impressions and the figure 8 and its all there.

Notice the credentials on the left, notice they say footprints, not alleged footprints.
edit on 2-4-2012 by Rocketman7 because: (no reason given)





new topics
top topics
 
92
<< 52  53  54    56  57  58 >>

log in

join