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.

 

Evolution Proven False

page: 1
1
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 10 2005 @ 08:20 AM
link   
I have a very simple theory that I believe prooves evolution false. Well, actually not evolution as a whole, but the idea that man evolved on this planet from monkeys to date is easily prooven false when you look at the whole picture.

As many "evolutionists" claim, we evolved on Earth from monkeys. This idea makes no since when you look at the whole picture. If all of us did evolve on this rock from a form of monkey, the races would be much more similar than they are to date. I'm not arguing with the fact that creation does evolve, because I believe it does. I am arguing with the crazy idea that we evolved from monkeys on this planet and are what we are today. If this theory were true it would not explain why there are THREE DIFFERENT RACES ON ONE LAND MASS!

For any person who has ever thought about this theory it must soon come very obvious that we were planted on this planet. When you think clearly about it, if we did all evolve from a form of monkey on this planet then that one form of ape would have spread across the land from sea to sea. Also it would only be one race.

Think of the odds of 3 different races of ape all evolving together on one land mass and holding their own seperate peice of land to date. If we did evolve from ape that is what we are seeing today.

What I do think is more possible is that there were four seperate races planted on four different areas of the planet. The caucasian, asian, african, indian were all planted in four different areas not too long ago. We are now begging to mix into one race as we would have done a LONG LONG time ago if we did in fact evolve from an ape on this planet.

Also we have the stories of the world being destroyed in the past from a flood. These stories spread across the world. We have the theory now that we evolved suddenly from cromag to homosapien. There is the theory of the "supposed" ice land bridge that used to connect North America and Europe. Where is the land bridge now? There was no global warming back then for a huge ice bridge to just melt away. The indians were planeted where they were, just as the other three races were.

Bottom line, I believe there was intelligent design playing with our evolution and creation on this planet all along. When you really think about this theory you can begin to see how much of a reality this could be.

[edit on 10-11-2005 by SpilledBeans]
mod edit of spelling in title

[edit on 13-11-2005 by DontTreadOnMe]




posted on Nov, 10 2005 @ 08:29 AM
link   
There's only one race, the human race. Homo Sapien Sapien. Get over it.


If you want to prove evolutionists wrong (stupid goal in life anyway), find the bones of adam and eve and have them dated to 6000 years. Hahaha.



posted on Nov, 10 2005 @ 08:32 AM
link   
SpilledBeans,
Interesting theory but it has some holes and is based off of some misconceptions.
1) the race Homo Sapiens Sapiens did not eveolve from monkeys rather both species have a relative from which both species evolved from.
2) The Homo Sapiens Sapiens did not evolve from the Cromanums nor did our race evolve from the Neaderthals. Rather the Cromagnums as well as the Neaderthals were off-shoot or secondary species both of which failed to survive.
3) There are not presently 3 races of man as you have put forth. Yes there are genetic markers that separate the asian, african, caucasian but they are only slight mutations that allowed the Homo Sapiens Sapiens of various regions to adapt to their environments.
Examples,
The Caucasian's white skin and blue eyes are adaptations that better allowed them to survive in the northern regions during the last Ice Age. The lighter pigmentation of the skin and the blue eyes allowed them to lose less heat and see better in the ice / snow.
The African skin stayed darker as protection from the heat of the sun thus providing better protection from such things as sunburn.

There are not three races of man or even two today. There is only one.



posted on Nov, 10 2005 @ 08:58 AM
link   
You didn't really think this 'proven false' thing through very much did you?

You do realise that 3 different 'races' of the same species did not evolve on the same piece of land right?

Evolution is about adaptation to the enviroment and passing those genetic mutations onto the next generation if they are beneficial.

There are different 'species' of apes, though there is one 'species' of humans. Within different ape groups (not sure what they are called collectively) they often have very different looks that are more about the area they are in, just as the different 'looks' of humans evolved because of the different areas they were in.

But Kenshiro is absolutely correct, there is only one species of man.



posted on Nov, 10 2005 @ 09:13 AM
link   
The three different races ARE on the same land mass. Europe, Africa, and Asia are all connected. I don't think North America and Europe were EVER connected as some scientists say it was connected by an ice bridge. I believe if there was an ice bridge that connected NA and EU it would still be here. Thus, I believe the "Indians" were planted in NA before the Europeans arrived.

I also believe the differences between Asian, African, and Caucasian are too different to be thought so lightly as "representations of their enviroment". You may be able to explain why African and Caucasian have lighter and darker skin because of heat and cold but it still does not explain why the asian are they way they are or why the Indian had tan skin even though there were Indian living in cold weather with darker skin than a caucasian would have.

Also, I did think this theory out for a long time before I ever posted any information or talked about this idea to any one because the average person would call you crazy for making this claim. After all, I am claiming that we were replanted here as homosapiens after the cromag and neander's destruction. The cromag and neander's were the first humans of this planet but the planet was destroyed. Homosapians then appeared out of nowhere.
Yes I am claiming that homosapian was planted here by an ET race after the Earths destruction which destroyed the neander's and cromags.

[edit on 10-11-2005 by SpilledBeans]



posted on Nov, 10 2005 @ 09:30 AM
link   
Again,
Neaderthals actually were still around when the Homo Sapien Sapien race came into being. The Neaderthal race died out around 28,000 years ago. The death of their race is most likely due to their inability to adapt to the environmental changes that were occuring around that time when Europe experienced rapid phases of warming and cooling. A good reference for this info is from:
www.discover.com... s0419/

They have also proven that the Neaderthal are not our genetic "grandfathers" which is a good thing to help support your theory of homo sapien sapien being transplanted here.

The following link will show you how the our race adapted to it's environment over the 100,000 years or so so that the African kept their darker pigmented skin, the caucasian got their whiter skin etc.
www.ecotao.com...



posted on Nov, 10 2005 @ 09:44 AM
link   
You say the Neanderthals were actually still around when the Homo Sapien race came into being. I say that is only if our carbon dating is accurate. Their are no written records of the Neanderthals interacting with homosapien. The cromagnum on the other hand has been carbon dated to not exist while homosapien were here. Also they say that the homosapian jumped from cromagnum to what it is today in approximately 1000 years, but they can't explain the huge jump in evolution there. You have to still remember that even the first idea of our evolution is still just a THEORY!

I am not arguing with you on the idea of pigment change over time. I believe that to be true, after all you can realise this when you go to the beach for too long, you will get darker, or if you stay inside reading ATS too long, you will start to get pale. But there are still other features that are very different between the african and caucasian race. Can you explain the hand size difference? The eye size difference between asian and caucasian? Why was the original Asian race a medium pigment while they are living in cold weather ? Did the caucasian live in caves? No, they were exposed to sun as well, the white skin is a gene code. Why were the Indians a tan pigment while they lived in the harsh weathers of what is today Canada? There are things that don't match up that many scientists don't try to explain because they can't.



posted on Nov, 10 2005 @ 09:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by SpilledBeans
The three different races ARE on the same land mass. Europe, Africa, and Asia are all connected. I don't think North America and Europe were EVER connected as some scientists say it was connected by an ice bridge. I believe if there was an ice bridge that connected NA and EU it would still be here. Thus, I believe the "Indians" were planted in NA before the Europeans arrived.

Human lineage has had a few million years of change.. and the planet has as well. We have also lived through an ice age. This has been proven so it is not surprising there were ice bridges.

I also believe the differences between Asian, African, and Caucasian are too different to be thought so lightly as "representations of their enviroment". You may be able to explain why African and Caucasian have lighter and darker skin because of heat and cold but it still does not explain why the asian are they way they are

And what way is that?
If you are referring to their eyes.. they have extra fat cells to protect the eyes from cold winds as they generally come from higher climates.

or why the Indian had tan skin even though there were Indian living in cold weather with darker skin than a caucasian would have.

Are there deserts in Ireland or Finland? What you are saying doesn't make any sense.. America doesn't have the same climate and indians [I'm fairly sure] are/were more nomadic so probably travelled to cooler climates.

Also, I did think this theory out for a long time before I ever posted any information or talked about this idea to any one because the average person would call you crazy for making this claim. After all, I am claiming that we were replanted here as homosapians after the cromag and neander's destruction. The cromag and neander's were the first humans of this planet but the planet was destroyed. Homosapians then appeared out of nowhere.

And how does this disprove evolution?

Yes I am claiming that homosapian was planted here by an ET race after the Earths destruction which destroyed the neander's and cromags.

I'm don't completely dismiss this theory.. however there fact that we have been proven to be genetically related to other primates would indicate we were not a seperate creation but share a common ancestory.

[edit on 10-11-2005 by riley]



posted on Nov, 10 2005 @ 09:49 AM
link   
I find it ridiculous that people still don't realise that monkeys are not the same as apes and primates!



posted on Nov, 10 2005 @ 10:02 AM
link   
I should have been more specific with my title.

I am not trying to proove evolution false.

I should have made the title:

School Book Evolution Theory is FALSE!



posted on Nov, 10 2005 @ 10:33 AM
link   
First of all the theory could be nice but you have completely bypass the major fundamental issue about evolution.

As many other people around that believe what Sunday school tells them as a children the never look into the real facts of the evolution teachings.

Perhaps you need to research first on what evolution is all about before giving your theory.

You have been mislead as many other people.



As many "evolutionists" claim, we evolved on Earth from monkeys.


This is completely untruth, Darwin never said that we evolved from monkeys but rather May share a common ancestor the infamous Darwin and the monkey link is what the Sunday schools teach in Church because they are not happy with the rendering of the creation myth obsolete.



Charles Darwin's Origin of Species had been met with a firestorm of controversy in reaction to Darwin's theory, largely because it was clear that it implied that human beings were evolved from animals, contradicting the story of Genesis and implying an animal nature


So please read before making your own theories, the link to monkeys is because as part of the animal species we do share a lot with them.

Something that religious creationist advocates can never agree with it, we are special and in the image of the god of the bible, so we are not mere animals that share a common link with such a low species as the monkeys.

Funny we actually share more than many can even imagine.



The Origin of Species (full title On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life


Darwin works are brilliant and reading them will perhaps make you rethink on your views of evolution get it from the horses mouth not from religious ideologist.

Evolution is a wider topic that is full of facts and will never be prove false.



en.wikipedia.org...

[edit on 10-11-2005 by marg6043]



posted on Nov, 10 2005 @ 10:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by SpilledBeans
I also believe the differences between Asian, African, and Caucasian are too different to be thought so lightly as "representations of their enviroment".

First race is merely a cultural/social distinction people make. Members of the same species will reproduce naturally and their offspring will have the capacity to reproduce. The difference between man and chimps genetically is so small that the genetic diffence between one "race" and another is really nothing more than genetic variability in our population. We all can rproduce with one another naturally without problems to the offspring like infertility.



The cromag and neander's were the first humans of this planet but the planet was destroyed. Homosapians then appeared out of nowhere.
Yes I am claiming that homosapian was planted here by an ET race after the Earths destruction which destroyed the neander's and cromags.

biggest problem here is the fact that the earth was never destroyed and fossil record doesn't support man waiting til after the cromanons and neanderthals to just spontaniously appear.



posted on Nov, 10 2005 @ 10:45 AM
link   
Have you ever seen that picture where it starts as a monkey and theres another picture next to it where it begins to walk upright? Yes thats the picture that most religous fundamentalists have a problem with.

As for myself, I find that picture accurate up to the point of cromagnum. Between cromagnum and homosapien there should be a big picture of the Earth with a big boom on the Earth representing the Earth being destroyed.

Then there should be another picture of an ET space craft coming down and planting an evolved form of cromagnum across the Earth.

For what reason the Earth was destroyed in between that stage of evolution IDK. But I do believe it was what happened and I think it will remain a secret untill the ET race that replanted our species comes down and admits it.

The only thing that stops this theory from being true is the IDEA that there was an ice bridge connecting NA and EU a long time ago. That is the only way to explain how homosapien would have got to NA from Africa where we supposedly all came from.



I have read some of Darwins work and I believe it to be accurate. I have also read some of the Dali Lamas work and others who theororize that the Universe is in fact an atom... but that is another discussion for another day.



posted on Nov, 10 2005 @ 11:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by SpilledBeans
As for myself, I find that picture accurate up to the point of cromagnum. Between cromagnum and homosapien there should be a big picture of the Earth with a big boom on the Earth representing the Earth being destroyed.

So what you're saying is that evolution isn't false only the evolution of homo sapiens? Secondly the earth was never destroyed. The two major extinctions were both natural and had nothing to do with the earth being destroyed. Sorry hitchhikers guide to the galaxy is a fictional story




Then there should be another picture of an ET space craft coming down and planting an evolved form of cromagnum across the Earth.

Why? There is nothing supporting you're hypothesis. No evidence aliens are visiting earth. No evidence that the world has been "destroyed" or another major event like a giant asteroid strike in the recent past. The fossil record definitely doesn't support it. Neither does genetics.



For what reason the Earth was destroyed in between that stage of evolution IDK. But I do believe it was what happened and I think it will remain a secret untill the ET race that replanted our species comes down and admits it.

If the earth was destroyed why do we still have several animals that have been evolving all this time?


The only thing that stops this theory from being true is the IDEA that there was an ice bridge connecting NA and EU a long time ago. That is the only way to explain how homosapien would have got to NA from Africa where we supposedly all came from.

No the strip of land not an ice bridge under the bering strait is shallow enough that should the sea level drop far enough animals could cross. Secondly I believe it has been shown that canoes or some other type of small boat was used as the people went down along the coast.



I have read some of Darwins work and I believe it to be accurate. I have also read some of the Dali Lamas work and others who theororize that the Universe is in fact an atom... but that is another discussion for another day.


If you believe darwin to be accurate how is evolution false?

[edit on 10-11-2005 by silentlonewolf]



posted on Nov, 10 2005 @ 02:31 PM
link   
Another long and specific response of mine wiped out by an error. Ack!


To make that long response short:

  1. The land bridge between asia and america is alaskan, not atlantic
  2. Cro Magnon man is a homo sapien
  3. Researchers noted that neanderthal and homo sapien co-existed long before anyone was using carbon dating
  4. There are no such things as 'races'
  5. There is no evidence for a catastrophic global war that wiped out neanderthal
  6. There is evidence for 'global warming' after the ice age, and there is similarly clear evidence for the ice sheets having existed


I really think that you need to better familiarize yourself with the evidence for human evolution and what the theories are talking about. Yes, the theory of human evolution is a theory, and thus it could potentially be refuted at any moment. However, its not going to be refuted by someone that isn't studying the actual evidence nor who isn't familiar with its postulates. You've obviously thought about your ideas, but the next step would be to look at the evidence that is out there, and let your ideas stand or fall upon that.

Skin pigmentation varies with the intensity of solar radiation, thus indians in the south, closer to the equator, are far darker than indians in the north, who are further from the equator.




Also, why say that having one population of 'crop magnon' spread out across the planet shouldn't produce all the 'racial' diversity that we see today, but that the one tiny subcontinent of india can have that much diversity???



Yes thats the picture that most religous fundamentalists have a problem with.

If you are merely trying to say that high school text books are really all that accurate, then, congratulations, you've figured something out that many people have yet to figure out. Its an important step. High School text books are notoriously shoddy things for information. They're education devices, and are often years behind the actual scientific information. However, don't think that you can 'throw the baby out with the bathwater', as they say. Text books, on their own, can be inaccurate in amusing ways. That hardly means that the actual theories and ideas and evidences that they are coallating and summarizing and introducing people to are wrong.


That is the only way to explain how homosapien would have got to NA from Africa where we supposedly all came from.

Case in point. There is no text book that claims this. You have misunderstood the information. This is why text books, despite their flaws, are overall good things. They usually try to summarize and clearly present 'epitomes' of the ideas that are out there. If you had paid attention to whatever text book you are using, then you'd've seen that there was no suggestion that there was a land bridge from africa to america across the atlantic.

Between cromagnum and homosapien there should be a big picture of the Earth with a big boom on the Earth representing the Earth being destroyed.

Again, cro magnon is a homo sapiens. There is practically no difference between cro magnons and later populations of homo sapiens. To say that you needed aliens to go from cro magnon (a type of homo sapiens) to infinitessimaly different later populations of homo sapiens, makes no sense.



posted on Nov, 10 2005 @ 04:56 PM
link   
The "ice bridge" I think your refering to is the Bering Land Bridge, also known as Beringia, and was not made entirely of ice. It connected Alaska and Siberia until about 13,000 years ago during the last ice age. From what I know when the ice melted the sea level rose, and the land bridge disappeared. Heres what Wipikedia says:



Beringia, was a land bridge roughly 1600 km (1000 miles) north to south at its greatest extent, which joined present-day Alaska and eastern Siberia at various times during the ice ages.

Biogeographical evidence can prove this land bridge existed far earlier. Similar dinosaur fossils have been found between Asia and North America. For instance the dinosaur Saurolophus was found in both Mongolia and western North America. Relatives of Troodon, Triceratops, and even Tyrannosaurus rex all came from Asia. Fossils in China prove an invasion of Asian mammals into North America 55 million years ago. 20 million years ago, evidence in North America show an interchange of mammalian species. Some, like the ancient saber-toothed cats, have a reoccuring geographical range: Europe, Africa, Asia, and North America. The only way they could reach the New World is through the Bering land bridge. Had this bridge not existed at that time, the fauna of the world would be very different. For instance horses, dogs , and camels would inhabit only the Americas and nowhere else.


Wikipedia

[edit on 10-11-2005 by Charlie Murphy]



posted on Nov, 10 2005 @ 05:17 PM
link   
Oh dear. You've been getting information from sites that aren't up to date.


Originally posted by SpilledBeans
You say the Neanderthals were actually still around when the Homo Sapien race came into being. I say that is only if our carbon dating is accurate.


"Carbon dating" is one argument that creationists use, because there were some problems with it when the system was first developed... in 1950. They like to pretend that nobody has ever worked on carbon dating or tried to correct it or has even tested it since then.

They pretend that science accepted the concept as 'gospel'.

In fact, it has been tested and reviewed and so forth in the 50 years since it was first discovered.


Point 2: the Neanderthals WERE around when homo sapiens were. A number of skeletons have been found in Portugal where h sapiens h neanderthalis both lived together for about 10,000 years -- skeletons that show interbreeding between the two groups.


Their are no written records of the Neanderthals interacting with homosapien.

Who needs wrting when you have skeletons?
en.wikipedia.org...


The cromagnum on the other hand has been carbon dated to not exist while homosapien were here. Also they say that the homosapian jumped from cromagnum to what it is today in approximately 1000 years, but they can't explain the huge jump in evolution there.


I don't know where you're getting your information from, but it's very wrong. Cro Magnon is simply homo sapiens. Always has been.
en.wikipedia.org...


You have to still remember that even the first idea of our evolution is still just a THEORY!


In this case, one that has been very mangled by peope who don't understand t at all. If you are going to theorize, you need to be VERY familiar with what the real theory says.


Can you explain the hand size difference?

There isn't any. Seriously.


The eye size difference between asian and caucasian?

The eyes are the same size.


Why was the original Asian race a medium pigment while they are living in cold weather ?

In fact, nobody knows what the "original" pigment was. In any racial group, you can find people with very light skins and with very dark skins. There are a lot of "pure" individuals in one race that looks a lot like anothe race.


Did the caucasian live in caves? No, they were exposed to sun as well, the white skin is a gene code. Why were the Indians a tan pigment while they lived in the harsh weathers of what is today Canada? There are things that don't match up that many scientists don't try to explain because they can't.


Actually, scientists HAVE explained it. The websites where you got your information from weren't interested enough to actually read about wht scientists think and how they explain it.

It was just easier for those websites to pretend that scientists never did any work on this or ever bothered to think beyond going "whoa! Man Came From Monkey!"

They promote a lie about what evolution is and don't bother to research anything.

Deny ignorance, and start reading up on what scientists REALLY know.

Wikipedia is a good place to start:
en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Nov, 11 2005 @ 10:25 AM
link   
Their are no written records of the Neanderthals and Cro-Magnon man intereacting?

Well, I would have to say that a written record of a neanderthal doing ANYTHING would be one bombshell of a discovery


The lack of a written record at a time before writing even existed does not disprove the idea that the two species coexisted.



posted on Nov, 11 2005 @ 10:32 AM
link   
Donner,
you are so correct in that. I guess that maybe why we call that age "Pre-History" since there are no written records of anything only a few cave drawings.



posted on Nov, 12 2005 @ 01:54 AM
link   


"Carbon dating" is one argument that creationists use, because there were some problems with it when the system was first developed... in 1950. They like to pretend that nobody has ever worked on carbon dating or tried to correct it or has even tested it since then.


it still doesnt work, many things have been tested with known age and the results come out to be very incorrect with an error greater than 75% most of the time.



you are so correct in that. I guess that maybe why we call that age "Pre-History" since there are no written records of anything only a few cave drawings


maybe they used drawings as text, kinda like chinese and japanese characters.

EC



new topics

top topics



 
1
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join