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.

 

Neandertals and Modern Humans Coexisted?

page: 3
1
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 11 2008 @ 09:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by ZeddicusZulZorander




Originally posted by the_watcher
No more than 35,000 individual animals needed to go on the ark.

www.christiananswers.net...


Like I said, glad Moses didn't toss a couple T-Rex in the mix. It's much better that they all died in the flood.

Hmmm, wonder what happened to all the water-based dinos? Stupid details. They probably drowned too.



I'd love to see an Ammonite, those things got absolutely huge...Though I am glad that the flood wiped out the Mosasaur (not the Mosesaur, that would be ridiculous) because I like swimming in the sea. Icthyosaurs would have been a sight to behold, and if you get the pun then +1 to you), not to mention Orthocone Nautaloids, Basilosaurus, Elasmosaurus, Liopreurodon, Megalodon, Stethacanthus et al.

As for the flood creating the Grand Canyon, that just flies in the face of all reason, all good Science and all geologic principles (unless you subscribe to Creationist Geology, but then that is unscientific and is immensely false).

On Topic:
link

link

link

link

link

careful now, these are not creationist twaddle, but good science...

Enjoy, if you truly are open-minded you will accept the facts.




posted on Sep, 11 2008 @ 10:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by the_watcher

Adaptation is natural selection, and is a part of evolution.


That is a false statement. Adaptation could be argued to be "natural selection" but to attach it to the theory that a single-celled organism can mutate into a multi-celled organism is unfounded.


Evolution is not the science the explains how organic matter become living. The creationist belief that evolution tries to explain this is a fundamental falsehood of creationism.

The relatively new science called Abiogenesis is the science that you should try and linch.



This is a self fulfilling prophecy- he wouldn't live long enough.


To be more specific the lungfish would be very awkward on land. It's fins and other physical traits are designed for life in water. If it were to live on land for good, never to return to his natural environment, then not only would it be awkward to move efficiently (albeit very possible) I wonder if he'll be able to last a day, and have enough energy to retreive food on land. The Lungfish can survive during periods of low dissolved oxygen such as in stagnant pools during drought by breathing air from the surface every 30 to 60 minutes. So becoming independent of water would be a terrible decision on the fish's behalf.


This is where mutations come into play. If there was a mutation that made it very easy for the lungfish to stay on land, things will change. It would be so useful that natural selection (or adaptation as you call it) would insure it become the norm. In fact those lungfish with it might become more comfortable on land and start going up to mate. The two different environmental pressures mite produce two distinct breeds. Eventually you might get the groups so different to one another that they can't produce viable offspring- speciation.




First we have seen this in nature before. They're called 'transition species' and we have seen it a lot in the very rich fossil record, in so many cases, that they are almost innumerable.


What you have are species that you classify as 'transition species' to satisfy the myth you believe. You have no evidence that these 'transition species' are a part of evolution other than the fact that they are similar.


So you're going to completely over look the fossil record and all the predecessor species to humans for instance?! Or the evolution of birds from the dinosaurs like the micro raptor?!



Because this mutation is beneficial, it will continue to become more and more common among humanity untill eventually it won't be considered a mutation any more and creationist will consider it part of 'Gods design' despite the fact that it was not around before the 1700s


So can you prove this trait was not around in the 1700s?


Yes! the wonders of genetic testing, showed that it originated in a 18th century commoner.



But evolution is more than a mere theory these days. Since it was first contemplated, it has changed very few times on very small points, yet has fundamentally been supported by genetics and palaeontology. It's as scientific as they come.



posted on Sep, 11 2008 @ 10:34 PM
link   
reply to post by ChChKiwi
 


None of the links provided were helpful at all. Too much evolution in the them.

Seriously I wish it were possible to date the earth because this billions of years junk is getting rediculous.

It's about 6,000 (Not an exact number but close) years old, and no older (ok maybe 7,000, but that's seriously it).



posted on Sep, 11 2008 @ 10:44 PM
link   
This is serious not a joke!

I have a friend who I am 100% sure has Neanderthal genetics, I think for sure we bred

He is really thick boned and very hairy, VERY hairy except for his head, but more than that he has senses most people don't, he can smell rain before it comes hrs before I can, can pick up any order no matter how minute, he hears in a range that makes going out impossible for him, loud noises kill him and it's not tinitus he can just hear everything, but his eyesite is poor in terms of reading.

He is very smart but lacks understanding entirely of why people do the things they do, he is...a gentle giant so to speak and I think that quality is a recessive Neanderthal trait

His head is huge, he went bald really young, his arms are very long and thick and he never works out...

I am sure there are Neanderthal genes in humans...

and the big thing, some people hate him for no reason and he is the nicest guy ever... my best friend actually, some .. People, always the leaner more homsapien looking ones just, dislike the guy on concept... Just seening him with another friend of mine who can't stand him, reminds me so much of a Chimp and a Gorilla it's astounding...

The Chimp Friend, (lean, smaller, more active) is more violent and hates him for no reason at all and he is like a quiet Gorilla.



posted on Sep, 11 2008 @ 10:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by Good Wolf
Evolution is not the science the explains how organic matter become living. The creationist belief that evolution tries to explain this is a fundamental falsehood of creationism.


Ok. Sounds solid to me. I'll accept that. (See, I'm much more open minded than you'd probably think.)


The relatively new science called Abiogenesis is the science that you should try and linch.


I'm looking into that, actually. So far it sounds solid... so far... and I enjoy that the sources I'm readin up this do provide the scientifici experiments performed that provide proof-of-concept to the whole idea.

I'm really not that knowledged on the entire subject at this point, though, and cannot really comment much on it beyond what I have just said.



This is where mutations come into play. If there was a mutation that made it very easy for the lungfish to stay on land, things will change. It would be so useful that natural selection (or adaptation as you call it) would insure it become the norm. In fact those lungfish with it might become more comfortable on land and start going up to mate. The two different environmental pressures mite produce two distinct breeds. Eventually you might get the groups so different to one another that they can't produce viable offspring- speciation.


I agree. What I don't agree on is that this is evolution. If the fish adapted then it always had the ability do so. The end result, of finally becoming a land fish, would have been programmed into the fish's genetic code by God from the beginning of creation... [disclaimer: This includes any fish the lungfish "evlolved", as you put it, from.]



So you're going to completely over look the fossil record and all the predecessor species to humans for instance?! Or the evolution of birds from the dinosaurs like the micro raptor?!


I am not ignoring them. They existed nd the fossils we have proves it. What I am going to deny is that they are evidence of evolution. You cannot prove evolution from those fossils.



posted on Sep, 11 2008 @ 10:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by the_watcher

Could Neandertals be living among us right now and we simply can't tell the difference?

Yes and no, imo.

Yes, maybe they're living on Earth right now. But separtated (hidden), and not together with us. And we'd definately be able to tell the difference if we saw one. Btw, we never evolved from the Neanderthals. We are/were two different speices. Actually, I've seen speculations that the Neanderthals might have been wiped out by us in ancient times. Some of them may have survived. And they may be what is often reported as Bigfoot, Sasquatch, Yeti, etc. in different parts of the world.



posted on Sep, 11 2008 @ 11:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by the_watcher
reply to post by ChChKiwi
 


None of the links provided were helpful at all. Too much evolution in the them.

Seriously I wish it were possible to date the earth because this billions of years junk is getting rediculous.

It's about 6,000 (Not an exact number but close) years old, and no older (ok maybe 7,000, but that's seriously it).



I'm beginning to think you must be a troll....trip trap much?
As John McEnroe so aptly put it: "You can't be serious!"



posted on Sep, 11 2008 @ 11:23 PM
link   
We can carbon date it to long before 7000 thousand years. Do you even know what you are talking about



posted on Sep, 12 2008 @ 12:02 AM
link   
You have to understand that at one point, entirely based on fossil evidence, Homo erectus, neanderthal, and modern man all existed at the same time. Over 90% of all species that ever lived are extinct. There is no evolution, rather extinction.

In the national museum in London, evolutionists have a large display of moths that grow increasingly dark as coincided with the Industrial Revolution, and the darkened buildings and cities from the immense coal burning. Supposedly this demonstrates evolution. Any idiot can see that as surfaces darkened, the lighter moths stood out and were more susceptible to predators, thus fewer light colored moths. No evolution. Population reassignment.

Evolutionists also require terms called "anomalies" or "intrusive" fossil evidence. They can't report what was found where, and be accurate and specific. They have to "tilt the table" to support evolution. Creationists don't require "anomalies" to somehow explain things that don't support evolution. Evolutionists will excavate a site, and then shuffle what they found where, as it doesn't "fit." "Fit," meaning their assumption of where something belongs, not where it was actually found.

Evolution appears to be highly selective process, working on some species and not on others. We're supposed to believe in a transitional species from homo erectus to modern man, all within the past 30,000 years. Yet there are hundreds of species that have not altered in any shape, form, or function in 40-million years! No, no, no! If species transitions and evolution is an ongoing process, then all species should exhibit changes. And they don't.

Scientist in the nineteenth century delighted in touting the fossil of the forty million year old coelecanth, pointing to the stubby front fins they said were already turning into legs. Then in the early twentieth century, one was caught. Lately they have been found and filmed underwater. Guess what? No legs! In fact, the modern fish are indiscernible from their forty million year old ancestor.

Ten thousand years or so ago, North America lost 130 species with a body weight that exceeded 100 pounds. For evolution to occur, one must have a steady-state geology, and yet all geologic history is constant series of catastrophic events. When you hear terms like Jurassic, Cretaceous, Devonian, etc., these are highly defined periods of catastrophic geology characterized by mass extinctions.

When you see entire shoals of fish fossils, this is not a shoal of fish that died and were gradually covered with mud and became fossilized. Anyone that's ever had an aquarium knows what happens when a fish dies. He floats, and is either consumed by others, or rots. He doesn't become a fossil. Of the millions of buffalo that were killed on the Plains in the nineteenth century, not one of those will become a fossil. They just deteriorate and become powder. It takes a catastrophic event which almost instantly buries these animals under tons of dirt, rock, or ash to become a fossil.

Neanterthal, homo erectus, bigfoot, sasquatch, and whatever other species lived or continue to live learned the hard way about modern man. They will hunt down and kill at first opportunity, anything not like them. Hell, we kill each other from other neighborhoods.

Evolution? Now that's the furthest thing from science, according to scientific method, I've ever heard of.



posted on Sep, 12 2008 @ 12:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by dooper
Evolution appears to be highly selective process, working on some species and not on others. We're supposed to believe in a transitional species from homo erectus to modern man, all within the past 30,000 years. Yet there are hundreds of species that have not altered in any shape, form, or function in 40-million years! No, no, no! If species transitions and evolution is an ongoing process, then all species should exhibit changes. And they don't.


But they don't have to! If the crocodile was a successful because it had a formula for killing that successful in any river system that you find them in, there would be no environmental pressures for natural selection to act on, so they would not change be cause any divergence from what is, is not as successful would be over shadowed by the more successful crocs.

Ever since animals frequented the open ground, there has been the unavoidable need to go to water to drink. This is what the crocodile has utilised since the time of the dinosaurs. It will always be that way so the croc will not re-adapt because it doesn't need to!

Species don't have to and will not progress if they aren't pressured to progress!

Study your biology for Pete sake.

[edit on 9/12/2008 by Good Wolf]



posted on Sep, 12 2008 @ 12:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by Good Wolf
We can carbon date it to long before 7000 thousand years. Do you even know what you are talking about


Yes. Carbon dating does not work.



posted on Sep, 12 2008 @ 12:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by the_watcher

Originally posted by Good Wolf
We can carbon date it to long before 7000 thousand years. Do you even know what you are talking about


Yes. Carbon dating does not work.


Well according to science it does, and creationists, doesn't.



posted on Sep, 12 2008 @ 12:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by ChChKiwi
I'm beginning to think you must be a troll....trip trap much?
As John McEnroe so aptly put it: "You can't be serious!"


No I am not a troll. I just refuse to accept evolution because of how unscientific it is, and the lack of proof should be enough to show you that it's not true.

I am not the only one who thinks the earth is only about 6,000 years old.

www.livescience.com...

[edit on 12-9-2008 by the_watcher]



posted on Sep, 12 2008 @ 12:34 AM
link   
reply to post by Good Wolf
 


Then I guess we shall simply agree to disagree.



posted on Sep, 12 2008 @ 12:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by the_watcher

Originally posted by ChChKiwi
I'm beginning to think you must be a troll....trip trap much?
As John McEnroe so aptly put it: "You can't be serious!"


No I am not a troll. I just refuse to accept evolution because of how unscientific it is, and the lack of proof should be enough to show you that it's not true.

I am not the only one who thinks the earth is only about 6,000 years old.

www.livescience.com...

[edit on 12-9-2008 by the_watcher]




Before you say evolution is unscientific again watch through all 13 falsehoods and say it again with a strait face.



posted on Sep, 12 2008 @ 01:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by the_watcher

Originally posted by Good Wolf
We can carbon date it to long before 7000 thousand years. Do you even know what you are talking about


Yes. Carbon dating does not work.


uh, yes it does, it's good for up to about 50 000 years.

Do you know about Argon-Argon, Uranium-Lead, Rubidium-Strontium and other dating methods? If not, I suggest you look at Scientific, Research sites that actively employ these methods, rather than creationist sites which ignore facts and present fallacies.

I suppose you think the Earth is the Centre of the
Universe as well and that god created man in the garden of eden?


Now, that IS unscientific


[edit on 12/9/08 by ChChKiwi]



posted on Sep, 12 2008 @ 01:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by GodCoffin
reply to post by the_watcher
 

No.

No amount of intelligence will make evolution any less of a scientific fact.


you can always subtract from zero and go into the negatives.



Originally posted by ChChKiwi if you truly are open-minded you will accept the facts.


may i have some prudence with this incongruity please?


Originally posted by Good Wolf
Before you say evolution is unscientific again watch through all 13 falsehoods and say it again with a strait face.


macro-evolution is unscientific -_-



posted on Sep, 12 2008 @ 01:39 AM
link   
reply to post by Good Wolf
 


I have finished watching the videos, and I must say they're full of false information and deceit, but instead of continuing the argument I will simply say "I disagree" and leave it at that.

[edit on 12-9-2008 by the_watcher]



posted on Sep, 12 2008 @ 01:44 AM
link   
reply to post by the_watcher
 


No you have not watched the videos because all up they are 2 hours and 12 minutes long and I didn't even post the link that long ago.

From my post above:


posted on 9/12/2008 @ 05:35 PM

You wont have finished watching before 7:47pm, an other hour.


It seems you are the one being deceptive.


[edit on 9/12/2008 by Good Wolf]



posted on Sep, 12 2008 @ 02:06 AM
link   
reply to post by Good Wolf
 


Yeah I skipped the ones that talked like the bible can't be true. They're obviously wrong.

Of course you'll say I'm wrong in my opinion and we can go back and forth, but I've already humbly said that I simply choose to disagree. There's not much else to say.

I believe in the Bible, and the one true God. Period.

However, I am going to continue to research evolutoin and abiogenesis. Perhaps in a while I'll have more to say. Maybe something more substantial. Until then just let me believe what I wish. It doesn't affect you.



new topics

top topics



 
1
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join