Ancient human skulls and bones, page 3

privacy

Pages: << 1 2 3 >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 3 times

reply posted on 5-10-2010 @ 08:52 PM by nophun

reply to post by Neo Christian Mystic

You have no idea what your are talking about, yet you speak with such authority. This is not good personal trait to possess.

If I take the time to point out the stupidity in all your posts (in this thread) will you take time to really read it and fact check ?

That is a serious question and offer.

"the apes are degenerated homo sapiens sapiens."
Genius ITT.

edit on 5-10-2010 by nophun because: (no reason given)

reply posted on 5-10-2010 @ 08:56 PM by Neo Christian Mystic

Originally posted by JohnnyCanuck

Originally posted by Neo Christian Mystic
reply to post by JohnnyCanuck

Google "neanderthal blonde" I am not here to make you wiser, you should have this knowledge....

Given that this is your thread, you have taken it upon yourself to 'make us wiser'. If you make such a statement, you should be prepared to support it. If I make a statement, I am prepared to produce citations from a peer-reviewed source. That way folks know that my data is not rectally sourced.

No I am not wiser than you. And All I know is that some while ago, until the proof was utterly destroyed by people who got rich, and made to tell we were all getting rich on their behalf. .... I am tired. They are alright and they can use thheir fields again. Noooooo proof. Your friends destroyed it.....

reply posted on 5-10-2010 @ 09:30 PM by kokoro

Originally posted by Neo Christian Mystic

Originally posted by JohnnyCanuck

Originally posted by Neo Christian Mystic
reply to post by JohnnyCanuck

Google "neanderthal blonde" I am not here to make you wiser, you should have this knowledge....

Given that this is your thread, you have taken it upon yourself to 'make us wiser'. If you make such a statement, you should be prepared to support it. If I make a statement, I am prepared to produce citations from a peer-reviewed source. That way folks know that my data is not rectally sourced.

No I am not wiser than you. And All I know is that some while ago, until the proof was utterly destroyed by people who got rich, and made to tell we were all getting rich on their behalf. .... I am tired. They are alright and they can use thheir fields again. Noooooo proof. Your friends destroyed it.....

How convenient.

Second line

reply posted on 5-10-2010 @ 10:21 PM by kokoro

Originally posted by Neo Christian Mystic

Originally posted by Neo Christian Mystic
Compare a modern child's skull with that of a grown man and that of an elderly man, then add 900 years to the evolution of our bones, and you might have a neanderthal or similar.

What grows is the bone under the eyebrows, the frontal lobes are less important and memory cortex (back of the scull) becomes more important. These guys are old humans. And they were blonde (close to grey and white) and their eyes grew blueish (just like they are in newborns all over the world). These guys (neanderthals) are our original makeup, "we who grew old", and "you" are us, limited to 120 years lifespan, missing grandpah.

Except for the fact that neandertal children also have a brow ridge. The brow ridge is not the result of the neandertal being 900 years old, they were born with it. Numberous fossils of thier chidlren show this. By the way your bones stop growing at some point around 20 so saying that they grew a brow ridge after adulthood is not possible.

Notice the brow ridge, case closed.

edit on 5-10-2010 by kokoro because: fix image

reply posted on 6-10-2010 @ 04:07 AM by Astyanax

reply to post by Neo Christian Mystic

Biblical Creationism? I am not member of a group who believe the Universe was created six thousand years ago.

Yet you cite Biblical myth as factual evidence for your pathetic claims.

so please read what I write in a scientific perspective

A scientific perspective?

You wouldn't know a scientific perspective if one bit you on your blond, blue-eyed, Bible-believing-white-supremacist buttock.

edit on 6/10/10 by Astyanax because: (no reason given)

reply posted on 6-10-2010 @ 08:25 AM by Neo Christian Mystic

reply to post by kokoro

And children born with Progeria develop "old skeletons" within a few years.

en.wikipedia.org...

reply posted on 6-10-2010 @ 02:09 PM by kokoro

Originally posted by Neo Christian Mystic
reply to post by kokoro

And children born with Progeria develop "old skeletons" within a few years.

en.wikipedia.org...

Yes but they do not grow into "adults" at an accelerated rate, they are still children. They also die before 10 years of age. Im not sure what children with progeria has to do with your claim that Neandertal were 900 years old.

reply posted on 6-10-2010 @ 05:49 PM by J-in-TX

Originally posted by Neo Christian Mystic
reply to post by J-in-TX

They were excavated beneath tons of rocks and gravel and mud, they were set in clay, and clay relese it's imprints when water comes in. Not vald argument.

No, they were not excavated from beneath tons of rocks and gravel.

The dinosaur tracks are located in the riverbed, so please call ahead to check on river conditions.

Dinosaur Vally State Park

The dino tracks are real. The human footprints were a hoax. The lady involved has admitted that her grandfather made the tracks in order to attract tourism. Her and her sisters would carve rocks into dinosaur bones and grandpa would sell them as souvenirs.

J

reply posted on 6-10-2010 @ 05:53 PM by madnessinmysoul

reply to post by Astyanax

Come on, Astyanax, don't provoke the people who drop points that immediately contradict them in the middle of arguments too much, they might get even more irrational.

reply posted on 7-10-2010 @ 01:42 AM by Astyanax

reply to post by madnessinmysoul

But isn't that what these folk are there for? To entertain us?

reply posted on 8-10-2010 @ 08:19 AM by madnessinmysoul

reply to post by Astyanax

Well, ideally they're here to learn where they're wrong and why they're wrong and who has been lying to them for so long. Of course, we don't live in an ideal world.

reply posted on 8-10-2010 @ 08:28 AM by Neo Christian Mystic

reply to post by madnessinmysoul

And how many replies to the OP here deals with the main point in the thread? That Neanderthals and Cro Magnon &c. may infact be extremely elderly "pre-flood" humans of our own kind. According to the oldest written sources we have, the Mesopotamian/Sumerian and Vedic tales and later also Genesis -- explains how humans got to become hundred, if not thousands and even hundred thousands of years old. What if we will find the source of "eternal life" in the "pre-flood" humans? Like a new telomer sequence allowing our cells to renew themselves eternally, instead of like it is nowadays, that our telomers limit human lifespans to approximately 120-130 years?

Instead people start crying about dinosaurs because I mentioned that humans and dinos might have lived side by side way back in time. And that I said that dinos are most certainly the source to all the dragon myths we find in human culture.

reply posted on 8-10-2010 @ 09:32 AM by nophun

reply to post by Neo Christian Mystic

Why would anyone address these "points" of yours ? You are just saying random crap. Global floods, Dinosaurs are dragons of fiction, a hundreds of years could have equaled tens of thousands. These are just some of your assumptions, You will have to actually show why we should conciser any of them.

Start with proving this flood with yours before you start claiming it effected the age of Humans and then I will disprove Neanderthals were preflood humans that live a hundred billions years.

reply posted on 8-10-2010 @ 09:50 AM by Byrd

Originally posted by Neo Christian Mystic
In all life we know of, cells die withing a relatively short time from them being created from cell division. Every cell your own genome produce proteins to govern processes including reproducing every cell in your body within seven - 7 - years. Now what does that tell you about how old a bonehead would be when it died? Nothing. Ageing of bones and fossils is done by measuring the bones with bloody straightedges and the coroner's gut. These "ancient humans' bones" does look old as in worn out or very solid. God gave us a disease about 5000 years ago, which helped us with the problem that all of us grew into becoming "neanderthals". These bones are old, in all extents of the word.

Well, no. That's not how the process is done (and 5,000 years ago was 3,000 BC. The Sumerians and Egyptians and Hindus were all writing things down by then.) Now, I *do* volunteer in a paleontology lab and have for many years, I *do* go on archaeological and paleontological digs, and I *have* taught basic forensic anthropology when I was teaching human anatomy labs at the university... so I do have some insight and hands on experience.

It's not done by "straight edges and the coroner's gut." Or, rather, hasn't been done that way since the middle 1800's.

reply posted on 8-10-2010 @ 09:59 AM by Byrd

Originally posted by Neo Christian Mystic
reply to post by kokoro

And children born with Progeria develop "old skeletons" within a few years.

en.wikipedia.org...

In fact, they don't: www.progeria.be...

The "failure to close of cranial sutures" means that their bodies do continue to grow, but in very abnormal ways. If they were "suddenly old" then all the bones of the skull plus all the bones of the arms and legs and ... well, ALL the bones would suddenly fuse and quit growing (leaving them at the size of an infant or small child)

This is an article with x-rays of a girl who had the condition. The skull is fused in a normal manner for a 14 year old. If you knew what you were looking for, the x-rays of the hands and feet show the bone growth plates at both ends of the digits are not fused, indicating that this is a child and not a full adult.

reply posted on 19-10-2010 @ 04:33 PM by Neo Christian Mystic

There are about 600 genes that are unique to humans, and humans have about 25-30,000 genes. And about 90 percents of our genome is unmapped, we simply don't know what they are there fore. Still we say that Chimps are 99% human. If you subtract the so called junk DNA Humans are about 30% chiump. It is all about how you want your numbers to turn out. And no matter what you say, we have no way of dating the age of the Neanderthal bones we find other than with carbon and oxygene dating. I still stand by my initial claim or theory that Neanderthals may be ancient humans who later were genetically manipulated to allow their genome to become a mere 120 years old at max.

reply posted on 19-10-2010 @ 04:36 PM by Neo Christian Mystic

reply to post by Byrd

Has it ever occured that disease might be the reason for these things, and that modern humans have the same genetic disease, that some of us are under develloped and that perhaps pregnancy period was longer or shorter etc. We have very little knowledge into genetic diseases in early man.

reply posted on 19-10-2010 @ 10:53 PM by Neo Christian Mystic

reply to post by Neo Christian Mystic

And genetic disease is probably what most of you refer to as evolution anyway.... Let's find and isolate the original genome the old religious stories tell us about. Let's isolate a new way of reproducing cells from finding what ancient bones might give us. And live forevermore.... Leaving our beastie way of reproducing ourselves and rather create and invent.

edit on 19/10/2010 by Neo Christian Mystic because: Invention

reply posted on 21-10-2010 @ 09:24 PM by kokoro

reply to post by Neo Christian Mystic

See the problem with your "theory", Ill state it again because you dont seem to understand, is that you have no evidence for your assertions. However, there is evidence to the contrary which is why the bones have been dated as they are.

Evidences are things that are observable and repeatable. You have none of this, only your belief that these things are true. Not enough for most people, not by a long shot.

Pages: << 1 2 3 >> ^^TOP^^