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.

 

Survey Results: Origins and Evolution

page: 46
82
<< 43  44  45    47  48  49 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 31 2011 @ 08:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by Gorman91
reply to post by undo
 


uh, no. It doesn't all fit into place once you actually look at the dna. In fact I'm pretty sure there is no scientific evidence for anything you just said.

It is more likely that God is dead and we evolved here naturally than for what you said to be true.
edit on 31-8-2011 by Gorman91 because: le spelling


well let's see, are we genetically related to reptiles, avians, amphibians and mammals, or not?




posted on Aug, 31 2011 @ 08:07 AM
link   
reply to post by undo
 


In increasingly less percentages, in less and less ways as you go down the list.

We share common ancestors, which necessitates common genetics.

These things mainly have to do with immunity and adaptation to food.

Matter of fact, we don't even have the same keratin genes. Birds have b-keratin because it evolved to interlock feathers and other such things, mammals have a-keratin, which forms for our nails and hair.

These two keratins aren't even the same for reptilian claws and mamilian claws.
edit on 31-8-2011 by Gorman91 because: le spelling



posted on Aug, 31 2011 @ 08:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by Gorman91
reply to post by undo
 


In increasingly less percentages, in less and less ways as you go down the list.

We share common ancestors, which necessitates common genetics.

These things mainly have to do with immunity and adaptation to food.

Matter of fact, we don't even have the same keratin genes. Birds have b-keratin because it evolved to interlock feathers and other such things, mammals have a-keratin, which forms for or nails and hair.

These two keratins aren't even the same for reptilian claws and mamilian claws.


yes so the secret ingredient is the creator gods, who had some of the features or are evolutionary scientists saying we got those features from the sideways insertion of bacteria? (or was it a virus?)



posted on Aug, 31 2011 @ 08:11 AM
link   
reply to post by undo
 


No, it's a mutagen form of a previous hard form of something. Probably Chitin or some other chemical concoction life evolved. Perhaps an Alpha helix originally.
edit on 31-8-2011 by Gorman91 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 31 2011 @ 08:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by RevelationGeneration
reply to post by mblahnikluver
 


Read the bible maybe you will know.


HAHA sorry, is that a joke?


You can't be serious.......Sorry I have read the bible and I dont find it accurate at all. How many times has it been rewritten? HOW many "books" have been conveniently left out? I believe parts of the bible are true but highly exaggerated and twisted to make people believe a certain story so they would live a certain way. It's about control.

We will never know where we came from in this life IMO, maybe in the next you find out and when you are reborn you forget. I don't know but it's a theory



posted on Aug, 31 2011 @ 08:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by Gorman91
reply to post by undo
 


No, it's a mutagen form of a previous hard form of something..
edit on 31-8-2011 by Gorman91 because: (no reason given)


well that's certainly interesting

anyway, there's quite a bit of ancient statuary that shows upright, bipedal, reptilian or amphbian beings, who've apparently been modified to be part mammal. perhaps our creators were reptilians and amphibians of the sentient variety, and the mammal procreative mods, created some of the mutagen forms you're talking about. or maybe the second mod to insert a kill switch contained the mutagen form. all i know is, the texts and artifacts of the time, support it

edit on 31-8-2011 by undo because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 31 2011 @ 08:26 AM
link   
reply to post by mblahnikluver
 


It's actually pretty much the same book it's always been. Different languages have different words. English has a damn lot of them. Back then elders and tradition helped create context. Once words were found that removed the need for those people, it was far easier to do it without elders, and the book stood as it was in the same context.

Those things that are different don't actually impact the point of the book. It's still saying the same thing.

The validity to it not changing is found in the fact that a community of disagreeing elders were responsible with its upkeep. Nobody could change it, because the other faction in the elders would yell at them. It's no different than our own government's checks and balances. How much has the core of what our constitution is has changed? And furthermore, how much so for the better or worse? I count one bad mistake, which was quickly undone: drinking. I view the Bible no different. And if our own documents have lasted so long without err, I see no rason why the Bible is any different.



posted on Aug, 31 2011 @ 08:28 AM
link   
reply to post by undo
 


Or maybe a bunch of humans amphamorphize animals, as is the tradition of virtually every primitive culture out there?

You do realize that the more intelligent a society becomes, the less physical icons it uses and the more abstract it becomes right? Because I know this, and all I see is primitive humans applying their body to the creatures around them, because they haven't developed enough to think abstractly.

Every scholarly group of the ancient world I can think of did not follow human looking gods. Stoics saw a deaf universe god, for example. Minoans, having an overall higher intelligence, had just one anthropomorphic thing, that I', not even sure was a god. The Minotaur.

Animalistic looking gods are just signs of a primitive culture.
edit on 31-8-2011 by Gorman91 because: (no reason given)

edit on 31-8-2011 by Gorman91 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 31 2011 @ 08:29 AM
link   
Suspension Of Disbelief

According to the fossil record, there was a time when we were talking about the survey results. I'm not doing the mod thing, just pointing to a bit of ancient history.


Meanwhile, speaking only for myself, I have found over the years that people who are comfortable with their own beliefs don't fear the idea of other people holding different beliefs.

In other words evangelism, whether for a religious or scientific cause, is an act of desperation driven by one's own insecurities, a projection of one's own doubts, uncertainties and fears onto others.

Those others may then be ridiculed, harassed, demonized or otherwise ostracized for symbolizing the "evil" of those doubts, uncertainties and fears.

My point being, and hopefully not lost in all the emotional churn, that the very reason so many people are arguing so passionately about this subject is that they secretly agree at some level, though they may not realize it.

Something to consider as this thread, which was created so long ago, continues to evolve.



posted on Aug, 31 2011 @ 08:31 AM
link   
reply to post by Majic
 


I don't see that as so. I'm ok with other people's beliefs, but I'm evangelical. I suppose I just like the act of debate between sides. I'm not insecure about anything. I just want a clash of knowledge to see who comes out knowing more. And in that act, I learn more.



posted on Aug, 31 2011 @ 08:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by Gorman91
reply to post by undo
 


Or maybe a bunch of humans amphamorphize animals, as is the tradition of virtually every primitive culture out there?

You do realize that the more intelligent a society becomes, the less physical icons it uses and the more abstract it becomes right? Because I know this, and all I see is primitive humans applying their body to the creatures around them, because they haven't developed enough to think abstractly.

Every scholarly group of the ancient world I can think of did not follow human looking gods. Stoics saw a deaf universe god, for example.

Animalistic looking gods are just signs of a primitive culture.
edit on 31-8-2011 by Gorman91 because: (no reason given)


you might find this interesting, although i personally think he's wrong on several points, he does bring up some legitimate questions such as : why didn't they know they were naked before? cause they weren't naked before. they had scales.


be warned, this is a large online book. you may want to set aside some time.
www.apollonius.net...



posted on Aug, 31 2011 @ 08:35 AM
link   
reply to post by undo
 


uh no, we had fur. Because we were ape-like creatures. And some of us are still naked, because some of us still live in hot climates were we evolved. This is sort of, you know, common sense.

Again, keratin. Please read up on it.

Why should I read that when you just pretty much missed the last 5 million years of evolution?
edit on 31-8-2011 by Gorman91 because: (no reason given)

edit on 31-8-2011 by Gorman91 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 31 2011 @ 08:37 AM
link   
These results are just one of the major reasons this Earth is on the way down the toilet! .......and deservedly so!
Eternity is a very long time..................................................................................!



posted on Aug, 31 2011 @ 08:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by Gorman91
reply to post by undo
 


uh no, we had fur. Because we were apes. And some of us are still naked, because some of us still live in hot climates were we evolved. This is sort of, you know, common sense.

Again, keratin. Please read up on it.

Why should I read that when you just pretty much missed the last 5 million years of evolution?
edit on 31-8-2011 by Gorman91 because: (no reason given)


no, the mammalian mods had ape ancestory.
according to this we didn't start out that way.



posted on Aug, 31 2011 @ 08:39 AM
link   
reply to post by Majic
 


My point being, and hopefully not lost in all the emotional churn, that the very reason so many people are arguing so passionately about this subject is that they secretly agree at some level, though they may not realize it.

I think they’re just arguing because they feel provoked. And they feel provoked because they are being provoked. There are hotheads on all sides.

If everyone articulated their beliefs and disagreements politely and without casting reflections on the other side, the temperature of debate would fall by many degrees. It would also garner a lot less participation.

But what would be the fun of that?



posted on Aug, 31 2011 @ 08:40 AM
link   
reply to post by undo
 


According to you....

According to scientific evidence, we evolved from ape like ancestors whom in turn evolved from arboreal small muskrat things.

There is no missing part of this path. It's a pretty clear path from something like a squirrel, to something like a man. The need to have a god or a creator or anything, is purely your need. There is no physical need nor proof there of.
edit on 31-8-2011 by Gorman91 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 31 2011 @ 08:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by Gorman91
reply to post by undo
 


According to you....

According to scientific evidence, we evolved from ape like ancestors whom in turn evolved from arboreal small muskrat things.

There is no missing part of this path. It's a pretty clear path from something like a squirrel, to something like a man. The need to have a god or a creator or anything, is purely your need. There is no physical need nor proof there of.
edit on 31-8-2011 by Gorman91 because: (no reason given)


well i have artifacts and documents from the time frame. you have bones and conjecture about the time frame and toss out all the artifacts and documents, relegating something like 5000 years of documented history, to the trash bin.



posted on Aug, 31 2011 @ 08:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by GmoS719
reply to post by SkepticOverlord
 


I figured more people would lean towards creation.
hmmm.
I'll pray for the world today.


Believe me!............The World is in great need of Prayers!



posted on Aug, 31 2011 @ 08:45 AM
link   
reply to post by undo
 


Yes. Because bones are more concrete evidence than things made by man. Bones need no interpretation beyond a logical deduction from similar species today or then. Unless you have a time machine, you can never know what artifacts truly mean. It's all speculation, because the human mind is impossible to fully predict. The fact I cam imagine it being primitive gods from an unsophisticated culture demands it be a plausible possibility. This is not so with bones, for they are there, have a time period, and follow simple logical rules of evolution.
edit on 31-8-2011 by Gorman91 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 31 2011 @ 08:47 AM
link   
post removed because the user has no concept of manners

Click here for more information.



new topics

top topics



 
82
<< 43  44  45    47  48  49 >>

log in

join