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.

 

The 'missing link' Found

page: 3
44
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 9 2011 @ 02:12 PM
link   
reply to post by ButterCookie
 


Sitchin's claims have been pretty much debunked in the scientific community (google "sitchin is wrong").

One theory put forward recently is that between 700,000 and 100,000 years ago, there where wildly fluctuating climate changes. Sometimes within only a few thousand years, a lake would dry up, then fill up again. Those animals that survived these rapid droughts and wet climate changes included us. Humans became adaptable to changes in the environment. Right now humans can survive from arctic to desert conditions. Our adaptability to climate change made us successful.

Dr. Rick Potts who studied the wild fluctuations between wet and dry conditions (by measuring sediment deposits for example) writes:


So it dawned on me: Rick, you're an anthropologist. Maybe this has something to do with human evolution, and it's not the survival of the fittest in any one environment but the survival of the more versatile, the more general and flexible creatures that would really persist over time. This gave me a new insight into human evolution.


Source

So humans became very flexible and adaptable to a wide variety of environmental conditions because of rapidly changing climatic events, and not by a visitation by a monolith. We should give ourselves more credit sometimes.




posted on Sep, 9 2011 @ 02:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by ButterCookie

According to evolutionists, mankind 'evolved, over a period of about 25 million years, and in anthropologic terms 'arose overnight' into modern man.....

As Sitchin presented, " The appearance of modern man a mere 700k years AFTER homo erectus and some 200k years BEFORE Neanderthal man is absolutely implausible".

Basically, how did the ancestors of modern man appear some some 300k years ago ....instead of 2 or 3 million years into the future, following normal evolutionary development? We should STILL be in caves, lerning how to plant crops and feed ourselves, according to evolution.


How did we evolve from simple farmers into ipad bearing spacemen in the space of just 200 years? Compared with anything in the past this is impossible - it should have taken us thousands if not tens of thousands of years - and means that Victorians and 20th century people must be alien-human hybrids.




posted on Sep, 9 2011 @ 02:19 PM
link   
reply to post by Essan
 





How did we evolve from simple farmers into ipad bearing spacemen in the space of just 200 years?


Agriculture arose around 12,000 years ago, not 200.

Source



posted on Sep, 9 2011 @ 02:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by StripedBandit
Don't bait them into it, they will call the fossils a test of faith or something.

I wouldn't be so callous.


Originally posted by Freedom_is_Slavery
This is interesting stuff, I wonder what all the creationists have to say about this one,

I say what I always say when shown this stuff. How do they know?
To be specific, they mention the fossil is some hundred thousand years old (which is odd, I'll mention below)
How did they come to that conclusion? Why don't you people question that? Why are you such accepting-sheeple?

Obvious answer would be Carbon-dating, right? Well, that's recently been put under scrutiny and really should not hold any merit anymore because it is still based off too many assumptions. And, as I mentioned above, it's odd, because Carbon-dating can only date back 50-60k years. Some say 30k (ie, the guy who invented it).

Why don't you question the truth? Isn't that what you're after? or do you just fancy the idea of Evolution too much? I guess I understand, it's hard to let go of something you've invested so much in.


Originally posted by Freedom_is_Slavery
Half of who,
Speak for yourself buddy
Only religious nut jobs deny evolution
True story

Only a complete fool would swear by a theory. The whole concept of the theory of evolution, is an ever-changing argument. It needs to change, it needs to "evolve" in it's own way. When something comes and doesn't agree with the theory, they change the theory. That's how theories work. Convenient, if you ask me.

But swearing by a theory and claiming it is 100% true is ludicrous. Kinda like this comment:


Originally posted by Solomons
Great news, will watch closely! As for bringing up religion, at the end of the day evolution is a fact, it is undeniable and if people still choose to ignore such a crucial part of reality for comfort or religious views then no amount of new fossil evidence will persuade them otherwise, for the rest of us this is an exciting discovery.

Exciting indeed, for all of us. Do you think Christians are cowering in fear out of this discovery? That it's just a 'test of faith'? I for one don't deny it's real. It looks just like any other humanoid fossil. I don't see how ONE FOSSIL confirms an entire theory. Usually you'll want several dozen AT LEAST, I'd go for a few hundred (after all, there was probably more than 1 of this species alive, it would need to reproduce, wouldn't it?), but that's just me. You can accept things that agree with you just as much as you want, doesn't mean it's 100% fact. After all, you'd tell me the same, wouldn't you?


Anyways, as noted above, Carbon-14 is useless. They use it so freely because the majority of the population accepts it as fact without questioning it. Those who do question it will have heard the story of fresh blood from a dead seal which was dated at 1300 years prior. The Chekurovka mammoth fur, dated at 26,000 years prior, even though the peaty soil it was in was only 5600 years old.

That's the main issue.. the dates. People believe it takes BILLIONS of years for change. No. No it doesn't. Look at the Grand Canyon. Formed over millions of years, right? Thanks to erosion, weather, time, etc.. right? People who actually believe this should look into the Little Grand Canyon in Georgia. It's 1/30th as deep, fairly small, but shares the same characteristics.. and guess what? It formed in decades. Even if it took the Grand Canyon 100x longer to form, that's still only 1500 years.

Not millions.

Besides, that's the real issue. The numbers. With everything. Think about it. I mean, seriously guys. You put so much faith in the fallible humans (this is undeniable) and hope we got our # right, yet exclude the possibility that there's an infallible God out there.

Anyways, since "scientific" dating methods have been proven unreliable, let us remember that for those who desperately desire to reject God, evolution is a religion of last resort. If there is no Creator, there can be no sin, and no need of a Savior.
edit on 9-9-2011 by Lionhearte because: (no reason given)

edit on 9-9-2011 by Lionhearte because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 9 2011 @ 02:27 PM
link   
reply to post by Lionhearte
 


You really think they used carbon dating for this find??
edit on 9/9/2011 by yadda333 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 9 2011 @ 02:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by yadda333
reply to post by Lionhearte
 


You really think they used carbon dating for this find??
edit on 9/9/2011 by yadda333 because: (no reason given)


Then what is the basis of their research then ? Did they take bone samples and scan it ? We're interested.



posted on Sep, 9 2011 @ 02:31 PM
link   
reply to post by Lionhearte
 


Carbon dating is only useful for organic material less than 50,000 years old.

Usually some or all of the below are used for dating:

Superposition
Stratigraphy
Dendrochronology
Radiocarbon C14
Radiometric Dating Methods
Obsidian Hydration Dating
Paleomagnetic/Archaeomagnetic
Luminescence Dating Methods
Amino Acid Racemization
Fission-track Dating
Ice Cores
Varves
Pollens
Corals
Cation Ratio
Fluorine Dating
Patination
Oxidizable Carbon Ratio
Electron Spin Resonance
Cosmic-ray Exposure Dating

Link

Science is not religion, they are two separate things. But many scientists are religious, is that what you mean?



posted on Sep, 9 2011 @ 02:35 PM
link   
reply to post by yadda333
 


It doesn't matter what they used. I was using Carbon-Dating as an example.

The point still remains, that decay rates are not constant. That's the entire basis for any Radio-metric dating method, isn't it?

And again, they are STILL based on assumptions, one being that everything has been constant, which we know is not always the case. The second, being that all the conditions were the same, including if there was outside influence affecting the find. They assume perfect conditions.



posted on Sep, 9 2011 @ 02:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lionhearte
reply to post by yadda333
 


It doesn't matter what they used. I was using Carbon-Dating as an example.

The point still remains, that decay rates are not constant. That's the entire basis for any Radio-metric dating method, isn't it?

And again, they are STILL based on assumptions, one being that everything has been constant, which we know is not always the case. The second, being that all the conditions were the same, including if there was outside influence affecting the find. They assume perfect conditions.

Bingo, that's why some of the theory has holes in it.



posted on Sep, 9 2011 @ 02:38 PM
link   
...very interesting - love stuff like this...


...one day, if we keep on digging / searching (and the conclusions arent politically censored / directed), we may prove that most everything we currently perceive as evolutionary fact is wrong... like the concept that most everyone has some neanderthal dna or the concept that humans did not evolve by themselves in the americas but came here via an ice bridge or by boat or were transported via aliens, lol...



posted on Sep, 9 2011 @ 02:39 PM
link   
I don't agree that its a "missing link"

More like a missing jigsaw piece!


And this proves or disproves nothing in terms of creation....unless you claim to know the mind of God!


Is it not possible that God may have decided that evolution would be creation?

Just saying...
edit on 9-9-2011 by FoxfilesMulder because: Spelling



posted on Sep, 9 2011 @ 02:41 PM
link   
reply to post by Nicolas Flamel
 


Yes. We became farmers 12,000 ago - and over the next 11,800 years didn't really change much. And then .....



posted on Sep, 9 2011 @ 02:50 PM
link   
reply to post by Lionhearte
 


That's why testing is rigorous and involves using different methods. It's no secret that specimens can become contaminated and other conditions can lead to bad readings, but that shouldn't be used as the basis for throwing out all dating methods and pretending we know nothing.

I believe I've already mentioned something about absolutism......



posted on Sep, 9 2011 @ 02:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lionhearte


Besides, that's the real issue. The numbers. With everything. Think about it. I mean, seriously guys. You put so much faith in the fallible humans (this is undeniable) and hope we got our # right, yet exclude the possibility that there's an infallible God out there.


So many points I could argue but I get so tired battling scientific ignorance.

This 'infallible' God didn't design my back very well. I'd fail him right there....



posted on Sep, 9 2011 @ 03:03 PM
link   
reply to post by Lionhearte
 




I say what I always say when shown this stuff. How do they know?
To be specific, they mention the fossil is some hundred thousand years old (which is odd, I'll mention below)
How did they come to that conclusion? Why don't you people question that? Why are you such accepting-sheeple?

Obvious answer would be Carbon-dating, right? Well, that's recently been put under scrutiny and really should not hold any merit anymore because it is still based off too many assumptions. And, as I mentioned above, it's odd, because Carbon-dating can only date back 50-60k years. Some say 30k (ie, the guy who invented it).
That's why carbon dating isn't the only method of dating as another poster pointed out.


Why don't you question the truth? Isn't that what you're after? or do you just fancy the idea of Evolution too much? I guess I understand, it's hard to let go of something you've invested so much in.
Huh? I haven't invested much into it. I don't study evolution textbooks like scripture, I understand the basics of the concept though and it makes sense.


Only a complete fool would swear by a theory. The whole concept of the theory of evolution, is an ever-changing argument. It needs to change, it needs to "evolve" in it's own way. When something comes and doesn't agree with the theory, they change the theory. That's how theories work. Convenient, if you ask me.
You realize that's how science works, right? Whenever evidence surfaces that proves previous theories to be inaccurate, the theories are refined to fit the observations, calculations, discoveries, or whatever it is that calls the theory into question. Would you prefer one theory that doesn't change no matter what evidence disproves it?


Exciting indeed, for all of us. Do you think Christians are cowering in fear out of this discovery? That it's just a 'test of faith'? I for one don't deny it's real. It looks just like any other humanoid fossil. I don't see how ONE FOSSIL confirms an entire theory. Usually you'll want several dozen AT LEAST, I'd go for a few hundred (after all, there was probably more than 1 of this species alive, it would need to reproduce, wouldn't it?), but that's just me. You can accept things that agree with you just as much as you want, doesn't mean it's 100% fact. After all, you'd tell me the same, wouldn't you?
There isn't just one fossil that the theory of evolution is based on. We didn't dig up one fossil, and write textbooks of the entire theory of evolution. Again, you illustrate your poor understanding of how science works.


Anyways, as noted above, Carbon-14 is useless. They use it so freely because the majority of the population accepts it as fact without questioning it. Those who do question it will have heard the story of fresh blood from a dead seal which was dated at 1300 years prior. The Chekurovka mammoth fur, dated at 26,000 years prior, even though the peaty soil it was in was only 5600 years old.
And as noted above, carbon dating is not the only method used.


That's the main issue.. the dates. People believe it takes BILLIONS of years for change. No. No it doesn't. Look at the Grand Canyon. Formed over millions of years, right? Thanks to erosion, weather, time, etc.. right? People who actually believe this should look into the Little Grand Canyon in Georgia. It's 1/30th as deep, fairly small, but shares the same characteristics.. and guess what? It formed in decades. Even if it took the Grand Canyon 100x longer to form, that's still only 1500 years.

Not millions.
.......So how old do you think the earth/universe is?


Besides, that's the real issue. The numbers. With everything. Think about it. I mean, seriously guys. You put so much faith in the fallible humans (this is undeniable) and hope we got our # right, yet exclude the possibility that there's an infallible God out there.
Why believe there is some macho wizard man running the show when we understand how things work in the world now? Maybe back in the day when people thought the earth was flat and thought a lunar-eclipse was a dragon eating the sun we needed a deity to explain things, but that's in the past. I don't put faith into humans, I put faith into the scientific method...well technically I don't, because faith refers to things that don't have evidence backing it, but you get the idea.


Anyways, since "scientific" dating methods have been proven unreliable, let us remember that for those who desperately desire to reject God, evolution is a religion of last resort. If there is no Creator, there can be no sin, and no need of a Savior.
Evolution is not a religion, it is a scientific theory. Religion isn't a scientific theory, it's a book that people have no proof of that they put blind faith in. There is proof of evolution, there isn't proof of creationism.
edit on 9-9-2011 by TupacShakur because: To edit my post

edit on 9-9-2011 by TupacShakur because: To edit my post



posted on Sep, 9 2011 @ 03:07 PM
link   
reply to post by Heartisblack
 



Bingo, that's why some of the theory has holes in it.
Ah, so because we can't yet perfectly explain every single detail of evolution with stunningly accurate detail, it's all gotta be false! Nice! It makes much more sense that some....thing just clapped it's hands or whatever, and all life appeared! It's brilliant! Add to that incredibly realistic approach to how life arose the mountains of evidence that back it up, and you have a theory that's so obviously true that it doesn't need to change over thousands of years no matter what contradicting evidence debunks it! :shk:
edit on 9-9-2011 by TupacShakur because: To edit my post



posted on Sep, 9 2011 @ 03:11 PM
link   
reply to post by Lionhearte
 



It doesn't matter what they used. I was using Carbon-Dating as an example.

The point still remains, that decay rates are not constant. That's the entire basis for any Radio-metric dating method, isn't it?

And again, they are STILL based on assumptions, one being that everything has been constant, which we know is not always the case. The second, being that all the conditions were the same, including if there was outside influence affecting the find. They assume perfect conditions.
I advise you to read this article to get an understanding of exactly how wrong you are. Here's the most important part:

With modern, extremely precise, methods, error bars are often only 1% or so.


I don't see why you oppose evolution so much. I know a guy who's a Christian, and he's also an "evolutionist". In fact he recently published an article about evolution in I think Life Magazine.

Does the idea scare you or something, what's the big deal? It doesn't necessarily disprove your religion, I mean maybe God was the guy that set the gears into motion. I have yet to meet a single atheist who has fought tooth and nail against evolution.....strange, huh?
edit on 9-9-2011 by TupacShakur because: TO edit my post



posted on Sep, 9 2011 @ 03:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by Freedom_is_Slavery


This is interesting stuff, I wonder what all the creationists have to say about this one,


I can give you a heads up on what creationists might say - What a load of BS, who is in control of science? The elite. Whatever fits the agenda will be the name of the game. I don't care if a homo erectus came and knocked on my front door with a dinosaur bone in his hand, I still won't stray from my beliefes. The elite have covered up all thing's for so long no one knows what they're capable of.



posted on Sep, 9 2011 @ 03:17 PM
link   
reply to post by Lionhearte
 



How did they come to that conclusion? Why don't you people question that? Why are you such accepting-sheeple?


They know the date of the strata containing the fossil. If they know the date of the strata, then they can confirm the date of the fossil that it is contained within.

The obvious answer would not be carbon dating as that is only useful up to 60,000 years. Uranium-lead dating is the method used for dating dinosaur fossils as it has a range of 1 million years to 4.5 billion years with an error margin of ~0.1%.

Here's a video that explains the age of the earth and several methods that we use to calculate its age, presented in an easy to watch format



Nobody "swears by a theory" because to do so would be unscientific. Scientific theories are created in such a way that they can be falsified.

A good theory is one that is vulnerable to disproof, yet is not disproved. Evolution could so easily be disproved if just a single fossil turned up in the wrong date order. Evolution has passed this test with flying colors. Skeptics of evolution who wish to prove their case should be diligently scrabbling around in the rocks, desperately trying to find anachronistic fossils. Maybe they'll find one. Want a bet?


I don't see how ONE FOSSIL confirms an entire theory


Ahh, but that's where you are wrong. Fossils are not necessary to support the theory of evolution. The evidence for evolution would be entirely secure even if not a single corpse had ever fossilized. It is a bonus that we do actually have rich seams of fossils to mine, and more are discovered every day. The fossil evidence for evolution in many major animal groups is wonderfully strong.

The genetic evidence that supports the theory of evolution is enough to confirm that this is in fact exactly what happened.



posted on Sep, 9 2011 @ 03:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by Griffo
reply to post by ButterCookie
 



According to evolutionists, mankind 'evolved, over a period of about 25 million years, and in anthropologic terms 'arose overnight' into modern man.....


Do you call people who believe in gravity (i.e. everyone) gravitists? Or people who believe in relativity - relitavists? Or even people who believe in cell theory - cellists? [I use believe in this circumstance for lack of a better word. As, believe in these theories or not, they are still true]

"Arose overnight" is probably using geographical terms, in which it actually means many hundreds of thousands of years (or even millions)


" The appearance of modern man a mere 700k years AFTER homo erectus and some 200k years BEFORE Neanderthal man is absolutely implausible".


Does this Sitchen fella go into more detail as to why it is implausible?


Basically, how did the ancestors of modern man appear some some 300k years ago ....instead of 2 or 3 million years into the future, following normal evolutionary development? We should STILL be in caves, lerning how to plant crops and feed ourselves, according to evolution.


Why should we still be living in caves? Homo sapiens means "knowing man"; H. sapiens was smarter than the other hominids that preceded it


Mankind has QUANTUM Leaped the normal evolution process.


YEAH!! Throw some complicated words in to make people think you know what you are talking about, but don't really mean anything.


And, we went from horse and buggy to landing on the moon in 67 years......


And I suppose all of those hard working inventors just sat on their arse's every day of their lives until an alien/Jesus/FSM appeared in their head and told them what to do?


There was obviously intervention...from a more advanced species.




[Citation needed]


When I said 'evolutionists', I was referring to people who believe that HUMANS evolved, on their own, with no intervention whatsoever.

And yes, in anthropological terms, the kind of leap that man was said to have made would be called 'overnight'.

It was too fast.



new topics

top topics



 
44
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join