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: 4
44
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 9 2011 @ 03:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by Freedom_is_Slavery


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



The same thing we said with all the other hundreds of perported missing links in the past that were shot down :

macsmind.com...




posted on Sep, 9 2011 @ 03:20 PM
link   
But, hey, if you still want to believe your uncle is a monkey that's your business...



posted on Sep, 9 2011 @ 03:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nicolas Flamel
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.


I will not 'google' "Sitchin is Wrong". Lol. Because some people would love to debunk him and have wrote articles, does NOTHING to prove he is wrong.

And the reason that Sitchin is 'unpopular' in the scientific community is because most scientists are, or strive to be, mainstream. Any ideology that goes 'against the grain' won't be accepted by a mainstream community, whether its factual or not.

Most scientists and especially evolutionists are extremely arrogant about the human species; unwilling to accept 'higher' civilizations (gods/aliens) and therefore ignore any notion of advanced intervention.

They'd rather accept that humans are at the top of the ladder, most intelligent, and the center of the universe.

But we are not.



posted on Sep, 9 2011 @ 03:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Essan

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.




Exactly!!! And in just 67 years.....

We have quantum leaped the evolutionary process.

We ourselves are evidence of intervention by an advanced species



posted on Sep, 9 2011 @ 03:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by Freedom_is_Slavery
reply to post by Freedom_is_Slavery
 


Here are a few more pics for people interested


The skull of Australopithecus sediba may unlock secrets to human evolution. Picture: Brett Eloff, courtesy of Lee Berger and the University of Witwatersrand


Lee Berger with his son, Matthew, and fossils of Australopithecus sediba. Matthew found one of the fossils while chasing his dog.


Dr. Berger held a cast of the hand of the fossilized skeleton, with human and ape features, in Johannesburg on Thursday.



Too funny

The ape head has a cross engraved on the bridge of it's nose


Ah yea, missing link

edit on 9-9-2011 by Violater1 because: wrong image

edit on 9-9-2011 by Violater1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 9 2011 @ 03:27 PM
link   
reply to post by ButterCookie
 



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


Yes, I know what you meant by the term evolutionist. I was just having a bit of fun


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

It was too fast.


Why would it be too fast? What part of our evolutionary time scale would you say that has moved too fast?



posted on Sep, 9 2011 @ 03:28 PM
link   
reply to post by Violater1
 



The ape head has a cross engraved on the above the bridge of it's nose


It looks like one of the shapes off Tetris to me (inverted obviously)




Also, inb4 the laminin molecule gets posted
edit on 9/9/2011 by Griffo because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 9 2011 @ 03:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by Griffo
reply to post by Violater1
 



The ape head has a cross engraved on the above the bridge of it's nose


It looks like one of the shapes off Tetris to me (inverted obviously)



edit on 9/9/2011 by Griffo because: (no reason given)


Here is the image that your link displays.


Here is the monkey head.

Om my Goodness!!

The similarities are astounding!

Really

Really !



posted on Sep, 9 2011 @ 03:41 PM
link   
Here it is....

The absolute point that should stop the religous crowd from talking about this anymore.....


If you cant prove the science of evolution because carbon dating is flawed and pieces of the puzzle are missing...
then how can you believe the Religous/one creator/devine inteligence argument as it has too date shown no verifiable proof that any part of it at all is remotley true??

They do these arguments ever occur.. i mean its always... ignore the main body of evidence for anything... but pick on one particular section as.. its not 100% certain so the whole argument is wrong...

Why would a god/creator make these hundereds of variaing species of upright mamal type creatures then kill them all and not mention them ever when covering the history of the world when talking to the people asked to write this down in scripture?? we have found many bones of slightly similar creatures to us but there has been no mention ever of these creatures in sacred texts... why???


As i said you cannot come into a thread like this and claim the science behind the find is wrong and then spout some wacko theory about god when there is no evidence to back that up either...

you have at no point in this (or any) argument on ATS said this is your belief or this is your thoughts you have staed science is wrong because.... (insert sadistic all powerful super wizard story here)

End Rant



Just my thoughts.



posted on Sep, 9 2011 @ 03:42 PM
link   
reply to post by Violater1
 


See, like I said - inverted



edit on 9/9/2011 by Griffo because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 9 2011 @ 03:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by GonzoSinister
No this is untrue....

do some people really not understand how this works?

if you follow the course of evolution there were very few large mamls compeating for meat eating at the same time of us, we took to standing upright quite quickly which gave us many advantages that other animals dont have, because we were able to use smaller less comploexed tools early on we had advantages.. because of the way our "herds" evolved to communicate with each other we had an advantage.. these three small(ish) factors combinded together to allow us to progress in the relativley quick way we have, after having tools though we were nto fighting for domination of resources as we could at that point kill anything that caused us problems, after creation (or harnessing) fire and spears no animal could kill our young.. we were able to boom in a short period of time in population with no predators to be worried about...

this allowed us to become what we are...


as i siad, we diversified, then bred together and became mongrels...

Lizards and mamals have fetures that meant evolutionary paths are different,

Atmospheric conditions, weather, tempeture and natural predators allowed dinosaurs to become large, and to have smaller numebrs of lots of slightly varied species...


ALl our species bred together.. no competition, just working together to create one super species... the varients that couldnt/wouldnt breed died out... all the other varients were bred out!


Why do people have so much problem with this...

Dogs/Cats/birds/fish... we have seem similar evolution to a point through forced breeding with them.

The reaosn no other species progresses is natural predators.. the line that always stops with us now, as we haveclub/knife/sword/gun.

Just my thoughts


The end result of evolution is therefore ManBearPig and ManBearPig-Made Global Warming Climate Change descended from "Aliens" from Sirius B, who had infact merely deported all their worthless advertising agents, secretaries, and fashion designers. All of whom were led by a lazy Captain who would not even get out of his bathtub!


(Love Hitchiker's Guide)

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



posted on Sep, 9 2011 @ 03:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by Griffo
reply to post by ButterCookie
 



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


Yes, I know what you meant by the term evolutionist. I was just having a bit of fun


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

It was too fast.


Why would it be too fast? What part of our evolutionary time scale would you say that has moved too fast?



No worries


Basically, Homo Sapiens (Modern Man) appeared in Southeast Africa some 300k years ago (overnight in anthropological terms), when the evolutionary advances from apes to hominids AND from hominid species from Australopithecus to Homo Habilis, from Homo Habilis to Homo Erectus EACH took millions upon millions of years.

It looks like this:

evolution into Australopithecus....5 million years ago

Australopithecus - evolution to Sahelanthropus tchadenis.........3 million years ago

Sahelanthropus tchadenis - evolution to Homo Habilis........ 2 million years ago

Homo Habilis - evolution homo Erectus.......1 million years ago

Homo Erectus- evolution to Neanderthal......100k years ago

(Poof!! Gone!!! Extinct)

then....PRESTO!!!

Neanderthal - evolution to Human.....80k years ago (??)

Present day civilization......6k years ago (???)



posted on Sep, 9 2011 @ 03:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by TupacShakur
reply to post by Lionhearte
 
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?
I'm not arguing that, in fact that's what I love about theories so much, I wasn't being sarcastic when I said that.


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.
I should have been more clear. I'm referring to several other posts in this thread which act like this one "missing link" confirms everything. And by several dozen, I'm referring to each "species" that they find, not all together. That would be preposterous.


And as noted above, carbon dating is not the only method used.
And as mentioned in my other posts, it does not matter which method is used when it's based off assumptions.


.......So how old do you think the earth/universe is?

6,000 years.


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.
Thank you, I actually expected this kind of response. The "need" for God. Christians didn't believe the earth was flat or that a lunar-eclipse was a dragon eating the sun. I don't know where you got that from, not now, and not thousands of years ago. I also don't understand this whole problem of "Christians crediting everything to God". I hear this argument all the time - when Christians don't understand how something works, they say God did it! Well, never fear, science is here to explain how it all works without God.

...except that's not how it works. Sure, Christians will say that, even when they genuinely don't know something. However, if you were to ask me, how Quantum physics worked, I'd say 'I don't know'. However, if you asked how does a cellphone work, well I would tell you in detail about it all.

Now, my point? Christians credit God to everything. Just because we say "God did it!" doesn't mean it's magic. It pisses me off that this is such an issue, actually. Sure, God -did- do it, based on our beliefs, but that applies to the big and small things.


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 that they put blind faith in. There is proof of evolution, there isn't proof of creationism.
That wasn't meant to be taken literally. By definition, of course it isn't. However, it's still something people hold onto, and don't question it as much as they should. Accepting things as they are without questioning.. It's not right.

And 'Religion' isn't a book.
edit on 9-9-2011 by Lionhearte because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 9 2011 @ 04:03 PM
link   
The Missing Link enigma derives from the fact that NO trace of Homo Sapiens (modern man) can be found beyond 80-100 years ago. As if modern man just "Poof - Presto", appeared from nowhere amidst a thousand shards of stardust.

Science can only conclude until evidence says otherwise, that homo sapiens did not exist until at least 100k years ago which is a scientific "evolutionary" impossibility.

REALLY, BOTH creationists and evolutionists are half correct:

Mankind was a result of evolution, but NOT evolution alone. The creatures that our ancestors came from did evolve, but not modern man.

Their were GODS that 'created' mankind....those 'gods' are what we'd today call 'extraterrestrials, or aliens.
They did so through genetic engineering.



posted on Sep, 9 2011 @ 04:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by Griffo
reply to post by Violater1
 


See, like I said - inverted



edit on 9/9/2011 by Griffo because: (no reason given)



See, like I said- A Cross.




posted on Sep, 9 2011 @ 04:09 PM
link   
reply to post by Lionhearte
 



I should have been more clear. I'm referring to several other posts in this thread which act like this one "missing link" confirms everything. And by several dozen, I'm referring to each "species" that they find, not all together. That would be preposterous.
When something dies, it's bones do not turn to fossils. I'm no paleontologist, but I know that fossilization is a rare occurence.


And as mentioned in my other posts, it does not matter which method is used when it's based off assumptions.
What assumptions? Let me again refer you to this article:

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



6,000 years.
I'm really sorry to hear that. I could go on and on about all of the different things that prove that it's MUCH older than that, but clearly your mind is made up.
:bnghd:


Thank you, I actually expected this kind of response. The "need" for God. Christians didn't believe the earth was flat or that a lunar-eclipse was a dragon eating the sun. I don't know where you got that from, not now, and not thousands of years ago.
.....I wasn't referring to Christians, I was referring to humanity as a whole. At a time, the majority of people believed the earth was flat. The Chinese used to think a lunar eclipse was caused by a dragon eating the sun. My point was that people have a need to explain things, but those half-assed explanations have been replaced by legitimate ones. However, creationism is an example of a half-assed explanation that's survived along with religion.

Why do I say it's half-assed? Because there is no evidence, it's completely unrealistic, and it's contradicted by tons of evidence. Evidence that backs up evolution.


I also don't understand this whole problem of "Christians crediting everything to God". I hear this argument all the time - when Christians don't understand how something works, they say God did it! Well, never fear, science is here to explain how it all works without God.

...except that's not how it works. Sure, Christians will say that, even when they genuinely don't know something. However, if you were to ask me, how Quantum physics worked, I'd say 'I don't know'. However, if you asked how does a cellphone work, well I would tell you in detail about it all.

Now, my point? Christians credit God to everything. Just because we say "God did it!" doesn't mean it's magic. It pisses me off that this is such an issue, actually. Sure, God -did- do it, based on our beliefs, but that applies to the big and small things.
....I'm confused, so are you saying that god is responsible for everything, or is he not?


That wasn't meant to be taken literally. By definition, of course it isn't. However, it's still something people hold onto, and don't question it as much as they should. Accepting things as they are without questioning.. It's not right.
People don't accept it without question, that's why scientists work to refine theories. So far it's held up to questioning (at least scientific questioning), so it's the best explanation we currently have.


And 'Religion' isn't a book.
It's taken from a book, but whatever.
edit on 9-9-2011 by TupacShakur because: To edit my post



posted on Sep, 9 2011 @ 04:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by TupacShakur
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.

Yea. I'll definitely read it. However, just reading the first part, referring to "religious fundamentalists", a problem arises when it's listing the reasons. Obviously, yes, it cannot be denied that there are millions of fossils around the world, that's child's play, why would they even list that as a reason? Second, skeptics believe that all fossils are the same age:

It mentions a catastrophe. Mocking Noah's flood, yet I'm pretty sure I learned about Dinosaurs being killed off by a meteor 65 million years ago, or whatever. Seems contradictory to be mocking Christians when they both share a similar belief in that a catastrophe wiped them all out. Anyways, I imagine you are familiar with fossilization, and how a fossil must be rapidly buried to be preserved. That's elementary. And, as a note, taking the Biblical account of the Flood into consideration, it does not contradict this fact. The rest of that segment is just him mocking Christians, so no point going into that.

The third one, obviously, is still making assumptions, indirectly, as is the whole article from what I can tell. The assumptions I already mentioned.


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?


Scare me? Really?

You're not getting my point here, I already said this.. It's not the science that I disagree with, it's the methods. It doesn't even have anything to do with Religion, it's about using logic. Using common sense. When something doesn't add up correctly, odds are, it's wrong. And there are a lot of things "wrong" with the methods used.

And you're exactly right, it doesn't disprove my beliefs. There's nothing "contradictory" about it - except for the numbers. As I said earlier, think about it. If the numbers were say, in the thousands, it would be a perfect fit, no?

I don't claim to know everything. Maybe God did use Evolution, maybe he used the Big Bang. It doesn't matter, necessarily. The main issue I'm having is the methods used.

I'll have to get back to this thread later. I'm going 40 hours of no sleep. I tend to half-ass my arguments when tired, so I'm probably not even making sense at this point.. but I think I got my point across.
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 @ 04:30 PM
link   
reply to post by Lionhearte
 



Yea. I'll definitely read it. However, just reading the first part, referring to "religious fundamentalists", a problem arises when it's listing the reasons. Obviously, yes, it cannot be denied that there are millions of fossils around the world, that's child's play, why would they even list that as a reason?
....Because those millions of fossils are used to back up evolution.


It mentions a catastrophe. Mocking Noah's flood, yet I'm pretty sure I learned about Dinosaurs being killed off by a meteor 65 million years ago, or whatever. Seems contradictory to be mocking Christians when they both share a similar belief in that a catastrophe wiped them all out.
Biiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiig difference, the mass extinction is backed up by evidence. Undeniable evidence at that. The Chicxulub crater: evidence of a meteor impact that would have enough energy to cause a mass extinction.


Anyways, I imagine you are familiar with fossilization, and how a fossil must be rapidly buried to be preserved. That's elementary. And, as a note, taking the Biblical account of the Flood into consideration, it does not contradict this fact. The rest of that segment is just him mocking Christians, so no point going into that.
OK, then where are all of the fossils of modern day man?


Scare me? Really?
Yes, I would imagine the idea that ones religion is false and there is really no god would scare somebody, and that would also explain why only religious people oppose evolution.


You're not getting my point here, I already said this.. It's not the science that I disagree with, it's the methods. It doesn't even have anything to do with Religion, it's about using logic. Using common sense. When something doesn't add up correctly, odds are, it's wrong. And there are a lot of things "wrong" with the methods used.
Yes because logic and common sense definitely points towards creationism.....
:shk: It has everything to do with religion, that's where creationism comes from.


And you're exactly right, it doesn't disprove my beliefs. There's nothing "contradictory" about it - except for the numbers. As I said earlier, think about it. If the numbers were say, in the thousands, it would be a perfect fit, no?
That's the thing though, the earth isn't 6000 years old, and there are dozens of things that prove this, so your "theory" comes crumbling down.


I don't claim to know everything. Maybe God did use Evolution, maybe he used the Big Bang. It doesn't matter, necessarily. The main issue I'm having is the methods used.
The methods that are extremely accurate? The methods might not be 100% precise, they're 99% accurate, so what? At least there is a method to back up evolution! Even if it was only 50% accurate it would still be something!

What's the method to back up creationism? Constant denial, and an outrageously unrealistic story taken from an old book. I'll stick to science, you can go ahead and believe whatever you want. What bothers me is when people push religion as fact, when it's obviously not no matter how strongly you believe it is.

At the end of the day, evolution is a practical scientific theory backed up by tons of evidence, this fossil being one of many, and creationism is an unrealistic fairy-tale with absolutely no evidence backing it.
edit on 9-9-2011 by TupacShakur because: To edi tmy post



posted on Sep, 9 2011 @ 04:50 PM
link   
reply to post by Violater1
 


On second thoughts, it looks like a sword to me; or even the caduceus



posted on Sep, 9 2011 @ 05:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Heartisblack

Originally posted by StripedBandit

Originally posted by Freedom_is_Slavery


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



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


Very interesting post, but is it the Definitive missing link? Or one of many?

S&F OP Great Post.
edit on 9-9-2011 by StripedBandit because: (no reason given)

Okay.............
every few years they pull this #. Half of us don't even believe in evolution anyway, it's either god, aliens, buddha or the lion from narnia that created us.


Ever wonder about Maslan Othman.. speaking of Narnia and Aliens...

-M
Aslan

+M
Othman

Aslan Mothman

= creator god from narnia, whom nobody believes in until he returns to set things right at the end + a malicious alien sighting in rural american in the 60s...

www.unis.unvienna.org...




top topics



 
44
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join