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.

 

Can you prove evolution wrong?*

page: 71
31
<< 68  69  70    72  73  74 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 13 2011 @ 06:45 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 


So, how did these other species get here, why are there fossils from periods past, and why is it that we have to be intervened on when we look just like a recent ancestor?

There is nothing here that suggests that we are mixed with alien DNA. At best, you might argue that aliens jumped in and taught us agriculture, but that's a stretch too, and it has nothing to do with evolution.




posted on Nov, 13 2011 @ 06:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by MrXYZ

Originally posted by bottleslingguy
reply to post by MrXYZ
 


you and iteration just keep repeating yourselves like a broken record. that's what you get with linear thinking. You both fail to realize the actual physical evidence for the skull corroborates what the dna is telling us.


Of course we keep on repeating it if you continuously ignore the facts


The evidence says the skull is 100% human, and you've repeatedly failed at presenting objective evidence proving otherwise.


the chemical make up alone says clearly it is not human. The morphology says it is not human. The physiology says it's not human. And now the dna say so too. Alien mom and dad with a human egg 900 years ago. It ties in with what the Sumerians were saying as far as genetic tampering. It also corroborates what not only contemporary eyewitness evidence but also native cultures' stories of space people impregnating human women. It all ties in together nice and simply elegant. It accounts for all the "outside the paradigm" subjects in one way or another. It doesn't matter if people like you guys won't or can't believe it. The truth doesn't depend on your acceptance.



posted on Nov, 13 2011 @ 06:59 PM
link   
reply to post by bottleslingguy
 


Is there a single other translator who gathered the same information? It sounds awfully far-fetched.



posted on Nov, 13 2011 @ 07:05 PM
link   
reply to post by bottleslingguy
 


Thank you Bottle, because I was begining to wonder if I was missing something.



posted on Nov, 13 2011 @ 07:33 PM
link   
reply to post by Varemia
 


Now if you want to see something amazing watch a long clip on the trouble he went through to get an accurate test on this skull.

There was a prior test but back then we didn't have the DNA analysis like we do now. It's important to be able to say that unfamilliar base pairs are at leat coherent so that it's not just an error of some type. Does that prove it's alien, well as close as we will ever be able to get to it yes.

Again, untill the day we are able to go to ET's door and say hey man we need a DNA sample to compare you with because we think we found a relative of yours back on earth.

Anyhow here is a link.

www.youtube.com...

There is a better one and I'm looking for it.



posted on Nov, 13 2011 @ 09:04 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 


This still says nothing about evolution. Why won't you address the reason for the diversity of life? It makes no sense for an alien race to intervene with every single species.



posted on Nov, 13 2011 @ 09:08 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 

In one of Pye's emails he mentions a scientist who doesn't want to be named (this is how it works, they know if they contribute their name they will be ostracized and lose funding), but he mentioned information in an earlier paper on genetics and some other interesting anomalies. One of the curious things they found was that when comparing ape chromosomes to human the X chromosome was between 2-3% different and the Y chromosome was more like 20-30%.Everything starts falling into place and it all makes perfect sense. It explains so much



posted on Nov, 13 2011 @ 09:29 PM
link   
reply to post by bottleslingguy
 


Ya your right again. So many people are afraid to fess up to things just because they are afraid of what others will think. The sad part is they are hiding behind the truth.I have even been victim. This one girl I used to work with comes up to me laughing and says " is it true you believe in aliens?"

You know that the government knows about them, but wont admit to anything. And how can they, if they did, it's like they would be admitting to not be in control for what we rely on them for. Which would be emberrasing. Even in that link I posted about FEMA training for visits from ET in chapter 13, at the end of the video the narrator closes by saying its not about if they believe in ET or not, its about preparing for how people would react to a precieved visit. Just a chicken%$#@ way to bow out. This is why we know very little about aliens, we are taught to not even acknowledge there existance.

Aliens go through a lot of trouble to stay invisible. They don't want us onto them, they don't want us to get one up on them and spoil that advantage. As far as Sitchen goes, it really looks like he was at least on the right track. The only debunking I read about was grossly nitpicking. It was stupid and I couldn't believe what I read. Even if he is only 95% accurate, thats still good enough in my book.
edit on 13-11-2011 by itsthetooth because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 14 2011 @ 01:06 AM
link   
This is my opinion. I'm sorry if it offe....... Actually no. I don't care how you take it


I think you have people who don't believe in evolution so need to believe in the bible.

Then there's people who don't believe in evolution and don't believe in the bible. So the only thing they have to turn to is aliens.

But don't feel bad. The explanation of aliens did it is just as useless as the bible so you're not alone

edit on 14-11-2011 by steveknows because: typo



posted on Nov, 14 2011 @ 03:30 AM
link   
reply to post by bottleslingguy
 


You appear to be very accepting of people that drop off info and move on. When I see 'A very credible source with all the info but wants to remain anon.' I agree this is how it works but not for the reason you gave.

Whenever I hear or read this the information is always 100% fake.

Surely scientists that discover breakthoughs get nobel prizes and this would be a whopper. If he is scared of loosing funding over the truth then he is a rubbish scientist.



posted on Nov, 14 2011 @ 04:19 AM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 


Im going to have to start quoting you soon as your posts appear to change before and answer can be given. No reason made for edits.

Lets ignore Pye doing what all opponents of evolution use to say fake by showing a jaw that may have looked correct but it’s his best guess. Of course he then shows an artists view of how it would look which again you slate evolution for.

He claims teeth still waiting to grow. Looking at the deformed skull would there be enough room for a full set of teeth?

The small muscle area for chewing and the lack of a full set of teeth would make me think this poor individual would have to chew longer with less.

'Someone said to me you can show me 10,000 differences and it would not matter.' Who was this someone? Even if he existed was he a scientist? Again not backed up but then a belief system needs none.

DNA. He starts by saying due to age of skull specialists needed to be sourced due to the difficulty of recovering DNA. He then said the MOTHER WAS HUMAN and her mtDNA was easy to identify.

I'm no expert but isn’t it the case that the mtDNA is recoverable long after any other DNA degrades to a point of useless?

Pye ignores what he said to begin with. Ignores what a difficult task it would be to identify the fathers DNA and states after 6 failed tries is proof there is something wrong and alien.

The next section then tries to sound respectable but compares a DNA fragment to known types and does not say there was no match. It states never found on this planet, an outrageously leading statement from someone wanting to be taken seriously.

He then talks about the GNOME being looked for and again without any back up talks about this will be shown to be alien. Some scientist this bloke. He intends to make the evidence fit his ‘facts’ AND HE WANTS YOUR MONEY to carry out the test.

Ends with mumbo jumbo and a rebuff of evolution with an artist’s impression that has evidence and prattles on about his idea that has none.



edit on 14-11-2011 by colin42 because: Spelling



posted on Nov, 14 2011 @ 04:45 AM
link   
reply to post by colin42
 

Darwin doesn't explain the diversity of life with his theories. fossils are the result of the earth being prepared for human habitation. It has been around a long time, & we cannot know the why's & wherefore's because they are not relevant to man as a species. We should only concern ourselves with the problems of our civilization. & there are many. Darwin proved nothing, so why should creationists prove anything? Finches adapted, but they did not change species. They remained finches. There has been no 'missing link' found. If God says we were created, Darwin should not be taken as a superior authority based on a theory.He was only a man. If we evolved, why have we stopped evolving? Why don't chimps or pigs turn into humans? They are genetically very close, it wouldn't take much of a change for that to happen. But they don't. Pigs remain pigs & chimps chimps.... We may mentally, spiritually or emotionally evolve, but the physical doesn't seem to change, which was Darwin's basis for saying we evolve. He was wrong. It was a theory, it has just been accepted as conclusive, but it was never proven, so cannot BE conclusive because it is still a theory. People no longer even try to prove it, because Darwin said it was so & that's it? Hardly a basis for a reasoned analysis.. 'cos he said so', when he is inferior to the one who WOULD know. A human should not contradict what the only superior being we have been given info about, tells us about our presence. Either God tells the truth, or he is a liar. You may want to say God doesn't exist, but can you say that you saw Darwin either? If not, then God & Darwin exist in the same capacity... In books... You accept a man as knowing more than you do, so take what he says as Gospel. would Darwin know from experience that we evolved? He was just guessing... science has not been able to prove him right, It will only ever be a theory... enjoy your quest, peace.



posted on Nov, 14 2011 @ 04:56 AM
link   
reply to post by honestyblaze
 


First. Title change was not mine. I want you to explain the diversity around today without using evolution.

You seem to have a thing for Darwin and to keep quoting him is akin to basing our knowledge of gravity on a falling apple.

Other than that, thank you for your post as it contains ALL the rubbish stated by creationist in one lump and so there is no longer any need to search the thread for all the misconceptions of your group.

I have no need to explain why you are so wrong as it has been done on this thread many times.

So I invite you to explain the diversity we see around us today without refering to evolution.



posted on Nov, 14 2011 @ 06:15 AM
link   
reply to post by colin42
 

not trying to call you names but that is very naive



posted on Nov, 14 2011 @ 06:55 AM
link   
reply to post by honestyblaze
 


Darwin was wrong about his theory, but that's why today's theory of evolution is only founded on Darwin's theories, not using them. If you cite the current theory of evolution, it is not following Darwin's ideas anymore, because Darwin didn't know anything about gene frequency shifts and such.

Please, read Richard Dawkins. He knows his stuff on this subject.



posted on Nov, 14 2011 @ 08:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by bottleslingguy
reply to post by colin42
 

not trying to call you names but that is very naive



Lol thats like saying 'not wanting to sound nasty but'.

So what part is naive. The part where you allow people to drop stuff off with no intention of discussion or the part where a lie is always covered by the phrase 'my source wants to remain ANON?

I know its not, scientists are not scared to provide evidence of the truth because there are too many examples of where they do just that.

Those that dont are not scientists.



posted on Nov, 14 2011 @ 08:35 AM
link   
yes eye can prove it wrong same with creation
but re-con-cile both



posted on Nov, 14 2011 @ 09:27 AM
link   
Funny how Pye isn't willing to disclose his source for over 2 years now, yet he insists the results are legit



posted on Nov, 14 2011 @ 10:43 AM
link   


Text
reply to post by colin42
 





Im going to have to start quoting you soon as your posts appear to change before and answer can be given. No reason made for edits.


Sorry but certain people on here just like to correct me on my spelling.




Lets ignore Pye doing what all opponents of evolution use to say fake by showing a jaw that may have looked correct but it’s his best guess. Of course he then shows an artists view of how it would look which again you slate evolution for.


I don't think its anything new that we have had the technology to reconstruct from partial, and they can even finish it with outer skin to show you what it would have looked like.




He claims teeth still waiting to grow. Looking at the deformed skull would there be enough room for a full set of teeth?
I think you missed the part where they had a seperated piece of upper maxila. This proves that this thing was not human because he's getting a set of adult teeth while he allready has adult teeth, determined by the length of the existing roots.




The small muscle area for chewing and the lack of a full set of teeth would make me think this poor individual would have to chew longer with less.
He's a differernt species so it's probably normal.




'Someone said to me you can show me 10,000 differences and it would not matter.' Who was this someone? Even if he existed was he a scientist? Again not backed up but then a belief system needs none.
If the person offerd so much resistance in determining what the skull is, do you think they would have given permission to repeat there name?




DNA. He starts by saying due to age of skull specialists needed to be sourced due to the difficulty of recovering DNA. He then said the MOTHER WAS HUMAN and her mtDNA was easy to identify.
Yes he did, but I think your getting confused because there are TWO mothers involved in the making.




I'm no expert but isn’t it the case that the mtDNA is recoverable long after any other DNA degrades to a point of useless?
I'm not sure but doesn't matter cause they have both.




Pye ignores what he said to begin with. Ignores what a difficult task it would be to identify the fathers DNA and states after 6 failed tries is proof there is something wrong and alien.
Thats because it was determined by the second lab that there was NO WAY the first could have tested for alien.




The next section then tries to sound respectable but compares a DNA fragment to known types and does not say there was no match. It states never found on this planet, an outrageously leading statement from someone wanting to be taken seriously.
what I remember is some matched, and some didn't.




He then talks about the GNOME being looked for and again without any back up talks about this will be shown to be alien. Some scientist this bloke. He intends to make the evidence fit his ‘facts’ AND HE WANTS YOUR MONEY to carry out the test.
after he was midway into the test, it was easy to tell, yes.




Ends with mumbo jumbo and a rebuff of evolution with an artist’s impression that has evidence and prattles on about his idea that has none.
I'm sorry but I'm not familliar with your lingo.



posted on Nov, 14 2011 @ 11:10 AM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 


Did you even read what you replied to?

Nobody said that using graphics was new. What I said was when evolutionists use it they are called fake

He proved nothing was alien teeth or anything else. Certainly not a different species. Same goes for jaw muscle

The reason why the name of the 'person' who would refuse to look even if 10,000 differences were shown likely only exists in Pye's mind. Until he can produce this person that is the only conclusion. Pye is lying.

I wont labor the point because you seem unable to accept that even Pye says clearly ONE HUMAN MOTHER.

Pye stated geting DNA from something so old would be hard. Then claimed mischief from labs. So Pye again uses his version of the truth which is in plain language deception.

He stated that no matches were found on this planet which is a leading statement to make one think alien and it has worked with you it seems.

What was easy to test with regards the GNOME? He has not found it. He was guessing and requesting funding, from people like you. Why cant he fund it out of the money from one of his books? If he is so sure he will make millions out of his next.

Lingo cleared. He challenges evolution that has overwhelming evidence with nothing and then preaches about his idea which has no evidence at all.

Please read carefully the original questions and then reanswer




top topics



 
31
<< 68  69  70    72  73  74 >>

log in

join