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: 75
31
<< 72  73  74    76  77  78 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 15 2011 @ 10:37 AM
link   
reply to post by colin42
 





Can we put this nonsense to bed as you are not even going to accept what Pye says about a human mother. If we could bring this poor individuals parents back to life and they said they did it I am sure you would say 'not according to Pye and anyhow the parents were both alien.'

This skull is 900 years old. This individual lived around the time of William the Conqueror. The Roman Empire had risen and fallen as had many others.

Even if itsthetruth is correct the skull has nothing to say about the origins of man and the same goes for Pye. In fact if itsthetruth is correct it has nothing to do with man at all.

So again Pye comes under suspicion claiming origins with a skull that has nothing whatever to do with it even if he could show it was not fully human.

EDITED. Another question. Someone posted that the whole skeleton is/was available so why has that not been looked at? I would think there would be major differences there too or do the rest of the bones show the lie?

I have watched 3 videos and have yet to hear about the bones being found.
In all 3, its clear the skull is alien. The fact that it has human mtDNA and alien mother and father proves intervention is still going on, even just 900 years ago.




posted on Nov, 15 2011 @ 10:38 AM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 


Where are these official studys ????????????



posted on Nov, 15 2011 @ 10:44 AM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 


I watched the video YOU linked to. Pye said mtDNA clearly showed a HUMAN MOTHER but hey you have been told this over and over so believe whatever you want.

As I said a 900 year old skull tells us nothing about the origins of man even if you were somehow to be correct. At best it would show a very very poor and clumsy attempt by an alien being to produce a hybrid. A hybrid that would also be pants at mining.

Shame on aliens

EDIT go back one page and read what bottleslingguy wrote. So maybe the 3 videos you watched were not giving you the whole picture
edit on 15-11-2011 by colin42 because: bottleslingguy's Post



posted on Nov, 15 2011 @ 10:48 AM
link   

I don't want be accused of putting words in your mouth.
Why do evolutionist have a problem clearly stating their beliefs ?
Why should I google anything ?
Don't you know the facts in what you believe ?
If my questions are so simple why can't you answer them ?

Dude, go back and read the thread. You already trolled this thread 10-20 pages back and when you were debunked and presented with evidence you ignored it and then disappeared. Go back and respond to those original points, instead of showing up asking the same questions that were already answered. Evolution IS NOT a belief system. This thread is for posting objective evidence to any other theory except evolution. Please post your evidence to explain the diversity of life on earth. If you can't, you are in the wrong thread. There's no reason people should have to post the same stuff over and over again in the same thread because you are too lazy to read it or even check out google. The knowledge is out there. Deny ignorance, don't embrace it.

So far in all 74 pages, not a single person has posted anything close to evidence suggesting any other theory is even possible. Why is this task so difficult if there is really tons of evidence to suggest a creator as people keep implying? People keep spouting broad generalizations about evolution that are easily answered in a quick google search or visiting one of the hundreds of educational links posted in here. Post your evidence, or find another thread to troll. Evolution is the ONLY theory about the diversity of life that is backed by testable, repeatable and evidence that is demonstrable in a lab. If not, show the evidence. Funny every time I ask for it, the poster vanishes or diverts to a different topic.

DUDE A MONKEY NEVER GAVE BIRTH TO A HUMAN!!! I DON'T GET IT!!!



posted on Nov, 15 2011 @ 10:55 AM
link   
reply to post by colin42
 


Well, I am not anti evolution, but I might be convinced if I saw a monkey or ape turn into a human being. I find much more believable proof in the fact that aliens altered DNA to create what we call humans....



posted on Nov, 15 2011 @ 10:57 AM
link   
reply to post by seeker1963
 


First part shows no knowledge of evolution.

Second part. Show your proof



posted on Nov, 15 2011 @ 11:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by seeker1963
reply to post by colin42
 


Well, I am not anti evolution, but I might be convinced if I saw a monkey or ape turn into a human being. I find much more believable proof in the fact that aliens altered DNA to create what we call humans....


That's not how evolution works. Have you ever even looked at a website on evolution? It is a series of small changes times millions of generations. MILLIONS. Numbers! Do you understand them?!



posted on Nov, 15 2011 @ 11:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by MrXYZ
 


Where are these official studys ????????????


I've linked them numerous times (at least 4 times throughout this thread)...you keep ignoring them



posted on Nov, 15 2011 @ 11:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by OLD HIPPY DUDE
reply to post by MrXYZ
 


I don't want be accused of putting words in your mouth.
Why do evolutionist have a problem clearly stating their beliefs ?
Why should I google anything ?
Don't you know the facts in what you believe ?
If my questions are so simple why can't you answer them ?


What do you mean with not clearly stating their beliefs? I clearly sourced everything I posted, including links that highlight how those alien/creationist guys are wrong.

No one's forcing you to google anything, but if you want to learn, that's a pretty good way to go about it. And I don't need belief if I have objective evidence as backup


PS: I did answer your questions



posted on Nov, 15 2011 @ 05:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by micmerci
I have a question for the pro evolutionist. I think that mathematically speaking, the population of the earth would be far greater than 7 billion if man has been here reproducing as long as the theory of evolution claims we have. Can someone validate/refute this mathematically?

This one is extremely easy to refute...
It's called a massive increase in our technology in the past 200 years, clean water is just one of those important technologies, which has led to a drastic drop-off of deaths, while the birthrate hasn't changed.



posted on Nov, 15 2011 @ 07:06 PM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 





If you actively apply something it can't be wrong anymore. So if the theory's being used to develop medicine that works, then the theory's correct


I don't think thats always true, relegion is applied.




Because your school obviously failed at teaching you basic biology and geology
Then you must have gone to the school of hard knocks.




You can watch his videos a million times, it won't change the fact that his study hasn't been published and he's merely making random claims that have been shown to be untrue by official studies


Well I think he is still trying to lean as much as he can before he publishes.
One thing is for sure, one mother was human, the other was alien and the father was alien.



posted on Nov, 15 2011 @ 07:10 PM
link   
reply to post by colin42
 





I watched the video YOU linked to. Pye said mtDNA clearly showed a HUMAN MOTHER but hey you have been told this over and over so believe whatever you want
It would appear that you have no clue what a zygote is and how it requires 2 non related mothers to happen.

We know one mother was human, its the other mother thats not, this is what proves intervention.



posted on Nov, 15 2011 @ 08:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
It would appear that you have no clue what a zygote is and how it requires 2 non related mothers to happen.

We know one mother was human, its the other mother thats not, this is what proves intervention.



You appear to be in a primary misunderstanding. I zygote is simply a mother's egg. It is nothing more, especially not a case of two mothers.

Read this about implanting a zygote in another's womb. It results in the carrying mother having no genetic relation to the child she bears:

Google Book Result

The mother was human, because the mtDNA was human. There is no evidence for a second mother. You might argue that the father was non-human, but the supplication of the Y chromosome cancels that out, doesn't it? Or do aliens now have X and Y chromosomes too?



posted on Nov, 15 2011 @ 09:54 PM
link   
reply to post by Varemia
 





You appear to be in a primary misunderstanding. I zygote is simply a mother's egg. It is nothing more, especially not a case of two mothers.

Read this about implanting a zygote in another's womb. It results in the carrying mother having no genetic relation to the child she bears:
Yes but the child will have the mtDNA of the surrogate.




The mother was human, because the mtDNA was human. There is no evidence for a second mother. You might argue that the father was non-human, but the supplication of the Y chromosome cancels that out, doesn't it? Or do aliens now have X and Y chromosomes too?
No two aliens planted there baby into a human. The baby will have human mtDNA.



posted on Nov, 16 2011 @ 02:08 AM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 


Sheesh Man!

When a child is born premature and spends months in an incubator its mtDNA does not contain machine language.

A sarogot acts as the incubator and adds nothing to the child being carried.

A man recently carried a child to term when his wife could not. The child will not carry male mtDNA.

If you are maintaining Pye is saying this, which I never saw from the video YOU linked to then he is an even bigger fake than I already believed.

You know I applaud your out of the box thinking but it comes with a price. When your wrong and you will be you need to accept it, learn from it and move on. Otherwise its not thinking at all



posted on Nov, 16 2011 @ 05:25 AM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 





I don't think thats always true, relegion is applied.


The Jihadists or that crazy evangelical Koran burner would agree...doesn't change the fact that the application lacks logic, rationality, or objective evidence





Then you must have gone to the school of hard knocks.


Not at all...I just prefer facts over fairytales





Well I think he is still trying to lean as much as he can before he publishes. One thing is for sure, one mother was human, the other was alien and the father was alien.


Nope, unless he presents us objective evidence and facts he's just speculating (and demonstrably wrong if you consider the official published studies) and pretty much acting like the crazy guy on Times Square telling people to repent because the "world is coming to an end"


You don't seem to understand what fact or objective evidence mean


And just to be perfectly clear, if male alien sperm fertilizes an alien egg, and that egg is then implaned in a human surrogate...then THERE WON'T BE ANY HUMAN DNA IN THE BABY!!! You are talking out of your ass and clearly don't know anything about medicine and biology...which isn't surprising if you get your "information" from pseudo-scientists like Pye





Yes but the child will have the mtDNA of the surrogate.


No it won't

edit on 16-11-2011 by MrXYZ because: (no reason given)

edit on 16-11-2011 by MrXYZ because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 16 2011 @ 05:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
Yes but the child will have the mtDNA of the surrogate.


What part of "no genetic relation" is too complicated for you to understand?

The surrogate mother does not contribute ANY genetic code to the child. All she does is take care of its growth, as if it were a symbiote she was raising. The only reason that babies usually share genetic code with their mother is because the mother contributed the egg.



posted on Nov, 16 2011 @ 06:19 AM
link   
reply to post by BagBing
 

what is untrue, that the Sumerians mention it or that it happened?



posted on Nov, 16 2011 @ 06:22 AM
link   
reply to post by Varemia
 

with mitochondrial disease they remove the mother's mtdna and use the surrogate's mtdna so the child essentially has three parents. The surrogate egg is just carrying the nuclear dna of the actual parents and the child will look like the parents but have the mitochondrial dna of the surrogate.



posted on Nov, 16 2011 @ 06:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by MrXYZAnd just to be perfectly clear, if male alien sperm fertilizes an alien egg, and that egg is then implaned in a human surrogate...then THERE WON'T BE ANY HUMAN DNA IN THE BABY!!! You are talking out of your ass and clearly don't know anything about medicine and biology...which isn't surprising if you get your "information" from pseudo-scientists like Pye


actually you are talking out your ass and flying by the seat of your pants

www.wired.com...



new topics

top topics



 
31
<< 72  73  74    76  77  78 >>

log in

join