The nail in the Evolutionary Coffin, the final spike placed there by the Royal Society itself.

page: 4
34
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 4 2012 @ 06:13 AM
link   
Inter-cultural differences in facial structure can most likely be attributed to variations in diet.




posted on Mar, 4 2012 @ 06:15 AM
link   
reply to post by Rocketman7
 


If I post a picture of a random man/woman and ask you if you recognize the picture you would answer yes then? You would be lying unless I randomly happen to pick out someone you actually do know. Otherwise it's just a generic human face.
Also if your argument is true then you would have no trouble finding and posting a picture of let's say 2 or more monkeys who all have the same face? Challenge accepted?



posted on Mar, 4 2012 @ 06:15 AM
link   

Your claim that the faces are the same is dead wrong. You are completely wrong.

So when are you going to stop flogging this dead horse and tell us about this Peruvian skull claim of yours.


I asked once and now I ask again, where is this Peruvian claim of yours or are you already conceding defeat after I showed your face claim was hogwash and your footprints in Mexico was hogwash?



posted on Mar, 4 2012 @ 06:25 AM
link   
For those that want a quick synopsis of the points refuting 1 and 3 here are some links to check out.

1. Links that show primates can tell each other apart by recognizing each other's faces and software can do the same:

www.sciencedaily.com...
www.virtualworldlets.net...
www.sciencedaily.com...

3. The Mexican footprints are not hominid footprints after all. These 3 articles cover the events from 2003 to 2010.

www.usatoday.com...
news.nationalgeographic.com...
www.archaeologydaily.com...

That leaves us with the incredibly silly claim number 2, which I will slam apart as soon as the OP provides some links. So far no effort has been made to substantiate anything at all concerning 2.



posted on Mar, 4 2012 @ 06:38 AM
link   
reply to post by Rocketman7
 


so where are the valid arguments?
i hope you don't mind I stopped after reading the first argument:



Arg 1)
Why do humans all have different faces when no other form of life has different faces including apes?


did you ever spend 5 minutes observing faces of apes?
maybe you should. It should prevent you from coming up with a very silly argument.



posted on Mar, 4 2012 @ 06:43 AM
link   
While I wait for wacko claim number 2 to be substantiated I thought it might be interesting to ponder where wacko claim number 1 came from and why would anyone believe something so obviously false.

1. Maybe the OP is simply parroting something that caught their fancy instead of doing a minor amount of research
2. Maybe they never heard "no two snowflakes are the same"
3. Maybe they thought that "all animals face the same way", i.e. into the wind, meant they all had the face
4. Maybe they have no experience with animals other than on a computer screen
5. Maybe they saw the following photo and made an incorrect extrapolation.

The bottom picture is a composite of the upper two. Uncanny how people can look the same.



posted on Mar, 4 2012 @ 08:45 AM
link   
reply to post by NeverSleepingEyes
 


Classic case of " they all look the same to me". Anyone who works with the same animals on a regular basis can recognise individual animals by face.

I've even heard certain human races say this of other races they are not too familiar with, or don't like.

Arg 1 is founded on ignorance



posted on Mar, 4 2012 @ 08:56 AM
link   
Oddly I am on the same page on much of this as you are. But if this is put out there to support some religious belief it also fails. Evolution is fact, it happens and it can be modified by others. Has it been, most likely, but that still does not discount the basic premise of evolution. I have looked at the viable genes used by humans and of course it is not in keeping with the balance we see in nature. Therefore it looks like modifications were made and may be again in the future or right now as we speak. Good science, is open to modification as new things are discovered and learned.

I taught biology and fine arts. I was always in hot water for two things in biology. One the tards from churches disclaiming all evolution while at the same time, me putting out there the same anomalies you are mentioning here. Seems contradictory but is not. There are many possibilities in our long history and that history could have been repeated many times and was.



posted on Mar, 4 2012 @ 09:10 AM
link   
The concept of evolution is wrong. Darwin got it backwards, we did not evolve from monkeys. We are devolving into monkeys. Humans are growing smaller and smaller in stature and losing their robustness and strength. We are getting weaker and weaker even faster by technology. If technology failed and the world went bellyup most people would die from the summer heat because they cannot live without air conditioning when we used to be able to get along just fine without it for thousands of years.

Adam, the first Man was genetically superior to "modern man" in everyway, he was taller, stronger, faster and wiser and he lived to see Enoch grow into a man and become a mighty prophet-king. Adam lived for 930 years and as Sin and time began to take it's toll on the human genome mankind began to degenerate and live shorter and shorter years. Moral depravity became common and homosexuality and breeding with the fallen angels created genetic monsters like the giant Nephilim hybrids that waged war on man and ate us like food when we could no longer sustain them with crops.

In essence, modern man are the degenerates. Were devolving into monkeys and our aggression and territorialism are both signs of it. It's not Evolution, it is Devolution.



posted on Mar, 4 2012 @ 09:30 AM
link   
reply to post by lonewolf19792000
 



Adam, the first Man was genetically superior to "modern man" in everyway, he was taller, stronger, faster and wiser and he lived to see Enoch grow into a man and become a mighty prophet-king. Adam lived for 930 years and as Sin and time began to take it's toll on the human genome mankind began to degenerate and live shorter and shorter years. Moral depravity became common and homosexuality and breeding with the fallen angels created genetic monsters like the giant Nephilim hybrids that waged war on man and ate us like food when we could no longer sustain them with crops.

This is just a Bronze Age myth being touted as some sort of history. It's not. There is no evidence today that people are living shorter and shorter years. The opposite is true. People are living longer.


In essence, modern man are the degenerates. Were devolving into monkeys and our aggression and territorialism are both signs of it. It's not Evolution, it is Devolution.

That's false. There is no such thing as devolution. That is a failed ploy on the part of the creationists to claim there is a goal to evolution. Just as this failed claim of humans trending towards monkeys. First, off we are related to apes, not monkeys. Secondly, evolution is not goal oriented. Finally, aggression and territorialism are not traits restricted to primates.



posted on Mar, 4 2012 @ 09:43 AM
link   
So where is anything supporting claim 2 about the Peruvian skull?

Why would anyone flag this thread since it is so patently false? Time for people to do the right thing and unflag the thread.



posted on Mar, 4 2012 @ 09:48 AM
link   
1) not true, I believe animals do have different variations of facial features.
2) because they are not human, but a retarded version of man due to breading of human and non human species
3) the dating methods used by modern science are complete hogwash.

I do not believe humans evolved from non human species. Darwin himself stated before his death that he believed the same thing. If you need any other questions answered just give me a holler.



posted on Mar, 4 2012 @ 09:55 AM
link   
reply to post by yamammasamonkey
 



2) because they are not human, but a retarded version of man due to breading of human and non human species
3) the dating methods used by modern science are complete hogwash.

I do not believe humans evolved from non human species. Darwin himself stated before his death that he believed the same thing. If you need any other questions answered just give me a holler.

2. These are human in part. Some of these are fakes using some human bones.
3. Dating methods can be very accurate and precise. The conditions under which these work and don't work is well understood.

Please provide a reference for your Darwin claim.



posted on Mar, 4 2012 @ 09:57 AM
link   
Regardless of how old these footprints are I would certainly not rely on any BBC reporter Scientific or otherwise
they appear to lie on a constant basis and twist the evidence to suit thier agendas.



posted on Mar, 4 2012 @ 10:20 AM
link   
Cats have different faces depending on if they're siamese or abyssinian or just a regular domestic. And dogs have different faces. What are you talking about?



posted on Mar, 4 2012 @ 10:20 AM
link   
reply to post by Rocketman7
 


What are you talking about? Did you bother looking at any animals before typing this? Animal faces have tons of personality. I have seen Ape documentaries where they look positively human. You need to refine your researching technique, my friend. No offense, but when you can be debunked by a guy that has more than one cat, you need to reevaluate.



posted on Mar, 4 2012 @ 10:35 AM
link   
reply to post by Rocketman7
 


ARG #1 : dogs are the most varied species on the planet with more different physical forms than any other species. Thus they have different faces as do apes and all other mammals. We are hardwired to recognize Human faces but any close examination will show animals as unique as humans in body and facial features.

ARG #2 : has any DNA work been done on the oddly deformed skulls? until then all is just speculation.

ARG #3 : well I am tired of typing but you, I hope, see that there are some very strong arguments against your premises



posted on Mar, 4 2012 @ 10:48 AM
link   
To the OP.

In many aspects you are not correct.

Point A: not Valid.

Point B: Incorrect - Wrong Assumption but valid. Dating incorrect. Its not 1.3 Million years old. Little less.

Point C: Incorrect - Wrong Assumption

But ... between the 1.3 million (less) years and the Mexican Skulls you have a huge gap don't you ?

The questions you could be asking yourself:

- Why the footprints are on Lava "displaying footprints IN LAVA discovered in central Mexico of modern man"
(Not preserved by lava)

- When can you make footprints in Lava ROCK
"The lava was also examined as to whether or not it was sediment, or fresh when the footprints were placed in it, and it was determined that the grains were magnetically aligned, hence the prints were placed while the lava was fresh, at the time of the volcanic eruption"

- What was happening 1.3 (less) million years ago.

- Why Charles Darwin - Isaac Newton - John Herschel are all in Westminster Abbey.

edit on 4-3-2012 by Lastone because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 4 2012 @ 11:07 AM
link   
One of the worst threads I have even been stupid enough to read though. Animals have different faces, weather its by color patterns or whatever. All faces are different that is an undisputable fact.

I believe in god and the existence of aliens but I know we probably know very little of our actual origins. I also believe god to be more intelligent and more complex than we are capable of even understanding so I have a hard time believing scriptures as literal translations.

This OP was just plain bunk and I want my 5 minutes back!



posted on Mar, 4 2012 @ 11:12 AM
link   
A million good arguments yay or nay. But still no actual evidence of either... The only other thing as highly disputed without any evidence to either side would be the existence of god. think its a coincidence? its not. It takes a special type of person to beleive in something so much with no real evidence it exists, oh wait, isnt that also the deffenition of ignorance? it is.





new topics
top topics
 
34
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join