Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

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

page: 5
34
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 4 2012 @ 11:16 AM
link   
reply to post by Rocketman7
 


According to your bible humans have only been around for just a few thousand years...so shouldn't we be asking you how you account for a footprint over a million years old?

As far your argument about human faces, the human genome has been undeniably traced back to africa. Simply look at the human genome project presented by national geographic. Every person on the face of the planet has evolved how they are and what they look like now from these original genomes. This is an undeniable fact of evolution in practice. If not then yes, we'd all be looking exactly the same. The body adapts to the enviroment the person is living in, the same way the same species of bird will look radically different in seperate parts of the world.

I'm still finding it hard to understand how the elongated skulls have any bearing what so ever on your arguement. Please explain how that has anything to do with your claim that evolution is false...for that matter, please explain how any of this brought you to that conclusion.




posted on Mar, 4 2012 @ 11:30 AM
link   
reply to post by mutatismutandis
 
All over the world we have discovered skeletons of our pre-modern human ancestors that are a couple of million years old and they were obviously within a continuously developing evolutionary state and somewhere along the way some of those ancient prehistoric people heard strange sounds,looked up and saw flying saucers descending from the sky and those alien beings became their gods who genetically manipulated them into the modern humans we are today and if there is a still missing link,it is an alien link...
edit on 4-3-2012 by blocula because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 4 2012 @ 11:42 AM
link   
reply to post by blocula
 


I'm not arguing there isn't the possibility our evolution has been tampered with by outside influences, its certainly a possibility. But the OP was arguing that evolution was false all together, which the evidence presented did not show.

*added in hindsite: if it were true aliens altered dna, isn't that in its self a form of forced evolution? Evolution states the body changes due to outside influences...id say alien dna experiments would qualify as a pretty big outside influence, wouldn't you?...
edit on 4-3-2012 by mutatismutandis because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 4 2012 @ 11:46 AM
link   
The real question is why are some people so threatened by evolution?

I think the answer is that it undermines their self serving belief system that the world was "created" just for us to destroy and exploit.

That and they are afraid they'll be left behind if the human race evolves (culturally I mean).



posted on Mar, 4 2012 @ 11:53 AM
link   
The fact of the matter is, we don't have a clue as to how we got here, how life started, when it began or when any of this or us from this whole thing started. We like to think we know, but we don't. The universe, the Earth, and humanity, is eons and eons older than what we know and are told. The universe has always been here and will always be here as a whole, going through endless cycles of time. Therefore, it is impossible to affix a time for which it arose, because it has always been and will always be.



posted on Mar, 4 2012 @ 11:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by Rocketman7

Originally posted by dbarnhart

Originally posted by Rocketman7
Why do humans all have different faces when no other form of life has different faces including apes?


Consider that each species may be sensitive to facial differences only in its own species.



Thats not even close to any sort of scientific argument.

Since that argument has already been punished with a Bible quote, I won't punish you again in case you posted before you realized how fallacious an argument that was which was made and have seen the error of your ways already.


Has noone yet commented on the 'if your argument is unscientific, I will post a bible quote to counter it'? What nonsense. If you post a bible quote, I will post a bhavagad gita quote to counter it. In a discussion of the purely empirical and scientific, 'defeating' a proposition with a (possibly) conflicting quote from a book which was written long before the scientific method was even proposed is pointless.

This isn't an ad hominem attack on you, I think your propositions 1 and 2 are interesting, but a scientific discussion needs scientific analysis, not merely blind quoting from a book which is irrelevant in the most austere definition of the word - it does not tend to make any more or less probably the existence of a fact of consequence.



posted on Mar, 4 2012 @ 12:20 PM
link   
reply to post by duality90
 


I reckon he was being facetious with that comment.




posted on Mar, 4 2012 @ 12:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Rocketman7

Originally posted by dbarnhart

Originally posted by Rocketman7
Why do humans all have different faces when no other form of life has different faces including apes?


Consider that each species may be sensitive to facial differences only in its own species.



Thats not even close to any sort of scientific argument.

Since that argument has already been punished with a Bible quote, I won't punish you again in case you posted before you realized how fallacious an argument that was which was made and have seen the error of your ways already.


if i were u i wouldn't stay with the "it has to scientific or i sell u a bible" discourse of yours as it is crippled from the start.
for a theory to be a theory a minimal set of things must be in place;
observing the stuff your story is about is among those things
as you obviously failed to do any observation that could have saved you from drafting that first argument

so, hey, wanna have a nice mind game, go ahead, life is already harsh enough so enjoy it
just don't try to sell your "make it scientific" bull excrements, it smells


(i'm sorry, couldn't help myself... my love for correct scientific thinking took over and made me do this)



posted on Mar, 4 2012 @ 12:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by stereologist
reply to post by Rocketman7
 




The argument that since the footprints are 1.3 million years old they can't possibly be human footprints is not a valid scientific argument.

Try learning some science for a change. You are wrong on that point as well.


so true
it would make life more enjoyable if OP would leave this stupid power argument aside



posted on Mar, 4 2012 @ 12:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by Rocketman7
Since this is of course a cover-up type of conspiracy, we have to use more complicated methods to obtain the links.

So once again, we will visit the web archives, and combine the two links, and you can then remove both spaces in the HTTP of this archive combo link and paste it into your browser.

ht tp://web.archive.org/web/20070510144237/ht tp://www.mexicanfootprints.co.uk/collaborators.htm


what a truly scientific statement of yours.
this, my dear friend, has nothing to do with "conspiracy",
this is simply an URL that is being used to fetch a webpage (addressed in the second part) that isn't but accessible tru the wonderful service of archive.org (that's right, the first address)

there's no reason whatsoever to include a space in that URL, just allow your wonderful brain to discover the editing tools ATS provides and include the full URL presented as a fine clickable link. we would love you even more for that.



posted on Mar, 4 2012 @ 12:34 PM
link   
i know this thread is totally over
but i should be in bed right now and instead i sat up late reading it
and i really really really
really
want to know

where we supposed to take seriously the claim that three million years ago some dude was leaving tracks in
fresh lava?
...was lava cooler and more easily traversed then? were human feet made of some superior substance than their inferior descendants? that isn't another way adam was better than us is it?

in fairness it does make more sense than that whole "evolution never happened k" thing...



posted on Mar, 4 2012 @ 12:38 PM
link   
reply to post by Rocketman7
 


This is ridiculous. Why did you post this anti-intellectual garbage??



posted on Mar, 4 2012 @ 12:49 PM
link   
Animals don't all look the same, what'a ya wacky? Look around, their faces all are different, the same as humans are all different. Maybe a net full of mackrel all look the same or a mob of crows or like that, but close up they are distingushable. Zebra's stripes, giraffe's spots, tigers lines and on and on Your suposition simply is not true. As for the other questions, I have no answers right now.



posted on Mar, 4 2012 @ 12:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by decepticonLaura
i know this thread is totally over
but i should be in bed right now and instead i sat up late reading it
and i really really really
really
want to know

where we supposed to take seriously the claim that three million years ago some dude was leaving tracks in
fresh lava?
...was lava cooler and more easily traversed then? were human feet made of some superior substance than their inferior descendants? that isn't another way adam was better than us is it?

in fairness it does make more sense than that whole "evolution never happened k" thing...
Lava starts out really hot,but it does cool off and can easily be walked in pain free while its mostly cooled down,yet sill warm and malleable,like stepping into and leaving your footprints in soft,thick mud...
edit on 4-3-2012 by blocula because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 4 2012 @ 12:54 PM
link   
reply to post by kman420
 



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.

Since you do not want to read the thread where I have posted lots of evidence showing the OP to be ludicrous here are the links.

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

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

And we are still waiting on which of the daft possibilities the OP will choose to support the wacko claim number 2.



posted on Mar, 4 2012 @ 12:57 PM
link   
LOL, love the title it should read: The nail in your Head, the final spike placed there the Royally Ignorant Society itself.
Enough said this poster has been panned enough.



posted on Mar, 4 2012 @ 01:28 PM
link   
We should start a 'WORST THREAD OF THE WEEK' page..... I nominate this tiresome nonsense for this week's top spot.. (The nail in the Evolutionary Coffin) give us break



posted on Mar, 4 2012 @ 01:42 PM
link   
Thats some good stuff. Im a christian but i must disagree with you on one thing. I believe in Evolution.. Micro evolution actually. A species can mutate to accompany different changes. This is exactly what Darwin had realized when traveling to those different islands. The birds had different characteristics BUT they never turned into an alligator or different species (Macro-Evolution). The only recorded evidence that Darwin had managed to create was only micro-evolution. Macro-Evolution is false. But i do believe Charles Darwin had some truth going for him. Check out this link, I know you will enjoy it. From the evolution creator himself!
carm.org...



posted on Mar, 4 2012 @ 02:02 PM
link   
reply to post by Rocketman7
 


None of this really has to do with evolution. Evolution is real, genetic mutation is proven to cause changes in organisms, it's been observed many times, and the mutations can even be measured. Why even use evolution in the title, if you are trying to ask legitimate questions.



posted on Mar, 4 2012 @ 02:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by Barcs
reply to post by Rocketman7
 


None of this really has to do with evolution. Evolution is real, genetic mutation is proven to cause changes in organisms, it's been observed many times, and the mutations can even be measured. Why even use evolution in the title, if you are trying to ask legitimate questions.



What part of fact A, B, and C, are you not understanding?

The part where the Royal Society, experts on evolution, the most ardent supporters in the past, of Darwinism, have stated that they studied fully, some human footprints in Mexico, are completely convinced they are human prints, the prints of modern man. Not homo erectus, or anything of that sort, but modern man.

And then that lava was dated by several of the worlds leading lava daters, to 1.3 plus million years old, and the Gonzales camp, from the Royal Society, agreed after further analysis, indeed, the lava is 1.3 plus million years old.

Shall I make a quote for you from the website provided by the British Museum, one of the foremost experts in Paleontology in the world, if not _the most respected Museum of Paleontology in the world?


The researchers were able to classify the footprints as human because they demonstrated some unique characteristics, including:


  1. pedal arches, where foot bones form two perpendicular arches that normally meet the ground only at the heel and ball of the foot. These arches are found only in humans
  2. where it is possible to see toe impressions, there is a non-divergent big toe (or hallux) which is about twice the size as its adjacent toe
  3. the fact that they have deep heel and ball impressions, encircled by the typical ‘figure of eight’ contours
  4. they fall within the size range used for modern Homo sapiens.
  5. Based on the footprints information, it is estimated that the adult humans were between 117 and 190 cm tall.



clipped from the 'Classifying the Footprints' page of the website from the special exhibit by the Royal Society, hosted by the British Museum.
(Link is on the first page of this thread, further down the page.)

Since the most expert people in the world on the subject have determined that modern man was in Mexico 1.3 million years ago, walking with his dogs and cats and farm animals and a child, what they have shown quite clearly, is that evolution as described to date has no basis in fact.

If the genealogical data, has made claims supporting the Out of Africa hypothesis, and such nonsense as the Eve hypothesis, clearly they are just reading into the data, since this new data, visa vis the footprints, proves that nothing of the sort occurred at all!
Not to mention there is no evidence at all that man evolved as prescribed from apes when there are no apes in South America. At all.

Hows that?

(Why me Lorb, why me?)





new topics

top topics



 
34
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join