It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


We dont come from Apes! Here is how to prove it

page: 3
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in


posted on Jul, 9 2012 @ 12:58 PM

Originally posted by canyouhandletruth
We dont come from Apes! Here is how to prove it

The skulls that prove we come from apes are Ape skulls that where sanded
with modern instruments you can tell the skulls where sanded
demand tests with modern microscopes that will prove it

No i am not religious
apes are a degeneration from human DNA

at the very least lets get some real documentation with modern equipment,
modern microscopes cant hurt the skulls in any way so why not get tests done?

edit on 9-7-2012 by canyouhandletruth because: (no reason given)

You're correct, we are not descendants of modern apes, science tells you that we share common predecessors.

I know, hard to believe because there are so many proofs that is otherwise - that apes came from man (mostly after unsuccessful marriage

Sorry for a joke, but your thread is a joke without any links or facts behind your theory.

And final question - where those skulls of our ancestors come from? What microscope supposed to prove? Do you know anything about genes? Good luck discovering all new science...

edit on 9-7-2012 by SuperFrog because: (no reason given)

posted on Jul, 9 2012 @ 01:19 PM
I am a member of,
The Church Of Work.
We attend church for over 40 hours
a week, donate to any charity government,
that is demand from us.
And our priests(boss)remind us daily.

We all were monkeys with tails,
until bosses,
started chewing our ass.

posted on Jul, 9 2012 @ 01:34 PM
To echo what many have said.

Humans did not evolve FROM monkeys. We had a primate, from which both the monkey and humans evolved from. This intermediate, is now extinct.

Here is a graphic to help explain how this happens, and how one species doesn't give birth to a new species, yet we still have all of this variety.

posted on Jul, 9 2012 @ 02:41 PM

Originally posted by OhZone
In his natural state Humans are the weakest, most vulnerable species on the planet.

I've always loved all-in statements like the above. Based on what? Statistics? We all know that 83.8% of all statistics are made up to support 100% of whatever it is meant to support.

All adaptations to any species over time are ALWAYS in favor of SURVIVAL and nothing else.
SURVIVAL is the name of the game on planet Earth.

EXCEPT humans. We prefer to invent new ways of keeping people alive. Wheelchairs for the complete paraplegic and elevator beds for the paralyzed rather than legalizing abortion.
Cultivating stupidity rather than common sense.

Can you build a nest like a bird does, using only your hands? Would you know what materials to use and how to put them together so that they stayed? How long would it take you?

Yes. Even onehanded.
About six hours for a nest for a stork.

So much for your superior intelligence.

Well - you know - one get's used to it.

posted on Jul, 9 2012 @ 03:37 PM
reply to post by canyouhandletruth

you might have missed this show..

lots of interesting facts..

posted on Jul, 9 2012 @ 04:38 PM
If evidence was presented to disprove or prove a commonly held scientific theory do you not think there would be great opposition that uses well reasoned research and presents "evidence" that fits the bill? You will readily believe that a group of people is actively conspiring to suppress or disprove information via outright lies and fabrication but when the mirror is shown on ones own respective group...all of a sudden "peer review" comes in to save the day.

I am not saying that there are not lies being presented by "creationists" and "intelligent design" theorists. But is it reasonable to assume that because people make up lies to support their beliefs that anything and everything related to it is the result of an outright lie. Isn't it safe to say that the subject is still open for debate?

Remember, it was "peer review" that created opposition to einsteins theory of relativity and Le'maitres work that lead to the discovery of hubbles constant and laid the framework for the big bang theory,

Some questions for those who are sure of our scientific findings...

We discover valleys and rock embankments that are littered with thousands of bones of dinosaurs including their complete skeletons. Shouldn't we be seeing the same from "transitional" fossils? Instead of one Lucy shouldn't we be discovering entire families of them? Isn't that how evolution works? Common ancestors give rise to generations of mutated offspring that usher in a gradual change into another species, correct so for example there should be numerous transitional fossils between australopithecus and modern day man correct? Or am i to believe that just one species happened to have just one mutation that just oh so conveniently leads to even more mutations that result in one giant mutation later on down the road? And that it did this without being destroyed by predators and its own environment and any deadly mutations that result from inbreeding and outside any natural radiation sources? We have. Absence of Evidence is not an absence of evidence however it is reasonable to assume that if a species were evolving then there should be multiple examples of not only that transitional species but others as well. There are incalculable shades between red and blue, but the shades do exist do they not? And in order for a system to survive it must create multiple replications of itself, yes?

Now as far as measurements and sanded skulls and whatnot...Why are we going off of measurements alone? In the absence of DNA evidence shouldn't we leave our conclusions open for debate? I'm not saying that there isn't any truth to be found in these methods, but isn't it a little unreasonable to assume that just because something looks like something else that it MUST be related? The platypus comes to mind. You can look at it two ways, a stunning example of evolution in progress (or maybe lack thereof) or a stunning example of otherworldly engineering. Without being there at its inception (SPECIES WITHIN A SPECIES, WHOA!) can we honestly claim it either way?

Why can't both sides of this argument be honest and earnest? Why is it that one side has to be lying and the other isn't ? Who are YOU, ME or ANYONE to say " that is the way it absolutely happened" when none of us were even around to witness these things? Thats just as crazy as a christian saying " god hates fags."
It's based only in partial truth that requires the blatant eschewment of all the other teachings.

STOP IT, YOU ARE HINDERING OUR PROGRESS. , make use of our discoveries and continue on in the pursuit of truth. Chalking it all up to one cause and example is absolutely insane no matter what side of the fence you are on. Even god in the bible views things as indefinite and uncertain, that the only thing god is really certain of is himself. And please don't de-rail this into some atheist vs theist debate because i used one highly specialized example of god to illustrate my point.

Geez, do any of you realize how much faith you have to have to believe one way or the other?

I don't have access to these fossils let alone the data, knowledge and equipment that is needed to interpret the findings. Yet you expect us to believe these claims because other scientists who do have the proper tools and knowledge say so?

It's one thing when you are talking about simple things like the force of gravity and newtons laws of motion. It's another when you speak of a science that is contingent upon multiple sciences and multiple discoveries which themselves are still being debated.

But i guess questioning the official line from either side makes me some unreasonable satanic Fundie who hates science or god right?

Also, i want a pet dinosaur. Why can't science do this!? Seriously, i demand a dinosaur. i dont care how unreasonable it is. the coolness alone should be reason enough. STOP DEBATING ABOUT SKY ALCHEMISTS AND GIVE ME MY DINOSAUR!
edit on 9-7-2012 by DeathShield because: (no reason given)

edit on 9-7-2012 by DeathShield because: Keystroke misfire, Also changed some harsh sounding words. I do not want to foster emotional debate, but it may be unavoidable with this subject

posted on Jul, 9 2012 @ 04:42 PM

Originally posted by canyouhandletruth

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by canyouhandletruth

The skulls that prove we come from apes are Ape skulls that where sanded
with modern instruments you can tell the skulls where sanded
demand tests with modern microscopes you will see

There is extensive documentation of the skull fragments being removed from the ground. These fragments were then pieced together to form the skulls, most of them incomplete. I'm afraid your theory is based entirely on your own fantasy of how forensic anthropology works.

ok so lets get some real documentation with modern equipment then shall we
anyone can bury skulls then dig em up later
oh i know how forensic anthropology works, its assumptions

No, you don't know how forensic anthropology works, and you don't even understand the title of the profession. Do you think that forensic anthropologists are involved in a global anti-creationism conspiracy to bury fake skulls and then dig them up again just to disprove creationism? Is that what you are claiming with this thread in which there is complete lack of evidence or even a single photograph to substantiate your claims? Sanded skulls? Seriously? ATS just gets worse and worse every day with this crap...

posted on Jul, 9 2012 @ 04:56 PM
get tests done on the skulls Darwin used to start the theory

i am not saying evolution is not real, i am saying Darwin was a dodgy dude who sanded the skulls
nor do i pray to one of the gods

modern technology will show its true, the skulls HAVE NEVER BEEN TESTED and are the start of the theory that we come from apes

get the skulls tested its no harm to the skulls and only takes a few minutes
but will destroy the theory we come from apes

the skulls HAVE NEVER BEEN TESTED, that is not science!
edit on 9-7-2012 by canyouhandletruth because: (no reason given)

posted on Jul, 9 2012 @ 04:59 PM
reply to post by reeferman

I'm pretty sure if i posted a one hour long youtube video that contains "facts" that support my end of the theory or debate you would instantly discredit me for using a youtube video to prove my point. That said...

What evidence would you like to see to discredit your claim?

If evolution is not real, like SOME creationists claim then what should we be looking for?

If god was real and was guiding our evolution or creation then what should we look for?

Wouldn't the system appear to be natural to us by sheer virtue of the fact that it was intentionally designed to be self-evolving, self-replicating and self-terminating?

When you think of genetics and evolution from a programmers perspective it would make sense for an intelligent designer to create a system that does exactly that. Who wants to constantly monitor and maintain code? It's time consuming and a waste of resources.

Wouldn't the code be useful for more than one application? Think of C++. With it you can create a Heart monitoring program that interfaces with hardware and software that helps keep people alive, or you could build a software API that lets you build games about aliens killing stuff for some unclear reason.

posted on Jul, 9 2012 @ 05:00 PM

Originally posted by Stonesplitter
I disagree. Look, I even have evidence.

You see, these fellas still have all of their human clothes and everything!

Edit: Maybe some links or pics would help your case Germa.....(I keep doing that for some reason!) canyouhandletruth!
edit on 9/7/12 by Stonesplitter because: edit

I know a dude that looks like second tang! He is a ginger rasta-man too.

OMG, I dare not show him the photo. How am I going to look at him without busting out in laughter.

posted on Jul, 9 2012 @ 05:04 PM
TO THE OP....since i forgot to include this in my previous posts...

Dude...really? You are going to make these claims and not even offer news articles or SOMETHING to at least support it? I am a skeptic of the official narrative of evolution as well. However i am not so bold as to assume that every discovery is an outright lie or fabrication. Further more you make the legitimate truth seekers look like loons.

If you want to look at it biblically, god created animals before he created man, therefore it would make sense for him to use the same code that he already created for animals to create us. Now you MIGHT be right...but come on..let's try to be honest here OK? At least OFFER something for your claims. My reasons for belief are wide and varied but at least i have REASON.

To everyone else:

Please do not get me wrong, i am not setting out to disprove evolution nor am i contending that we did not evolve from some common ancestor from whatever animal. I see no real reason to not accept evolution from a scientific or theological perspective. But i see no reason scientifically to assume that it wasn't intentional or that it was purely natural. From what we understand evolution appears to happen in bursts (albeit ones that take thousands and millions of years) and i personally feel that is indicative of intentional evolution. Now as to how to go about proving my speculation/belief, i wouldn't have the foggiest, I am not a biologist. I am a musician and a computer enthusiast At no point do i present my beliefs as fact. If it sounds that way then i am either engaging in miscommunication or you are falling victim to your own cognitive bias.
edit on 9-7-2012 by DeathShield because: Forgot to include that last part up there ^^

posted on Jul, 9 2012 @ 05:30 PM
reply to post by canyouhandletruth

you are so misinformed, it boggles my mind....first of all...nobody ever said we came FROM apes...but they said we came from a common ancestor...a humungous difference...your rantings about dna show that you have no clue about Lloyd Pye's stuff about the Star Child, and maybe you can start this thread again....I don't mean to be mean, but, we can handle the truth...but, we don't like bs ers

posted on Jul, 9 2012 @ 05:34 PM
reply to post by Daemonicon

So shouldn't we be finding fossil evidence of all those shades of blue and red in between. I'm not expecting something rapid like a frogamander evolving into a salamander. More like multiple examples of frogamanders that show a gradual egress into salamander. I would like to see not just one or two skulls or femurs here but complete skeletons and multiple examples thereof. Or are they operating off of the assumption that just because we were lucky enough to stumble across a few examples of transitional fossils here and there that ther MUST be even more. Isn't that kinda silly? To assume that because one is true than the other must be true? Keep in mind that at no point do i assume that because we lack these fossils that it means it didn't happen that way. I just need to be honest with myself and others and say that i do not really know for sure. At best all i have are highly educated guesses. I'm skeptical of my own beliefs and i even have skepticism towards my faith. I think that is the mark of a sane individual. The ability to question ones own beliefs without fear or insecurity. The reason i want to see multiple examples is because we have countless examples of already evolved species. If species evolve into other species over time then we should be finding multiple examples of this?

Are we finding multiple examples of all of these transitionary species? Are we finding multiple examples of all these shades of blue and red in our fossil record? How easy would it be for me to empirically verify these findings? Or does it require me to attend some draconian institution where i have to devote multiple hours of my life to vast and complex explanations that were formulated by people who devoted their entire lifes work to the subject at hand.

Even if evolution was proved wrong it wouldn't prove god. I would suspect that a reasonable person would understand this. So really, what do you have to lose if evolution IS a process that occurs in giant rapid bursts in short amounts of time? How would a monkey giving birth to a rat or something ridiculous like that prove or disprove god? It would just raise more questions and probably leave us even more confused.

Also Doesn't Occams razor favor simplicity? I see no simplicity in evolution or the alternatives. I also see no simplicity in an explanation that requires multiple shades of red and blue in order to get from one end to the other adding god might compound it, but when you take an honest look at it all it isn't really that much of an addition. It's merely one facet of an even greater question.

posted on Jul, 9 2012 @ 05:44 PM
reply to post by doryinaz

Don't get to worked up dude. The bible says not to cast your pearls before swines. A good piece of advice regardless of ones faith, yes? Guys like the OP tend to be insecure in their faith and even more so in their science. There are plenty of us out here who share the same goal as you. As far as a starchild skull goes, I've often wondered if it was just simply a lost race of humans provided that the DNA is indeed not human and that the three other labs that tested it were involved in a cover up (it's unreasonable to assume that there couldn't be a cover up).

It's the same logic trap that gung-ho evolutionists fall into. Just because it looks like something doesn't necessarily mean that it is related to it.

posted on Jul, 9 2012 @ 05:47 PM

Originally posted by glen200376
what annoys me is they conventionally miss out the word theory and teach(or brainwash)kids that this is "science fact".wonder if they tell them that all these bones ever found would fit in one coffin?

I would imagine since its called the theory of evolution and the definition of a theory has been taught they have no need to keep repeating it. Your claim of the bones fitting into a coffin.......thats going to be a very very large coffin to fit the numerous bones into. While you may have a valid argument with your first point the second one is wrong and should be adjusted to fit your arguments a bit better.

posted on Jul, 9 2012 @ 06:12 PM
I skimmed the responses, so I apologize if this has already been said....

This is confusing me, for I've always thought the following was considered to be the truth according to the scientific community...

1. We are not descendents of chimps

2. We have evolved from the species that chimps also came from

It's like this... to claim that gasoline has evolved from plastic, that is seemingly the notion implied when people say that we are descendents of chimps. No, gasoline does not evolve into plastic... rather, it is crude oil that is the base that can be turned into gasoline or plastic. Does this make sense? Well... this crude oil represents a species that is neither human or chimp, it is something different in which gave rise to the latter.

I'm fairly certain I'm correct in stating this, if not... please deny my ignorance.

posted on Jul, 9 2012 @ 06:23 PM

Originally posted by andy06shake
reply to post by syrinx high priest

"of course we didn't come from apes

if we did, there wouldn't be any apes around anymore."

Despite the genetic links and anthropological hints? I think its a foregone conclusion that we are related to Monkeys genetically.

as a species evolves, what it "was" ceases to exist by definition. otherwise you are just talking about speciation, not evolution

and the curious thing to me is this;

other primates eat meat
other primates have opposable thumbs
other primates have the ability to communicate through vocalizations
other primates have the ability to use sign language
other primates have the ability for cognitive reasoning
other pirmates have the ability to even create art

but we have been to the moon

almost all other primates have come so a similar point on the road

furry. wild. no tech outside of using sticks to gather termites. no written language.

so what was the source of the great spark that set men on this road ?

this road that lead to the moon ?

very interesting indeed

in my mind the difference is imagination and the written word. written langauge allows generations to build on each other, to have an accumulation of knowledge.

so what was the key with men ? mutation ? aliens ? god ?

tbh, mutation actually seems the least likely explanation sometimes

posted on Jul, 9 2012 @ 06:25 PM
you have been lied too

Test Darwins skulls with modern equipment to see if he sanded the skulls that is science not belief

all that needs to be done is:
take the skulls out of hiding and let a few people have a peek with modern microscope
edit on 9-7-2012 by canyouhandletruth because: (no reason given)

posted on Jul, 9 2012 @ 06:28 PM
reply to post by syrinx high priest

mate spell it how you like, dont distract from my issue

lets get some real documentation with modern equipment then shall we

the skulls HAVE NEVER BEEN TESTED and are the start of the theory that we come from apes

get the skulls tested its no harm to the skulls and only takes a few minutes
edit on 9-7-2012 by canyouhandletruth because: (no reason given)

posted on Jul, 9 2012 @ 06:28 PM

Originally posted by canyouhandletruth
you have been lied too

Test Darwins skulls with modern equipment to see if he sanded the skulls that is science not belief

so, for the umpteenth time, where is your proof?

<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in