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

page: 4
4
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Jul, 9 2012 @ 06:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by captaintyinknots

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?


NO MATE
I DONT NEED TO PROVE ANYTHING

Science does, lets get some real documentation with modern equipment on Darwins skulls




posted on Jul, 9 2012 @ 06:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by canyouhandletruth

Originally posted by captaintyinknots

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?


NO MATE
I DONT NEED TO PROVE ANYTHING

Science does, lets get some real documentation with modern equipment on Darwins skulls


so basically, you make the definitive statement "We don't come from apes" based on nothing but your own imagination?

You dont have to prove anything, you are correct in that. But you did prove something anyway....that there is NOTHING to what you are saying.



posted on Jul, 9 2012 @ 06:37 PM
link   
Test Darwins skulls they are fraudulent
they where sanded

hiding your heads in the sand isnt the way forward



posted on Jul, 9 2012 @ 06:42 PM
link   
all that needs to be done is:
take the skulls out of hiding and let a few people have a peek with modern microscope

a scientific analysis has never been done, they need to allow independent/s to study them with a modern microscope
its not for me to prove they are real, science needs to prove its claims
edit on 9-7-2012 by canyouhandletruth because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 9 2012 @ 06:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by canyouhandletruth
Test Darwins skulls they are fraudulent
they where sanded

hiding your heads in the sand isnt the way forward



Based on WHAT? You have to answer that question before anyone is going to lend one ounce of credence to your claim.



posted on Jul, 9 2012 @ 06:45 PM
link   

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?


a few (sanded
) partial skulls fit in a small box



posted on Jul, 9 2012 @ 06:46 PM
link   
Question. Why do we even comment on threads like these? You know.. the ones that just blurt out unresearched subject matter?

The OP has entirely ZERO evidence to back up his half cocked claim.

ETA: In fact, I will leave this thread to those of you who feel like bickering back and forth with someone who is obviously incompetent in visual research and forensic science.
edit on 9-7-2012 by 31Bravo because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 9 2012 @ 06:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by captaintyinknots

Originally posted by canyouhandletruth
Test Darwins skulls they are fraudulent
they where sanded

hiding your heads in the sand isnt the way forward



Based on WHAT? You have to answer that question before anyone is going to lend one ounce of credence to your claim.


based on proper science, to inspect the skulls would be prudent dont you think?
in Darwins time it was not possible so must be done now

it will only take minutes too do



posted on Jul, 9 2012 @ 06:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by 31Bravo
Question. Why do we even comment on threads like these? You know.. the ones that just blurt out unresearched subject matter?

The OP has entirely ZERO evidence to back up his half cocked claim.

ETA: In fact, I will leave this thread to those of you who feel like bickering back and forth with someone who is obviously incompetent in visual research and forensic science.
edit on 9-7-2012 by 31Bravo because: (no reason given)


ahhh but thats the problem forensic science has not been done on the skulls now has it?



posted on Jul, 9 2012 @ 06:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by canyouhandletruth

Originally posted by captaintyinknots

Originally posted by canyouhandletruth
Test Darwins skulls they are fraudulent
they where sanded

hiding your heads in the sand isnt the way forward



Based on WHAT? You have to answer that question before anyone is going to lend one ounce of credence to your claim.


based on proper science, to inspect the skulls would be prudent dont you think?
in Darwins time it was not possible so must be done now

it will only take minutes too do


You missed the point of the question. You are definitely stating that the skulls are sanded. WHAT DO YOU BASE THIS CLAIM ON?



posted on Jul, 9 2012 @ 07:03 PM
link   
If you look at the Egyptian gods and take in account the the ever present signs of us being visited here on earth in the last 200 thousand of years I would say there is enough proof that our DNA was modified. Lloyd Pye has explained this typed of theory many times on the who what and where of our origins, Worth a look for information if nothing else, then you can decide what fits for you and your beliefs.



posted on Jul, 9 2012 @ 07:13 PM
link   
we have 30 % plant dna .a reptillian complex in our lower brains a fishes backbone part monkey part cow and a bit of a pig to . we were created all right in the image of god ahh



posted on Jul, 9 2012 @ 07:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by dutchmilpo
True, we are a side-branch of a proto-simian. Apes went one way, proto-humans (cro-magnon etc) the other...


Yep you and the OP are both right, but you are right for the right reasons and the OP is just right by accident....



posted on Jul, 9 2012 @ 07:43 PM
link   
reply to post by canyouhandletruth
 


No amount of sanding could add a brow ridge, protruding teeth and sloping face to a human skull.

The theory proposed in the OP is just not credible.



posted on Jul, 9 2012 @ 07:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by chr0naut
reply to post by canyouhandletruth
 


No amount of sanding could add a brow ridge, protruding teeth and sloping face to a human skull.

The theory proposed in the OP is just not credible.



it was not a human skul
get the skulls tested with microscopes and we will know



posted on Jul, 9 2012 @ 07:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by Xtrozero

Originally posted by dutchmilpo
True, we are a side-branch of a proto-simian. Apes went one way, proto-humans (cro-magnon etc) the other...


Yep you and the OP are both right, but you are right for the right reasons and the OP is just right by accident....


i am right but not by accident



posted on Jul, 9 2012 @ 07:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by geobro
we have 30 % plant dna .a reptillian complex in our lower brains a fishes backbone part monkey part cow and a bit of a pig to . we were created all right in the image of god ahh


ha ha very funny



posted on Jul, 9 2012 @ 08:02 PM
link   
reply to post by canyouhandletruth
 


A modern microscope like they did here maybe?
onlinelibrary.wiley.com...
A bit of searching you will find many parts of the bodies including skulls have been researched using "modern" tech. So know that we have done that and there seems to be no sanding techniques applied where would you like to go from here?



posted on Jul, 9 2012 @ 08:02 PM
link   
reply to post by canyouhandletruth
 





Science does, lets get some real documentation with modern equipment on Darwins skulls


Why are you obsessed with Darwins skulls.

Are you totally ignoring all of the other skulls and skeletons that modern scientists have found?

What about Lucy, (and not my dog)?


Lucy is the common name of AL 288-1, several hundred pieces of bone representing about 40% of the skeleton of an individual Australopithecus afarensis. The specimen was discovered in 1974 at Hadar in the Awash Valley of Ethiopia's Afar Depression. Lucy is estimated to have lived 3.2 million years ago.[1][3] The discovery of this hominin was significant as the skeleton shows evidence of small skull capacity akin to that of apes and of bipedal upright walk akin to that of humans, providing further evidence supporting the view that bipedalism preceded increase in brain size in human evolution,[4][5] though other findings have been interpreted as suggesting that Australopithecus afarensis was not directly ancestral to humans.[6] In 1992, a new hominin, Ardi, was found, pushing back the earliest known hominin date to 4.4 million years ago, although details of this discovery were not published until October 2009.[7]

link



This is just an example of many ancient skeletal remains found.

It seems that people have a hard time realizing that Darwin was the first to theorize evolution. Guess what, the theory evolves with knowledge. That is what science is all about. Add to the knowledge at hand to better understand what and where we came from.

I love how everyone and their dog loves to bash Darwin


Here is a little reminder of what science is all about.

sci·ence   /ˈsaɪəns/ Show Spelled[sahy-uhns] Show IPA

noun
1. a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws: the mathematical sciences.
2. systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation.
3. any of the branches of natural or physical science.
4. systematized knowledge in general.
5. knowledge, as of facts or principles; knowledge gained by systematic study.

link

Those who knock Darwin do not truly understand science.



posted on Jul, 9 2012 @ 08:07 PM
link   

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



Um. Which skulls? Darwin did not base his theory on skulls.

The "Origin of the Species" barely mentions human evolution - the only mention is "light will be thrown the origin of man and his history". That's it. In his later work, "The Descent of Man", which does deal with human evolution, he doesn't talk about human fossils at all - he bases his theory on human similarity to apes, similarity in embryonic development and vestigial organs. He then theorises that human evolution is driven by characteristics that are selected for though sexual attractiveness of such features.

But no skulls, sanded or otherwise...

edit on 9-7-2012 by teamhair because:





new topics
 
4
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join