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

page: 6
<< 3  4  5   >>

log in


posted on Jul, 10 2012 @ 07:37 PM

Originally posted by canyouhandletruth

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

Dude, replace the word Science with "God" and Darwins Skulls with "God" and you have the basis for every poor militant-atheist argument ever. And any honest and rational person will tell you how absurd it is to assert a positive or negative without offering reasoning for such. That's like an atheist saying "LOL I HAZ NO BELIEFZ!"

The best us creationists can really offer is " there is a high degree of order in the universe ergo this MIGHT be indicative of a God or Creator"

Our arguments are largely untestable from a scientific perspective. Doesn't mean god doesn't exist, just that he is not knowable by any KNOWN scientific means. This does not mean that in the future that we will not develop a scientific device or method of analysis that could "prove" god.

My fellow Creationists and my Noble and Esteemed evolutionists/non-believers, i believe we have inadvertantly fed the troll. I am afraid we are casting our proverbial pearls before swine.

This is the last i have to say on this thread. Let us go forth my fellow truth seekers. God May be out there somewhere...or not..possibly...Still waiting for my Pet Dinosaur.
edit on 10-7-2012 by DeathShield because: Formatting error. Deathshield the serial editor strikes again!
edit on 10-7-2012 by DeathShield because: SERIAL EDITING BUWAHAHAH!

posted on Jul, 10 2012 @ 08:50 PM
reply to post by Kryties

Here's the rub though man. If darwin had skulls they are irrelevant. I posted just one example that various skulls have been looked at through electron microscopes. I only linked one example just to show that they have been looked at with the "high tech" scopes he was referring to. Just like I said in that post to him that never got a reply, we have looked, they are not sanded, so what would ya like to do know?

posted on Jul, 11 2012 @ 05:59 AM

Originally posted by DeepThoughtCriminal
I don't think any scientist, or any person, believes really that humans came from apes. This is a misconception because we are genetically similar, but of course not the same. Human evolved seperately. From seperate species. Similar sure, but ultimately seperate.

It is the similarities with us and apes that lead to the misconception that people say we are evolved from them, when this is not the theory at all.

We and modern apes share common predecessors and this is proven by DNA analysis. We even share some of neandetrals genes, which means we did mix with them as well with Denisovans.

Svante Pääbo: DNA clues to our inner neanderthal

posted on Jul, 13 2012 @ 01:02 PM

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

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

Of course we don't. Only those who identify themselves with apes believe such lies - they have a dark mind, and they try desperately to spread the darkness. They fail of course, because such darkness doesn't exist in the whole Universe that could distinquish the light of the smallest of candles.

Microevolution is a fact. Macroevolution is a false theory based on wrong conclusions.

Here is what a researcher said about it (I am not sure about his name, but it sounds something like Loyd or Floyd Thyne or Payne or something):

"The problem with that theory is that there is no science that can verify it as actually being possible for that to occur. You would need for a first living thing, millions, perhaps hundreds of thousands at a minimum, perhaps millions at a maximum, of lipids (?) to make a membrane to hold that living thing. You would need sidoplasm or something to give it substance within it's body. You would need five to ten strands of DNA at a minimum to do the housekeeping required, to take nourishment from the environment, and to put waste back out from the body when the nourishment had been turned into energy. It would have to be able to reproduce itself ad infinitum. All of that has to happen AT ONCE. It can't happen piecemeal, it can't be put together in parts.

So when you just look at the very beginnings of life, you see that Darwinism isn't possible. Furthermore, in the ongoing fossil record that we have for subsequent formation of life and species, they never developed one from another. That's what Darwin postulated, that macroevolution would be possible, that seaworms could turn into fish, fish could turn into amphibians, amphibians could turn into reptiles, reptiles could turn into mammals and birds, that gills could turn into lungs, that fins could turn into limbs -- there is no evidence of ANY of that, and yet it is absolutely required by Darwin's theory.

All that Darwin saw on the Galapacos was microeveolution, which is evolution in parts of bodies - and he just assumed, he just guessed, he projected, that whole bodies could change, given enough time. It was logical - it is logical, it just simply is not born out by the facts. We've had a hundred and forty years to look for those - that evidence - it's not there, it's not going to be there, that's not how life develops on Earth.

Life seems to be - if you read the fossil record fairly and truly - life seems to be brought here in great loads, in great amounts, it is as if the Earth is being Terraformed by some superior entity or entities somewhere else - but there seems to be a conscious ongoing program of development of life on Earth - but it is not being developed here, in and of itself, in the Terrestrial - strictly withing the Terrestrial bounds.

There is some kind of outside intervention occurring, whether that is interpreted as Extra-Terrestrial or Divine, it's up to the individual, but it is not happening entirely here."

Take from it what you will, but to me, it has always been clear that darwin's theories are wrong, and evolution didn't happen the way we are taught it had (.. if ONLY we could find the 'missing link' - too bad that it doesn't exist)

posted on Jul, 15 2012 @ 04:07 PM
i know how incredulous it sounds but all it takes is testing darwins skulls

so some here say it dosnt matter if Darwin was a fraud,they put head in sand and pretend so they can keep preaching lies

others get technical like oh we dont come from apes its a parrot cause we just parrot what some institution taught us but not use our brains

eh eh

there is science and there is secret science, neither has ANY spirit
you only work with half of science guys
you never hear about black suns that shine darkness nor opposites to black holes that repel nor opposite to explosions

none of you considered modern tests on darwins skulls, not very scientific now are we folks? hmmmm
one guy is saying other non darwin skulls have been tested eh eh like oh we dont need THE TRUTH
the theory was based on fraud man, dosnt that tell you something smells

Plato's cave runs deep in science and pride is a big problem with science.

anger and insults show a low level of evolution, we both know who you are

dont worry i wont tell eh eh

posted on Jul, 15 2012 @ 06:02 PM
reply to post by canyouhandletruth

And some of us say there are no "Darwin's skulls" to test...

Not going to argue evolution with you - clearly pointless. At least one of us is in Plato’s cave on this subject and we are unlikely to agree who...

But perhaps you could point me in the direction of something that shows Darwin actually based his original theory on these supposed skulls? I am genuinely a little curious as to why you so adamantly think that this is the case.

In reference to human fossils, skulls or otherwise, what Darwin actually said was this:

"With respect to the ABSENCE of fossil remains, serving to connect man with his ape−like progenitors, no one will lay much stress on this fact who reads Sir C. Lyell's discussion...where he shews that in all the vertebrate classes the discovery of fossil remains has been a very slow and fortuitous process". Charles Darwin, Descent of Man.

Sorry - no link - it’s from a book!! In fact one of the two books that started all this (the other one doesn't even talk about people, as I have already mentioned).

I am sure you could find a copy - online even - and oh, I don't know, read it?

Although some of his colleagues were starting to collect possible examples of ancient human fossils, there were none that Darwin considered to be evidence at the time that he wrote, which, as you can see, he explicitly acknowledges. The best that you can say is that he did think there would be some found, eventually.

I wonder if you are thinking of Charles Dawson? He did sand down a skull and may well have been a ‘dodgy dude’ - but we've known about that particular fraud for almost 60 years....

Charles Dawson, Piltdown Man

posted on Jul, 15 2012 @ 06:44 PM
reply to post by canyouhandletruth

As its been pointed out Darwin didn't have a private little stash of skulls. And to reference your point of we need to test ancient skulls let me quote myself to you again.

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?

Is an electron microscope modern enough to satisfy you or is that not high tech enough?

<< 3  4  5   >>

log in