It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: Barcs
The ego is a HUMAN trait, not a scientist trait. People have big egos in all walks of life, from religious zealots, to hardcore scientists, to musicians, to wall street brokers. You haven't backed up your statement about egos in science overriding facts, so calling it a fact is simply not true.
originally posted by: Barcs
That is your opinion, and I love research, hence why I have actually researched evolution and learned how stupid it is to deny. 15 years ago I had a similar outlook as you, the whole "evolution is just a theory" BS, but as soon as I started reading about evolution from unbiased sources, I realized that it's silly to deny. Right now it seems like the only person with an ego problem is you, because you refuse to accept solid verified science.
originally posted by: Barcs
Your dishonesty is unreal. Did you not read THIS POST or THIS POST? It really cracks me up when folks just blatantly ignore evidence when posted. Please address it in detail, or don't bother arguing. You are just intentionally ignoring any evidence posted and think your opinion is absolute, yet have the nerve to accuse SCIENTISTS that do this for a living of having big egos. What is wrong with research? Why ignore the FACT that humans ARE apes, that has been stated numerous times? You need to take a basic biology course or something. Saying a creature is an ape rather than a human is ignorance at the highest level. It's not either or. Learn your classifications. Learn the basics of biology and then MAYBE you can present some science that supports your side. Your preaching and slander of scientists has no bearing on evolution or reality. Present something tangible.
originally posted by: peter vlar
originally posted by: LadyGreenEyes
a reply to: peter vlar
It doesn't fit because it shows "Lucy" to be more human-like than the evidence indicates. They KNOW it's wrong, but wont' correct it. Bruce Carr, a director of education at the zoo, stated -
We cannot be updating every exhibit based on every new piece of evidence. What we look at is the overall exhibit and the impression it creates. We think that the overall impression this exhibit creates is correct.
In other words, no matter the evidence, they will present a known lie.
No, that is presented in YOUR words. [/quote]
How interesting that your post leaves out the quote I posted, which was from Bruce Carr -
We cannot be updating every exhibit based on every new piece of evidence. What we look at is the overall exhibit and the impression it creates. We think that the overall impression this exhibit creates is correct.
HIS words, not mine. The quote is visible in my previous post, so claiming it's my words makes no sense.
originally posted by: peter vlar
To put it in other words, once an institution spends millions to have an installation built it isn't always cost effective or feasible to spend millions more to alter it every time new data is extrapolated. The point of the museum is to spark some interest in science in its visitors.
Real science doesn't lie, and it wouldn't cost "millions" to correct one poorly represented APE. The point of a museum should be to educate, not to mislead. THAT would be real science.
originally posted by: peter vlar
If you want to ostracize every museum fr having an incorrectly presented exhibit I think we would have very few museums open in the world. As long as the museum lights that spark that gets someone to do some reading and look farther into an aspect of science that interests them, to me that's far more important than having a couple of minor design flaws.
Yet when people do look at these things,a nd then research and realize the exhibits are wrong, they are ostracized for doing so? "Look, and learn, but don't ask questions!", right?
originally posted by: peter vlar
By the way you still haven't said what YOU think is wrong with the Lucy Exhibit except to say that THEY know it is wrong so it can't fit. That's a steaming pile of poo you've laid like an aster egg and it stinks to high heaven. Ill just keep waiting in case you ever formulate an answer.
I stated that the feet and hands are wrong, and not based on actual fossil evidence. That's the truth, and not liking it because it shows evolutionists will lie to prove their failed theory doesn't change a thing. That smell you detect is the theory of evolution rotting away.
originally posted by: peter vlar
I didn't realize you had been to east Africa and personally examined the prints.that's really cool. Did you take any pictures while you we there? What dig season did you go over?
Oh wait..you meant from the pictures didn't you? I like how I included contour maps of the impressions in an above post that show quite definitively that whoever those feet belonged to may have feet that looked like ours, they didn't walk Quite like us. But then why let a little evidence get in the way of some good old fashioned ignorance when its clearly serving of so well.
You can't definitively determine all that from a footprint. Some, yes, but much is speculation. The prints look human, not ape-like, and Lucy was an ape. I know people that don't walk quite like I do; are they some other species? Silly argument.
originally posted by: peter vlar
originally posted by: LadyGreenEyes
Thank you for playing along, I rather enjoy reading someone's vitriolic defense of their positions when the entire support structure rests on blanket statements and rewording of your statements to make them kind of sound like they could be facts but support them with no facts or citations. Well done. Ill bet there's an estate communion wafer in it for you this Sunday too.
There you go, making silly assumptions. Facts and quotes have been offered; that you don't like them doesn't change that. Rather foolish of you to pretend I have offered nothing, when anyone can read my posts. What, do tell, is an "estate communion wafer"? i wouldn't know. Is that some Catholic thing? I am not Catholic. Discussions of evolution aren't the focus of the church I attend, either. Your anti-Christian bias is showing. No surprise there.
originally posted by: Agree2Disagree
Even if bacteria were present, that doesn't necessarily mean they would decay as you(or anyone in general) think they would. Experiments have proven rapid fossilization of soft tissue is, while rather infrequent, a natural process.
In decay experiments using modern shrimp, amorphous calcium phosphate preserved cellular details of muscle as well as bacteria. The source of phosphate was the decaying carcass of the shrimp itself. The experimental fossilization proceeded in an environment closed to additional oxygen. The pH began at 8, dropped to between 6 and 7 after three days, then recovered to near 8 within four weeks. Mineralization of the soft tissue began less than two weeks after the start of the experiment and continued to progress throughout the experiment. In the Santana Formation the apatite, precipitating in anoxic and acidic conditions, must have begun to preserve the fish gills within five hours of the fish’s death.
Evidently bacteria play a major role in the precipitation of apatite. The microbes’ metabolic activity increases the phosphate ion concentration and decreases the pH in the immediate vicinity. If there are also calcium ions in solution, apatite can precipitate if the pH is not too acidic. This fossilization process is referred to as phosphatization. It is often restricted to one area of a carcass. The first tissues that decay supply the phosphate ions which later precipitate as apatite in another area of the carcass. This seems to have happened in some clams that died with their shells tightly closed from being buried alive in sediment.25 The microbe-infested belly of the clam metabolizes first. The phosphate ion concentrations build up and subsequently mineralize the muscle of the clam before the muscle totally decays.
Emphasis mine. Bolded statements depict a very similar burial method.
source - D.E.G. Briggs and A.J. Kear, “Fossilization of Soft Tissue in the Laboratory,” Science 259 (1993):1439–1442.
And even though there seems to be some tension between the two sides, rapid fossilization actually fits well with theology in general. It demonstrates that a large amount of time is not required for fossilization. YEC's in particular love to cite these fossil records as evidence for a young earth.
And while I am a "creationist"(in the simplest of terms), I don't support any of these views. Rapid fossilization does not support any young earth theory. Nor does it support the contrary theory(just to be crystal clear)....
A2D
originally posted by: LadyGreenEyes
I gave known examples. Ignore them if you wish, but it's a fact that egos cause scientists to suppress certain information.
That is your opinion. I have researched evolution as well, starting in school and going well beyond, and I am convinced it's a total crock. I have read many, many sources, from all sides, biased and unbiased. There is no solid verification of evolution. None.
I posted a quote from the guy in charge of the display that states he KNOWS it's wrong, and you call ME dishonest? Why am I not surprised?
So, you decided that "humans are apes", and because of this you dislike research? Weird. You can state it all day, but that doesn't change anything. I have taken more than one biology course, and some were advanced, tyvm. Pretending your opposition isn't educated is a lame attempt to divert the discussion. Where is YOUR science proving evolution? Oh, that's right; you haven't posted any.
The Hominidae (/hɒˈmɪnɨdiː/; also known as great apes[notes 1]) form a taxonomic family of primates, including four extant genera:
chimpanzees (Pan) – 2 species
gorillas (Gorilla) – 2 species
humans (Homo) – 1 species
orangutans (Pongo) – 2 species.[1]
The Hominidae include orangutans, gorillas, chimpanzees, bonobos and humans.[1][2] Alternatively, the family are collectively described as the great apes.[3][4][5][6] There are two extant species in the orangutan genus (Pongo), two species in the gorilla genus, and a single extant species Homo sapiens in the human genus (Homo). Chimpanzees and bonobos are closely related to each other and they represent the two species in the genus Pan.
originally posted by: LadyGreenEyes
What evidence would that be? Be specific. Animal after animal after animal appears in the fossil record with no background, and they can't explain them. They try, and they discuss the "evolution" of these, but the simple fact ism, they have NO CLUE. Pterosaurs, for example, animals that fly with scientists unable to understand even HOW they do so, with no ancestors at all. That evidence? There are many others like that.
They aren't pro evolution sites, as if it is a political issue. They are sites that reference scientific peer reviewed studies about evolution, that you probably haven't even attempted to read. I don't care about people's opinions, I care about the conclusions of research papers that have been verified by others. Do you have examples of the assumptions within the theory of evolution? Please base it on the evidence I posted, not blanket statements and generalizations.
Reading sites that are pro-evolution doesn't convince me. I don't tend to visit the other sort with any regularity. When evidence is sparse, and too many assumptions are treated as "facts", it's clear they have nothing solid. I don't need sites from the other side to see that reality.
The ever-touted "lines of evolution" are a joke, and everyone knows it. There is no proof that strung together creatures are related at all. Claiming they are to claim "proof" is foolish. Might as well toss out the peppered moths next. The same is true for all the rest; old claims, with no real proof, that have been refuted many times. You aren't helping your case tossing out material of that sort.
Biologists decided that, yet pigs are closer anatomically than apes in many ways. Shows what they don't know. Just because things were classified together doesn't mean they should be. Real scientific research means questioning everything.
Sure they did. Doesn't mean the material was accurate.
originally posted by: AngryCymraeg
a reply to: LadyGreenEyes
There's no point debating you. You're totally convinced that you are right and everyone else is wrong. Every piece of evidence that has been produced has been sneered at and dismissed by you, whilst every piece of evidence that you have produced (what there is of it) has been held up to be 100% true. Double standards much? Sad.
originally posted by: Barcs
originally posted by: LadyGreenEyes
What evidence would that be? Be specific. Animal after animal after animal appears in the fossil record with no background, and they can't explain them. They try, and they discuss the "evolution" of these, but the simple fact ism, they have NO CLUE. Pterosaurs, for example, animals that fly with scientists unable to understand even HOW they do so, with no ancestors at all. That evidence? There are many others like that.
So anything that scientists don't fully understand makes the theory wrong? Not finding every organism to ever exist makes evolution wrong? Please explain in depth how that goes against evolution. We don't even fully understand gravity yet, but that doesn't mean gravity doesn't exist. It's obvious, just like evolution. As we learn more we fill in more gaps. We have already filled in thousands, just as Darwin predicted we would. Finding 20 separate species between ancient ape and modern human that demonstrate slow change over time, many with mapped genomes is also pretty solid. It really can't be any clearer at this point. It's not just Lucy, by a long shot.
originally posted by: Barcs
They aren't pro evolution sites, as if it is a political issue. They are sites that reference scientific peer reviewed studies about evolution, that you probably haven't even attempted to read. I don't care about people's opinions, I care about the conclusions of research papers that have been verified by others. Do you have examples of the assumptions within the theory of evolution? Please base it on the evidence I posted, not blanket statements and generalizations.
originally posted by: Barcs
originally posted by: LadyGreenEyes
The ever-touted "lines of evolution" are a joke, and everyone knows it. There is no proof that strung together creatures are related at all. Claiming they are to claim "proof" is foolish. Might as well toss out the peppered moths next. The same is true for all the rest; old claims, with no real proof, that have been refuted many times. You aren't helping your case tossing out material of that sort.
What material? You are speaking in generalities. I posted the proof, you are just choosing to ignore it. You should learn the history of evolution. It started with no knowledge of genetics and a small fossil record. Over the years the fossils began to fill the gaps and clearly showed what Darwin suggested. Then we discovered and began exploring DNA and realize it shows the same exact relation. We can tell the level of relation based on genetics based on any 2 species with mapped genomes and oddly enough the dating confirms the timelines to match the genetic ones. It's not just a guess or some wild idea.
originally posted by: Barcs
originally posted by: LadyGreenEyes
Biologists decided that, yet pigs are closer anatomically than apes in many ways. Shows what they don't know. Just because things were classified together doesn't mean they should be. Real scientific research means questioning everything.
Sure they did. Doesn't mean the material was accurate.
LOL. Just as I figured. You didn't attempt to address the evidence I posted and changed the subject. Chimps are more closely related to humans than pigs on the genetic level, although some recent studies suggest that the human and pig share a recent common ancestor as well, but it's probably a bit further back that the one from where humans and chimps originally split off.
originally posted by: LadyGreenEyes
If they have many animals that show no evolution at all (which they do), that should make them think that perhaps their ideas aren't correct. Instead, they simply claim, "We don't understand...", and go on propping up a theory that the evidence stands against. There are no solid lines of evolution. None. We have good evidence that gravity exists, even if we don't fully understand how it works. All those species claimed to be in between us and old apes aren't proven to be related at all. They are assumed to be related, and that's not the same thing.
Of course they are pro-evolution. Claiming they aren't is foolish. An issue doesn't have to be political to have sides. I have read a lot more than you might think. The claimed evidence is shaky at best, and too many things are assumed. That isn't good science, no matter how many others might agree with it. Popular opinion doesn't make something valid.
originally posted by: LadyGreenEyes
The material you posted, of course. It isn't proof; it's mostly opinion. I know the history of evolution; I learned it in school the same as you did. Stop assuming people don't know something simply because they don't agree with it. That's foolish. DNA is similar for virtually all animals, to a point, and more between groups that are closer; mammals to mammals, birds to birds, etc. That isn't proof they are descended from common ancestors; it's proof they share environments and are thus made in a similar fashion. The timelines are not confirmed by genetics, either, and we don't know nearly as much about genetics as some might think. Come on; they recently found a whole new layer of code they didn't even know was there!
originally posted by: LadyGreenEyes
Just as I figured; you ignore anything and everything that shows flaws in your chosen theory, and then claim I change the subject. You changed the subject; when I said more research was needed, you went off on a tangent and started discussing evolution vs. creation. But, hey, don't let the facts bother you.
originally posted by: LadyGreenEyes
Just as I figured; you ignore anything and everything that shows flaws in your chosen theory... But, hey, don't let the facts bother you.
Clearly, a continued belief in the absolute truth of Darwinist evolution is but an act of faith that fulfills a psychological need of folks who have rejected God. That picture on the wall of the science class of apes on four legs, then apes on two legs, then homo erectus walking upright is as much an expression of faith as the picture of Adam and Eve and the serpent in the Garden of Eden.
Darwinism — A cult in which few believe
"Darwinism aids the New Age goal of global purging... The irony is devastating. The main purpose of Darwinism was to drive every last trace of an incredible God from biology. But the theory replaces God with an even more incredible deity: omnipotent chance." ~ T. Rosazak
"Now, it is easy to show that Darwinism, one of the pillars of modern biology, is nothing but a kind of cult, a cult religion. I am not exaggerating. It has no scientific validity whatsoever. Darwin's so-called theory of evolution is based on absurdly irrational propositions, which did not come from scientific observations, but were artificially introduced from the outside, for political-ideological reasons."
Jonathan Tennenbaum: Toward a True Science of Life
"...many elite controlled organizations are heavily involved in the spread of the evolution theory" archive.org...
"The illuminati have a much deeper agenda than most people know, they promote and fund the teaching of evolution, while behind the curtains they worship Lucifer the devil as their own God.. they know the truth in the Bible and they know satan is real, its the sheep who are under the illusion.. please have a look at this and think hard." the-complete-truth.blogspot.com...
His theory of evolution was the result of the spread of Kabbalistic occult science in Europe following the Reformation and through the masonic Alta Vendita, a conspiracy to subvert the Christian faith and replace it with the anti-Christ Kabbalistic world order. Darwinism and its occult science set the foundation for technocracy, or, the scientific dictatorship currently enveloping the world.
Illuminati Agents – Series V
Ever since the time of Darwin, part of the major press has been given the task of disseminating Darwinist indoctrination. The Darwinists of the time were well aware that the theory of evolution would never be corroborated by any scientific evidence, but produced a Darwinist dictatorship as the result of systematic and organized activities and charged part of the major press with spreading the fraud. The press in question is still at work today. The only difference is that the Darwinist fraud they perpetrate has now been exposed.
Darwinist Propaganda Techniques
In the Illuminati propaganda arsenal, the greatest tool for destroying faith in God has been Darwin's theory of evolution. I know some say "I believe in evolution and God." Nonetheless, countless people have become atheists from being taught the theory as "fact" - I was once one of them.
Darwinism is an Illuminati Scam
The truth is there is no debate, it's an open/shut case when observed through the lens of historical fact: The 'evolution theory' is purely a political weapon used to shut down Man's awakening to his true potential which began with the spread of the revelation of Christ as the promised Savior which all the world was waiting for... Now look around you: illiteracy/ignorance is up, 'science' is faked to serve Global politics and transnational corporations... Socialists needed evolution as the backbone to sell their world-view and evolution needed Socialism to force it into the public mind via compulsory learning and media support.
Exposing the Pagan Roots of Evolution
originally posted by: AngryCymraeg
a reply to: LadyGreenEyes
(Facepalm)
You really don't know very much about DNA do you? Similar environment? Really? No. I suggest that you put your biases behind you and start again.
originally posted by: Barcs
Please give me an example of an animal that has shown NO evolution at all. Even the great white shark who predates the dinosaurs, has changed, even though the changes are small. They are proven, but since you refuse to address the evidence I posted about that, you will just go on believing that you are right and living in ignorance. You just don't seem to understand how a scientific theory works. It does not become a theory until evidence proves it.
originally posted by: Barcs
Gravity: Proven by repeated experiments with objects falling in various environments. It's exact origin and cause is partially unknown.
originally posted by: Barcs
Evolution: Proven by the measurement of genetic mutations in every organism to ever be measured, and the fact of adaptation / extinction during environmental changes. The only unknown parts are determining exact time frames and dates for creatures that haven't yet been found.
originally posted by: Barcs
99.9% of scientists support evolution. That's the whole joke of the anti evolution crowd.
originally posted by: Barcs
We can tell via gentics EXACTLY how closely 2 people are related. The same concept applies to other creatures as well.
originally posted by: LadyGreenEyes
Minor variations are not major evolution. Minor differences in various pterosaurs don't even prove minor changes; they only show different varieties, just as we have different varieties of birds. That isn't even proof of minor adaptation, though it could be seem as a possible indicator of that. Pretty much everyone accepts that minor changes do occur; it's the major change into entirely different species that many don't believe is possible. For that sort of major change, we have no evidence. You might accept that these minor changes "prove" the major ones, but I don't, and neither do many professional scientists. We see many changes in people. For example, the average man is a lot taller now than men were int he Middle Ages. As a teen, I would have been hard pressed to fit into some suits of armor made for grown men, and I was a skinny girl of average height. The difference in height between those time periods is notable, but it isn't a change to anything close to a new species.
Yes; gravity can be proven to exist. That's established.
Nope, not even close. Adaptation does not create entirely new species. Extinction doesn't prove evolution at all.
As far as the time frames are concerned, those are claimed to be "known", yet they also change. The supposed age of the Earth has been adjusted more than once, as more and more time was needed to believe evolution had any chance of making actual changes to new species. Evolution as a theory is a long way from proven. Adaptation, yes, evolution, no. They aren't the same thing.
I didn't simply decide to not believe what I learned in school about evolution. I studied, as I have always had a real interest in science, and the more I studied, the more I started seeing problems. This was a process. No "creation" programs, no one telling me that was how it was supposed to be, nothing like that. I studied on my own. The key point was a very detailed National Geographic layout on the "evolution of Man". Too much was assumed. There was no real evidence linking ANY of the "early man" forms to people at all.
Prove it. Post a comprehensive list of every single scientist in the world, and proof of their opinion. Otherwise, your statement is nothing but a baseless claim.
I have addressed the supposed evidence. Adaptation isn't proof of evolution. Claiming that a line if similar animals are an evolutionary line doesn't prove that they are. The problem with evolution is people have taken what were guesses and decided the guesses were "proof". Look honestly at the supposed evidence, and you will see that.
You cannot prove, however, that animals with similar DNA descended from a common ancestor, and that is what evolution claims. As for paternity tests, I guess you never heard of problems with those, either. The "chimera" problem, for example, where it is now known that mothers can absorb some of the DNA from their offspring, and cause some real issues with said tests. link See what assuming gets you? Can't even always prove paternity, but you want to prove relation from fossils, from which you can't even GET DNA??? Sorry, but no.
DNA testing is the best and most accurate way to determine paternity. With the exception of identical twins, two individuals having the same genetic DNA is one in several billion. But there has yet to be any documented cases of two individuals with identical DNA. I must make it very clear that when it comes to DNA tests for paternity the mistakes most often occur during the collection of samples, and this is human error.
The vast majority of the scientific community and academia supports evolutionary theory as the only explanation that can fully account for observations in the fields of biology, paleontology, molecular biology, genetics, anthropology, and others.[19][20][21][22][23] One 1987 estimate found that "700 scientists ... (out of a total of 480,000 U.S. earth and life scientists) ... give credence to creation-science".[24] An expert in the evolution-creationism controversy, professor and author Brian Alters, states that "99.9 percent of scientists accept evolution".[25] A 1991 Gallup poll found that about 5% of American scientists (including those with training outside biology) identified themselves as creationists.[26][27]
Additionally, the scientific community considers intelligent design, a neo-creationist offshoot, to be unscientific,[28] pseudoscience,[29][30] or junk science.[31][32] The U.S. National Academy of Sciences has stated that intelligent design "and other claims of supernatural intervention in the origin of life" are not science because they cannot be tested by experiment, do not generate any predictions, and propose no new hypotheses of their own.[33] In September 2005, 38 Nobel laureates issued a statement saying "Intelligent design is fundamentally unscientific; it cannot be tested as scientific theory because its central conclusion is based on belief in the intervention of a supernatural agent."[34] In October 2005, a coalition representing more than 70,000 Australian scientists and science teachers issued a statement saying "intelligent design is not science" and calling on "all schools not to teach Intelligent Design (ID) as science, because it fails to qualify on every count as a scientific theory".[35]
In 1986, an amicus curiae brief, signed by 72 US Nobel Prize winners, 17 state academies of science and 7 other scientific societies, asked the US Supreme Court in Edwards v. Aguillard, to reject a Louisiana state law requiring the teaching of creationism (which the brief described as embodying religious dogma).[3] [n]This was the largest collection of Nobel Prize winners to sign anything up to that point, providing the "clearest statement by scientists in support of evolution yet produced."[23]
There are many scientific and scholarly organizations from around the world that have issued statements in support of the theory of evolution.[36][37][38][39] The American Association for the Advancement of Science, the world's largest general scientific society with more than 130,000 members and over 262 affiliated societies and academies of science including over 10 million individuals, has made several statements and issued several press releases in support of evolution.[22] The prestigious United States National Academy of Sciences, which provides science advice to the nation, has published several books supporting evolution and criticising creationism and intelligent design.[40][41]
There is a notable difference between the opinion of scientists and that of the general public in the United States. A 2009 poll by Pew Research Center found that "Nearly all scientists (97%) say humans and other living things have evolved over time – 87% say evolution is due to natural processes, such as natural selection. The dominant position among scientists – that living things have evolved due to natural processes – is shared by only about a third (32%) of the public."[42]
There are no hypotheses, alternative to the principle of evolution with its "tree of life," that any competent biologist of today takes seriously. Moreover, the principle is so important for an understanding of the world we live in and of ourselves that the public in general, including students taking biology in high school, should be made aware of it, and of the fact that it is firmly established, even as the rotundity of the earth is firmly established.[45]