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.

 

If its bigfoot, where to now, creationists?

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 13 2008 @ 06:25 PM
link   
I hate to be the one starting this but if its a real bigfoot, wouldn't that throw the biggest monkey wrench into creationism? This would be the smoking gun missing link.

I am christian but I won't close my eyes to glaring evidence. I think UFOs, aliens, bigfoot, skinwalkers are all deceptions by the enemy that's why there's no solid proof. It's all an illusion trying to mislead us.

If this is bigfoot, I have to consider the possibility that religionists suppressed the evidence; possibly even hunting down these creatures covertly. Along with the suppression of the alien presence because that too would put into question creationism. Why would there be more intelligent biological lifeforms out there?

They say the platypus is strong evidence for evolution. Now we may have this too that is directly related to us.

Where to now, creationists?



posted on Aug, 13 2008 @ 06:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by reject
I hate to be the one starting this but if its a real bigfoot, wouldn't that throw the biggest monkey wrench into creationism? This would be the smoking gun missing link. [...]

Now we may have this too that is directly related to us.


I don't see where a real Bigfoot would be any more related to us than a gorilla or any other ape. Certainly no "missing link." At the moment, since it's become pretty well accepted that we didn't evolve from Neanderthal hominids, archeologists have quite a few gaps in the human evolutionary path to fill in. Bigfoot won't fill any of them.



posted on Aug, 13 2008 @ 06:42 PM
link   
not that im a creationist, i lean more towards ID

but how does the alleged discovery of bigfoot disprove creationism?its like saying we found an ape so there fore that must be proof that creationism is false



posted on Aug, 13 2008 @ 07:07 PM
link   
reply to post by reject
 



Who needs Bigfoot? There is all ready plenty of evidence to disprove ID and creationism.



posted on Aug, 13 2008 @ 10:07 PM
link   
What the threadstarter means is, you won't be able to use the "missing link" argument against us when debating against evolution. But the bigfoot thing was all a hoax, It got exposed during the last pages of the thread. I was pretty excited when I first read the thread, but yeah, they've proven to be fake, not proven but someone in that thread posted a video of the people claiming to have found big foot, admitting to faking other big foot discoveries in the past, so i think it is safe to say it was all a hoax



posted on Aug, 14 2008 @ 01:47 PM
link   
reply to post by Demandred
 


So you ARE a creationist, then. ID = creationism. They just change "God" for "intelligent designer", and say the same thing.

DNA disproves creationism. We don't need Bigfoot for that.



posted on Aug, 14 2008 @ 01:49 PM
link   
reply to post by AlexG141989
 


We already have the missing links. The "where is the missing link?" argument was from the 70s, before we had categorised the dozens of hominid apes that nicely flesh out our side of the global animal tree. We don't need Bigfoot to prove or disprove anything - science takes care of that
And it's doing a great job so far.



posted on Aug, 14 2008 @ 02:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by dave420
reply to post by AlexG141989
 


We already have the missing links. The "where is the missing link?" argument was from the 70s, before we had categorised the dozens of hominid apes that nicely flesh out our side of the global animal tree. We don't need Bigfoot to prove or disprove anything - science takes care of that
And it's doing a great job so far.


Well, we still don't have any species identified that was a direct descendant of Cro Magnon. A few candidates, maybe, but nothing definitive. So that leaves our branch of the tree still kind of hanging out there in mid-air.



posted on Aug, 15 2008 @ 03:21 PM
link   
reply to post by dave420
 


Missing Link? Ape is an Ape, Human is a Human-Bigfoot is just another big ape-so what. Maybe we are desended from pigs-our DNA matchs pigs more than apes, so where's the Pigman???



posted on Aug, 15 2008 @ 03:41 PM
link   
the bigfoot could be considered a missing link because from what we are led to believe it is more human than most apes, but the creature is nothing more than a north american ape that is huge. It could be taken either way and support either theory. i personally don't believe in creationism, but i dont think it is entirely false.



posted on Aug, 15 2008 @ 04:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by dave420
reply to post by AlexG141989
 


We already have the missing links. The "where is the missing link?" argument was from the 70s, before we had categorised the dozens of hominid apes that nicely flesh out our side of the global animal tree. We don't need Bigfoot to prove or disprove anything - science takes care of that
And it's doing a great job so far.


God bless science!



posted on Aug, 15 2008 @ 08:04 PM
link   
reply to post by Nohup
 


There is no doubt as to where we came from. The space the "missing link" occupies has become smaller and smaller over time. Right now it's miniscule. It casts no shadow of doubt over evolution or where we came from. Only a fool would argue that it's a problem for evolution.



posted on Aug, 15 2008 @ 08:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by reject

They say the platypus is strong evidence for evolution. Now we may have this too that is directly related to us.



I'm extremely curious as to how the platypus is strong evidence for evolution - considering it really screws up the taxonomy tree.

I'm also curious as to how a bigfoot would screw up anything at all. But then I'm not a fatalist, so maybe I'm missing the apocalyptic facet of this.



posted on Aug, 15 2008 @ 08:13 PM
link   
reply to post by Valhall
 


It doesn't screw up the taxonomy at all. The platypus is a great demonstration of a dwindling part of the evolutionary tree. How it is a last vestage of a previous time when mammals were not all live-birth, nipple-having, lip-having, non-toxic creatures.



posted on Aug, 16 2008 @ 11:44 AM
link   
ROFL -- more "mountains of evidence" for evolution turns out to be possum DNA.



The missing link is a possum.



[edit on 8/16/2008 by Bigwhammy]



posted on Aug, 16 2008 @ 12:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by iamcamouflage
reply to post by reject
 



Who needs Bigfoot? There is all ready plenty of evidence to disprove ID and creationism.


No you are wrong, in fact you have been duped into believing a theory so deserving of being dead that it has rigormortis and can no longer be "shaped" into what ever new fangled idiotic and utterly stupid new explanation for it. This is what they have a mountain of, this is what they have so much in surplus are old debunked idiotic postulates of past arguments dogmatically believed by the cultists of Atheism and Darwinian evolution which has done nothing but damage to our society from Hitlers eugenics and the the onslaught of Atheistic societys killing millions and millions and millions and millions of people and is still happening so much today that it makes the iraq war look like a boyscout camp.

There IS NOTHING that disproves creationism NOTHING at all and when you look in the mirror you are looking at creation with intention written all over it to the way you think and feel to the very code written in your DNA and even Dawkins is starting to wake up and finaly see their is no way we came about by chance, no way.

What you got is a mountain of BS



posted on Aug, 16 2008 @ 12:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by dave420
reply to post by Valhall
 


It doesn't screw up the taxonomy at all. The platypus is a great demonstration of a dwindling part of the evolutionary tree. How it is a last vestage of a previous time when mammals were not all live-birth, nipple-having, lip-having, non-toxic creatures.


Sorry Dave the platypus argument died the day they found fossils of it where not s single mophic change has been noted. As a matter of fact they have never found ANY TRACE of intermediates and their would be millions of them if you do the math but NONE not s single one is in any museum anywhere. Those that have been on display were ALL frauds manufactured by a desperate cult of Darwhining dogmatists who just can not face the fact that Darwinism is DEAD so catch up to the 21st century please, you are embarrassing yourself and are totally unaware of how silly you look believing in such fairytales

[edit on 16-8-2008 by XIDIXIDIX]

[edit on 16-8-2008 by XIDIXIDIX]



posted on Aug, 16 2008 @ 12:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Valhall

Originally posted by reject

They say the platypus is strong evidence for evolution. Now we may have this too that is directly related to us.



I'm extremely curious as to how the platypus is strong evidence for evolution - considering it really screws up the taxonomy tree.

I'm also curious as to how a bigfoot would screw up anything at all. But then I'm not a fatalist, so maybe I'm missing the apocalyptic facet of this.


Yes,,m I too want to see them wriggle out of this one. I have a feeling I already know their answer and can not wait to squash it like a bug called the Darwin Beetle, now, so easy to debunk a monkey can do it



posted on Aug, 16 2008 @ 06:07 PM
link   
reply to post by XIDIXIDIX
 


Is that all you have? You clearly have NO IDEA of the theory of evolution, if you feel it proper to say such nonsense in a public setting. You are harming your cause by continuing to spout such utter nonsense.

Your logic, and indeed your argument, is pathetic. You embrace the science that doesn't point out the obvious flaws in your religious beliefs, then somehow, in your twisted intellect, manage to shun the exact same logic and methodology that casts massive, massive doubts on that which your loved ones and religious figures have crammed down your neck throughout your life, since it was first concocted back in the Bronze Age (not really an age given to scientific insight, but you seem to think so).

I don't need to make you change your mind. Unlike you, I'm confident in what I know. By spendng this time talking to you, I'm only trying to help you, not me. If you're that far gone, well, adieu. It was nice knowing you. Let's just be thankful christianity is dying out. As did all the other Bronze Age anachronisms that threatened to drag down civilisation.



posted on Aug, 16 2008 @ 08:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by dave420
Is that all you have? You clearly have NO IDEA of the theory of evolution,
if you feel it proper to say such nonsense in a public setting. You are harming your cause by continuing to spout such utter nonsense.





Is that all you have? You clearly have NO IDEA of the theory of evolution,


Either did Darwin and ya know why Dave??

Their is NO SUCH THING!



Unlike you, I'm confident in what I know.


You're are correct! You are much better suited to know all their is to know about a phenomena that never happened. I admit I am not confident being that kind of a fool



Your logic, and indeed your argument, is pathetic. You embrace the science that doesn't point out the obvious flaws in your religious beliefs, then somehow, in your twisted intellect, manage to shun the exact same logic and methodology that casts massive, massive doubts on that which your loved ones and religious figures have crammed down your neck throughout your life, since it was first concocted back in the Bronze Age (not really an age given to scientific insight, but you seem to think so).



Dave I don't know, perhaps this is why you had so much trouble understanding the extreme inconsistencies with Darwin because you simply don't pay attention so Ill say it again

I AM NOT RELIGIOUS

Talk about being pathetic

[edit on 16-8-2008 by XIDIXIDIX]



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join