Evolutionists ! Explain this and make sense at the same time.

solomons path

Itismenotyou

winofiend
Would not the correct title be, Anthropologists, explain this?

I don't go to an evolutionist when I get a sore throat. But somewhere along the way, it was a factor in my getting a sore throat...

When we can explain with certainty the entirety of human evolution and the history of the earth, beyond theory and conjecture, then I think if we can still rule out evolution as a reasonable course of action that lead to us being here today that we can then entertain 'god' or 'et'. If it must be so.

We will never achieve this. So it's just silly to throw out reasonable explanation in favour of delightul beliefs.

edit on 6-9-2013 by winofiend because: (no reason given)

Okay. Fare enough.

From what I gather the simplest definition of evolution is a constant adaptation to life. Is that correct?

That is a very good point. So using your own train of thought, I think it is just silly to believe (i.e. have faith) in evolution when there is no evidence, other than speculative evidence, that one kind of animal turned into another kind of animal and that life just started by accident. Surely you can't believe we that. We are here because we are meant to be here, other wise we would not be here, unless you believe that accidents (as large as life) happen on a scale so high that they are no longer considered accidents. But that would be ironic. You may not believe that the belief in a creator is reasonable, but I do. I understand how it is reasonable and why it is the only reasonable answer.

Your posts show you do not know anything about what Evolutionary Theory states and clearly are ignorant of what actual evidence there is for evolution.

Evolutionary Theory doesn't state life is the result of an "accident" or the animals just "change kinds", and there is over 150yrs of evidence.

How can you say Evolutionary Theory is wrong, if you don't even understand what it states or the evidence for it?

reply to post by solomons path



Assumptions of another's knowledge has been the downfall of many kingdoms and countries.

Itismenotyou

Nacirema
reply to post by randyvs

 

This guy is clearly not qualified to speak about human osteology or bioarchaeology. He was talking about the deliberate modification of the cranium and the unusual placement of the sutures which bind the various plates together. The cranium of an infant is extremely malleable, so it can be modified. This will greatly affect the process of suture closure (he calls them "creases" in the video).

I fear for the credulous-minded people who choose to eat this kind of stuff up because it supposedly challenges mainstream archaeology. What a load of hooey!

edit: I can't make it past the 30 minute mark; this is too unbearable to watch...

edit on 9/6/2013 by Nacirema because: (no reason given)

He shows the difference between the skulls that are known to be modified by bindings and the skulls, that even I can see, have not been modified by bindings. You see, bindings will in most cases bring the top of the skull up to more of a point. I am not saying all the skulls he tries to use to prove his case were not made from bindings, but a lot of them are not.

Smith even admits he is getting all of his information from Pye and Childress. None of them are anthropologists and clearly do not know what they are looking at. None of them even know how many cranial plates the skull has. Or, they are purposefully giving false information. I've posted all of this previously. Furthermore the odd suture patterns and "holes" they can't explain, which are fontanelle that have failed to harden, are explained by the binding process.

I've even pointed out where you can see the evidence of binding to Randy . . . the circular indentions that are visible mid-skull . . . of course this was ignored by those that wish to believe in Nephilim.

I'm even willing to give them the benefit of the doubt and say they just don't understand the evidence and are suffering from extreme confirmation bias. However, it's more likely they do know the truth, but they can't sell books and gain followers for their ancient alien theory by telling the truth.

Itismenotyou
reply to post by solomons path

 

Assumptions of another's knowledge has been the downfall of many kingdoms and countries.

It's not an assumption . . . I'm judging by your own words. So, nice strawman deflection that has nothing to do with the topic.

You clearly stated:

That is a very good point. So using your own train of thought, I think it is just silly to believe (i.e. have faith) in evolution when there is no evidence, other than speculative evidence, that one kind of animal turned into another kind of animal and that life just started by accident. Surely you can't believe we that. We are here because we are meant to be here, other wise we would not be here, unless you believe that accidents (as large as life) happen on a scale so high that they are no longer considered accidents. But that would be ironic. You may not believe that the belief in a creator is reasonable, but I do. I understand how it is reasonable and why it is the only reasonable answer.

Horus12
Religious scripture was created by humans.. who basically just believe no questions asked and comes from a time when people were a lot simpler, we have moved on since then. Science in its true form looks for evidence, when its disproved in one place its corrected and it moves forward, You could say it evolves. Hence the advancements in technology, medicine and pretty much everything else you see today.

The bible just spews the same age old clap trap thats been used and edited by rulers and followed by fanatics/conditioned people throughout the ages, its dated and I often wonder how a rational mind can still believe such things in 2013.

edit on 7-9-2013 by Horus12 because: (no reason given)

Yeah a lot simpler. Like the great buildings they built. Precise. Moving Stones that machines today would have a hard time moving. lol. Man wake up. They did and built marvelous things back then and they did not destroy the earth like we do today with science. They where not as simple as some would suggest. They may have lived simpler, less lazy lives, but I would say they were a lot wiser than the people of today.

solomons path

Itismenotyou
reply to post by solomons path

 

Assumptions of another's knowledge has been the downfall of many kingdoms and countries.

It's not an assumption . . . I'm judging by your own words. So, nice strawman deflection that has nothing to do with the topic.

You clearly stated:

That is a very good point. So using your own train of thought, I think it is just silly to believe (i.e. have faith) in evolution when there is no evidence, other than speculative evidence, that one kind of animal turned into another kind of animal and that life just started by accident. Surely you can't believe we that. We are here because we are meant to be here, other wise we would not be here, unless you believe that accidents (as large as life) happen on a scale so high that they are no longer considered accidents. But that would be ironic. You may not believe that the belief in a creator is reasonable, but I do. I understand how it is reasonable and why it is the only reasonable answer.

Then by all means my good man. Show me your proof that evolution is a fact that you have observed for yourself in person, without the need to put your faith and belief in the words of others. After all that is what you want from me correct?

reply to post by solomons path


Bedtime for me now. I will be on tomorrow night and I look forward to this debate. Good night.

Itismenotyou

solomons path

Itismenotyou
reply to post by solomons path

 

Assumptions of another's knowledge has been the downfall of many kingdoms and countries.

It's not an assumption . . . I'm judging by your own words. So, nice strawman deflection that has nothing to do with the topic.

You clearly stated:

That is a very good point. So using your own train of thought, I think it is just silly to believe (i.e. have faith) in evolution when there is no evidence, other than speculative evidence, that one kind of animal turned into another kind of animal and that life just started by accident. Surely you can't believe we that. We are here because we are meant to be here, other wise we would not be here, unless you believe that accidents (as large as life) happen on a scale so high that they are no longer considered accidents. But that would be ironic. You may not believe that the belief in a creator is reasonable, but I do. I understand how it is reasonable and why it is the only reasonable answer.

Then by all means my good man. Show me your proof that evolution is a fact that you have observed for yourself in person, without the need to put your faith and belief in the words of others. After all that is what you want from me correct?

Sexual Reproduction, Sperm Competition, Sexual Selection, Artificial Selection, Ativisms, Anatomical and Molecular Vestiges, Speciation, Geographic Distribution of Related Species, Genetic Change over Generations, Chemical and Anatomical Similarities, Antibiotic Resistance, DNA Transcription, DNA functional redundency, Morphological Similarities in the Fossil Record, Transitional Forms in the Fossil Record.

I could keep going . . . but, something tells me you have a good reason why none of this is evidence of evolution anyway.

Now . . . same goes for you.

Show me empirical evidence of said creator?

It's funny that your argument against the validity of Evolutionary Theory is that you are taking someone else's word for it, from a book, so it is based on faith . . . Yet, the only "evidence" for a creator is archaic mythology found in a book, as given to us from "holy men" and "prophets". Well, none of the evidence I listed above is "just from a book". They are real world phenomena that happen (or have happened). You can experience them for yourself . . . you don't "have to put your belief in the word's of others", unlike supernatural creation.

Or, are you claiming to be able to cite evidence of supernatural creation . . .

randyvs
reply to post by solomons path

 

Not sure how ethical this is but I do trust Unified or Murg to give as honest
a commiment as mine would be for now. If that 's ok for you put the question to them.
And I will still honor what I said later ? As I'm also interested very much by your Q.

edit on 7-9-2013 by randyvs because: (no reason given)

Also from some of your own peers. and colleagues.

edit on 7-9-2013 by randyvs because: (no reason given)

What exactly is the purpose of posting the two links in this post?

They are basically links to the Discovery Institute and to a lesser degree the Biological Society of Washington. Are you actually familiar with these organizations or did you just think this bolsters the "conspiracy to silence" argument? BTW - it does not bolster that argument. Although to someone who is not familiar with these groups, I can see how you, Murg, or the others posting "Expelled" might. Did you even read the info contained in the links or the findings of the USOSC?

I'm quite familiar with both and their agenda, but I would like to know what your point is before responding to these links.

I will say it's moving the goalposts a bit and quite the "red herring", as it has nothing to do with Smith, Pye, or Childress.

solomons path
reply to post by undo

 

This thread has turned into the one big creationist tactic of "moving goal posts" and placing head in sand that is typical of "superstitionists" and their conspiracist ideation.

You seem to be ignoring the fact that the OP and the "questions" were already addressed. Heck, I gave a pretty good response, in detail, starting on page 2.

Yet, that's not what the Randy, you, or any other creationist want to hear and it's ignored. Then seven pages later it's still . . . "why can't anybody answer the questions?", followed by the fallacious claim the "because they can't". No . . . they can. It just doesn't involve Aliens, Nephilim, or any other supernatural entity.

edit on 9/10/13 by solomons path because: (no reason given)

edit on 9/10/13 by solomons path because: (no reason given)

i hadn't read your reply to the op till now. pretty interesting. i'm not against the idea that some of these incidents are mundane, normal, biological malfunctions. however, if 2 species interbred that weren't exactly friendly, biologically, there would likely be biological malfunctions as well as a result, it's hard to see that as an argument for or against the possibility.

i discussed this topic in a thread of my own but added that the incidence of these occurences were almost entirely linked to ancient royals. even their crowns were oddly shaped to accomodate the long skull, and not only accomodate, but also had the side effect of disguise.

in the information i read from egyptian anthropologists, it was stated that the egyptians didn't headbind.

reply to post by Itismenotyou


did you read about the schist vases? schist is like flint. it splinters, fractures easily, and is very brittle. they found vases with schist fluted necks. check this out
www.theglobaleducationproject.org...

reply to post by solomons path


My Bad, and a big apology to all. Lets put it this way. The info at those sites has changed.

Solomon you are right and you own me, you even told me twice.

But at least I'm ready to keep my word now. Better screen. Again I apologize.

reply to post by peter vlar


Same for Peter. I apologize.

reply to post by undo


That is correct Egyptians did not bind. However, the only line that is associated with the head shape, in question here, was that of Tuthmosis I (founder of Akhenaten's paternal line, which ended with King Tut).

I posted this information on page 3 of this thread.

Most researchers believe this line suffered from craniosynostosis. This genetic condition is dominant and would effect all descendants and would have been exaggerated with the prevalence of intermarriage within the family line.

reply to post by randyvs


Here we go again with the whole, "lack of evidence is evidence!" argument.

Ahem. First, better to not post 2 hour long videos if you expect people to watch them; people seldom have two hours to devote to responding in a thread. By the looks of it, however, the video you linked is a loaded full of religious braintrash, so it's not exactly something an "evolutionist," or rather, a person who utilizes logic and common sense, would find stimulating.

Second, if you actually take time to look into anthropology, you'll find that there is a VAST body of knowledge in regards to the documentation of evolution in many species, including our own. Now, could there have been giant hominids? Sure, why not; nobody is claiming that we have discovered all that there is to discover. As it stands, as per the fossil record, there is not enough conclusive evidence of their existence. However, would their existence serve as proof of god's existence? HELL NO.

Who are you trying to convince? You're completely ignorant of evolutionary science, by the looks of it, yet you offer your criticism on the topic? Again, THERE IS A VAST AMOUNT OF EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF EVOLUTIONARY THEORY. In case you're confused in regards to what evolution is, you can pretty much substitute the word "Adaption" wherever you would use the word Evolution. Evolution is, essentially, adaption on a grand scale. Species adapt over time to thrive in their set environments; this is the process of evolution. Please, actually have some knowledge of what it is you're bashing about before you pass ridiculous judgments.

randyvs
reply to post by solomons path

 

My Bad, and a big apology to all. Lets put it this way. The info at those sites has changed.

Solomon you are right and you own me, you even told me twice.

But at least I'm ready to keep my word now. Better screen. Again I apologize.

Nah . . . I don't own you. I own no man. That's what this site is for, no? No apologies needed.

I'm much more worked up by those that cite "Expelled" as evidence to this "conspiracy of silence". That propaganda piece and it's production has been filled with lies from the onset. I may have to start a thread on the history of that film to set some straight. I was even supposed to see a screening of that in Tempe, AZ in 2008, but was told it was cancelled by the marketers . . . it wasn't. Later found out it was because I was not affiliated with a church group and they were screening attendees for anyone that might be critical of the film.

Everything in that film is false, and yet, some in this thread post it as gospel. That is why I asked about your links to the Discovery Institute, as well.

undo
however, if 2 species interbred that weren't exactly friendly, biologically, there would likely be biological malfunctions as well as a result, it's hard to see that as an argument for or against the possibility.

Homo Sapiens Sapiens and Homo Neanderthalensus; modern humans and neanderthals. Us having about 4% neanderthal DNA is proof of our ancestors breeding with another "species" of hominid. It's similar to how you can breed dogs and wolves, and other similar animals.

I suppose it's as the saying goes, nature finds a way.

reply to post by solomons path


Well that's gracious of you, thanks for not making me wear that one. I had my rain gear on.

I'm having a problem knowing where and what to look for back on page 5 in the vid.
Around fifty minutes but I just want to be sure of what you are seeing.
Maybe you can pinpoint in minutes for me ? when ever you have time ?

solomons path
reply to post by undo

 

That is correct Egyptians did not bind. However, the only line that is associated with the head shape, in question here, was that of Tuthmosis I (founder of Akhenaten's paternal line, which ended with King Tut).

I posted this information on page 3 of this thread.

Most researchers believe this line suffered from craniosynostosis. This genetic condition is dominant and would effect all descendants and would have been exaggerated with the prevalence of intermarriage within the family line.

as far as i can tell, akhenaten's line was not the only example. it appears that it just became fashionable to reveal the difference. however, i did research on the skulls of various egyptian royal mummies, and the skull length and capacity was frequently evident. not in the artwork, however, just in the mummies. so my theory is that in keeping with his interest in changing the status quo of his time, akhenaten not only changed the religion, he changed the art to be more in keeping with his interpretation of reality.

DestroyDestroyDestroy

undo
however, if 2 species interbred that weren't exactly friendly, biologically, there would likely be biological malfunctions as well as a result, it's hard to see that as an argument for or against the possibility.

Homo Sapiens Sapiens and Homo Neanderthalensus; modern humans and neanderthals. Us having about 4% neanderthal DNA is proof of our ancestors breeding with another "species" of hominid. It's similar to how you can breed dogs and wolves, and other similar animals.

I suppose it's as the saying goes, nature finds a way.

the argument really isn't that nature can't find a way, the argument is, why this marker is so prevalent in ancient royals. in south and central american examples, they appear to be trying to mimic it via head binding, which i find particularly interesting.

reply to post by randyvs


Nothing but time, due to insomnia this morning.

If it is the binding evidence, the best examples are at 1:31 to 1:44. Look for the "circle" indentation around mid-skull.

The first skull at 50min looks more like craniosynostosis, judging by the malformed plating and incomplete suture fusion. It's also definitely a juvenile, based on the development of the facial bones. The "royal redhead" is harder to see to due to hair, however you barely make out the indentation that circles the skull half way up. The one that Brian Forrester is holding is much more obvious, if you pause it at 50:33. Then it shows the juvenile again after that.

Here is an MRI of what craniosynostosis looks like and you can see the hole on top:


Here is an extreme case from India:


The skulls that go more vertical are all definitely bindings though.