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.

 

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

page: 4
20
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 7 2013 @ 05:26 PM
link   
reply to post by randyvs
 


And yet it also shows that most scientists are more interested in the truth than hoaxes. When it comes to evolution there have only been a handful of hoaxes and each one was outed by the very scientists whose research would benefit from it. If something like Piltdown Man disproves evolution then that must mean that Christianity is disproved by all the Holy Grails and Arks of the Covenant are out there. Researchers cannot even prove one of these as being legitimate. Yet if they could that would mean all the others are hoaxes and by your logic disproves the entire concept of Christianity.



posted on Sep, 7 2013 @ 05:30 PM
link   
reply to post by Xcalibur254
 


Originally posted by Xcalibur254
Find me one scientist in the past 60-70 years that has cited Piltdown Man as evidence of evolution.

If I found 1000 scientists that cited Piltdown as evidence, would that convince you?

The bottom line is that there is no proof that will satisfy you so you will continue to believe whatever it is that you believe.

No one can convince you of something you are in denial about.

Are you really interested in the truth or are you only interested in supporting your existing belief system and denying what you do not WANT to be real?



posted on Sep, 7 2013 @ 05:37 PM
link   
reply to post by Murgatroid
 


Hogwash . . . we have found juvenile Neanderthal fossils, so no they just weren't "normal humans of advanced age".

Also, you seem to propagating a antiquated view of Neanderthals that was prevalent at the turn of the 20th and no longer held by anthropologists today (sub-intelligence, etc.)

Links for you to update your knowledge on what we believe about Neanderthals today . . .

Neanderthal Language

Neanderthal Young

Neanderthal Young2

N. Intelligence

N. Intelligence2

Neanderthal Info - Smithsonian

Also . . . if old and found out frauds and hoaxes by a few are enough to discredit our current view of Evolutionary Biology and Anthropology, then what about the multitude of frauds and hoaxes where ancient (or modern) aliens and religions are concerned?

Should I list all of the frauds and hoaxes, like relics and such? I shouldn't have to as you should know full well about such things.

I guess what is good for the goose right . . . "wake up you've been lied to" . . . right?

You've got nothing but conjecture and superstition that starts with the supposition that there is supernatural influence. The difference with your claim is that there is no direct evidence, what so ever, to back it, so you must find where scientists have made mistakes or con-men went seeking notoriety (Piltdown, Peking, etc.) to make your claim seem more reliable/believable. Problem is for every hoax (which have all been called out as hoaxes by actual scientists) that is on the Evolution side . . . there are 10 from the supporters of religious or ancient alien mythology.

"Turn off the TV" . . . good one . . . maybe you should read an actual biology or anthropology text.



posted on Sep, 7 2013 @ 05:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Xcalibur254
reply to post by randyvs
 


And yet it also shows that most scientists are more interested in the truth than hoaxes. When it comes to evolution there have only been a handful of hoaxes and each one was outed by the very scientists whose research would benefit from it. If something like Piltdown Man disproves evolution then that must mean that Christianity is disproved by all the Holy Grails and Arks of the Covenant are out there. Researchers cannot even prove one of these as being legitimate. Yet if they could that would mean all the others are hoaxes and by your logic disproves the entire concept of Christianity.


Beat me to the punch . . . You are exactly right, but the superstitious will never cop to it. Their reasoning only works one way, as past errors/misconceptions/frauds are the only argument against evolution that they have. If they had any direct evidence for their claims they wouldn't even care to challenge Evolutionary Biology/Anthro . . . the evidence for the supernatural would stand on it's own merits.
edit on 9/7/13 by solomons path because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 7 2013 @ 05:42 PM
link   
reply to post by Xcalibur254
 



Originally posted by Xcalibur254
And yet it also shows that most scientists are more interested in the truth than hoaxes.

What scientists are interested in is completely irrelevant...

Scientists are PUPPETS just like politicians.

They are not ALLOWED to look for the truth...

Looking for facts in Science makes just as much sense as looking for truth in politics.

One of the most mysterious things to me personally is WHY most believe what they are told by known liars.


"...if you ask questions you’ll be working at McDonalds tomorrow”

Updated List of Obviously Murdered Scientists


“Through interviews with representatives from both sides of the debate, Stein found out that educators and scientists are being ridiculed, denied tenure and even fired in some cases for the fact that they believe there is evidence of “design” in nature, challenging the idea that life is a result of random chance, according to a news release.

In another case, Caroline Crocker, a biology teacher at George Mason University who was forced out of the university for briefly discussing problems with Darwinian Theory and for telling the students that some scientists believe there is evidence of intelligent design in the universe.

“If you just stand up and question Darwinism – that’s it – your career is over”

“Scientists are supposed to be allowed to follow the evidence wherever it may lead, no matter what the implications are. Freedom of inquiry has been greatly compromised, and this is not only anti-American, it’s anti-science. Its anti-the whole concept of learning” said Stein in a news release.

“Scientists are not even allowed to think thoughts that involve an intelligent creator.”

Source



posted on Sep, 7 2013 @ 05:44 PM
link   
 




 



posted on Sep, 7 2013 @ 05:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by Murgatroid
reply to post by Xcalibur254
 


Originally posted by Xcalibur254
Find me one scientist in the past 60-70 years that has cited Piltdown Man as evidence of evolution.

If I found 1000 scientists that cited Piltdown as evidence, would that convince you?

The bottom line is that there is no proof that will satisfy you so you will continue to believe whatever it is that you believe.

No one can convince you of something you are in denial about.

Are you really interested in the truth or are you only interested in supporting your existing belief system and denying what you do not WANT to be real?



Piltdown was exposed as a hoax in 1953 and no scientist today (that works in the field) claim it to be anything but. If you can find 1, let alone 10, that cite this hoax as real . . . I'll ask for their credentials and ask how much you are paying them. Go to any university, museum, forum where actual people work in the field and ask them . . . record it . . . I'm dying to see it.

Piltdown


edit on 9/7/13 by solomons path because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 7 2013 @ 05:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by randyvs
reply to post by solomons path
 





If they had any direct evidence for their claims they wouldn't even care to challenge Evolutionary Biology/Anthro . . . the evidence for the supernatural would stand on it's own merits.


Doe c doe and right back atchya.


Mountains that you can replicate and try to falsify . . . do you want me to assign you a paper to read and recreate as homework?

Tell you what . . . you send me a link to an actual research paper that follows the scientific method on Nephilim that claims to show objective evidence for their existence and I will recreate the work, in order to falsify.

Do you actually know what objective evidence is? Understand what falsification means in scientific research? Have there even ever been any such papers dealing with the supernatural that don't start out with the supposition of truth?
edit on 9/7/13 by solomons path because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 7 2013 @ 05:56 PM
link   
reply to post by Murgatroid
 


How about you provide 1000 scientists that have cited Piltdown Man as evidence since the 1950s. Then we can see my reaction. Note: I'm asking for scientists that have used Piltdown Man as evidence for evolution. I could care less about the thousands of blogs out there by "Creation scientists" that use Piltdown Man as some kind of proof that evolution is wrong.



posted on Sep, 7 2013 @ 05:58 PM
link   
reply to post by Murgatroid
 


Not true . . . they are scoffed at for not following scientific method, meaning "when they can't show actual evidence for their beliefs or findings". And sure, some may lose tenure if they are a laughing stock that put out research unsupported by evidence.

But the rest falls right into the whole conspiracist ideation model . . . and you are knee deep in it to protect your unfounded belief structure.




edit on 9/7/13 by solomons path because: (no reason given)

edit on 9/7/13 by solomons path because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 7 2013 @ 06:05 PM
link   
reply to post by Murgatroid
 


From this post I take it you have never taken part in actual research. Let alone have had a paper published. Those that partake in the scientific method are not indoctrinated into some secret cabal that must support a certain agenda. We are simply curious people. I guarantee you if any scientist came across empirical evidence that the current paradigm were wrong they would publish it in an instance. The reason people like Newton, Darwin, and Einstein are remembered today is because they turned their respective field on its head. That's why these science conspiracies make no sense. I know the reason I'm willing to spend thousands of dollars and years on my life getting a PhD is because I want to discover something that has never been found before. It has nothing to do with supporting an agenda set by a nefarious yet unknown group of people.



posted on Sep, 7 2013 @ 06:23 PM
link   
reply to post by Xcalibur254
 



How about you provide 1000 scientists that have cited Piltdown Man as evidence since the 1950s. Then we can see my reaction. Note: I'm asking for scientists that have used Piltdown Man as evidence for evolution. I could care less about the thousands of blogs out there by "Creation scientists" that use Piltdown Man as some kind of proof that evolution is wrong.

And I could care less about your reaction...


Like i said, NO one can convince you of something you are in denial about.

I WAS interested in your answer to the question you completely ignored though:


Are you really interested in the truth or are you only interested in supporting your existing belief system and denying what you do not WANT to be real?



posted on Sep, 7 2013 @ 06:27 PM
link   
reply to post by solomons path
 



Originally posted by solomons path
Not true . . . .

I cited much evidence from reliable sources...

You cited NOTHING other than your opinion.

We ALL know what opinions amount to.



posted on Sep, 7 2013 @ 06:37 PM
link   
reply to post by Xcalibur254
 



these science conspiracies make no sense...

Ever tried to wake someone up who isn't actually asleep?


"You can't wake someone who is pretending to be asleep." ~ Native American Proverb

NOTHING makes any sense when you are sleeping...

FYI, this makes no sense either... NIKOLA TESLA--ERASED AT THE SMITHSONIAN



posted on Sep, 7 2013 @ 06:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Murgatroid
reply to post by solomons path
 



Originally posted by solomons path
Not true . . . .

I cited much evidence from reliable sources...

You cited NOTHING other than your opinion.

We ALL know what opinions amount to.


You provided nothing of the sort . . . what you provided were the opinions of Steve Quayle, in list form of dead scientists, which shows no link or evidence of a conspiracy to silence those that believe in "intelligent design" and a YouTube version of Expelled, which was propaganda produced by the Discovery Institute during the "teach the controversy" push. An "institute" that is spearheaded on this issue by Michael Behe, who despite being at the forefront of the intelligent design movement has not been murdered or lost tenure at Lehigh University. Behe even admitted in court (Kitzmiller v. Dover) that he has misrepresented current research to support his Christian beliefs on intelligent design and admitted there is nothing in the current research that is evidence for this designer and his theories are conjecture based on his faith in a designer.

So you neither have "evidence" or "reliable" sources . . . I'll ask you as well . . . Do you actually know what qualifies as objective evidence?

But by all means . . . roll your eyes and keep feeding the confirmation bias that fuels that conspiracist ideation.
edit on 9/7/13 by solomons path because: (no reason given)

edit on 9/7/13 by solomons path because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 7 2013 @ 06:56 PM
link   
reply to post by Murgatroid
 


If you follow my posts on here you will see that I am one of the few people on here that actually are interested in the truth. I will extensively research the topics I'm interested in and present my findings. As a result I have accepted evolution and rejected things like the 2012 theories. I think the ET hypothesis is the worst thing that ever happened to ufology due its limited vision and tendency to ignore cases of high strangeness. I have no agenda despite what some may think. I'm simply interested in the truth and nothing else. However, this topic is not about me.



posted on Sep, 7 2013 @ 06:57 PM
link   
reply to post by Murgatroid
 


And in the case of your quoted Biologist that lost her job at George Mason . . . she was contracted as "contingent faculty". She is an immunopharmacologist that was asked to teach a Biology 101 class (entry . . . basic biology), who started her first class by asking the students "Did Man descend from Monkeys?". Clearly showing she had no business teaching Biology . . . as nothing in Evolutionary Theory states man descended from monkey. Her understanding of the evolutionary path of primates was on par with William Jennings Bryan in the Scopes trial. She was not let go for being an ID proponent . . . she was let go because she didn't know the subject matter well enough, clearly not understanding Evolutionary Theory, and was a poor teacher. I'll admit she was ridiculed for her presentations, as she should have been, but she was doing students who actually want to learn current understanding a disservice.

Maybe you are the one who needs to seek truth and "wake up"? You seem to have fallen for some pretty easy to cut through propaganda.
edit on 9/7/13 by solomons path because: (no reason given)

edit on 9/7/13 by solomons path because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 7 2013 @ 07:00 PM
link   
reply to post by Murgatroid
 


Which scientists are in doubt about evolution?

Have a citation for Neanderthal being a normal human who lived to a great age?

The term "missing link" is a tad anachronistic dont you think? Actual scientists don't use that phrase and I haven't heard it used by anyone but deniers of evolution since around 1989.

Yes piltdown was an actual hoax. That doesn't make every other hominid fossil a hoax though.
By the way, who the hell is 'east Africa man'? Nebraska man was an instance where poor science conducted.it was also nearly 100 years ago and the story was actually retracted in 1927.
Java Man for example, the initial find was a gun jumping moment but Dubois was vindicated short after by finding a early comets specimen. Today we call that Homo Erectus. It's real. Not a hoax. Peking Man, again Homo Erectus. Still not a hoax.

Which text books still use anachronistic examples to prove evolution.

Seriously? You're supporting citations are a thread from another message board and religious blogs? You've got to d a little better than that. Without support for your claims its just supposition and conjecture on your end. When you make a claim the onus is upon you to support it.

Your last link is so far removed from reality some guy in Texas is going to bud a mega church in its honor. Yes there were incorrect reconstructions but no longer. They still aren't us and they still didnt live for hundreds of years.
Protsch was discredited by other scientists trying to verify his claims. It's one date for One skull. It doesn't poison the well for an entire genus.

Basically your entire position is a fallacy propped up by blogs written by other people who don't understand science any better than you so it sounds really cool. I sympathize. I was there once. Then I opened my eyes.



posted on Sep, 7 2013 @ 07:07 PM
link   
reply to post by Xcalibur254
 


I hear where your coming from X...

Perhaps I was a bit rude, but not intentionally.

I guess it is just so easy online to lash out and focus on a persons character instead of the issue at hand.

I sincerely apologize.



posted on Sep, 7 2013 @ 07:36 PM
link   
reply to post by solomons path
 



She was not let go for being an ID proponent . . . and was a poor teacher.

100% incorrect...

This IS ATS, remember?

It is pretty obvious here that either 1) you are 100% pro mainstream OR 2) you are 100% BLINDED by the mainstream manipulation.

Or perhaps both...

Either way, your credibility is seriously lacking.


Free to Think is about one politically incorrect professor's foray into the academic world. Dr. Crocker, a widely published scientist with numerous peer reviewed publications, goes into detail about both what she taught at George Mason University and how she taught it. In the end, the University did not like her challenging dogmatic fundamentalist Darwinism.

What is really upsetting, documented by pages of photocopies of University documents, is how they ended her career. To be blunt, they unethically connived to censor her by very underhanded and unethical tactics, to say the least. To detail what they did here would cause one to lose credibility. You must read the original documents to comprehend what the University did to this excellent professor and how. B ook Review

The true story is told in Free to Think: until Crocker challenged evolution in the classroom, she was recognized as an outstanding teacher. At the very time Crocker was told by her Department Head that she would be disciplined for challenging Darwin, she received a performance review from her Provost that called her teaching "outstanding" as "evidenced by unusually high student rankings"! The Provost even praised her, saying, "This kind of teaching quality is essential for this vital educational program, and we're very grateful for your successful efforts."

Such statements hardly describe a teacher who would otherwise be expected to soon lose her job. Yet Crocker did subsequently lose her job, and we know exactly why. As Crocker documents in her book, her administrators didn't want her challenging Darwin.

Caroline Crocker's Story of Discrimination





edit on 7-9-2013 by Murgatroid because: I felt like it..




top topics



 
20
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join