Prove Evolution Is False - Even Without the Bible

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
a reply to: Krazysh0t

The tone of your writing comes off as though you are superior. Darwinian mechanisms have been shown again and again to be unable to cause body morphogenesis. Yet you stand here and defend an already defeated theory.

Where? Prove it to me. Who has shown what you are saying? Which studies? How has it stood up to peer review? Just because you say something is true on ATS doesn't make it so.

originally posted by: NaughtyLibrarian
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Also there's something called "the disclosure project" that has alot of credible people behind it and you may want to check that out.
Thanks
Sara

Well the disclosure project is more for aliens in present day visitation. So now you are changing the course of the conversation. We were supposed to be talking about disproving evolution (the thread IS titled Prove Evolution is False) or in your case proving AA.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Well, I know it is a bit different from what we were really talking about, but I threw it in there because, hey, if their coming here now, (IF) then they exist, so its possible they came here then. So thats how this applies to my arguement. And I just thought, wow cool some credible people are coming forward finally. They didn't look like nuts to me... But then again who knows?
Also I do believe that evolution to an extent did create us, I'm not disputing evolution. I'm just saying I think we were tweeked at some point. I'm not fixed on ancient aliens either but I am convinced it was not your typical case of natural selection.

Thank you
Sara

a reply to: NaughtyLibrarian

To be honest, I don't doubt that aliens exist in the cosmos. It's almost inevitable according to probability. Though we have to understand that it isn't proven yet. Even this guy at NASA doesn't have definitive proof here. It's cool that scientists are starting to finally see what may be signs of extra-terrestrial life out there, but keep in mind, signs are a FAR cry from an advanced civilization that FIRST has the ability to even locate us, and second has the ability to come here. Keep in mind, you are suggesting they were here before we mastered remote communication technology, so these aliens would have to have found us using some VERY advanced viewing technology as well.

Plus there is the universal speed limit we still have to worry about. Traveling to another star may actually be physically impossible to do in a human lifetime for all we know.

The ancient alien hypothesis is fun to consider, like I said, I used to be right there with you. I had suspected it for a long time, then Ancient Aliens started airing and I got excited that others felt the same as I did. But after honestly analyzing the evidence that they present, it just keeps coming up short. It could totally still be true (though aliens editing our genetic code is likely a fantasy), but it has a long way to go to prove that.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

If we go by your form of argument thats most definitely all i have to do..

a reply to: Krazysh0t



Don't take it from take it from ole craig.

a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

I watched most of your video and I intend to finish it later. It was pretty interesting. But I think if those skulls are real then its probably the evidence of aliens being here in ancient times that they say they can't find...
Do you know if they have tested the DNA in the giant skulls? Is it human or humamish? I didn't catch it if they said they've tested it or not?
I mean, I guess you can tell by the skull plates and stuff that they're not human, but do they have similar DNA? I wonder?
Sara

a reply to: Krazysh0t

I was thinking about what you said about them having to have very advanced veiwing tech. And at first I agreed, but then I started thinking, maybe they just did what we're doing? I mean looking for planets like our own that might support life like we know it.... It could've just been pure luck that there was a species of hominids here... OR it could be totally common to find creatures like us on planets like ours??? It could've been a species that lost their home planet a long time ago and has adapted to kind of utilize other planets... Ha-ha! That's a lot of what ifs huh? But hey just saying...
The traveling of many many light years.... I don't know, I got nothin.... Would a species age slower if they came from a bigger planet than earth? Lol I admit, that's reaching.
The original Stargate movie with Kurt Russell is what planted the seed for me ;-)
Sara

originally posted by: MoshiachIusDei


The last one shows what happens if life attempts to 'evolve' bringing the loops back in line. The distortions go crazy. Hardship increases many times and the life succumbs.

Except that life doesn't "attempt" to evolve anymore than it attempts to breath in O2 and exhale CO2. It's a natural process.

Evolution, if it exists, is therefore more detrimental than beneficial.

Based on what? Your images alone? The truth of it is that the vast majority of mutations are neutral, neither beneficial nor detrimental.

God would not build in a self-destruct program in His pride and joy, Creation.

Which God though? The Abrahamic god? Or one of the other, literally hundreds, of gods worshipped across the globe? There are multiple interpretations of the related scripture in the Christian camp alone without adding in Judaism, Islam or Baha'i let alone non Abrahamic theologies. There is no "self destruct" from an evolutionary stand point anyway. Otherwise neither H. neanderthalensis nor H. altaiensis would have survived for over a quarter million years in some of the most rugged and harsh conditions and environments in the history of the genus Homo. You seek to be nder the impression that evolution is promoted with and endgame or some sort of goal to attain perfection which could not be farther from the truth. This is one of the biggest hurdles faced when attempting to educate people on the science behind Modern Evolutionary Synthesis, showing people that what they have been led to believe regarding MES is completely incorrect. Once they become attached to their misguided POV's, it becomes nearly impossible to show the, the error of their ways.

originally posted by: NaughtyLibrarian


But I think if those skulls are real then its probably the evidence of aliens being here in ancient times that they say they can't find...

The skulls are real but they are completely human in origin. Sometimes it's just as important to vet the source of the information being presented as it is the data sets themselves. Brian Foerster, along with Lloyd Pye are frauds of the highest order. While they may have initially believed that the Paracas Skulls were in fact evidence of non terrestrial biological intervention, there's no way they can continue to believe such considering the shoddy science and duplicitous presentations of their "evidence" and outright lies that continue to unravel for anyone who is willing to look at the data and let go of their emotional need for these skulls to be something more than they are. The claims that the skulls are 25% larger than those of an average human and that the bone density is greater... Complete bull s#. There is not one aspect of the Paracas skulls that places them beyond the normal constraints of Homo Sapiens Sapiens. Everything about them is quite clearly the result of head binding and cranial volume is well within normal parameters.

Do you know if they have tested the DNA in the giant skulls?

Is it human or humamish? I didn't catch it if they said they've tested it or not?

They're not giant at all and DNA has been tested. It's human. 100% and they have obtained samples from bone, teeth and hair. The only issue at all with the DNA testing is that instead of Foerster having an outside team come in to collect samples and then sending it all out to a separate, unaffiliated lab, Foerster opted to collect the samples himself and then send them to his "colleague" Lloyd Pye. If they were doing real science, they would have maintained some legitimate scientific rigor and avoided any scrutiny.

I mean, I guess you can tell by the skull plates and stuff that they're not human, but do they have similar DNA? I wonder?

Sara

There isn't anything about these skulls that isn't human. Head binding has been practiced for millennia on every continent(except for Antarctica of course) and every indication is that the shape of these skulls is a result of head binding. Add in the genetic results and there simply is no credible link to non terrestrial entities. Not in this instance at least.

a reply to: peter vlar

Wow, I really need to look farther into this now!
If what your saying about the DNA is true, then the history channel are not just exaggeraters of the truth, but bold faced liers!
youtu.be...
They specifically say that the bones have been tested and that DNA was found that is not of this world!
The guy in the "nephilum" video did strike me as uncredible in a way and I also see no reason for you to lie, so it begs the question: how can the history channel push straight fiction like that? Like I said, I need to look into it myself now.
There were to points that make me wonder if the info you got wasn't disinformation though and they are this.
#1- how is it that they found babies with this deformity? Head binding and neck elongation and such takes years if I've learned right?
#2-that seam between the skull plates... Where is it? It doesn't look moved? It is simply missing? And I'm asking you, not being sarcastic, wouldn't that in itself without testing indicate the DNA is at least different from homo sapiens sapiens in some ways?

I don't know, what do you think about those two things?
Sara

originally posted by: NaughtyLibrarian
a reply to: peter vlar

Wow, I really need to look farther into this now!
If what your saying about the DNA is true, then the history channel are not just exaggeraters of the truth, but bold faced liers!
youtu.be...
They specifically say that the bones have been tested and that DNA was found that is not of this world!

I skimmed through the video you linkeds and to be fair, the History Channel isn't actually guiltyof lying. They let people like Brian Foerster do the actual lying. People get confused by the title of the channel and forget that television is aboutratings and profits. If that means presenting varying versions of history to suit particular demographics then so be it unfortunately.

The guy in the "nephilum" video did strike me as uncredible in a way and I also see no reason for you to lie, so it begs the question: how can the history channel push straight fiction like that? Like I said, I need to look into it myself now.

At the end of the day, the History Channel has 2 jobs, to entertain people enough that they keep coming back and to make money which is based on the first part of this equation. They don't have the burdon of honesty or truthfulness weighing them down becauswe they aren't necesarily presenting it as THE truth. just A truth.

There were to points that make me wonder if the info you got wasn't disinformation though and they are this.
#1- how is it that they found babies with this deformity? Head binding and neck elongation and such takes years if I've learned right?

Headbinding in paracas culture began at a very early age. it wouldnt be ubnusual to see children who have undergone the procedure, particularly in an era where infant and child mortality rates dwarf the current numbers.

#2-that seam between the skull plates... Where is it? It doesn't look moved? It is simply missing? And I'm asking you, not being sarcastic, wouldn't that in itself without testing indicate the DNA is at least different from homo sapiens sapiens in some ways?

I don't know, what do you think about those two things?
Sara

The skull sutures are there. If you notice, in many of the photos favored for pushing the AA hypothesis via skull elongation, the vast majority of them have what is called a patina. that is, they appear darker as a result of mineral buildup. This patina makes IDing the sutures a little more difficult. In skulls with less of a patina, the sutures are much easier to notice. There is also theissue of purposely taking photos from an angle more conducive to making the AA hypothesis believable as Brian Foerster and Hidden Inca Tours rely on that crowd in order to make a living. Please don't just take my word for any of it and engage in good due diligence. I will say this much...while my area of research was on much older hominids, I actually have credentials in this field unlike Foerster and from a professional perspective, He is taking everyone for a ride and none of the science supports his supposition. Does it not come off as a little odd to you that they wouldn't initially disclose the labs or who performed the actual DNA testing? That one of the people doing the testing requestedto have their name withheld? that they made the claim that the mtDNA had mutations that didnt match any known mutation on record and then followed that statement up with a request for more money to do a full genomic workup. If they need to continue to do more research then it doesnt sound like a very open and shut case does it?

Evolutionists have the same right to argue that life began from a spark of unknown origin but they are only relying on a "chance" that there was a spark..
In the black infinite space with no light, no dust, no particles of any kind, no air, no elements, no molecules.
It's absolute nothingness. In fact, we can call it Absolutely Nothing.

So here's the question: if originally -- bazillions of years ago -- there was Absolutely Nothing, wouldn't there be Absolutely Nothing now?
Yes. For something -- no matter how small -- cannot come from Absolutely Nothing.

You say by "chance"Things happen over time, but it's not time that makes them happen. For example, if you wait 15 minutes for cookies to bake, it's not the 15 minutes that bakes them, it's the heat in the oven....
An eon is merely a bunch of 15-minute segments all pressed together.
We would still have Absolutely Nothing.
What does that tell us? That Absolutely Nothing never existed. Why? Because, if Absolutely Nothing ever existed, there would still be Absolutely Nothing!
If Absolutely Nothing ever existed, there would not be anything outside it to cause the existence of anything.

Again, if Absolutely Nothing ever existed, there would still be Absolutely Nothing.
So we've got a room with no environment.
Therefore, we need Something that can exist without an environment.
Something that doesn't need air, food or water to exist.
That disqualifies every current living thing on this earth.
So there was never a time when Absolutely Nothing existed.there has always been something. But what?
It alone has always existed. It alone can exist independent of another.
For argument's sake, let's say that these are the Eternal Something's. one molecule of hydrogen and one molecule of nitrogen
They have always existed. Anything that can be done, can be done by Them.

So, They decide to produce Something Else, for They are the only things that exist in the room.
But wait, can hydrogen or nitrogen decide anything?
Well, for them to be the Eternal Something's, They MUST have the ability to make a decision.

Think about it. The Eternal Something must choose to change things.
The Eternal Something is eternal. It has always existed independent of another. More importantly, It alone has always existed. What does that mean? It means that no event can take place without the say-so of the Eternal Something.one molecule of hydrogen and one molecule of nitrogen As the only force in existence, it is They alone who can change Their aloneness. There is nothing in existence.....by chance, influence Them to produce Something Else

Something Else could not be produced by chance. Why?

Because, for that to happen, "chance" would have to overpower the hydrogen and nitrogen molecules.
But... They are all there is.
Anything that can be done, can be done by Them. "Chance" is Something Else. Something Else cannot overpower the Eternal Something. In fact, at this stage.......Chance does not even exist.

The Eternal Something has no beginning and no end, has no needs that It Itself cannot meet, can do whatever is possible that can be done, and will always be superior to anything It produces

you cant get a spark for a "big bang" out of nothing.........so were back at the top there had to be something.

a reply to: madenusa

I find it interesting how a discussion pertaining to evolution somehow is always turned into a discussion about cosmology and physics, despite nobody having falsified any aspects of MES. The only counterargument seems to be incredulousness based on ignorance to what the actual scientific theories state. But I digress... your entire diatribe is little more than long winded ballyhooing based on not actually understanding general relativity or BBT. The BBT says nothing about everything coming from nothing. The current state of the known universe is a result of thesingularity that preceeded the BigBang. This singularity contained all of the gravity and matter that currently exists in the known universe. as a result of the massive gravity, it was a compact and infinitely dense construct. But it was never "nothing". There is a great book on this called "The First 3 minutes" that goes into far greater detail than can be given in a post on ATS but suffice itto say, every issue or concern you attempt to point out is based on ignorance towards the actual science and is compounded by your own confirmation biases.

originally posted by: peter vlar
a reply to: madenusa

The current state of the known universe is a result of thesingularity that preceeded the BigBang. This singularity contained all of the gravity and matter that currently exists in the known universe. as a result of the massive gravity, it was a compact and infinitely dense construct. But it was never "nothing". There is a great book on this called "The First 3 minutes" that goes into far greater detail than can be given in a post on ATS but suffice itto say, every issue or concern you attempt to point out is based on ignorance towards the actual science and is compounded by your own confirmation biases.

Have you ever thought about the beginning?
You know -- whatever it was that showed up first. Or whatever it was that was here first, no beginning and no end,before.....

Have you ever strained your brain to think about that?

In other words this gravity and matter that currently exists in the known universe before the Big bang, As far back in time as we can go... there was only this universe it was a "compact and infinitely dense construct". just quoting your own words.
What happens next?
Let's say we wait an entire year, Still the same "compact and infinitely dense construct"no matter how much time passes.
Our known Universe.
How did our Known Universe bring other things into existence?
First our known universes had to spawn from "something". before it spawn new ones. Or anything else for that matter.
So there was never a time when Absolutely Nothing existed.
Therefore, there has always been something.
But what?

So here's where we are. The Something that existed at the beginning must be able to exist without depending on anything else...you have to have something to make something to make a Big bang you cant get a big bang from nothing.

a reply to: madenusa

But that something isn't the christian god and none of this has anything to do with Modern Evolutionary Synthesis. If you believe a willful entity existed prior to the big bang then please, by all means, run the numbers and show your work. Until you do that and start the associated thread, I'm happy to actually discuss aspects of evolution.

I was just going by the title of the thread "Prove Evolution Is False - Even Without the Bible" have a good evening..

originally posted by: madenusa
I was just going by the title of the thread "Prove Evolution Is False - Even Without the Bible" have a good evening..

Prove the Bible is false without evolution.

a reply to: madenusa


Yes, I get that. However the implication was to show the errors of Modern Evolutionary Synthesis. Arguing BBT and General Relativity doesn't quite meet that criteria.

a reply to: madenusa

I believe in God. Believing in God has nothing to do with believing in evolution. They can coexist. Whereas evolution is a proven scientific and natural process, spirituality is something you can know only for yourself.
So the question becomes were humans as we know them today created in this way?
I don't ENTIRELY disagree with what your saying, but its way over explained and doesn't have anything to do with the topic at hand.
Does what your saying here mean that you do believe in evolution, just that God set it in motion and continues to control things with the holy spirit? Or what?