Evolution is a farce: Evidence

I almost feel bad for the the little guy (josehelps). It must be rough to have each and every one of your claims repeatedly and indisputably shot down. He must feel quite embarrassed at this point. The rational thing to do is to accept defeat and admit that you've gained a new understanding of the facts and evidence. The irrational thing to do would be to dismiss these indisputable rebuttals and continually re-state that his beliefs are correct, sort of like a little child who throws a temper tantrum when his toys are taken away. I wonder which route he will go.

a reply to: kayej1188

I don't understand, if you never handled the skull how can you make the observation that it's a false claim of the skull being contaminated, and that it's hydrocephalus when they have already had specialists rule that out that got to look at the skull.

Can you tell me when and where you held and tested the skull.

a reply to: kayej1188

Well not at all. Opinions don't shoot me down. I know you guys are used to living in the world of pseudo science where you believe whatever can be imagined must be possible like theory's, but I tend to stick more to facts.

Accept defeat of WHAT exactly?

No one has presented anything credible that proves I'm otherwise wrong.

Clearly you have not been paying attention. What YOU have is a belief. You have a theory which is pseudo science backed up by nothing other than there are changes that occur in DNA. That doesn't prove anything. What I stumbled onto was about 87 facts proving not only how we got here, but what we were before damage was dealt to us. Now I don't know how you feel about confirmation bias, but it looks to me like that is all Evolution is based on.

For example, which ever fool it was that magically decided to claim that adaptation is all part of the package of Evolution failed to realize that it negates Evolution.

The difference here between Evolutionists just grabbing onto anything they can to try to structure a theory and the facts that I found, is that the subject I'm talking about doesn't have ambiguous meaning, which is the largest portion of religion. You're simply reflecting an attitude off me that I fall into that same category of bible thumpers, which I don't. Yes I believe everything happened in the bible, but what you don't realize is that what you know that's claimed to have happened and what I know that's claimed to have happened are clearly two different things.

And I can tell you struggle with this as you keep referring to it as my belief.

Intervention is the understanding that we were brought to this planet by another life form, against our will. It's not a religion, not a faith, not a cult, not a belief, not a practice, not a church, not a following, not a theory, not a hypothesis, it's certainly not a joke, it's simply an understanding based on redundant facts. This understanding can only be realized if you have a plethora of years in the study of the supernatural, and have a keen eye for spotting activity in stories, even if the author doesn't. Of course the best source for this information is several versions of the bible, in addition to the facts that concur in science. Lets be sure I'm clear on this. Lets pretend for the moment that you know nothing about math, and let's say that I present you with a problem that says four times four. Now lets say that this subject is seriously something you want to understand, as this is about your lineage. You might even come up with some ideas as to what it means. But there is seriously no way you're going to guess what it all means.





So you settle with the best understanding you can (which actually doesn't result in making any sense by itself), and now you have just explained today's religion. So I tell you this equation equals "sixteen." Would you, could you, indicate that what I'm presenting to you is surely my belief? You could, but you're out of context. If I understand it, and you don't, that doesn't constitute it being a belief, it's an understanding based on redundant facts. A belief implies that I have an opinion or a faith, you will soon realize this is nothing like that. I understand the supernatural extremely well. Of course, what this means in English is that 99.99% of the people reading, preaching, worshiping, the bible, don't understand it. Now I hope you understand why trying to label this anything other than an understanding is obviously incorrect. My goal is to open your eyes to the reality of what has happened, and what's been done to us. I will explain matters that I know you otherwise might not understand. If you or anyone you know, is highly familiar with both the supernatural and the paranormal (as they are frequently confused with one another) and don't agree with anything I'm presenting here, or If for some reason you peruse this whole website, and feel that the eighty seven or so examples that I'm presenting, are nothing more than sheer coincidence, I welcome your feedback of course. In addition, if you're just not getting something, I will respond back with a more detailed explanation.





You might wonder, why in the world would anyone try to understand the bible through the supernatural perspective. Perhaps it's the bible being prefaced as dealing with the supernatural, which actually means if you don't have that experience, your not qualified to understand it. In addition, we have no other books to compare it to. Perhaps it's the thirty four versus in the bible about aliens. Perhaps it's the Ezekiel chapter where Sky Daddy comes down from the sky's to visit us in his space craft. Maybe it's all of the activity mentioned in the bible that match with our reported alien encounters. Maybe it's the documentation of advanced technology used in the bible. Perhaps it's the mentioning in Hebrews that Earth is not our home, obviously meaning we are aliens to this planet. Heaven is a planet, not a place you end up when you die. If the bible was meant for dead people, they would have it, not us. Several years ago, while researching the Ezekiel chapter, I made contact with one of the pastors at the Union Gospel Mission, here in my home town. I shared some of my findings with him, and asked him if it were possible that God was a space alien. His response revealed, that it's entirely possible.

As a general rule of thumb, any thread title containing one, or more, of the following words: "Proof", "Truth", "Evidence", "Undeniable", or "Irrefutable" (I think you get the point), can be disregarded almost out-of-hand.

I believe that the OP is wasting his/her time, and energy.

For qualification, I am a Christian, I do not agree with Evolution at all, and I've seen more than my share of Bible bashing/thumping on ATS during my stay.

There will never be a middle ground between these two particular camps, as much as some would like there to be, and seeking such middle ground, while commendable from a humanitarian view, is pointless. There is just as much venom on the side of the Anti-Christians, for Christianity, as there is on the side of Christians, for Anti-Christianity.

A post cannot be made on this site in favor of one, without someone from the other, attacking them (rather than the post). Even a somewhat pro-Christian post is met with "Well, I don't believe in fairy tales, and bearded sky wizards" remarks, and when a pro-Evolution statement is made, it's met with the inevitable Bible verse-spouting spittle, that rarely has any bearing on the discussion at hand, much like its counterpart.

I've taken to avoiding commentary that I find to be contentious with my beliefs (and the posters who usually make such remarks). Why? The answer is simple: By the time you could make progress by beating your head against a brick wall, you'd be dead, so what's the point?

I suppose what I'm trying to say, is "Live, and let live."

My apologies for the rant.

a reply to: Noinden

Sure...

BOLD.
Trace genetics.
NIH

2012, Undisclosed Lab, Key Finding is FOXP2 fragment: Preliminary testing recovered what appears to be a fragment of the Starchild Skull's FOXP2 gene. This fragment differs from the corresponding human gene fragment in 56 positions along the DNA strand. This gene is highly conserved between species and is essential to human development. In humans, it is linked to speech and cognitive function. This particular gene fragment is absolutely identical in every human and apes and has only ONE difference in monkeys, lending weight to the hypothesis that the Skull, with 56 differences, is not a human being. This finding, if proven, will raise many questions about how it developed and what abilities it may or may not have had. The results obtained need to be reproduced, verified, and extended.

2010-2011, Undisclosed Lab, Key Finding is DNA not previously seen on Earth: A US based genetics lab (name withheld for security reasons) conducted preliminary testing on samples of the Starchild Skull using advanced DNA testing technology. The result is partial and needs to be reproduced, verified, and extended. Both mitochondrial DNA (from the mother) and nuclear DNA (from both parents) was recovered from the Starchild Skull for the first time.

This DNA was submitted to the US National Institutes of Health for comparison to all other DNA in their database. Some of the DNA was similar to that of a human. However, large amounts of it were not similar enough to anything in the extensive database to be matched to any known species on Earth. The database includes genetic code from many bacteria and other common contaminants. The fact that the DNA recovered from the Starchild could not be matched within the database shows that the strange DNA is unlikely to be the result of bacterial or other contamination.

If these results can be reproduced and verified, it will show that the Skull is a previously undiscovered humanoid species with DNA very different from human.

2003, Trace Genetics, California USA: The first ancient DNA test done on the Starchild Skull, conducted using polymerase chain reaction (PCR) technology commonly used in forensic DNA analysis. This method is designed to only recover human DNA and ignore all other DNA in a sample. The test recovered a small amount of the Starchild Skull mitochondrial DNA (DNA passed down the maternal line, from the mother), demonstrating that part of the Skull's DNA matches that of a human. A control sample from the companion human skull easily yielded large amounts of both mitochondrial and nuclear DNA, which led to speculation that there was likely to be more DNA in the Starchild sample, but that the "human only primers" were not capable of extracting it. Trace Genetics advised the Starchild Project that new technology was being developed that would be able to analyze any DNA in the sample, irrespective of its species origins.

At the time, some speculated that this result may mean the Starchild Skull had a human mother and alien father, but subsequent tests have found unusual DNA from both parents. This means that it is almost certainly not a human-alien hybrid.

1999, BOLD, British Columbia, Canada: The first DNA test conducted on the Starchild Skull was done at a lab that was not equipped to test 900 year old DNA, but as it was not possible to access an ancient DNA lab at the time, the Starchild Project hoped that we may get some useful result from a forensic DNA lab. After multiple contaminations, the BOLD lab recovered a tiny amount of nuclear DNA, 10% of the usual minimum amount of DNA required to give an accurate result. This DNA was from a human male Y chromosome. As no subsequent testing with more advanced equipment has been able to duplicate this result, and as the main difference between a forensic and ancient DNA testing lab is that forensic labs are not capable of removing as much contamination as an ancient DNA lab, the Starchild Project supports the belief of many experts that this result was not accurate, and was likely the result of contamination of the bone.

www.starchildproject.com...

a reply to: josehelps

All I can do is shake my head as I read this post. Just more inaccurate claims, and word-for-word repeats of previous posts. Exactly what I predicted.

1) You claimed that they got "specialists to rule out" hydrocephalus. That's odd, because the Yale University Neurologist Steven Novella had this to say: "We will likely never know the whole story of the Starchild, but what is clear is that aliens need not be invoked. The child very likely suffered from untreated hydrocephalus, a mundane and simple explanation for the anomalies seen in the skull. DNA testing confirms, unsurprisingly, the child’s human ancestry. Still, the true-believers are likely to cling tenaciously to their preferred hypotheses, and will continue to spin tales of an alien-human breeding program. Science progresses forward, while pseudoscience remains fixed in predetermined desired beliefs." www.theness.com...

2) DNA analysis has clearly shown that the skull had an X and a Y chromosome, with mitochondrial DNA from haplotype C. If you knew anything about genetics, you'd know that this undoubtedly indicates that both of his parents were human. Maybe you can read this link to gain a better understanding: www.badarchaeology.com...

3) Pye's dismissal of the DNA analysis, calling it contaminated, was clearly a cop-out. He provided no explanation to how the sample was contaminated, how much of the sample was contaminated. Furthermore, his claim that the "NIH BLAST" analysis provided any compelling evidence is a straight up misrepresentation of the truth, and is just one example of his distortion of facts and evidence..."“The BLAST program does not do the analyzing by itself and the NIH does not run BLAST queries for people. Someone from this UFO organization, or their mysterious geneticist, had to go to the website, enter the DNA, select a bunch of parameters, run the query and then interpret the results. It is easy to get a BLAST result like they did. All you have to do is enter jibberish. Or, you can set the parameters to something absurd (like demanding a 100% match for a chicken gene while searching the human genome). Or, sometimes the servers are busy and they kick back with the generic statement.” ancientaliensdebunked.com...

4) This is one of the lines from your post where you copy and pasted from the starchild website: "This means that it is almost certainly not a human-alien hybrid." Good job.

5) Another non-sensical claim with exactly zero explanation or evidence to support it: "For example, which ever fool it was that magically decided to claim that adaptation is all part of the package of Evolution failed to realize that it negates Evolution." Oh yeah? Adaptation negates evolution? Care to expand on that thought? It's okay if you don't want to, I'll understand. Because as I understand, adaptation is the ability of an organism to survive in the face of changes in environment. Those within a particular species that are more suitable to that environment are more likely to survive, and reproduce, passing their DNA to their offspring. On the other hand, those in that same species that do not have the ability to adapt in that same environment are less likely to survive long enough to reproduce, and thus those minor differences in their DNA potentially die out, resulting in small DNA changes within a species over time. As this process continues for millions of years, it's clear how organisms evolve over time.

a reply to: Barcs
You know barcs, up to this point I had a lot of respect for you. At one time we could have had a decent discussion. Yet now perhaps....not so much.
You post a link for me that you stated "proved" the mutation rates in humans. Like it or not the paper IS based on assumption and they used that assumption to base the mutation rate on.
You asked me to show you the assumption in the paper and that is what i did. Now you are saying i have not "addressed your points". I never said that mutations did not happen in humans, nor did i say they could not be measured. I also never said that those mutations could not add up. I told you that it very well could happen. My point was that it is more of a faith based idea as the evidence is lacking. You are being dishonest at this point.

If you have other proof that is not based on assumption share it and we can discuss. However I hope you no longer act like a someone is attacking your religion because in all honesty that is the way you came across.

originally posted by: josehelps
a reply to: kayej1188

Well not at all. Opinions don't shoot me down. I know you guys are used to living in the world of pseudo science where you believe whatever can be imagined must be possible like theory's, but I tend to stick more to facts.

Accept defeat of WHAT exactly?

No one has presented anything credible that proves I'm otherwise wrong.

Clearly you have not been paying attention. What YOU have is a belief. You have a theory which is pseudo science backed up by nothing other than there are changes that occur in DNA. That doesn't prove anything. What I stumbled onto was about 87 facts proving not only how we got here, but what we were before damage was dealt to us. Now I don't know how you feel about confirmation bias, but it looks to me like that is all Evolution is based on.

For example, which ever fool it was that magically decided to claim that adaptation is all part of the package of Evolution failed to realize that it negates Evolution.

The difference here between Evolutionists just grabbing onto anything they can to try to structure a theory and the facts that I found, is that the subject I'm talking about doesn't have ambiguous meaning, which is the largest portion of religion. You're simply reflecting an attitude off me that I fall into that same category of bible thumpers, which I don't. Yes I believe everything happened in the bible, but what you don't realize is that what you know that's claimed to have happened and what I know that's claimed to have happened are clearly two different things.

And I can tell you struggle with this as you keep referring to it as my belief.

Intervention is the understanding that we were brought to this planet by another life form, against our will. It's not a religion, not a faith, not a cult, not a belief, not a practice, not a church, not a following, not a theory, not a hypothesis, it's certainly not a joke, it's simply an understanding based on redundant facts. This understanding can only be realized if you have a plethora of years in the study of the supernatural, and have a keen eye for spotting activity in stories, even if the author doesn't. Of course the best source for this information is several versions of the bible, in addition to the facts that concur in science. Lets be sure I'm clear on this. Lets pretend for the moment that you know nothing about math, and let's say that I present you with a problem that says four times four. Now lets say that this subject is seriously something you want to understand, as this is about your lineage. You might even come up with some ideas as to what it means. But there is seriously no way you're going to guess what it all means.





So you settle with the best understanding you can (which actually doesn't result in making any sense by itself), and now you have just explained today's religion. So I tell you this equation equals "sixteen." Would you, could you, indicate that what I'm presenting to you is surely my belief? You could, but you're out of context. If I understand it, and you don't, that doesn't constitute it being a belief, it's an understanding based on redundant facts. A belief implies that I have an opinion or a faith, you will soon realize this is nothing like that. I understand the supernatural extremely well. Of course, what this means in English is that 99.99% of the people reading, preaching, worshiping, the bible, don't understand it. Now I hope you understand why trying to label this anything other than an understanding is obviously incorrect. My goal is to open your eyes to the reality of what has happened, and what's been done to us. I will explain matters that I know you otherwise might not understand. If you or anyone you know, is highly familiar with both the supernatural and the paranormal (as they are frequently confused with one another) and don't agree with anything I'm presenting here, or If for some reason you peruse this whole website, and feel that the eighty seven or so examples that I'm presenting, are nothing more than sheer coincidence, I welcome your feedback of course. In addition, if you're just not getting something, I will respond back with a more detailed explanation.





You might wonder, why in the world would anyone try to understand the bible through the supernatural perspective. Perhaps it's the bible being prefaced as dealing with the supernatural, which actually means if you don't have that experience, your not qualified to understand it. In addition, we have no other books to compare it to. Perhaps it's the thirty four versus in the bible about aliens. Perhaps it's the Ezekiel chapter where Sky Daddy comes down from the sky's to visit us in his space craft. Maybe it's all of the activity mentioned in the bible that match with our reported alien encounters. Maybe it's the documentation of advanced technology used in the bible. Perhaps it's the mentioning in Hebrews that Earth is not our home, obviously meaning we are aliens to this planet. Heaven is a planet, not a place you end up when you die. If the bible was meant for dead people, they would have it, not us. Several years ago, while researching the Ezekiel chapter, I made contact with one of the pastors at the Union Gospel Mission, here in my home town. I shared some of my findings with him, and asked him if it were possible that God was a space alien. His response revealed, that it's entirely possible.

LOL to "87 facts." It's honestly one of the most entertaining statements I've ever heard, and it gets funnier every time you say it, which has come out to about 30 by now. It's so comical how you actually believe that you stumbled upon 87 facts that substantiate your claim. How can you take yourself seriously? It was a very mind-numbing experience trying to highlight your logical and scientific missteps; I went from speaking to you at an educated adults level, to lowering it down to an elementary school level. Unfortunately I can not dumb it down any further. One cannot reason with the unreasonable. Do you find it alarming that not one person in all of ATS has ever agreed with you on anything you've ever said? Does this not give you some sort of indication that maybe it's time for some reconsideration? I guess that would be too rational.

originally posted by: josehelps
a reply to: WakeUpBeer

Sure if you think you can find a lab that can do full recovery on 900 year old remains for less than a mill.

and how exactly do they know the age of the remains if viable testing wasn't done?

maybe because it has been done. several times in the last 15 years. the results were a human male, haplogroups C, Amerindian origin. Not only that, there are no samples of "Alien" genetics for comparison so there is NO way to provide evidence even if it were the case(which it clearly is not).

The absolute slanderous insanity you utilize while making the most illogical and inane hypocritical mental meanderings levying charges of pseudoscience against those who utilize the scientific method and support their positions with legitimate data that you refuse to acknowledge because it's been peer reviewed is simply stunning. And then you brazenly trot out a youtube video and mystery geneticists as your ace in the hole? your trump card? can you PM me the number of "your guy"? because I really need to try out whatever the hell it is you're smoking chief. literally the only "pseudoscience" I've seen of late in this thread is on your end. when you don't have the appropriate background, its par for the course to not realize when you're in the presence of those who know better and to think you're king of the hill. unfortunately you're spending so much time looking down you've yet to look UP.

You actually have the brass to call out someone and imply they haven't got a clue what theyre talking about because they haven't handled the material? Please upload the video of you with the skull for verification then. I'd love to see your credentials and links to papers you've authored or coauthored. Perhaps a link to a thesis or dissertation? there are certainly several of us here that DO have those credentials and have spent years, some have spent decades, studying, researching, learning, collaborating and writing about these matters.

we haven't got our information from youtube, we've dug in the dirt and been in the labs. you are a lost puppy at the kennel and cant even see over the crate. I feel kind of sad for you because you have absolutely NO idea just how far outside the bounds of reality your mind has wandered. Theres no fine line here between being open minded and off the rez. its a massive gap of cognitive dissonance separating lookie loos like yourself from those who have lived their lives empowering themselves through knowledge. give it a try, you just might like it.

a reply to: josehelps

None of those are credible sources, when you have the word "undisclosed" in association with the genetics lab. At least the Bigfoot researcher disclosed where she said she was getting things tested The Starchild skull is that of a human being, who sadly had congenital hydrocephalus, and would have had a miserable and short life.

You talk to others here about "contamination of the skull" yet don't really understand where they would have gone to get the genetic samples Like I said I have some experience in genetics, which includes disorders (mostly cancer, but some not) and evolutionary analysis. I certainly doubt you've generated a phylogenetic tree

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: josehelps

. I certainly doubt you've generated a phylogenetic tree

I don't think there are any on YouTube so maybe we should cut him some slack!

originally posted by: ProfessorChaos
As a general rule of thumb, any thread title containing one, or more, of the following words: "Proof", "Truth", "Evidence", "Undeniable", or "Irrefutable" (I think you get the point), can be disregarded almost out-of-hand.

What's wrong with evidence exactly?

For qualification, I am a Christian, I do not agree with Evolution at all, and I've seen more than my share of Bible bashing/thumping on ATS during my stay.

There will never be a middle ground between these two particular camps, as much as some would like there to be, and seeking such middle ground, while commendable from a humanitarian view, is pointless. There is just as much venom on the side of the Anti-Christians, for Christianity, as there is on the side of Christians, for Anti-Christianity.

Christianity has nothing to do with the theory of evolution, nor does any other group of superstitions. However it may surprise you to know that the vast majority of Christians accept evolution as they do any other scientific theory. It's just the creationists and science denying christians that don't accept evolution and they're a minority.

A post cannot be made on this site in favor of one, without someone from the other, attacking them (rather than the post). Even a somewhat pro-Christian post is met with "Well, I don't believe in fairy tales, and bearded sky wizards" remarks, and when a pro-Evolution statement is made, it's met with the inevitable Bible verse-spouting spittle, that rarely has any bearing on the discussion at hand, much like its counterpart.

This is not the place to play your christian victim card.

I've taken to avoiding commentary that I find to be contentious with my beliefs (and the posters who usually make such remarks). Why? The answer is simple: By the time you could make progress by beating your head against a brick wall, you'd be dead, so what's the point?

.....and yet, here you are......?

I suspect that the brick wall in this case may be the facts and evidence for evolution.

a reply to: Prezbo369
A wall with no mortar.

originally posted by: Quadrivium
a reply to: Prezbo369
A wall with no mortar.

Do you mean walls like these?

Would you like to know more?

originally posted by: Quadrivium
You post a link for me that you stated "proved" the mutation rates in humans. Like it or not the paper IS based on assumption and they used that assumption to base the mutation rate on.
You asked me to show you the assumption in the paper and that is what i did. Now you are saying i have not "addressed your points". I never said that mutations did not happen in humans, nor did i say they could not be measured. I also never said that those mutations could not add up. I told you that it very well could happen. My point was that it is more of a faith based idea as the evidence is lacking. You are being dishonest at this point.

Such a request is impossible. All science relies on making the best educated guesses with the available evidence (read: assumptions). Nothing is 100% proven, so asking for science that isn't based on some level of assumption is like asking a Christian for evidence of the biblical god; the request cannot be processed.

One must go into all science with a reasonable amount of doubt that the mainstream, accepted idea is wrong; BUT you cannot use that as proof that it IS wrong like you've done in this thread. Nor should you use that as an excuse to discount the mountains of evidence that say the mainstream account is true as well.

Remember: Occam's Razor states that the idea with the least amount of assumptions is most likely true. That implies that all ideas rely on some assumptions, but we should desire to eliminate as many as possible. Evolution does this for many things. Christianity doesn't. Christianity relies on FAR more assumptions than evolution does.

This is totally off topic but prez, that is really cool.

a reply to: Krazysh0t
Awesome krazyshot! If you read back through my post that is basically all I have been doing. I have stated many times that macro evolution could have happened, but we have no real evidence for it. When I make statements like that it ruffles peoples feathers, yet it's true.
I look at it this way......... By saying "This is fact, this is the way it happened" We are removing the questions, we are taking away the mystery.
Humans thrive on questions. We should never be lulled into a comfortable state of "knowing" because on a whole we knowvery little.
I have a saying, you may have read it before in another post:
"All that we know is but a drop in the oceans of knowledge we still have to learn".
We take ideas from one another and build on them yet we should never stop questioning those ideas.

originally posted by: Quadrivium
a reply to: Krazysh0t
Awesome krazyshot! If you read back through my post that is basically all I have been doing. I have stated many times that macro evolution could have happened, but we have no real evidence for it. When I make statements like that it ruffles peoples feathers, yet it's true.

But you are creating conflict by making a distinction between micro and macro evolution. Macro evolution relies on the same assumptions that micro evolution does since they rely on the same processes. In fact, you are adding assumptions to the mix by saying that there is a difference between the two since there is no evidence to suggest that is the case.

I look at it this way......... By saying "This is fact, this is the way it happened" We are removing the questions, we are taking away the mystery.
Humans thrive on questions. We should never be lulled into a comfortable state of "knowing" because on a whole we knowvery little.

I don't think anyone in this thread will honestly tell you that evolution is 100% proven. My experience with the posters that have argued with you suggests that they understand that evolution can be proven false, but also recognize that in order to do so, one must overcome all the evidence that says it is true. At some point we just substitute the word "fact" for overwhelming chance of it being true.

I have a saying, you may have read it before in another post:
"All that we know is but a drop in the oceans of knowledge we still have to learn".
We take ideas from one another and build on them yet we should never stop questioning those ideas.

That is true, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't be proud of what we do know and have learned already.

a reply to: kayej1188

Well Steven Novella is not a credible source in this as he never actually looked at or held the skull. I can only assume he was also unaware of it previously being ruled out in addition to the details as to why. Again it's just another typical tactic for Evolutionists to try to stake a claim in something that not only could they not possibly understand, but have no credibility in to begin with.

Deformity and Features Study

In 2004 a team of 11 specialists headed by Dr. Ted J. Robinson investigated the Starchild Skull in an attempt to identify a deformity, illness, or other natural explanation for the skull. They examined the skull, maxilla fragment, X-Rays, CT scans, performed a 3-dimensional scan, and extensively discussed and researched the skull's physical characteristics.

The study concluded that the Starchild Skull was unlike any specimen in recorded medical history, and notably that its unusual characteristics are not the result of artificial cranial deformation. The Starchild Skull is not the result of artificial shaping.

Preliminary Analysis Of A Highly Unusual Human-Like Skull
Dr. Ted J. Robinson, M.D., L.M.C.C., F.R.C.S (c), 2004

1. The skull in question has a provenance that is not verified at present. That situation may change in time, but for now all that can be said with certainty is that the skull is real, it is comprised of calcium hydroxyapatite (the essence of all mammalian bone), its parts are configured "naturally" (not cobbled together or in any other way hoaxed), and it presents numerous physical anomalies that do not conform to standard skull norms.

2. The skull remained in my possession in Vancouver, B.C., for the better part of one year. I was given complete discretion to study it in any way I saw fit. My analysis derives from extensive examination of the skull itself, combined with analysis of X-rays and CAT scans. I have shared these data with colleagues who have given opinions that will be mentioned in this document as their input becomes relevant.

3. In general, the skull has the basic components of a human skull: i.e., a frontal bone, two sphenoids, two temporals, two parietals, and an occipital. However, these bones have been markedly reconfigured from the "normal" shapes and positions such bones usually have. In addition, the bone itself has been reconstituted to an equally marked degree, being somewhat less than half as thick as normal human bone, with a corresponding weight of roughly half normal. The reconfigurations and the reconstitution are uniform throughout all axes and in all planes of the skull. There is no asymmetrical warping or irregular thinning that is the hallmark of typical human deformity.

4. The morphology of this skull is so highly unusual as to be unique in my forty years of experience as a medical doctor specializing in plastic and reconstructive surgery of the cranium. Because of its uniqueness, I undertook an extensive review of current literature on craniofacial abnormalities, which failed to uncover a single similar example. In short, it seems to be not only unique in my personal experience, but also unique throughout the past history of worldwide study of craniofacial abnormalities. This is significant.

5. Specialists who examined the skull and associated X-rays and CAT scans were:

Dr. Fred Smith, Head of Pediatrics, Children’s Hospital, New Orleans, La.

Dr. David Hodges, Radiologist, Royal Columbian Hospital, New Westminster, B.C.

Dr. John Bachynsky, Radiologist, New Westminster, B.C.

Dr. Ken Poskitt, Pediatric Neuroradiologist, Vancouver Children’s Hospital

Dr. Ian Jackson, (formerly of Mayo Clinic), Craniofacial Plastic Surgeon, Michigan

Dr. John McNicoll, Craniofacial Plastic Surgeon, Seattle

Dr. Mike Kaburda, Oral Surgeon, New Westminster, B.C.

Dr. Tony Townsend, Ophthalmologist, Vancouver

Dr. Hugh Parsons, Ophthalmologist, Vancouver

Dr David Sweet, Forensic Odontologist, Vancouver

6. Dr David Hodges, a radiologist, stated that the suture lines were open and growing at the time of death. Dr. David Sweet, an internationally renowned forensic pathologist at the University of British Columbia, was of the opinion that the skull was that of a 5-6 year old, based upon the dentition in the right maxillary fragment[1].

7. Though some specialists who looked at the skull disagreed, I have always supported Dr Sweet in his belief that this was the skull of a 5-6 year old child.

8. Dr. Bachynsky noted that there is no evidence of erosion of the inner table of the skull. Such erosion would be consistent with a diagnosis of hydrocephaly, so this condition can safely be ruled out as a cause of the abnormalities expressed. Hydrocephaly also causes a widening of the sutures, again not expressed here. There was consensus agreement to both of these observations by other experts conversant with these features.

9. Dr. Kaburda carried out three-dimensional scans which measure certain fixed points in any skull, allowing for comparison of any particular skull to the established norm. These accumulated results were compared to a statistical analysis of 100 human skulls. This skull was found to be more than ten (10) standard deviations outside the norm, i.e. the statistical center of a Bell curve. This is another strong indication that the skull in question is unlike anything previously seen or investigated.

10. Doctors Townsend and Parsons examined the orbital cavities and concluded that the being may well have been sighted, but if so, its visual structures deviated strongly from the norm. The cavities, while astonishingly symmetrical, were less than 50% normal depth. The optic foramen, which carries the optic nerve from the brain through the orbital bone to the eye, is nearly an inch lower than it would be in a normal human skull. However, attachment points for the muscles that control an eyeball's movements were still to be felt on the inner surface of the orbit, indicating that a ball rather than some other mechanism was its most likely expression.

11. If indeed these sockets held eyeballs, those of normal size would have greatly protruded from the face, creating a serious liability of damage during routine activity. Because the eyeballs occupy a position lower in the face than is normal, and they rest in a socket markedly reduced in rectilinear shape and depth, they would have been significantly reduced in size. In either case, however, large eyeballs or small, they would require upper lids three or four times more extensive than normal upper lids to be lubricated in the manner necessary for human eyeballs to function properly.

12. Doctors Hodges and Poskitt found the brain inside the skull was abnormally large. This was determined by lining the intracranial cavity with a plastic bag that was then filled with Niger birdseed. This gave a size of 1600 cubic centimetres, which is 200 c.c. larger than the typical adult size of 1400 c.c. This is even more unusual because the size of the skull compares most favourably with a small adult or a child of about 12 years old. This extra brain capacity is apparently due to the deep shallowing of the eye sockets, a total lack of frontal sinuses (not even vestigial bumps are discernable), and significant bossing (expansion) of the upper rear of both parietals.

a reply to: josehelps

So explain to me why this poor childs head looks so much like the "Starchild Skull'

I would like to warn people that it isnt a very nice image.
Hydrocephalus baby