Evolution is a farce: Evidence

originally posted by: josehelps
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Of course it's irrelevant to your point, you believe in faith and guessing, not hard core science.

I do? Hmmm. News to me. But I guess if you want to paint that picture of me then you can. Though you are wrong, but hey it's your opinion.

No! Evidence requires faith, as it's never been witnessed, or proven.

How does evidence require faith? That is absurd. Evidence just is. It tells its own story, it doesn't rely on my faith to tell its story. Though saying it out loud doesn't make it true.

Subjective evidence by the MASSES? LOL. That's what you Evolutionists are always leaning on, it must be a conspiracy if it proves Evolution wrong LOL.

There you go again with your derogatory insults about people who believe the modern evolutionary synthesis theory. We aren't a religion. We just like that theory because it is well backed with credible evidence. I haven't seen you post anything that disproves evolution though.

I would trust that documentation being witnessed by the masses.

Because you are naive and biased towards certain conclusions. Subjective vs. Objective Evidence

Evidence can be of two types: Subjective and Objective. Subjective evidence is the testimony of what happened based on the statements of a witness, or Subject. The quality of the subjective evidence depends upon the honesty of the witness, and their ability to perceive reality. Unfortunately, subjective views are often inconsistent and biased. People may see what they want to see, or what they expect to see. Often, witnesses of the same traffic accident will report contradictory stories. People also may lie.

Subjective evidence should only be used to elaborate upon Objective evidence. "Subjective evidence" is not evidence at all, and can never stand alone, without Objective evidence. "Subjective evidence" is a contradiction of terms, which has somehow become part of our vocabulary. It is only the report of what some person or Subject has allegedly seen, heard, touched, tasted, or smelled. It is relying on someone else's senses, and truthfulness in reporting what was sensed.. The judge and jury is totally dependent upon the reliability of the Subject, in the absence of any Object of perception in the Court room.

Objective evidence is truly deserving of the word "evidence." Objective evidence does not lie. The interpretation of Objective evidence may vary, and that is the purpose of a court room discussion - What can we infer from the objects. Objects are the objects of perception, things that can be seen, heard, touched, tasted, or smelled. They include videos, pictures, fingerprints, DNA, foot prints, tire tracks, tape recordings, phone calls, physical objects, liquids, and gases. Recently, objective evidence can include electronic information, such as emails or files on a computer.

Bold added by me.

Besides there is nothing that gives anyone reason to believe all the people lied in the bible, or that it wasn't meant to be taken seriously. You're just fishing, a common tactic among Evolutionists that can't accept the truth.

There is nothing to suggest that they are all telling the truth either. One lie by someone in the bible puts doubt on the entire account since now I cannot be sure that ANYTHING told in the bible is true. In fact, modern analysis of the brain says that people's memories don't recall exactly as events happened.

Your Brain Lies to You

The brain does not simply gather and stockpile information as a computer’s hard drive does. Facts are stored first in the hippocampus, a structure deep in the brain about the size and shape of a fat man’s curled pinkie finger. But the information does not rest there. Every time we recall it, our brain writes it down again, and during this re-storage, it is also reprocessed. In time, the fact is gradually transferred to the cerebral cortex and is separated from the context in which it was originally learned. For example, you know that the capital of California is Sacramento, but you probably don’t remember how you learned it.

This phenomenon, known as source amnesia, can also lead people to forget whether a statement is true. Even when a lie is presented with a disclaimer, people often later remember it as true.

With time, this misremembering only gets worse. A false statement from a noncredible source that is at first not believed can gain credibility during the months it takes to reprocess memories from short-term hippocampal storage to longer-term cortical storage. As the source is forgotten, the message and its implications gain strength. This could explain why, during the 2004 presidential campaign, it took some weeks for the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth campaign against Senator John Kerry to have an effect on his standing in the polls.

How good am I at picking credible sources. Well lets see. YOU name me one credible source that you would believe witnessed a UFO. Everyone from police, to firemen, to the president of the USA have been witnessed such things. But WHO do YOU consider an authoritative figure of the subject? When you reply with no answer to this, I will accept it as though you have none, and therefore are saying we have no reliable person to respect for this subject, and therefore will never accept it.

I wouldn't consider any evidence from anyone, regardless of their status, as credible evidence. All witness testimony is subjective evidence and is therefore flawed because it can be altered as per the the telling person's own biases. I only care about objective evidence. The only real evidence to be had.

originally posted by: josehelps
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Well sure, anything that proves Evolution wrong, is off topic.

No it isn't, but you haven't posted anything like that. You started talking about aliens instead. How do aliens prove evolution wrong?

Taking the side that you are pretty sure extraterrestrials don't exist, tells me you know it all. You know so much that there is nothing left to learn. Probably why and how you also know that Evolution is the way humans cam to be. You live in your own world.

Um... No. I only said that extraterrestrials PROBABLY aren't here on earth. They most definitely exist though.

We already have a historical document that tells us they exist. We have a historical document that proves there was intervention and brought us to Earth. We have a historical document that proves Supernatural abilities are real.

Of course we do.

But I assume sine you already know everything, there was no more room for this.

Where did I say that I already know everything? You are making some seriously AWFUL assumptions about me and we've barely even talked. No wonder why the other posters in this thread are hostile towards you. You don't promote two way conversation. You just promote your own narrative.

a reply to: peter vlar

No because of the reports from the lab technicians.

He knew nothing about DNA testing, I will agree with that.

No you're wrong again, just because proper testing was available doesn't mean he was able to find it, and in fact he had to wait for years for a proper lab would be available. I'm assuming he may have been looking for affordable testing, which is what screwed him in the beginning.

I have looked at the facts. You can't test ancient DNA with an old primer technique.

a reply to: peter vlar

It's not necessarily what i want to believe, it's what the facts presented shows.

You have never seen a monkey yield a human, yet you believe in it. It looks good on paper, but it's still a theory. I don't have a theory, I have witnessed documentation of events that all tell us how we got here.

Come on man, you're blind.

a reply to: peter vlar

It's explained in detail if you would have read the report, that there were many sections that were identical to human DNA, and many section that were certainly NOT human...

You will have to read the foxp2 report.

www.starchildproject.com...

a reply to: Krazysh0t

It is faith, and God does NOT do miracles.

Clearly you have not been following along to well.

originally posted by: josehelps
a reply to: peter vlar

It's not necessarily what i want to believe, it's what the facts presented shows.

You have never seen a monkey yield a human, yet you believe in it. It looks good on paper, but it's still a theory. I don't have a theory, I have witnessed documentation of events that all tell us how we got here.

Evolution hasn't seen this happen either since monkeys don't birth humans. APES (notably the Great Apes) evolved over many generations and we are one of the descendants.

Come on man, you're blind.

Come on man, you don't know what you are talking about.

originally posted by: josehelps
a reply to: Krazysh0t

It is faith, and God does NOT do miracles.

Clearly you have not been following along to well.

Following what? The thread? I don't know if you've noticed. It is now 82 pages long. I'm not going to read every post in this thread. I AM going to comment on your inaccuracies though (which there are many).

a reply to: Noinden

There are physical anomalies they can look for as well.

a reply to: Noinden

Yes and those were contamination. I'm shocked you evolutionist people aren't smart enough to know that when someone handles ancient bones, they too get their DNA contaminated on the bones.

Of course the next test proved it to be contamination, but you guys are hell bent on it meaning it's human.

No, let me give you guys a little education about DNA since none of you seem to know or understand this.

When you touch something, there are traces of your DNA left on that item. This is how police and forensics can determine who was at a crime scene. I mean you do believe in this science don't you?

a reply to: Krazysh0t

You have total faith and belief in a theory, case closed. Until the day someone produces us with evidence, it's a faith.

You have NO evidence that man came from primates, you are assuming, it's pseudo science or faith.

But that evidence is FULL of HOLES. There is no evidence we are related to primates, it' could just have easily of been a creator that made us that way. So once again, Evolution was just to disprove creation.

Which is exactly why they documented it.

Well then that would be what I stumbles onto to. I wasn't looking for Adam and Eve to be abducted, It jumped out at me.

originally posted by: josehelps
a reply to: peter vlar

It's not necessarily what i want to believe, it's what the facts presented shows.

No, its pure confirmation bias. Nothing more nothing less.

You have never seen a monkey yield a human, yet you believe in it. It looks good on paper, but it's still a theory.

Not at all. That's not what I believe, its not what I was taught and certainly never the result of any research I've ever engaged in. Humans are part of the family of great apes along with gorillas, chimpanzee, bonobo, orangutan. We share common ancestry. You're lack of understanding is becoming hilarious. And sad.

I don't have a theory,

Finally, an accurate statement from you!

I have witnessed documentation of events that all tell us how we got here.

And I've witnessed the Stay Puft Marshmallow Man go on a rampage of NYC only to be defeated by the ghostbusters. America level of reality for both instances.

Come on man, you're blind.

No way, I need bifocals but I can see just fine.

originally posted by: ProfessorChaos
And once again, we're back to my 'beating your head against a brick wall' analogy.

I've said my piece. If you choose to continue being dismissive of those of us who hold to a faith, that is your choice, and your loss.

You can't really get upset at him for calling religion what it is. A faith based belief system aka myth aka superstition. Stating there is no objective evidence in its favor would be a true statement. He's not saying it's definitely wrong, or dismissing you for your personal faith alone, he's saying that faith is not good enough of a reason to deny science as so many have done in this thread without providing actual evidence or reasoning.

I personally feel that there is room for both evolution and creation because evolution could be a tool of god. If you deny that possibility in favor of literal exact word for word interpretations of the oldest story in bible, that cannot be traced or verified by anything, then the problem lies with you. It's like he said. Most Christians accept evolution. It's only a small stubborn fundamentalist minority that deny it, their voices are just the loudest because of the nonsense many of them spew in this forum.

Fundamentalism is dangerous in today's world and leads to countless lost lives. Denial of science in 2014 with the type of science based society we live in, is downright laughable. You can deny evolution all you'd like, just don't go around telling people that do it for a living they are wrong all because of a whim based on a personal belief system. Stop taking ancient texts as absolute literal truth and you may reach a better understanding of the world and understand how the stories can apply to your life rather than holding it as an exact event that happened exactly as the story states.

Well, my own views will not be based on videos. But I do question how the conclusion was reached that one line of descent of beings changed form, even when the process was not observed. So for me, evolution is just as much a theory as creation is. Similarity of fossils does not mean absolute mutation of one into the other, and they can still be different creature after all. And there are "living fossils" that did not evolve, like the coelacanth. So what if these are more the rule than the exception?

originally posted by: DaboiaAlien
Well, my own views will not be based on videos. But I do question how the conclusion was reached that one line of descent of beings changed form, even when the process was not observed.

What do you mean "observed"? In real-time? That's not going to happen with lifeforms such as humans where generations are measured in decades. But we don't need to, there's a heck load of fossil and DNA evidence demonstrating common descent.

So for me, evolution is just as much a theory as creation is.

For the 10,000th time, a scientific theory is not some wild hunch, it's an extensive framework of understanding supported by a large body of evidence. Creationism isn't even a hypothesis (educated guess) as not only does it have no supporting evidence but is straight up refuted by every piece of evidence we find.

Similarity of fossils does not mean absolute mutation of one into the other, and they can still be different creature after all.

We see a gradual changing of morphology in lineages for a lot of lifeforms in the fossil record. Go find a fossil of something like a rabbit in the pre-Cambrian layer and you'd have a point.

And there are "living fossils" that did not evolve, like the coelacanth. So what if these are more the rule than the exception?

There's nothing about evolution that says a creature has to keep evolving. Many lifeforms have not evolved for hundreds of millions of years (or even more) simply because there's no environmental pressures to do so.

a reply to: josehelps

"you evolutionist people" .... you sound rather defensive there neighbor.

Lets make this easy for you. You claim that the DNA evidence was contaminated when it showed both an X and a Y chromosome from human parents. You present zero evidence to back that up. It boils down to the fraudster who owns the skull being debunked, thus claiming "they screwed up" with zero evidence.

Science does not work that way. Further this is nothing to do with evolution, its genetic analysis. The poor boy had a terrible condition, and would have had a miserable life. Yet modern kooks are making a spectacle out of his remains. For shame.

Oh and "educate away". I've actually worked with DNA, both the extraction and the bioinformatic analysis of it. I am pretty sure you have not. You've shown zero understanding of how DNA behaves thus far. But as I said "educate away" I've had a #ty week and this should be worth a chuckle


Oh and if that last paragraph was the "education", then you do not understand how they got DNA from the skull. They had to be invasive to get any from remains sans flesh. QED, touching it would not have contaminated the sample. Like I said, you don't understand this, and you are a sheep to the shyster who is selling this lie

a reply to: josehelps (Not a direct reply to that post)

Hey josehelps,

I've noticed a few pages back you placed evolution in the realm of pseudoscience. This really boggles my mind because, there are thousands if not more scientists who study evolutionary theory. The amount of research over the last century or so, especially in more recent decades, by these multitudes of scientists has been exhaustive. Yet you disregard their hard work with a wave of your hand as pseudoscience. How are the likes of Lloyd Pye not the pseudo scientists? They comprise a mere handful of people. While some of the ideas they entertain may or may not be true, they have a bad habit of questionable methods. Habits such as moving goalposts, disregarding evidence, misrepresenting evidence, forming a conclusion and then looking for evidence to fit. More often than not, their credentials are also lacking. Last but not least, they ask for money (or drop the hint) wherever they go. So why, in your opinion, should we trust them over the more numerous, more trustworthy scientific community?

If the Starchild skull had any real possibility of being an alien-human hybrid don't you think there would be numerous scientists or investors clamoring to prove it so? In all the years the skull has been in the public eye is it not odd to you that no real effort has been made to prove its alien DNA? Instead it's just Lloyd Pye and friends asking for money for all this time. Please think about how easy it actually is to raise money when you're a popular pseudo scientist. Reference my post a few pages back about crowd funding.

The girl gathered up all of the bones, and hid them nearby with the intention of returning for them later during her vacation. She claimed that at some point soon afterwards there was a flash flood that washed most of the bones away, however the girl found the two skulls, the misshapen one now damaged, lodged in debris along the flood path, and took them home with her back to Texas, USA, where she kept them the rest of her life.

How convenient (or inconvenient depending on perspective), ALL of the bones were washed away except the skull. So it's impossible to test the rest of the skeleton for DNA. I don't know if this story is false or not, sounds fishy though. Frankly it's irrelevant. I just wanted to point out that it reminds me of another debunked pseudoscientific claim. That of a young girl all on her own finding a crystal skull..

So here is my question.

Where are all the other bones of alien-human hybrids?

Surely this Starchild skull would not be the only one, right?

Why is this the only one?

That girl never gave the name or exact location of the village she had been visiting, or any specific detail on the location of the mine tunnel. She passed away in the 1990s, making the story of its discovery hearsay.

Another convenience for Pye's camp.

What about the girls name? Do we know that?

Lloyd Pye became Director of the Starchild Project in February of 1999, and after rapidly encountering the same inability among experts to identify the deformity, began to suspect the Skull had other-worldly origins, a theme he explored in him books and lectures.

And here it begins. The circuit these guys all take. Going around charging who knows what to hear them speak. Making their rounds on all the radio talk shows pushing their books and websites. Don't get me wrong, I used to be an addict to programs like Coast to Coast AM. In fact Lloyd Pye was one of my favorite guests back in the day. I couldn't wait for him to raise the money, do the testing, then prove the obvious.

Then I got older, wiser, and more skeptical. In the ten plus years of waiting for conclusive results from Pye I realized they were never coming. All the guy has are vague stories, dishonest tactics, and he never stopped asking for money. Red flag after red flag. Just another fraud.

In 2010 the Project secured access to a highly sophisticated ancient DNA lab capable of recovering non-human DNA. Preliminary DNA testing has found that a significant percentage of the DNA in the Skull appears to not be human, a finding that, if verified, would indicate the Skull is a new species. 2013 the Starchild Project became a formal company, and now continues its work to complete the DNA testing on the Skull and to determine the truth about this unusual specimen.

All your dollaz belongz to me! $$$$$

Seriously, if the above claim was remotely true there would be a clamor of other scientists and universities jumping on board to verify and alter our understanding of the universe around us. As it stands, Pye's camp has perpetually always needed just a little bit more money. Claims like the one above are the worm on at the end of a hook.

Here's my favorite thing from the website:

Poll: How should we spend our testing dollars?
I want new data, do less expensive tests like exploring the bone fibers - 13%
Only DNA can prove what it is, save up and do the DNA testing - 86.8%

Total votes: 800
The voting for this poll has ended on: June 1, 2014

Save up = we need more donations.

www.starchildproject.com...

Just to recap the questions:

Where are all the other bones of alien-human hybrids?

Surely this Starchild skull would not be the only one, right?

Why is this the only one?

What about the girls name? Do we know that?

Thanks in advance.

a reply to: WakeUpBeer

I remember watching a Lloyd Pye lecture where he presented this picture as some sort of top secret leaked image of advanced alien technology:

i.dailymail.co.uk...

It's a public image release as part of a press release for a research lab. The guy is full of it, gambling on the ignorance and credulity of his audience to keep the coffers full.

originally posted by: josehelps
a reply to: Krazysh0t

You have total faith and belief in a theory, case closed. Until the day someone produces us with evidence, it's a faith.

But evidence does exist and HAS been presented to you. Just because YOU don't want to look at it, doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

You have NO evidence that man came from primates, you are assuming, it's pseudo science or faith.

The irony in this statement is palpable.

But that evidence is FULL of HOLES. There is no evidence we are related to primates, it' could just have easily of been a creator that made us that way. So once again, Evolution was just to disprove creation.

You just said there was no evidence in the previous sentence. Now you are saying it exists but is full of holes. Which is it? Is it whatever currently fits your narrative?

Which is exactly why they documented it.

Evolution isn't about Creation.

Well then that would be what I stumbles onto to. I wasn't looking for Adam and Eve to be abducted, It jumped out at me.

Of course it did. You sir are hilarious. It's funny how you send all these accusations our way when you are really talking about your own beliefs.

a reply to: WakeUpBeer

Thank you for addressing one of the most important aspects of archaeological and anthropological investigations, provenance. Without provenance you simply can not prove or verify any of the chain of events leading up to Pye's acquisition of the skull in question. That compounded with his organization crying foul it contamination for every test invalidating his preconceived notion and the simple fact that from the beginning his purpose was not to identify the nature of the skull but to definitively prove it was an alien or alien-human hybrid while ruling out a human origin with genetic disease prior to a single test being done shows definitive confirmation bias and fraud as an investigator. He's not a scientist. He was a paranormal researcher and a failed one at that. He didn't make a name for himself before he acquired these materials and once he got a taste of that fame and money there was no way he could go back at that point. Everything he had and everything he was, was invested in the outcome he desired and not the truth. That's just not science.