Survey Results: Origins and Evolution

Originally posted by Gorman91
reply to post by undo

 

It's your choice to see that as reptilian. I see an acorn head, people wearing masks with horns like the local wild life, etc etc.

those are ridge frills like reptiles have not horns and they have tails. and the shorter guys are their descendants, and they look like some kind of greys more akin to the statue from eridu, with elongated heads and thin, spindly bodies. some look like a mish-mash hybrid of human and something. Notice the tall figures with the frills and tails, are holding hands with their descendants. those are their family trees. and notice some have no feet at all

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/files/6e77301ac273a7c4.jpg[/atsimg]

reply to post by undo


That is from your subjective experiences from heresy of alien witness accounts. You have to learn to look at things objectively. Had you never heard of any of that, and looked at that when you were a wee tot, you probably would not say that.

I would ask you to look into the process of abstraction. Our top scientists were trained to make such a thing for our voyager probe. "The golden record" as it was called.

Using the process of abstraction, I see no such things you claim.


For example, from my subjective experience, I see aviesapiens / Dinosauroids on snaiad

Originally posted by Gorman91
reply to post by undo

 

That is from your subjective experiences from heresy of alien witness accounts. You have to learn to look at things objectively. Had you never heard of any of that, and looked at that when you were a wee tot, you probably would not say that.

I would ask you to look into the process of abstraction. Our top scientists were trained to make such a thing for our voyager probe. "The golden record" as it was called.

Using the process of abstraction, I see no such things you claim.


For example, from my subjective experience, I see aviesapiens on snaiad

edit on 31-8-2011 by Gorman91 because: (no reason given)

well did you go to the digs in which the fossils were removed from the ground to support evolution? did you know that they often don't bother dating stuff they remove from the ground. they make assumptions now about what should and shouldn't be in a geological layer, and if it can be visually identified at the site, to be an out of place/date artifact, they throw it away, rather than date it or keep it for cataloging. there are exceptions, such as if it appears to be a bone, they may keep it to determine where it should be classified, but only if they think the bone in question is not modern. reason given is they can't afford to date everything in a dig. the fact they don't date everything in a dig means their own assumptions are going to corrupt the evidence.

that's the problem with all of this. it's suffering from the same thing as everything else about the past: we weren't there. but the people who wrote the ancient histories, were there, or their ancestors were.

reply to post by undo


That's a bit of a side track. Most of the time they don't have to date it because other things have been dated. It's pretty clear once you're expert enough.

Originally posted by Gorman91
reply to post by undo

 

That's a bit of a side track. Most of the time they don't have to date it because other things have been dated. It's pretty clear once you're expert enough.

no that's not science. science leaves no room for questioning before it makes absolute judgements. i could say i theorize that the ancient people were cloned by advanced reptilian/amphibian races, but i couldn't say i'm so sure that's true that i'm willing to throw out all other evidence that doesn't agree with my prior theory.

reply to post by undo


They don't throw it away. It's called consensus. If you find a thousand hadrosaur bones in the cretaceous and one is found in the modern era, chances are it got moved to there, not that it actually lived there.

Originally posted by Gorman91
reply to post by undo

 

They don't throw it away. It's called consensus. If you find a thousand hadrosaur bones in the cretaceous and one is found in the modern era, chances are it got moved to there, not that it actually lived there.

"chances are" is not science. that's exactly what i'm talking about. there are no chances are, in science when it comes to facts. fact is, if you combine substances together to create an explosive material, barring unforeseen things like moisture corruption, you will have yourself an explosive material and fact is, once you know what happens when you throw that explosive, that upon throwing it you can expect an explosion. you can theorize the extent of damage of that explosion, based on things like norms, prior tests and etc, but you can't say before hand that the extent of the damage will always be x,y, z, cause you know from experience that nothing is ever that cut and dry. the only way you could say precisely is if you personally controlled all the conditions which certainly can't be said about fossils in the ground from thousands and thousands of years ago

Originally posted by Gorman91
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul

 

Perfection is imperfection, to be honest. Reality demands imperfection, and that's why things with perfection, but the tiniest of laws, are the best in this reality.

What a load of rubbish - there is no reason why anything "has" to be imperfect if it is really designed by an omniscient being - including "this reality"

[quoet]Ironic I suppose. Purity of anything is never a good thing usually.

So which is it - usually not a good thing, or never a good thing - because the are exclusive of each otehr.

believe it as the Matrix in which the agent told the human that the first matrix they made was perfect....and every human died because of it.

Right - so your evidence for this comes from a spaced out sci-fi movie

Well at least that's a different myth from the usual one......but jsut as unsupportable.

As an attempt at post-hoc justification of the existence and design-screw-ups of a supposedly omniscient being I reckon you get a C- (C minus) - at least you recognised the natueer of the question!!

reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul

So which is it - usually not a good thing, or never a good thing - because the are exclusive of each otehr.

Read back over the last few pages, nothing but contradictory babbel.

reply to post by undo


You are confusing two different types of science. Some science is definite, like explosives. Some is not. For all we know, a race of jellyfish people ruled the world, but because they ad no bones, nothing was left of them.

Thing is, the whole of the sciences of paleontology and history of the Earth are, in fact, just chances.

reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul


nothing wrong with scifi movies. they are usually based on science, in a fictitious setting. i think the new argument on this and similar topics, should remove from its repertoire of critical points, that the concept derives from science fiction because science is still science, whether it is in a fictional presentation or not. the presentation does not change the science. if you disagree, then i'll be forced to use jurassic park to prove dinosaurs never existed, even though it's pretty obvious they did. toss that "it's scifi" argument out before the natives get restless and start calling your bluff. it's not a good argument.

reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul


I say usually perfection or purity are bad things. I only say usually because somewhere out there it may be good.

Fact is without imperfection, the world is not perfect. You can disagree with that if you wish, but think of it this way, if you were right, and everything was perfect, then you wouldn't be having this conversation right now. Because argument entitles imperfection. In fact you wouldn't be sitting on that chair, because that's a rest. Rest is imperfection. If everything was perfect, you would simply exist, without anything but existence. Every need and want you have is, by default, an imperfection asking to be perfected.

Without imperfection, reality ceases to exist.

reply to post by NeverForget


ah jeez. And you said you liked it. If it's contradictory, go ahead and point it out.

Originally posted by Gorman91
reply to post by undo

 

You are confusing two different types of science. Some science is definite, like explosives. Some is not. For all we know, a race of jellyfish people ruled the world, but because they ad no bones, nothing was left of them.

Thing is, the whole of the sciences of paleontology and history of the Earth are, in fact, just chances.

take a cro magnon skull, put big eyes in its eye sockets. give it scales instead of fur. whatcha got?

reply to post by undo


Harlequin-type ichthyosis :/

Originally posted by Gorman91
reply to post by undo

 

Harlequin-type ichthyosis :/

sigh.
www.prehistoricstore.com...
www.prehistoricstore.com...
www.prehistoricstore.com...

here's a challenge for you. show me ONE just one statue of a human female prior to 3000 BC.

reply to post by undo


Not sure why you showed me skulls.

There's a number of pre 3000 bc venus statues. The Venus of Schelklingen, Venus of Dolní Věstonice, Venus of Lespugue, The Venus of Willendorf.

The Venus of Brassempouy very clearly has African hair. She was found in France. Dated 23,000 bc. Kind of proves that straight hair is a later evolution. Or who knows, perhaps she came by sea.


The Narmer Palette. Granted it's only a century older than what you said.

Some of what Denise Schmandt-Besserat has found could be human anatomy. If so, it's of both sexes. a lot older than 3000 bc.

Circa 132,000 BCE – 98,000 BCE are some very early forms of adornment. Not to be sexist or anything, but males don't exactly have a tradition of wearing much beyond a nose ring or chain.

Originally posted by Gorman91
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul

 

Without imperfection, reality ceases to exist.

Rubbish.

if god is omnipotent he/she/it can create a reality with perfection if he/she/it wants to.

the fact that we exist in our current form is utterly irrelevant to that.

And BTW perfection DOES exist - I am a perfect me, you are a perfect you, this earth si a perfect this earth......

Originally posted by Gorman91
reply to post by undo

 

Not sure why you showed me skulls.

There's a number of pre 3000 bc venus statues. The Venus of Schelklingen, Venus of Dolní Věstonice, Venus of Lespugue, The Venus of Willendorf.

The Venus of Brassempouy very clearly has African hair. She was found in France. Dated 23,000 bc. Kind of proves that straight hair is a later evolution. Or who knows, perhaps she came by sea.


The Narmer Palette. Granted it's only a century older than what you said.

Some of what Denise Schmandt-Besserat has found could be human anatomy. If so, it's of both sexes. a lot older than 3000 bc.

Circa 132,000 BCE – 98,000 BCE are some very early forms of adornment. Not to be sexist or anything, but males don't exactly have a tradition of wearing much beyond a nose ring or chain.

edit on 31-8-2011 by Gorman91 because: (no reason given)

Venus of Schelklingen !!
that's a reptile body if i ever saw one. good grief
upload.wikimedia.org...

Willendorf is in my prior post with pictures. the bumpy patterns on her head reveal themselves be scales when seen from the side.

are you sure this is a human being???
www.arthistory.sbc.edu...

reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul


Those are relativity based. I am a perfect me. I am not, however, a perfect human. After all, Hitler was a perfect Hitler, eh?

Indeed God could have created whatever he wanted. Maybe he did create that universe somewhere. You are not in that universe though. Live with it.