Survey Results: Origins and Evolution

reply to post by undo


Scales to you, African hair to me. Or maybe even Fat creases.

The fact you see scales does not make it so. And the CHANCES of it being scales are far less than it being hair or creases in skin.

See you're thinking subjectively.

subjectively, your last question looks like a Dead Space 2 monster.
images.nitrosell.com...


You need to learn to look at things objectively. Not purely what you want to see to prove your point.

Originally posted by Gorman91
reply to post by undo

 

Scales to you, African hair to me. Or maybe even Fat creases.

The fact you see scales does not make it so. And the CHANCES of it being scales are far less than it being hair or creases in skin.

See you're thinking subjectively.

subjectively, your last question looks like a Dead Space 2 monster.
images.nitrosell.com...


You need to learn to look at things objectively. Not purely what you want to see to prove your point.

ditto. that's what i'm thinking is happening. people are projecting their own species onto other sentient races. i'm not, i think the possibiilty exists that god created other sentients besides homo sapians and the homo sapians is the result of 2 modifications made to the original, which is what the text itself reveals.

reply to post by undo


No, now you're bending it. I'm sorry dude, but there simply is no objective proof to what you're saying. You're letting your belief of what God did get in the way of objectivity and what the data shows. You want those things to be scales, but that requires we accept your belief they are scales, which in turn requires we accept your belief that things before us were sentient, which in turn requires us to accept those, accept that, until eventually, well, turtles all the way down.

Originally posted by Gorman91
reply to post by undo

 

No, now you're bending it. I'm sorry dude, but there simply is no objective proof to what you're saying. You're letting your belief of what God did get in the way of objectivity and what the data shows. You want those things to be scales, but that requires we accept your belief they are scales, which in turn requires we accept your belief that things before us were sentient, which in turn requires us to accept those, accept that, until eventually, well, turtles all the way down.

in the first one i linked the you say looks like rolls of fat on her belly? do rolls of fat criss cross ? check her arms. never seen criss cross rolls of fat. that belly of hers looks like an alligator. and willendorfs hair covers her entire head and face. that's not hair. it's an attempt to render scales.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/files/03988f46ed432cca.jpg[/atsimg]

see the bumps on his shoulders. hair?
even the museum curators said it was a lizard shaped head. the dude has fangs
and more than 6 fingers on each hand.

willendorf from the side. not hair. not rolls of fat
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/files/dc6fbe2ff7f4164e.jpg[/atsimg]

check arms and belly. that's one heckuva reptilian ya got there. wonder where her head went. interesting how so many of them appear to be missing their heads
upload.wikimedia.org...

some more "human" women lol

tiny.cc...
good grief. lol

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/5320f3f579da.jpg[/atsimg]

looks human to me. nod nod nod.
tiny.cc...

reply to post by undo


I've also not seen a woman with an acorn for a head. Abstraction dude. Chances are they were pretty wise people.

We do it in architecture. I'm pretty sure glass doesn't have 3 diagonal lines through it, but it gets the point across.

It's the difference between being lazy and slapping a giant eagle on your building, or being wise and creative and making the whole building gracefully flow like an eagle through the sky.

Originally posted by Gorman91
reply to post by undo

 

I've also not seen a woman with an acorn for a head. Abstraction dude. Chances are they were pretty wise people.

We do it in architecture. I'm pretty sure glass doesn't have 3 diagonal lines through it, but it gets the point across.

It's the difference between being lazy and slapping a giant eagle on your building, or being wise and creative and making the whole building gracefully flow like an eagle through the sky.

edit on 31-8-2011 by Gorman91 because: le spelling

just proving my point. the texts say it and suggest it, the artifacts depict it. and the fossils support that for a very long time, these guys not only ruled the planet, they were the pinnacle of the food chain. and THIS was THEIR planet. we're the new kids on the block. it all fits. nice and neat, with a bow on top (i'm a dudette)

Originally posted by Vitchilo

Originally posted by GmoS719
reply to post by SkepticOverlord

 

I figured more people would lean towards creation.
hmmm.
I'll pray for the world today.

ATSers are not religious loonies who believe in made up stories created by organized religion so they could make a buck and get power.

Sorry to burst your bubble.

edit on 29-8-2011 by Vitchilo because: (no reason given)

I believe in God and Creation. So I say you believe in silly made up stories created by an organizaion that wanted to disprove God and obtain global power. The same people behind the NWO. Should I believe in God or people I know are lying to me?

reply to post by undo


I don't see any skeletons of intelligent dinosaurs.

Ancient texts also speak of many other creatures besides reptiles.

And I still haven't seen any reason to believe these ancient texts are anything more than the result of drug use.

You say "Put scales on our ancestors". I tell you, scales do not fit. There are no keratin remains that form scales. There are no scale imprints into the mid. There are no reptile like characteristics. There mere idea of these fat women being reptilian is laughable, because breasts and hips are for child birth and breast feeding. Scales don't keep milk healthy. They also don't stretch to well on the female parts for child birth. One of the reasons so few reptiles actually do half life birth is because a reptile is not fit for prolonged care of its offspring. Mammals are. Because that's what mammals evolved to do.

reply to post by Gorman91


ah yes BUT, that's ignoring that they are mod #1, the clones modified to have knowledge of each other by the serpent. the mammalian procreation mods. the next mod is the one that turns us into completely scaleless, sometimes even somewhat hairy, mammals. then we are true homo sapiens. the first mod just added procreation. probably resulted in the slow shedding of the scales too. the second mod results in the kill switch addition. fits the text better than ignoring it altogether and just buying the "chances are" hypothesis.

reply to post by Gorman91

Drug use? If this was all drug use they would all be seperate stories with no separate connection. Why do all the stories connect with each other. Now the flood tale might have just been there way of saying why do the gods keep screwing me over? Even though it was a natural event but why the collection of the stories matching up.

reply to post by undo


This is like walking around the world in the opposite direction to reach a town a mile over.

Just walk straight to the town over. Stop adding what you want to do on top of it. It's unneeded fluff.

reply to post by KingJames1337


Not the bible, other tales.

reply to post by Gorman91

What tales?

Originally posted by Gorman91
reply to post by undo

 

This is like walking around the world in the opposite direction to reach a town a mile over.

Just walk straight to the town over. Stop adding what you want to do on top of it. It's unneeded fluff.

i agree trying to prove we came from apes by digging every bit of bone out of the ground and listing off the names of species of things that haven't existed for thousands/millions of years, just to get primoridal soup = homo sapiens, is the short cut

p.s. of course primordial soup = homo sapiens. primordial soup = everything. building blocks build everything, provided there's enough shapes and sizes to do so. and if the material used is tiny enough, you could argue that primordial soup = eiffel tower too, since the effort and evidence of sentience in the building of the structure would be ignored in favor of evidence of the material to do so. then given enough time, random chance, eventually, it would erect itself. wallah. short cut.

reply to post by undo


I've no idea what you went with that. What I do know is that you've not proven to me biologically how cavemen had scales.

Originally posted by Gorman91
reply to post by undo

 

This is like walking around the world in the opposite direction to reach a town a mile over.

Just walk straight to the town over. Stop adding what you want to do on top of it. It's unneeded fluff.

How is this unneeded fluff we can't just act like the tales never happened they must be accounted for.