Can you prove evolution wrong

reply to post by HappyBunny

It's a SKULL. There aren't any muscles.

True, but they were able to see where the jaw muscles laid on the bone, and it's got a much smaller muscle.

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by HappyBunny

 

It's a SKULL. There aren't any muscles.

True, but they were able to see where the jaw muscles laid on the bone, and it's got a much smaller muscle.

According to that clown Pye

You act as if he presented facts or objective evidence. He's just making random claims without ever presenting facts or allowing peer reviews. He doesn't even have a degree that would allow him to make any such claims in the first place, he's an AUTHOR. And authors tell stories...but as entertaining or funny as they might be, they don't represent facts

reply to post by colin42


i agree that evolution is correct. however, any beleifs can be had, and there is nothing wrong with those.

reply to post by colin42

So another excuse why he cannot provide any evidence. I see a pattern here.

Pattern? Speaking of which did you not see the absurd amount of patterns I found with all the unobserved theorys that piece evolution together?

reply to post by MrXYZ


it means you can't explain the high levels of carbon and oxygen with low levels of calcium.

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by colin42

 

So another excuse why he cannot provide any evidence. I see a pattern here.

Pattern? Speaking of which did you not see the absurd amount of patterns I found with all the unobserved theorys that piece evolution together?

You mean the ones Barc's completely debunked? Not surprised, you tend to ignore facts

We've witnessed speciation (macro evolution) both in nature and the lab, which is just one of the facts you ignore. You also ignore the FACT that we actively use the theory in modern medicine. If it were wrong, we wouldn't have a lot of the medicine we have today. You also claim there's no fossils to back up the theory, which is so beyond wrong, I don't know whether to laugh or feel baffled by the sheer lack of knowledge.

Look, people have posted links to objective evidence before. And every single time you completely ignore it before posting more nonsense. I'm not sure whether or not you realize this, but it makes you look silly. Do yourself a favor and read the links people posted, because it's obvious you're not really here to discuss given that you ignore every single thing that debunks your claims

reply to post by itsthetooth


there are neck muscles and mandibular muscles for chewing that attach to the cranium and don't forget the facial muscles
www.google.com...:en-USfficial&prmd=imvns&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ& sa=X&ei=3r7rTorkOOPm0QG13YnjCQ&ved=0CDYQsAQ&biw=1876&bih=1009

the morphology is symmetrical and there are no diseases that result in symmetrically thin formation of bone. The symmetrical thinness of the bone is also indicative that the skull is supposed to look that way and it looks like a common gray alien

Originally posted by MrXYZ
I don't know whether to laugh or feel baffled by the sheer lack of knowledge.

Look, people have posted links to objective evidence before. And every single time you completely ignore it before posting more nonsense. I'm not sure whether or not you realize this, but it makes you look silly.

I don't know whether to laugh or feel baffled by the sheer lack of knowledge.

Look, people have posted links to objective evidence before. And every single time you completely ignore it before posting more nonsense. I'm not sure whether or not you realize this, but it makes you look silly.

Originally posted by bottleslingguy
reply to post by itsthetooth

 

there are neck muscles and mandibular muscles for chewing that attach to the cranium and don't forget the facial muscles
www.google.com...:en-US

fficial&prmd=imvns&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ& sa=X&ei=3r7rTorkOOPm0QG13YnjCQ&ved=0CDYQsAQ&biw=1876&bih=1009

the morphology is symmetrical and there are no diseases that result in symmetrical formation of bone. The symmetrical thinness of the bone is also indicative that the skull is supposed to look that way and it looks like a common gray alien

Actually, if you don't treat hydrocephalus, the bone distortions don't have to be symmetrical. But hey, let's just ignore this and claim there's no disease who diforms bones in asymmetrical ways

I'm amazed at how gullible some people are. Aren't facts and objective evidence important anymore???

reply to post by MrXYZ

What do you mean when you say "negate the chemical composition"? It's not as if Pye presented facts or hard data, he made RANDOM CLAIMS and won't allow any peer reviews or objective research. He's stating a blief that clearly isn't based on rationality, logic, or objective evidence.

How do you know they are random especially when your complaining about there not being any peer reviews.

So why would anyone have to "debunk" it? That's like asking someone to debunk the crazy guys on Times Square holding "the end is near" signs

Only if your claiming to know something the rest of us don't.

I mean, if Pye's claims are your only proof (and it seems that way), then you might just as well quote the next random crazy person you find

I think this is the whole point you missed, Pye's findings are NOT the ONLY thing that is telling us our DNA has been tampered with. I guess you missed that important part.

The above is especially true if you believe it's somehow debunking evolution. I mean, we're ACTIVELY APPLYING the theory in modern medicine. If the theory were wrong, we wouldn't have a lot of the meds we have today

I'm still waiting to see what exactly is behind this claim.

reply to post by itsthetooth

How do you know they are random especially when your complaining about there not being any peer reviews.

Because he never backed them up with facts or objective evidence. It's akin to me claiming giant purple unicorns roam the galaxy

Only if your claiming to know something the rest of us don't.

That would be Pye's way to "prove" stuff. Make random claims and never back them up with facts

I think this is the whole point you missed, Pye's findings are NOT the ONLY thing that is telling us our DNA has been tampered with. I guess you missed that important part.

Then please, entertain us...post your "proof"

I'm still waiting to see what exactly is behind this claim.

It's not just a claim...it's a FACT.

Originally posted by MrXYZ

Originally posted by bottleslingguy
reply to post by itsthetooth

 

there are neck muscles and mandibular muscles for chewing that attach to the cranium and don't forget the facial muscles
www.google.com...:en-US

fficial&prmd=imvns&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ& sa=X&ei=3r7rTorkOOPm0QG13YnjCQ&ved=0CDYQsAQ&biw=1876&bih=1009

the morphology is symmetrical and there are no diseases that result in symmetrical formation of bone. The symmetrical thinness of the bone is also indicative that the skull is supposed to look that way and it looks like a common gray alien

Actually, if you don't treat hydrocephalus, the bone distortions don't have to be symmetrical. But hey, let's just ignore this and claim there's no disease who diforms bones in asymmetrical ways

I'm amazed at how gullible some people are. Aren't facts and objective evidence important anymore???

edit on 16-12-2011 by MrXYZ because: (no reason given)

not sure what you were trying to say but here's a quote from the SC site:

In 2004 the Starchild Skull was examined by respected craniofacial surgeon Dr. Ted Robinson, in consultation with ten other specialists with the goal of identifying a medical condition that could explain the skull[10]. In their discussion on Hydrocephaly, Dr David Hodges, a radiologist, confirmed that the suture lines were open and growing at the time of death, and could find no evidence of widening or other abnormality of the cranial sutures[11]. Dr. Bachynsky, also a radiologist, found no signs of erosion on the internal surfaces of the skull, ruling out fluid between the brain and skull, and supported Dr. Robinson's conclusion that the Starchild was not Hydrocephalic [12].

X-Rays of the Starchild Skull compared to that of a Hydrocephalic (below) clearly show that, while the Starchild Skull has an unusual shape, it lacks the "inflated" appearance caused by internal pressure forcing the cranium of a Hydrocephalic to expand in all directions like a balloon. Some observers have argued that the Starchild Skull does look "inflated," but cradleboarding or positional flattening of the occipital (the bone at the rear of the skull) caused it to have a different shape than a typical Hydrocephalic. However, in concert with his colleagues Dr. Robinson concluded that the shape of the skull was natural, and not caused by artificial shaping stating:

"Lacking even a hint of evidence of shaping, and of any unnatural or premature fusing of any sutures, it is entirely safe to say that the extreme flattening of the skull was caused by its natural growth pattern and is not artificial."

www.starchildproject.com...

Here is a brief synopsis of how evolution has been laid out for me so far. We start with something, now we don’t know what, or how but I labeled this primordial slime. Again keep in mind no claims are supported with evolution to explain who or how the slime was made. After millions of years millions of species have branched off from this slime, rendering the over 5 million species, including humans, that we have on earth today.

Now with 99.99% or possibly 99.999% this life fits into what is obviously known as a balanced eco system. Humans do not appear to be eco friendly to this planet. This is explained to be one of the possibilities through evolution. Humans appear to fit into the lower .0001% and no one within the evolution support is able to conjure up any fitting excuse other than this is just one of the things that evolution does. There is also no excuse for why humans did not eco evolve like the rest of the species here. I’m assuming of course that humans are not the only thing to have evolved.

In addition there seems to be the lack of bones or fossils that directly tie us to primates. We seem to find a plethora of bones that can always be called a distant ancestor (which is pretty easy to do considering we even call primates that) of sorts. Another thing that is missing from the picture is the common ancestor. This appears to be the missing link that could connect us to primates. Now according to our mtDNA our lineage never dipped below tens of thousands, yet we cant find a single fossil or bone.

Speciation has never been observed in humans, and only in smaller molecular pools. One read I had said that tests done on common fruit flies were unsuccessful in getting speciation to occur, and defects would cause them to die fast. Humans aren’t dying fast so this doens’t seem to apply to us either. A plethora of such defects that would be needed to cause the changes between primates and humans would be so substantial that the species would die fast. In addition defects always carry non symmetrical characteristics, and well, we are pretty symmetrical. If speciation occurred over many times over a longer period of time then we are missing even more bones as proof. The math is simple, if our species never dipped below tens of thousands of people, and macroevolution occured over 4 million years, then we are just missing 4 million times tens of thousands of bones.
I’m sorry to say there is no reasonable excuse why we can’t find one bone.


Our planet is a balanced eco system and humans are not part of it. Anytime that system is knocked out of balance, you see things like global warming, and species dying as a result. If evolution were even possible, it doesn’t account for the needs of a newly developed species. As an example we had a pretty fitting diet as primates so there is no question that primates fit in and have what they need to survive. If evolution allowed humans to come into existence then the idea of keeping things in an eco balance were not part of that picture. While some of our food is processed and manufactured, we struggle day to day with what we think is our intended diet. Unlike the majority of the other life on earth. Being part of a balanced cycle is not only crucial but paramount on a world wide level. Knocking that balance off harms other life, there is just no way around this.

Other species are suffering from us invading this planet. Earth is NOT OUR HOME. Mother nature is not OUR mother nature. She will continue to push us off here, as we sit back with no option because we have no way to leave. People feel the pressure of this and act out by doing things like self abuse, drinking, smoking, drugs, suicide and numerous other things. This is what happens when you don’t fit in, you don’t feel wanted, and you act out.

God had a plan when he dumped us here. Get the gold even if it means setting up some slaves to mine it. Even if it means setting them up with some food to get them by. God had a stingy plan and could care less about the balance of things. I have only been able to understand what has happened to us by separating myself from the situation to get an unbiased view. What he did was wrong on so many levels. I enjoy pondering the possibilities of both evolution and creation but if your smart enough to grasp what I have laid out here, you will realize we have more important things to worry about. The question is what, if anything can we do about it.

These findings unfortunately places another large stone between us and finding out how, or what made us to begin with. We all have that same question and we all want to know, and know right, and right now. I would just caution some people to not be so aggressive in wanting to know. Your anxiety can throw off your understanding because your willing to accept things that might not be true.

reply to post by MrXYZ

Because he never backed them up with facts or objective evidence. It's akin to me claiming giant purple unicorns roam the galaxy

And what do you say when 4 million other people are having the same claim? Do you ignore it, or give it some serious benefit?

That would be Pye's way to "prove" stuff. Make random claims and never back them up with facts

Well Pye doesn't know it, but his facts line up with the bible, so how do you explain that?

Then please, entertain us...post your "proof"

There are direct threats placed upon the human species though an unexplained method. All of gods punishments appear to have been done though DNA. Sitchen also uncovered work showing that our ancestors were also involved in DNA back in those days as well.

It's not just a claim...it's a FACT.

Unlike PYe's word, I have no reason to take this at face value.

Originally posted by MrXYZ
You act as if he presented facts or objective evidence. He's just making random claims without ever presenting facts or allowing peer reviews. He doesn't even have a degree that would allow him to make any such claims in the first place, he's an AUTHOR. And authors tell stories...but as entertaining or funny as they might be, they don't represent facts

this guy wreaks of honesty and integrity. I don't suspect he is hoaxing any of this and the science speaks for itself.

reply to post by bottleslingguy

this guy wreaks of honesty and integrity. I don't suspect he is hoaxing any of this and the science speaks for itself.

I just love how some of the people on here are all about, OH he's just doing this to sell books.

Well if thats the case, he failed epically because he forgot to mention his book in all of this LOL.

reply to post by MrXYZ

You mean the ones Barc's completely debunked? Not surprised, you tend to ignore facts

We've witnessed speciation (macro evolution) both in nature and the lab, which is just one of the facts you ignore. You also ignore the FACT that we actively use the theory in modern medicine. If it were wrong, we wouldn't have a lot of the medicine we have today. You also claim there's no fossils to back up the theory, which is so beyond wrong, I don't know whether to laugh or feel baffled by the sheer lack of knowledge.

I don't recall anyone debunking anything. I have never been sent any links showing that speciation has occured in humans, or anything related to medicine. I have also never seen anything that directly ties us to common ancestor fossils.

Look, people have posted links to objective evidence before. And every single time you completely ignore it before posting more nonsense. I'm not sure whether or not you realize this, but it makes you look silly. Do yourself a favor and read the links people posted, because it's obvious you're not really here to discuss given that you ignore every single thing that debunks your claims

I have looked at them but they either don't apply to humans or clearly say they are still under investigation.

reply to post by bottleslingguy

there are neck muscles and mandibular muscles for chewing that attach to the cranium and don't forget the facial muscles
www.google.com...:en-USfficial&prmd=imvns&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ& sa=X&ei=3r7rTorkOOPm0QG13YnjCQ&ved=0CDYQsAQ&biw=1876&bih=1009

the morphology is symmetrical and there are no diseases that result in symmetrically thin formation of bone. The symmetrical thinness of the bone is also indicative that the skull is supposed to look that way and it looks like a common gray alien

What they need to do is mold some skin on the darn thing so we can see what it really looks like.

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by colin42

 

So another excuse why he cannot provide any evidence. I see a pattern here.

Pattern? Speaking of which did you not see the absurd amount of patterns I found with all the unobserved theorys that piece evolution together?

Hey we are starting to come together. Yes I did see the pattern you showed and it was absurd, just not in the way you think.

As for what YOU found I will tell you I am in a place now. All your previous posts show you have found nothing of any value, ever.

You again dodge the bullet in not addressing yet another question. Why no comments on a skeleton he has almost of the parts of?

Hey it is only what I have come to expect but I just like making you wriggle when it comes to supplying real, hard evidence that chalenges your manufactured belief.

But then again you believe hard evidence is based purely on belief and in your 30 plus years of study it has brought you to where you are now. Howling at the moon.

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by bottleslingguy

 

there are neck muscles and mandibular muscles for chewing that attach to the cranium and don't forget the facial muscles
www.google.com...:en-USfficial&prmd=imvns&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ& sa=X&ei=3r7rTorkOOPm0QG13YnjCQ&ved=0CDYQsAQ&biw=1876&bih=1009

the morphology is symmetrical and there are no diseases that result in symmetrically thin formation of bone. The symmetrical thinness of the bone is also indicative that the skull is supposed to look that way and it looks like a common gray alien

What they need to do is mold some skin on the darn thing so we can see what it really looks like.

it's been done. They did it for the show UFOHunters. that one was based on human ratios and gave it a human nose and mouth. An interesting thing to note is that when the model maker was installing the fake human eye it wouldn't fit in the eye socket and wouldn't stay in so he cut them in half. That is very important along with the odd looking kind of optic nerve canals that don't match humans. The ear canals are different too. There are a bunch of artist's drawings of potential candidates but I think this one's the best: