Can you prove evolution wrong

reply to post by itsthetooth
This whole post does and the way it is set out does not follow the style of any other posts you have made. It is a cut and paste. You now appear to be showing such disrespect for those taking time to converse with you that you not only ignore any information in a reply you now paste pre prepared sermons.

How rude.

reply to post by bottleslingguy
Ok. So what is the problem with actually putting all this information and evidence in a paper for peer review?

He argues he needs to find sympathetic scientists but claims to have them in abundance. WHY WONT HE PUBLISH AND PROVE EVERYONE WRONG?

Answer that and you get a star.

reply to post by colin42


the "hard evidence" IS THE SKULL. the features on the skull the features in the skull. The intercranial ridges don't support a human brain. A serious forensic study needs to be done of this and do things like make a 3d model of the brain based on the surface inside the skull. That would give an idea what the brain looked like. You could do a laser scan and make a virtual model with an intact brain and all muscle attachment points that could be determined with what remains plus make a more lifelike neck. That should give us a better idea what it looked like. The model made on UFOHunters wasn't even close with the face and neck. I think the one in my video is the best so far and Lloyd likes it too.

reply to post by colin42

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?

Well I'm assuming you watched the video giving details about all this, but it's looking more like you haven't. Pye was not the original finder of the alien. It was a little girl many years ago that actually found the alien holding the hand of a human both inside this cave. There is a story for sure here on what the hell was going on. An alien holding the hand of a human, now both dead in a cave. Anyhow, the little girl gathered up the bones and was heading home with them when she had realized that her parents would freak, so she stashed them in a tree. A few days later a light flood washed most of them away. She was only able to locate the skulls, and the upper maxila.

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.

I think your confusing me with another guy on here talking about purple unicorns.

reply to post by bottleslingguy

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:

Now see.... how is it we can find a common ancestor to an alien skull on video tape but we can't find a common human ancestor.

Excellent video, I wish the quality was better.

Originally posted by colin42
reply to post by bottleslingguy

 

Ok. So what is the problem with actually putting all this information and evidence in a paper for peer review?

He argues he needs to find sympathetic scientists but claims to have them in abundance. WHY WONT HE PUBLISH AND PROVE EVERYONE WRONG?

Answer that and you get a star.

I think this is a little beyond that. The previous dna testing data should be somewhere ( the data the Novella article is based on) that should show due diligence on Pye's part. The more current findings (which at this point in time are still absolutely plausible) are being included in a documentary that is underway and could be one of the important paradigm changing stories of 2012.

Pye has been up against a wall of programmed ignorance for years now and I think he's doing it the right way. People can stonewall with that "peer review or bust" attitude but it's ignorant if you ask me.

reply to post by colin42

This whole post does and the way it is set out does not follow the style of any other posts you have made. It is a cut and paste. You now appear to be showing such disrespect for those taking time to converse with you that you not only ignore any information in a reply you now paste pre prepared sermons.

How rude.

No not at all, I did however cut and past from a different proggy because my spelling sucks, but it wasn't prepared beforehand. WTH do you think ATS users are going automated or something ????? As far as I know I have answered any and all questions directed at me. If I haven't it was a total mistake, but I promise I will get to you if you remind me.

reply to post by colin42

Ok. So what is the problem with actually putting all this information and evidence in a paper for peer review?

He argues he needs to find sympathetic scientists but claims to have them in abundance. WHY WONT HE PUBLISH AND PROVE EVERYONE WRONG?

Answer that and you get a star.

Well it would help if you guys actually watched some of his videos about it, you have all the same access we do to this. In one video he explains in detail the trouble he had just finding a scientist that would touch the skull. Some were like hell no. Some people are just not ready to accept real possibilities.

reply to post by bottleslingguy

the "hard evidence" IS THE SKULL. the features on the skull the features in the skull. The intercranial ridges don't support a human brain. A serious forensic study needs to be done of this and do things like make a 3d model of the brain based on the surface inside the skull. That would give an idea what the brain looked like. You could do a laser scan and make a virtual model with an intact brain and all muscle attachment points that could be determined with what remains plus make a more lifelike neck. That should give us a better idea what it looked like. The model made on UFOHunters wasn't even close with the face and neck. I think the one in my video is the best so far and Lloyd likes it too.

FYI people the brain was said to be 30% larger than that of a human brain. The composite make up was totally different and they even had a problem trying to cut the skull, it didn't cut near as easy as a human skull. The chemical used to break down the sample piece actually didn't break down the skull at all so they had to use an insanely harsh one to get to that point. There is NOTHING human about this skull you guys.

reply to post by itsthetooth

that's exactly right and such a simple reason why it hasn't gotten the attention it should have. Anyone with even the slightest understanding of human biology would have to be interested in finding out more about this. Pye has been very up front with it from the beginning. Not only that but the features of the skull are really all that's needed if you know what to look for. There is no disease that changes the chemical composition of your bone to more like tooth enamel is there? I'm interested in the red residue left in the cancellous holes of the bone. I'll bet it is a residual constituent of the alien blood that is not on the common earthly bacteria's menu.

reply to post by colin42

Ok. So what is the problem with actually putting all this information and evidence in a paper for peer review?

He argues he needs to find sympathetic scientists but claims to have them in abundance. WHY WONT HE PUBLISH AND PROVE EVERYONE WRONG?

Answer that and you get a star.

You guys need to also remember that the skull is not his, it belongs to a couple out of new mexico.

I want a star so here I go...
As I have said many times before, it is possible that he did the work himself therefore there are no references to share.
It's also possible that the lab that he had do the work will not give him permission to publish there name due to a conflict with other people they work with.

Sheesh! 129 pages and nothing's yet been proven.

reply to post by The1Prettiest1One

Sheesh! 129 pages and nothing's yet been proven.

Good point.

Here are some to start with...

Earth is Not Our Home (Hebrews 11:1-16)
We’ve been talking this summer about exile and redemption. In mercy, God did not destroy us or allow the immediate consequences of humanity’s original sin, but exiled us that He might come to us, speak to us, offer reconciliation, and provide a way back home. That God would come after us is His grace. We are not left to find our way home or earn a place back in God’s good favor. God does not hide out in Heaven waiting for us, but has plunged into the depth of human existence to seek and save us through Jesus Christ.

We also appear to have disabled powers too...

Verse three points to the basis of this “blind faith” – and tempts me into a discursus on “intelligent design.” It reads, “By faith we understand that the worlds were prepared by the word of God, so that what is seen was not made out of things which are visible.” In other words, what you see ain’t all we got. There is more to life and this world than mortar and wood and nails, more than DNA and atoms and particles, there is supernatural intention, design, and purpose. And that supernatural intention, design, and purpose belong to God!

In other words he took them away from us.
gspcsermons.blogspot.com...

Make ye the heart of this people greasy, and their ears heavy, and their eyes sticky; that they may not see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and their heart understand, and they be converted, and one heal them." "This people" points back to the people of unclean lips, among whom Isaiah had complained of dwelling, and whom the Lord would not call "my people."

Here it looks like he removed a power from us called perceive.

bible.cc...

And of course there is no mistaking the UFO where god visits us in his chariot with a four headed creature of lion ox eagle and man. Not only is there alien all over this but mad scientist for the creature as well as someone that plays with DNA.

www.bibliotecapleyades.net...

Specific versions of the bible are also prefaced as supernatural reads.

Here is a page but the rendering effects are off track here....www.bibleviews.com...
It's probably eaiser to think of Katy perrys song ET.

Every time god performed a punishement on us, it was through our DNA. We have disabled powers and a plethora of defects in our DNA. In addition there is evidence that someone has gone into our DNA and made changes.

Human genetics...

www.youtube.com...

reply to post by itsthetooth


You have proven your beliefs but diversity without evolution? Not even close. If anything you have proven a grotesque misunderstanding of science in general.

You seem to rely on you tube for much of your education so this video should get you on track. If not could you please describe biodiversity without evolution and end this debate once and for all? If that's not possible then by all means start a new thread featuring your alien hypothesis.
Thanks

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by colin42

 

Ok. So what is the problem with actually putting all this information and evidence in a paper for peer review?

He argues he needs to find sympathetic scientists but claims to have them in abundance. WHY WONT HE PUBLISH AND PROVE EVERYONE WRONG?

Answer that and you get a star.

You guys need to also remember that the skull is not his, it belongs to a couple out of new mexico.

I want a star so here I go...
As I have said many times before, it is possible that he did the work himself therefore there are no references to share.
It's also possible that the lab that he had do the work will not give him permission to publish there name due to a conflict with other people they work with.

You think that answer gets a star????????

Did you notice you answered with 3 excuses. You can actually leave out you have said many times. We know the same wrong things over and over.

You want the star answer the question. WHY WONT HE PUBLISH THE FINDINNGS

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by colin42

 

Ok. So what is the problem with actually putting all this information and evidence in a paper for peer review?

He argues he needs to find sympathetic scientists but claims to have them in abundance. WHY WONT HE PUBLISH AND PROVE EVERYONE WRONG?

Answer that and you get a star.

You guys need to also remember that the skull is not his, it belongs to a couple out of new mexico.

I want a star so here I go...
As I have said many times before, it is possible that he did the work himself therefore there are no references to share.
It's also possible that the lab that he had do the work will not give him permission to publish there name due to a conflict with other people they work with.

I think the reason the current people involved with the science don't want to expose their names is that they need to have all their ducks in a row before they put their names on the line and will quite likely loose their jobs and reputations by the smear machine cadre of scared little wabbits. I don't think Pye could carry a hoax this far because other people are risking their livelihoods and the work that needs to be done costs money. That's the reality of this.

Originally posted by colin42

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by colin42

 

Ok. So what is the problem with actually putting all this information and evidence in a paper for peer review?

He argues he needs to find sympathetic scientists but claims to have them in abundance. WHY WONT HE PUBLISH AND PROVE EVERYONE WRONG?

Answer that and you get a star.

You guys need to also remember that the skull is not his, it belongs to a couple out of new mexico.

I want a star so here I go...
As I have said many times before, it is possible that he did the work himself therefore there are no references to share.
It's also possible that the lab that he had do the work will not give him permission to publish there name due to a conflict with other people they work with.

You think that answer gets a star????????

Did you notice you answered with 3 excuses. You can actually leave out you have said many times. We know the same wrong things over and over.

You want the star answer the question. WHY WONT HE PUBLISH THE FINDINNGS

I couldn't care less about you giving me a star. I even said this is bigger than that. It doesn't matter if you believe it or are holding your decisions until you hear it announced on the nightly news. This is happening with or without your approval. If you knew more about this subject you wouldn't be asking your silly question. Deny ignorance or deny reality, it's your choice.

ps lol maybe I should've denied haste and actually read who you were responding to. the message stays the same though

reply to post by bottleslingguy

I think the reason the current people involved with the science don't want to expose their names is that they need to have all their ducks in a row before they put their names on the line and will quite likely loose their jobs and reputations by the smear machine cadre of scared little wabbits. I don't think Pye could carry a hoax this far because other people are risking their livelihoods and the work that needs to be done costs money. That's the reality of this.

Thats a darn good point.

reply to post by colin42

You think that answer gets a star????????

Did you notice you answered with 3 excuses. You can actually leave out you have said many times. We know the same wrong things over and over.

You want the star answer the question. WHY WONT HE PUBLISH THE FINDINNGS

I don't understand, hes never refused to.

reply to post by flyingfish

You have proven your beliefs but diversity without evolution? Not even close. If anything you have proven a grotesque misunderstanding of science in general.

You seem to rely on you tube for much of your education so this video should get you on track. If not could you please describe biodiversity without evolution and end this debate once and for all? If that's not possible then by all means start a new thread featuring your alien hypothesis.
Thanks

I dunno. Evolution does not prove biodiversity any more than creation.