100 Million Years Old Giant Skull And Teeth Found Embedded In Coal

reply to post by stillwind


We have found other humanoid skeletons that due show a linkage between humanoids, but what we have not found is a link between humans and apes, which is constantly said to exist and drilled into our heads that we evolved from apes. Yet humans have 2 less chromosomes than apes. We have 23 pairs and apes have 24 and there have been no skeletal remains that can explain this giant gap of evolution other then "we told you so, so listen to us".

This is no small thing we're talking about but an insanely huge gap. The oldest humanoid skeleton "supposedly" found dates 6 million years yet it does not provide a link between man and apes. In fact is only makes things more confusing because it leaves open the question, "what could we have evolved from?" and only raises more questions then answers.

Originally posted by Lostmymarbles
Yet humans have 2 less chromosomes than apes. We have 23 pairs and apes have 24 and there have been no skeletal remains that can explain this giant gap of evolution other then "we told you so, so listen to us".

Creationist arguments are like shooting fish in a barrel.

In the human evolutionary lineage, two ancestral ape chromosomes fused at their telomeres producing human chromosome 2

ancestral chromosomes 2A and 2B fused to produce human chromosome 2

link

Now the big question... do you wish to defend this argument of yours about chromosomes, or are you going to abandon it like an unloved orphan?

Originally posted by kyviecaldges
reply to post by wmd_2008

 

In bold above you cant even get the basics right, HUMANS did not come or evolve from apes what is actually said is that HUMANS and Apes evolved from a COMMON ANCESTOR that's why human and ape DNA are almost but not quite the same.

Then could you present the evidence that supports this claim?
THE CLAIM THAT SEEMS SO IMPORTANT AND SUPPOSEDLY VALID THAT YOU MUST USE ALL CAPS!

Once again you get something wrong it's not ALL CAPS your sentence above is all caps, humans,common ancestor and dna in caps in the vain hope that it might sink in what it actually means.

We didn't descend from apes or monkeys, apes monkeys and humans all have a common ancestor that's why the dna is so alike.

Apes have no tails , monkeys have tails another common mistake made by bible thumpers , its part of the tree of life humans on one branch, apes on a different branch and monkeys on another trace them back you arrive at common ancestors.

If you trace all life back to the very beginning we ALL have a common ancestor.

A little bit more than ten years ago,the Human Genome project has been launched with the ambitious goal to decipher the sequence of the entire human DNA sequence called genome. It contains no less than 3 billion units which is enough to fill in 200 New York City telephone directories (of 1000 pages each). Every human shares more than 99% of his DNA with other humans, 98% with chimpanzees... and 50% with banana’s DNA.

Now if there was some all mighty creator why would he need to make you and a banana related, after all if he was so powerful why would his greatest creation need to have 50% dna in common with a banana

Here is an image I would show to make it simple enough for even a child to understand



Google is your friend plenty of links if you make an effort!!!!

reply to post by wmd_2008

We didn't descend from apes or monkeys, apes monkeys and humans all have a common ancestor that's why the dna is so alike.

Correlation is not causation. Correlation is not causation.

You are making an assumption based upon a presupposed conclusion.
Your argument is no different that those who say that aliens seeded human life from apes.
They argue that somewhere along the evolutionary line aliens spliced alien DNA into ape DNA thus creating humans.
And the fun fact about this is that both they and you darwinian dogmatics both use DNA, and DNA only, to support your premises.

Point me to evidence in the fossil record.
(You can't. It doesn't exist. That is why you are relying solely upon your weak and unsubstantiated DNA argument).

Now what's up with this argument that is yet another logical fallacy. It "does not follow".

Now if there was some all mighty creator why would he need to make you and a banana related, after all if he was so powerful why would his greatest creation need to have 50% dna in common with a banana

This argument is a pointless non-sequitur.
I don't think that you have read my posts. I really don't. Let me quote myself.

These are my words mate-

Let me first state that I am not a creationist and I am not shilling for the Church.
I feel as if both groups are looking for something to believe in that let's them sleep well at night.

I am basing my arguments on logic and evidentiary support, of which you have none.

Your link to google that you want to point out in all of your pharisaic glory contains not one iota of evidentiary support from the fossil record.

From the fossil record mate.

All the bones that have been found relating to this issue are classified as either human or ape.
What is happening is you pseudo-religious believers of the cult of darwin are taking these bones when they are found in close proximity to one another and then mixing them together with a lot of imagination and confirmation bias to show that some common ancestor existed.
And when people like me point this out to you, then your back up plan is to bring in the DNA argument, which is solely based upon correlations.

Correlation is not causation. Correlation is not causation. Correlation is not causation. Correlation is not causation. Correlation is not causation. Correlation is not causation. Correlation is not causation.

Don't worry about google being your friend. Make logic your friend.

Originally posted by Lostmymarbles
reply to post by stillwind

 

We have found other humanoid skeletons that due show a linkage between humanoids, but what we have not found is a link between humans and apes, which is constantly said to exist and drilled into our heads that we evolved from apes. Yet humans have 2 less chromosomes than apes. We have 23 pairs and apes have 24 and there have been no skeletal remains that can explain this giant gap of evolution other then "we told you so, so listen to us".

This is no small thing we're talking about but an insanely huge gap. The oldest humanoid skeleton "supposedly" found dates 6 million years yet it does not provide a link between man and apes. In fact is only makes things more confusing because it leaves open the question, "what could we have evolved from?" and only raises more questions then answers.

edit on 28-2-2013 by Lostmymarbles because: grammer

Thank you for making this argument.

I am not and I repeat NOT a creationist, but I keep getting lumped into that category because I see the flaws and dogmatic reasoning ubiquitous in darwinian evolution of the human species.

Excellent post. I would applause you if I could.

ETA:
I don't see you making an argument with the chromosome comment.
It is yet one of many outliers that invalidates the beliefs of those who belong to the cult of darwin.

Originally posted by alfa1

Originally posted by Lostmymarbles
Yet humans have 2 less chromosomes than apes. We have 23 pairs and apes have 24 and there have been no skeletal remains that can explain this giant gap of evolution other then "we told you so, so listen to us".

Creationist arguments are like shooting fish in a barrel.

In the human evolutionary lineage, two ancestral ape chromosomes fused at their telomeres producing human chromosome 2

ancestral chromosomes 2A and 2B fused to produce human chromosome 2

link

Now the big question... do you wish to defend this argument of yours about chromosomes, or are you going to abandon it like an unloved orphan?

Love when people use wiki as a source. Do actually know what the study says, or the reasons?
Why do atheists love bad science?
You do realize the study is "Guesstimation" at best, the main problem being we dont have a full chimp sequence. Kind of a major flaw in a comparative study. The flaws are too numerous to count but here is a few

Only used 30-40 proteins in sequencing
CCCTAA and TTAGGG motifs at fusion site dont match up with normal human(many other inconsistencies with telomere motifs)
All genetic differences and a more global comparison drop similarities from 96% to about 85%.

I could go on, but you get the idea, this is junk science. Throughout their "research" many "assumptions" are made, which is also a usual sign of stellar work. A potato has 46 chromosomes, maybe are common ancestor is the mighty potato!

Copy and pasting stuff from wiki does not make you somehow more scientific than another person, then to expect someone to argue something you have no knowledge of is even more ridiculous. I find it best when using sources to support an argument that sources from an opposing view, or those who have no interest in the outcome are usually the most reliable. In this case an atheists doing a study that supports atheists views, and then has an atheists desired outcome, is usually not going to result in good science.

Originally posted by nighthawk1954
"They dread the truth, he says, because they know their cozy little clique will be gone with the eons. No longer will they be able to sup at the trough of Darwinism, enjoying soft jobs with huge salaries."

lol!

Bankers, lawyers... paleontologists!

these threads get more boring by the minute i swear. science is science, then you put humans into the mix and it becomes nothing more than a comedy, just like everything else in our current society, only the jokes on us, the unsuspecting citizens of the world. we are led by politicians, scientist's and law enforcement of which most are as corrupt or more so, then old Jimmy Hoffa ever was.

i think i have finally seen the reason for ATS, it's not to make us aware of what's real, it's to help us become aware of how much we think is real and there isn't very much that is not a corrupt, greed generated abortion, which you think is true.

coal has a high carbon content and would not be easy to date and that goes along with any article found embedded in it.

I have seen and know personally a coal miner in Georgia who found a gold cup in a mine they were digging. It now sits in a museum somewhere. but no one wants to believe that man was around and caught up in a great flood of the earth that buried both man and organic compounds then those eventually over time turned to coal, oil and oil shale.

Yes it would mean their science is off. and when was there ever an event that flooded the world that would have led to such deposits?

reply to post by ChesterJohn


Well, we do have a WHOLE #ING PLANET of archaeological evidence to suggest that there was never such an even, and sorry, but some miner digging a cup out of the ground and selling it to a museum doesn't trump it.

- As for whoever it was saying no fossils = no proof. Sure, we haven't dug up the missing link yet, we may never do so, only one in hundreds of millions of creatures even get fossilised. Allah forbid if the missing link evolved in an area which simply doesn't allow for fossils (Volcanic, now underwater etc etc).

But even without a fossil record, the picture still looks like this.

Originally posted by sajuek
reply to post by ChesterJohn

 

- As for whoever it was saying no fossils = no proof. Sure, we haven't dug up the missing link yet, we may never do so, only one in hundreds of millions of creatures even get fossilised. Allah forbid if the missing link evolved in an area which simply doesn't allow for fossils (Volcanic, now underwater etc etc).

I am the one stating that no fossils = no proof and what you are now doing is called the ad hoc hypothesis.

It is yet another logical fallacy.

In science and philosophy, an ad hoc hypothesis is a hypothesis added to a theory in order to save it from being falsified. Ad hoc hypothesizing is compensating for anomalies not anticipated by the theory in its unmodified form.

link to source

My arguments and the arguments of the other posters who are NOT creationists are based upon the principles of logic and reasoning found in the research method.
These are principles that are completely lost on the dogmatic believers in the cult of darwin.

If this is the best that you got then this has officially become a total waste of my time.
I do not like repeating myself, but I have no choice.
You guys continue to change your stance in light of being proven wrong and never once address the core logical fallacies at the heart of your premise.

Goodbye.

Originally posted by redoubt
It's like most things that challenge official and accepted versions of this strange life.

First, there is a discovery or report.
The world looks on, rubbing its chin wondering whether it could be true.
Then comes some self proclaimed desk'pert and applies the term 'debunked' and we all go, 'Ah-ha!'

The scientific method is based on trying to disprove a hypothesis--that's what makes it thorough and scientific. Even when a scientist develops her/his own hypothesis, they will immediately try to debunk it.

The ability to stand up to extreme scrutiny is what makes this science and not belief/religion/faith.

reply to post by alfa1


Here is some evidence for you.

Some rather telling thread titles from talk origins... Of rocks and rhetoric - Ed Conrad's fight with reality A Reading Comprehension Lesson for Ed Conrad ED CONRAD - MORON FIRST CLASS Ed Conrad is a LIAR Speaking for us all: `I am sick, Sick, SICK of Ed Conrad's bull#' Ed's continued CON JOB! Is Ed Conrad really a Human?

Do you see, what I see here?
What I see, is a one sided argument against this man! This to me, can be described as "leading". There is not one bit of subjective evidence for this man here! This is a very good example of how archeology works. You are led down a path and if you stray from that path, the scientific community is going to open up you with full auto! Science itself, is just another form of control. It is all about letting someone else do YOUR thinking for you. They have their little 'out of Africa' theory going on to tell us a story, a story they want us to believe is our HIStory. Well, it is starting to look more and more like 'into Africa' is more the true story. And for the record, I follow NO church!

reply to post by nighthawk1954


Simple scientific tests would prove the truth.. and they have shown it to be fake. It does not even look like a skull.

reply to post by alfa1


lol you used Wiki as a source? My little brother when he was drunk and bored use to go on that site and change things and make up stuff lol.

Though most of what is on that wiki source is correct it still does not provide a link as to why there is a difference nor has any human skeletal remains been found that would show the fusion process of the last pair of chromosomes. There is still that giant gap that has yet to be filled other then with speculation.

Also when did I put that I was a Creationist? Are you just randomly assuming this? I merely pointed out a flaw in the reasoning of both sides. If you read my post closely you see I support the idea of evolving but up to a degree. I'm a Realist, and I see both sides and believe the "possibility" of a combine state.

But here are some of my sources, non-wiki.

oldest skeleton found

difference between man and apes

difference between man and ape

Originally posted by Lostmymarbles
reply to post by alfa1

 

lol you used Wiki as a source? My little brother when he was drunk and bored use to go on that site and change things and make up stuff lol.

Though most of what is on that wiki source is correct it still does not provide a link as to why there is a difference nor has any human skeletal remains been found that would show the fusion process of the last pair of chromosomes. There is still that giant gap that has yet to be filled other then with speculation.

Also when did I put that I was a Creationist? Are you just randomly assuming this? I merely pointed out a flaw in the reasoning of both sides. If you read my post closely you see I support the idea of evolving but up to a degree. I'm a Realist, and I see both sides and believe the "possibility" of a combine state.

But here are some of my sources, non-wiki.

oldest skeleton found

difference between man and apes

difference between man and ape

edit on 28-2-2013 by Lostmymarbles because: g

Just to make another point regarding Wiki, I'm sure that there's still quite a lot of factual information that is NOT on that site

Originally posted by ziplock9000
reply to post by nighthawk1954

 

Simple scientific tests would prove the truth.. and they have shown it to be fake. It does not even look like a skull.

If you read up on my earlier post, you would see that throughout history, any idea or evidence that went against mainstream thought (norm) whether it be of science, history, medical, etc was "proven" fake, only for it to be overturned later when enough people opened their eyes and realized that they were in actuality the ones wrong.

To close your mind because a group of individuals said so, does no good. Especially in the realms of science, history and medicine where new discoveries constantly change previously accepted truths.

Do not be a lemming, be an individual and keep an open mind to the possibilities of outside the box thinking.

Originally posted by Hopechest
Ed Conrad has pretty much been thoroughly debunked on his claim of the skull and bone fragments by every major anthropological outlet in the nation.

Its because of his collection methods which cannot be verified, and other reasons but here is a site that pretty much takes apart his claims piece by piece.

www.geo.ucalgary.ca...

He also claims he has proof that there is life after death because he met a guy who spoke to God and believes him. Certainly not the most logical of people out there. [/quote

was going to post this thank you!!

just incase the terrible website and blurry pictures wasnt enough

reply to post by pyramid head


lol that reminds me of a quote I read recently.

"If your science gives you a result you don't like, pass a law saying the result is illegal. Problem solved." - Stephen Colbert

That dude is so awesome because he makes fun of everyone lol.

But on topic with your post, people who try to make an argument while not knowing what they are arguing about just drives me bonkers...

Originally posted by pyramid head

Originally posted by alfa1

ancestral chromosomes 2A and 2B fused to produce human chromosome 2

Love when people use wiki as a source. Do actually know what the study says, or the reasons?

Yeah, I do actually, since I aced my studies in genetics at University.
And your follow on argument about sequencing is a bit pointless. The chromosomal fusion was known well before anything was ever sequenced... because you can SEE IT under a microscope.

I, like anybody who has spent any time studying genetics, has spent some time looking through a microscope at chromosomes. They're different sizes, shapes, stains show different bands and a bit of practise lets you identify them individually.

When you take one and cut it in half, or take two and join them end to end, you can SEE FOR YOURSELF the end result.

Here is a simplified picture...



Note that this isnt the only chromosomal fusion event that the world knows of. Its actually a rather basic bit of genetic variation that you'll learn in first year.