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

I read about that when I was a child... In some press... About, 1970... I am 1965

reply to post by wmd_2008

we are related TO not descended from

Technically, you are correct. It can also be stated with a degree of technicality, that we are related to rocks as well. Everything in the universe is made up of the same little bits, in differing configurations. To say that we are related to apes is really only a partial truth, which in fact is the glue that holds modern science together. By breaking down the whole into singular bits, an explanation may be found to support any hypothesis, when not considering the whole. When the whole is ever present the descriptors of the singularity's do not stand up to scrutiny.

reply to post by wmd_2008


And yet you have made the tragic mistake that all evolutionists make when trying to piece together transitional species.

What science proves in the fossil record is that we have distinct and separate hominids and distinct and separate apes.
Science has not proven that we have a common ancestor.
In every scientific journal that mentions a common ancestor, NOT ONE, states that we came from a common ancestor.
You will always and I mean always find the word probably in front of "came from a common ancestor".

It's called confirmation bias.
Research science does not deal in probably.

If we did have a common ancestor, then it would be in the fossil record. What you are doing is simply reposting information that "seems" to make sense to you without having any understanding of it.
I can see that I am dealing with an amateur.
Any timeline which includes the different classes of hominids as transition species is invalid.

The neanderthals were NOT transition species. They were a distinctly different class of hominid.

We did not "evolve" from neanderthals, and if it were true that they were a transition species, then we would have evolved from them. Didn't happen.

Your smoke and mirrors is just that.
There is not evidence that we transitioned from any hominid form.
The only evidence that you have is the fact that it seems to make the most sense given the dominant paradigm, evolution from a common ancestor.
The fossil record does not support you.

Once again... Two species... hominids and apes.
Where's the evidence for this "common ancestor"?

Doesn't exist.

reply to post by wmd_2008


I want to give you a better idea of what you are doing.

In the study of eugenics, more predominantly in the white power movement, it is believed that blacks are closer to apes than whites.
This is perceived due to the exact same perverted logic that you are using to validate the idea of transition species.
"It looks like it happened that way... so it happened that way"

The slope of the forehead, the size of the nose, the proportions of the face... ALL used to demonstrate that blacks are supposedly closer to apes and therefore inferior to whites.
Or in your case, closer to the common ancestor and lower on the evolutionary ladder.

HOGWASH!!

This logic is the EXACT same logic that you are using. No different.
It's a dangerous and socially disruptive precedent.

reply to post by kyviecaldges

We did not "evolve" from neanderthals, and if it were true that they were a transition species, then we would have evolved from them. Didn't happen.

I must concur with your evaluation and adherence to scientific procedural basics! If the current model of evolution were to be believed, a smooth transformation would be apparent. The existing fossil records are far from smooth and in fact appear to show an instant appearance of a new life form, similar to the one before it, if the current model of evolution should be believed. Should the fossil record show minimal changes, at all, in any minute section of the fossil record, the evidence would be much harder to argue. That the fossilization process being so rare that it would be shear luck to find such evidence, is IMHO, an easy out to end an argument against popular theory! We all have independent thought and the ability to reason. Or we can ride the thought process of another, the choice has always been up to the individual!

reply to post by wmd_2008


You didn't read all my posts or understood what you were reading because I said the same thing that you are saying

Originally posted by kyviecaldges
reply to post by wmd_2008

 

I want to give you a better idea of what you are doing.

In the study of eugenics, more predominantly in the white power movement, it is believed that blacks are closer to apes than whites.
This is perceived due to the exact same perverted logic that you are using to validate the idea of transition species.
"It looks like it happened that way... so it happened that way"

The slope of the forehead, the size of the nose, the proportions of the face... ALL used to demonstrate that blacks are supposedly closer to apes and therefore inferior to whites.
Or in your case, closer to the common ancestor and lower on the evolutionary ladder.

HOGWASH!!

This logic is the EXACT same logic that you are using. No different.
It's a dangerous and socially disruptive precedent.

edit on 1/3/2013 by kyviecaldges because: (no reason given)

You are being a bit of a racist D*&^H$£D with that as you don't know what my skin colour is

I did not mention anything about any CURRENT member of the human race did I or make claims re black or white people

Early humans did not fully resemble any current human in the same way that people from the far east don't look like people from the west or Africans don't look like Europeans.

I don't consider anyone as being superior or inferior to me but I do consider you as a total A*&*H$!E

reply to post by wmd_2008

You are being a bit of a racist D*&^H$£D with that as you don't know what my skin colour is

I did not mention anything about any CURRENT member of the human race did I or make claims re black or white people.

I never said that you were being racist. Methinks your reading comprehension is not up to par.

This is what I said. My exact words.

This is perceived due to the exact same perverted logic that you are using to validate the idea of transition species.
"It looks like it happened that way... so it happened that way"

I was making a comparison. I am perplexed as to why you were unable to see that I was not in any way calling you a racist.
You are perverting logic, not morals or ethics.
If you are guilty of anything, you are guilty of a crime against logic.

I even finished my comment stating this...

This logic is the EXACT same logic that you are using. No different.

I hope that you can see this now.

Look mate... no one likes to be proven wrong. I understand that, but there is no need to take this personally.

Here is a great website that focuses on helping create a cohesive and congruent argument.

I recommend checking it out.

Originally posted by kyviecaldges
In every scientific journal that mentions a common ancestor, NOT ONE, states that we came from a common ancestor.
You will always and I mean always find the word probably in front of "came from a common ancestor".

Oh wow, you must have just made that up off the top of your head right there and then.
There are several science journal search engines on the net, one random example is "scirus".
Doing a search for "came from a common ancestor" gives 165 hits, whereas the same search with "probably" in front of it gives only 4 hits.
Thus, that one search engine alone proves you wrong 161 times.

Originally posted by kyviecaldges
The neanderthals were NOT transition species. They were a distinctly different class of hominid.

We did not "evolve" from neanderthals, and if it were true that they were a transition species, then we would have evolved from them. Didn't happen.

Why is it that you should argue that point, because nobody who knows what the hell they're talking about would ever claim Neanderthals were ancestors.
And nobody in this thread so far has actually attempted to make that claim. The only person to mention neanderthals up to this point is ajay59.
Its so weird that you'd even try to argue a point nobody is making.

Originally posted by kyviecaldges
I want to give you a better idea of what you are doing.

In the study of eugenics, more predominantly in the white power movement, it is believed that blacks are closer to apes than whites.

I suppose some eugenecists might make that claim, but there's no relevence to this thread because no evolutionary biologist would ever claim that thing.
All humans arose from a common ancestor to apes, so by definition, nobody of any race could ever be "closer" to apes.
Its like asking which one of your brothers and sisters is a closer relative to the Pope. Its a nonsensical question that only somebody who didnt know what they were talking about would bother arguing.

Originally posted by kyviecaldges
Or in your case, closer to the common ancestor and lower on the evolutionary ladder.

There is "ladder" or "lower".
Its nonsensical terminology and phrases like that, which you've used aplenty in your postings that make it clear that you dont understand what evolution actually is.

But most people dont.
As the old saying goes... “Evolution is so simple, almost anyone can misunderstand it”

And certainly on the internet, I've never actually encountered anyone who actually understands evolution, and the reasoning behind it... and yet still disagrees with it.

reply to post by alfa1


I completely understand evolution. I can grasp the fundamental argument, but what no one in the darwin camp wants to recognize is that science has fallen into a dogmatic belief system when it comes to this supposed theory.

You are seeing what you want to see.
It is difficult to be objective when something seems so parsimonious.
Because parsimony is one of the hallmarks of validity, but unfortunately the evidence does not back you up.

I don't know where we came from.
Nowhere near enough evidence exists to validly make the claim the evolution is fact.

The difference between you and me is that I look at the evidence and state that it does not back up the premise.
You look at the evidence and you think that it does.
I see it all the time.

Whether it's 9/11. Loss of human rights. Nasa's truthiness. yada. yada...
We are taught lies from birth to death.
And evolution, or more particularly the evolution of our species is yet another lie.
Evolution exists.
Mendel proved that.
But how we evolved as a species has NOT been proven.
It's all speculation, I have made my case.
Two species exist. Hominids and Apes.
No evidence exists for a common ancestor.
Correlations might exist that make it look like a common ancestor existed, but correlations are the bain of science.

reply to post by alfa1


I completely understand evolution. I can grasp the fundamental argument, but what no one in the darwin camp wants to recognize is that science has fallen into a dogmatic belief system when it comes to this supposed theory.

You are seeing what you want to see.
It is difficult to be objective when something seems so parsimonious.
Because parsimony is one of the hallmarks of validity, but unfortunately the evidence does not back you up.

I don't know where we came from.
Nowhere near enough evidence exists to validly make the claim that the evolution of our species according to Darwin is fact.

The difference between you and me is that I look at the evidence and state that it does not back up the premise.
You look at the evidence and you think that it does.
I see this all the time.

Whether it's 9/11. Loss of human rights. Nasa's truthiness. yada. yada...
We are taught lies from birth to death.
And evolution, or more particularly the evolution of our species is yet another lie.
Evolution exists.
Mendel proved that.
But how we evolved as a species has NOT been proven.
It's all speculation, I have made my case.
Two species exist. Hominids and Apes.
No evidence exists for a common ancestor.
Correlations might exist that make it look like a common ancestor existed, but correlations are the bain of science.

Originally posted by alfa1

Originally posted by pyramid head
Saying that the argument I proposed about sequencing is pointless and following it with no argument means you actually didnt understand the argument.

Oh I knew what you were saying, but gave the simpler reply to also aid user Lostmymarbles and other readers, and to also show that the basic idea of the chromosome fusion did not arise from sequencing, but from much earlier work.

But if you want to address the corrupted sequences at the fusion site, then yes, I agree the whole thing looks like a car crash. Probably because it is.
But the question you have to answer is... if human chromosome 2 is the result of normal human development and is a "normal" chromosome, then why does it have corrupted remains of a telomere and centromere *at all*?
And how do these happen to be at exactly the place where a common ancestral fusion occurs?

---------------------------------

For non-geneticists, I offer the following image of chromosome 2...
(and for the sake of simplicity, this analogy is front engined cars)

pyramid head's argument is that this is ONE naturally occurring car.
Science's argument is that this is TWO cars fused at a central point.

pyramid head says the whole object hasnt been properly examined (sequenced) at a high resolution, so it is impossible to use the "two car" solution.
His other argument about motor car engines at the fusion point -
- the engines are too short
- the engines are too corrupt
- bits of supposed engines are missing
- there are "many other inconsistencies" about the engines.
- therefore: one car.

My argument is the very fact that there is evidence of two motor car engines at the fusion point *at all* undermines his "one car" argument".
Also, both rear parts of each cars can be easily identified for the models of cars they were before the fusion.

Originally posted by pyramid head
You did not take genetics either stop lying. No undergrad genetics class uses a microscope.

Monash University, check them out, specifically whether they mention "advanced practical skills in experimental methods".
Obviously a better one than the uni you went to.

edit on 1-3-2013 by alfa1 because: (no reason given)

You addressed nothing I said nothing I said and rambled on about nothing. Please quit lying as well, you cant fake intelligence. You do and did not understand anything I was saying and you did not "dumb" it down for anyone. What happened is I caught you copying and pasting something from wiki that you pretended to know about in order to challenge someone else. Thats it.

That is all I was trying to point out. I often find it hypocritical on evolution threads that so called people of "science" are saying things they actually know nothing about. You were challenging someone to explain something you knew nothing about, I saw that and called you on it having a good idea that you had no idea what you were talking about. Be careful when you claim to know such things, while most of the time youll go unchallenged, every once in a while youll run into someone who actually knows what your talking about.

reply to post by Monger


Because we are lied to about EVERYTHING else....

I don't believe most of the history we are given.

There is so much else being found today and a lot of it never makes the media and if it does ; it is quickly taken out of circulation and never heard about again.

There is so much of this that goes on today; I don't believe a damn thing anyone says anymore about anything.

If you want the truth ; search for it yourself...

reply to post by stillwind

Unless you're exceptionally well versed in anatomy, you can't do it.

And in order to be considered "exceptionally well versed," you must go along with the accepted thinking. It is all bullcookies...

Originally posted by pyramid head
You...
you
You
and you
you
that you
You
you
you
that you
you
you
youll
youll
your

Please stay on topic, this thread isnt about me.

reply to post by alfa1

Please stay on topic, this thread isnt about me.

let me see if I understand this...
your comment consisted of a quote of strewn together personal pronouns referring to you, which have been used over the course of this thread, and can only been seen in the context of being about you by the way in which you have chosen to present them.

And then you ask for the poster to stay on topic because the thread isn't about you.
All in a post that not once has mentioned the topic, but solely concerned you?
Did I read that right?

Hello pot... meet kettle.

reply to post by Emarie

Originally posted by Emarie
Why does it seem so hard for scientists, to admit the past may have been different from what they thought it was?

The problem is not the scientists...

The problems come from those who CONTROL them.

"...if you ask questions you’ll be working at McDonalds tomorrow”

Dead-Scientists

Updated List of Obviously Murdered Scientists

Mainstream academia has been taken over just like everything else has.

"Throughout recorded history, the Illuminati has successfully withheld from humankind major aspects of history and science in order to subjugate the masses"

By manipulating the souls evolving on earth, the Illuminati have deliberately suppressed the spiritual facts of life, not to mention liberating technologies, which could bring plenitude to all.

Secrets of Suppressed Science and History

"The model of human prehistory built-up by scholars over the past two centuries is sadly and completely wrong, and a deliberate tool of disinformation and mind control. ...they demonstrate a systematic destruction of proofs that show another reality than that the official story. Falsifications and even destruction of such proofs has been common for more than two hundred years." LINK

"...the Illuminati eventually controlled the science departments in all colleges and institutions of higher learning. The plan was to stifle scientific knowledge and then twist what was left to fit the science they wanted the people to believe. They accomplished this by adopting new rules in regards to scientific research.

Secret Societies - Who Controls Knowledge?

“the biggest cover-up in the history of mankind is the history of mankind itself”

“There are two histories: official history, lying, and then secret history, where you find the real causes of events.” ~ Honoré de Balzac

Science - The Illuminati Religion and Mind Control Tool for the Masses.

"...scientists who see an intelligent force at work in nature are being fired from their jobs. ...mention "intelligent design" today and your career is over. Why are "secularists" so afraid of intelligent design?

Because they're funded by the Illuminati, (Rockefellers, Rothschilds etc.) who are Satanists. Satanists fear that acceptance of this "intelligence" will interfere with the makeover they're giving humanity. They think they are God.

Secularism pretends to be about freedom and tolerance but that's a ruse. It is Satanism in disguise and nothing freaks a Satanist more than the rumor of God or anything resembling Him. Watch the Trailer! The secularists are more fanatical than any religious cult. They are a satanic cult. They deny the obvious! They have to expel scientists! They have to stop free inquiry and debate!

Intelligent Scientists "Expelled" by Illuminati
Teaser Trailer
Super Trailer
Full Movie

reply to post by nighthawk1954


The one thing that always bothered me is the fact that frogs have been discovered in coal veins and alot of other weird stuff that just didn't belong. Maybe our knowledge on how coal forms is wrong? That really seems more likely then anything else at this point, and should be explored first before other more unlikely(but possible) explanations.