so ive been recently banned from a site for absolutely no reason and i was wondering how i can regain access to the site, like reseting my ip or wateva
kan_yeezy's forum posts
[QUOTE="Cataclism"]
[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]
[QUOTE="CaveJohnson1"]Actually the first known document was a treaty by the egyptions, as were a couple, some delt with the deaths of important people as well.
No, they don't point to anything, contrary to what u may believe, people are capable of making things up making mistakes, and as modern people we shouldn't assume what others write to be true just because their writing is old, especially if the assumption is based on nothing.
The fossil record shows that humans were created how?
No, it's not might, both genetically and physiological studies have shown, and let's be honest this material isn't difficult to find, and it's obvious u never have bothered.
No, radiometric dating has dated these said fossils.
And what u said has nothing to do with what I said in my previous post, I'll repeat it, evolution has nothing to do with the origin of life, if u believe it is taught like that in schools then either ur school was ****ty or u never took biology.
kan_yeezy
"Studies have shown this," "studies have shown that." Blah blah blah blah. A study can show anything that it wants to. Data can be interpreted in different ways. The fact is that there are Sumerian texts dated to over 6,000 years old that say that humans were genetically engineered some 400,000+ years ago from some sort of primate or hominid living on the earth at the time. That ties in perfectly with the scientific data and fossil records available at this time. There are at least 3 ways that you can interpret the data currently available-
1) That each species developed parallel to the others, and that any similarities are due to the fact that they all developed from the same genetic "pool," which nearly guarantees a similar outcome when combined with a similar environment.
2) That humans evolved gradually and naturally over time from one type of primate to another, then to a primitive man, then to homo sapiens as we know ourselves. This idea requires that a MASSIVE leap occurred in our evolution about 400,000 years ago without any outside interference. This in itself is contrary to the concept of gradualist evolution, which most people seem to either overlook or just ignore. It also requires (due to the assumed gradual process of evolution) that there would be literally THOUSANDS of missing links, each representing a separate species, leading up to mankind. At this point in time we would appear to be missing 90 something percent of these "links." How on earth one could think there is solid evidence of human evolution (or at least that "final step)", with a solid fossil record supporting it given these facts is beyond me. The idea is this- In gradualist evolution what is essentially a "new species" would be created with each genetic change that creates the physical changes in the organism. At what point it becomes a new species is debatable (the old microevolution vs. macroevolution argument). This doesn't matter though.. What does is this- When you have gradualist evolution, you don't go from species A to species B to species C. Gradualism dictates that you must go from species A1 to species A2 to A3, to A4, to A5, to A6, to A7, to B1, B2, B3, etc, etc, etc.. There simply isn't enough in the current fossil record available to us to support that this happened in the case of humans. I'm not even convinced that it's happened with other species on the scale that is generally taught. The reality is that we would literally need thousands of years of real observation to truly "prove" that evolution happens on the scale that most people seem to have accepted. You can't just look at 5 or 6 species in the fossil record that are genetically similar and extrapolate what must have happened thousands if not millions of years ago. The intermediate species just aren't there to support it.
3) That the change to "humans" did occur roughly 400,000 years ago, and that our genetics were "tweaked" by a "godlike" outside force to make us what we are today. This idea is supported by the unlikelihood of a "brisk" evolution into modern man from the prior "step in the chain," which assumes that we have even catalogued the immediate prior step, which is very questionable. The fact that our species as we know ourselves seems to have come onto the scene around the same time that ancient Sumerian texts found in the temple of Ashurbanipal say that we were engineered ties it all together. Here we have an explanation for the emergence of modern mankind from the rest of the animal kingdom, an explanation for the roots of the vast majority of old religions, for the millions of accounts of flying craft and/or alien visitations, and a story that actually works with the scientific data available, assuming you don't already think that we have the whole picture.
[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]
[QUOTE="CaveJohnson1"]Actually the first known document was a treaty by the egyptions, as were a couple, some delt with the deaths of important people as well.
No, they don't point to anything, contrary to what u may believe, people are capable of making things up making mistakes, and as modern people we shouldn't assume what others write to be true just because their writing is old, especially if the assumption is based on nothing.
The fossil record shows that humans were created how?
No, it's not might, both genetically and physiological studies have shown, and let's be honest this material isn't difficult to find, and it's obvious u never have bothered.
No, radiometric dating has dated these said fossils.
And what u said has nothing to do with what I said in my previous post, I'll repeat it, evolution has nothing to do with the origin of life, if u believe it is taught like that in schools then either ur school was ****ty or u never took biology.
Cataclism
"Studies have shown this," "studies have shown that." Blah blah blah blah. A study can show anything that it wants to. Data can be interpreted in different ways. The fact is that there are Sumerian texts dated to over 6,000 years old that say that humans were genetically engineered some 400,000+ years ago from some sort of primate or hominid living on the earth at the time. That ties in perfectly with the scientific data and fossil records available at this time. There are at least 3 ways that you can interpret the data currently available-
1) That each species developed parallel to the others, and that any similarities are due to the fact that they all developed from the same genetic "pool," which nearly guarantees a similar outcome when combined with a similar environment.
2) That humans evolved gradually and naturally over time from one type of primate to another, then to a primitive man, then to homo sapiens as we know ourselves. This idea requires that a MASSIVE leap occurred in our evolution about 400,000 years ago without any outside interference. This in itself is contrary to the concept of gradualist evolution, which most people seem to either overlook or just ignore. It also requires (due to the assumed gradual process of evolution) that there would be literally THOUSANDS of missing links, each representing a separate species, leading up to mankind. At this point in time we would appear to be missing 90 something percent of these "links." How on earth one could think there is solid evidence of human evolution (or at least that "final step)", with a solid fossil record supporting it given these facts is beyond me. The idea is this- In gradualist evolution what is essentially a "new species" would be created with each genetic change that creates the physical changes in the organism. At what point it becomes a new species is debatable (the old microevolution vs. macroevolution argument). This doesn't matter though.. What does is this- When you have gradualist evolution, you don't go from species A to species B to species C. Gradualism dictates that you must go from species A1 to species A2 to A3, to A4, to A5, to A6, to A7, to B1, B2, B3, etc, etc, etc.. There simply isn't enough in the current fossil record available to us to support that this happened in the case of humans. I'm not even convinced that it's happened with other species on the scale that is generally taught. The reality is that we would literally need thousands of years of real observation to truly "prove" that evolution happens on the scale that most people seem to have accepted. You can't just look at 5 or 6 species in the fossil record that are genetically similar and extrapolate what must have happened thousands if not millions of years ago. The intermediate species just aren't there to support it.
3) That the change to "humans" did occur roughly 400,000 years ago, and that our genetics were "tweaked" by a "godlike" outside force to make us what we are today. This idea is supported by the unlikelihood of a "brisk" evolution into modern man from the prior "step in the chain," which assumes that we have even catalogued the immediate prior step, which is very questionable. The fact that our species as we know ourselves seems to have come onto the scene around the same time that ancient Sumerian texts found in the temple of Ashurbanipal say that we were engineered ties it all together. Here we have an explanation for the emergence of modern mankind from the rest of the animal kingdom, an explanation for the roots of the vast majority of old religions, for the millions of accounts of flying craft and/or alien visitations, and a story that actually works with the scientific data available, assuming you don't already think that we have the whole picture.
Log in to comment