Our website is made possible by displaying online advertisements to our visitors.

Please consider supporting us by disabling your ad blocker.
CSB

I Did Not Evolve From A Ape

24 posts in this topic

I did not evolve from a ape .

This must be some sort of Political correctness bullshit .

But it is a cool short 90 sec .

There is always someone trying to blow smoke up my butt .

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

None of us did? Humans have 46 chromosomes and monkeys/apes have 48 yet we're way smarter? And we're supposed to believe loosing the 2 did that? That never jived with me when I was in school and still don't today. I know that there are people that know humanities true origins but they don't want the info out for what ever reason.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, CSB said:

I did not evolve from a ape .

This must be some sort of Political correctness bullshit .

But it is a cool short 90 sec .

There is always someone trying to blow smoke up my butt .

 

 

Something is wrong with the Ape's left eye. First it looked like a lazy eye then as he morphed it looked like a glass eye.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Quick1966 said:

None of us did? Humans have 46 chromosomes and monkeys/apes have 48 yet we're way smarter? And we're supposed to believe loosing the 2 did that? That never jived with me when I was in school and still don't today. I know that there are people that know humanities true origins but they don't want the info out for what ever reason.

Keeping God hidden is the number one objective of the Illuminazi.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They know none of this shit is real.

They just want you to think it is.

Evolution and Adaptation are two different things.

Edited by Cryptic Mole

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, Cryptic Mole said:

They know none of this shit is real.

They just want you to think it is.

Evolution and Adaptation are two different things.

Yup and I have a feeling we're from Mars. Screwed up and had to bounce and made it here.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Quick1966 said:

Yup and I have a feeling we're from Mars. Screwed up and had to bounce and made it here.

hehe someone else who thinks we come from mars. I believe we left due to a cataclysmic event. We bred with the earth man of the time and got dumbed down genetically because of it. We are but a fraction of what we once were.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Ukshep said:

hehe someone else who thinks we come from mars. I believe we left due to a cataclysmic event. We bred with the earth man of the time and got dumbed down genetically because of it. We are but a fraction of what we once were.

Yeah man we're definitely not alone in our thinking this to be true! There are some that think we're already actively recolonizing the joint and all the new movies like the Martian or interstellar are a way of introducing the idea to the masses.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Quick1966 said:

Yup and I have a feeling we're from Mars. Screwed up and had to bounce and made it here.

 

13 hours ago, Ukshep said:

hehe someone else who thinks we come from mars. I believe we left due to a cataclysmic event. We bred with the earth man of the time and got dumbed down genetically because of it. We are but a fraction of what we once were.

 

3 hours ago, Quick1966 said:

Yeah man we're definitely not alone in our thinking this to be true! There are some that think we're already actively recolonizing the joint and all the new movies like the Martian or interstellar are a way of introducing the idea to the masses.

Anytime I hear the "We are from Mars" theory, I think of this video.

Full disclosure, I don't agree with the author of this story, it does though, make a fasinating story. 

 

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Last1oftheJedi said:

 

 

Anytime I hear the "We are from Mars" theory, I think of this video.

Full disclosure, I don't agree with the author of this story, it does though, make a fasinating story. 

 

Yeah see even though I believe in God some aspects of that video I tend to agree with and it makes total sense if the elites had a calendar or time frame that they thought a pole shift were to happen. Then the D.U.M.Bs and all the big moves like the N.Y fed move to Chicago, NORAD, and the doomsday seed vault make sense! At least to me it does cause let's face it God could snap his fingers right now and they'd be gone so I just don't see those moves for any other reason than some major world wide event. Well that's my .2?

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The paleontologist who "discovered" Lucy the missing link admitted it was a fake yet for some reason this is still being pushed.

Lucy Dethroned

Buried in the sandy hillside of the slope was an arm bone—the single bone that eventually led to the unearthing of a skeleton that was nearly 40% complete. While the description of this now-famous find might lead one to think that it was similar to some serendipitous treasure unearthed in a movie script, the truth is far from that. The fossils Dr. Johanson unearthed were destined to become one of the most famous (and most controversial) finds of all time, and would shake every single limb on the alleged hominid family tree, completely upsetting then-current theories about how man came to be bipedal. Richard Leakey and Roger Lewin wrote of the find: “Johanson had stumbled on a skeleton that was about 40% complete, something that is unheard of in human prehistory farther back than about a hundred thousand years. Johanson’s hominid had died at least 3 million years ago” (1978, p. 67, emp. added). But, as additional studies were carried out, it became obvious that this “missing link” was “too good to be true.”

Dr. Johanson named his find Australopithecus afarensis—the southern ape from the Afar depression of northeastern Ethiopia (Johanson, et al., 1978, 28:8). The creature quickly earned the nickname “Lucy,” after the Beatles’ song, “Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds,” which was said to be playing all through the celebratory night back at Johanson’s camp. The fossil, officially designated as AL 288-1, consisted of skull fragments, a lower jaw, ribs, an arm bone, a portion of a pelvis, a thighbone, and fragments of shinbones. It was said to be an adult, and was dated at 3.5 million years. [Johanson also found at Hadar the remains of some 34 adults and 10 infants, all of which he dated at 3.5 million years.] In their assessment of exactly where this new species fit in, Johanson and colleague Tim White took pride in noting: “These new hominid fossils, recovered since 1973, constitute the earliest definitive evidence of the family Hominidae” (1979, 203:321). Not only was this fossil find unusually complete, but it also was believed to have been from an animal that walked in an upright fashion, as well as being the oldest human ancestor—the equivalent of a grand slam in baseball.
-----
Dr. Johanson insisted that A. afarensis was the direct ancestor of man (see Johanson and Edey, 1981). In fact, the phrase “the dramatic discovery of our oldest human ancestor” can be found emblazoned on the cover of his 1981 book, Lucy: The Beginnings of Humankind. Numerous evolutionists, however, strongly disagree. Lord Solly Zuckerman, the famous British anatomist, published his views on the australopithecines in his book, Beyond the Ivory Tower. He studied these creatures for more than fifteen years, and came to the conclusion that if man did, in fact, descend from an apelike ancestor, he did so without leaving a single visible trace in the fossil record (1970, p. 64).
-----
You might well be asking yourself why this charade has been allowed to go on this long. The answer—woven around power, fame, and money—can be found in Johanson’s own words.

There is no such thing as a total lack of bias. I have it; everybody has it. The fossil hunter in the field has it.... In everybody who is looking for hominids, there is a strong urge to learn more about where the human line started. If you are working back at around three million, as I was, that is very seductive, because you begin to get an idea that that is where

 Homo 

did start. You begin straining your eyes to find

Homo 

traits in fossils of that age.... Logical, maybe, but also biased.

 I was trying to jam evidence of dates into a pattern that would support conclusions about fossils which, on closer inspection, the fossils themselves would not sustain 

(Johanson and Edey, 1981, pp. 257,258, emp. added).

He went on to admit: “It is hard for me now to admit how tangled in that thicket I was. But the insidious thing about bias is that it does make one deaf to the cries of other evidence” (p. 277).

https://www.apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=9&article=76

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Lucy Barnable said:

The paleontologist who "discovered" Lucy the missing link admitted it was a fake yet for some reason this is still being pushed.

Lucy Dethroned

Buried in the sandy hillside of the slope was an arm bone—the single bone that eventually led to the unearthing of a skeleton that was nearly 40% complete. While the description of this now-famous find might lead one to think that it was similar to some serendipitous treasure unearthed in a movie script, the truth is far from that. The fossils Dr. Johanson unearthed were destined to become one of the most famous (and most controversial) finds of all time, and would shake every single limb on the alleged hominid family tree, completely upsetting then-current theories about how man came to be bipedal. Richard Leakey and Roger Lewin wrote of the find: “Johanson had stumbled on a skeleton that was about 40% complete, something that is unheard of in human prehistory farther back than about a hundred thousand years. Johanson’s hominid had died at least 3 million years ago” (1978, p. 67, emp. added). But, as additional studies were carried out, it became obvious that this “missing link” was “too good to be true.”

Dr. Johanson named his find Australopithecus afarensis—the southern ape from the Afar depression of northeastern Ethiopia (Johanson, et al., 1978, 28:8). The creature quickly earned the nickname “Lucy,” after the Beatles’ song, “Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds,” which was said to be playing all through the celebratory night back at Johanson’s camp. The fossil, officially designated as AL 288-1, consisted of skull fragments, a lower jaw, ribs, an arm bone, a portion of a pelvis, a thighbone, and fragments of shinbones. It was said to be an adult, and was dated at 3.5 million years. [Johanson also found at Hadar the remains of some 34 adults and 10 infants, all of which he dated at 3.5 million years.] In their assessment of exactly where this new species fit in, Johanson and colleague Tim White took pride in noting: “These new hominid fossils, recovered since 1973, constitute the earliest definitive evidence of the family Hominidae” (1979, 203:321). Not only was this fossil find unusually complete, but it also was believed to have been from an animal that walked in an upright fashion, as well as being the oldest human ancestor—the equivalent of a grand slam in baseball.
-----
Dr. Johanson insisted that A. afarensis was the direct ancestor of man (see Johanson and Edey, 1981). In fact, the phrase “the dramatic discovery of our oldest human ancestor” can be found emblazoned on the cover of his 1981 book, Lucy: The Beginnings of Humankind. Numerous evolutionists, however, strongly disagree. Lord Solly Zuckerman, the famous British anatomist, published his views on the australopithecines in his book, Beyond the Ivory Tower. He studied these creatures for more than fifteen years, and came to the conclusion that if man did, in fact, descend from an apelike ancestor, he did so without leaving a single visible trace in the fossil record (1970, p. 64).
-----
You might well be asking yourself why this charade has been allowed to go on this long. The answer—woven around power, fame, and money—can be found in Johanson’s own words.

There is no such thing as a total lack of bias. I have it; everybody has it. The fossil hunter in the field has it.... In everybody who is looking for hominids, there is a strong urge to learn more about where the human line started. If you are working back at around three million, as I was, that is very seductive, because you begin to get an idea that that is where

 Homo 

did start. You begin straining your eyes to find

Homo 

traits in fossils of that age.... Logical, maybe, but also biased.

 I was trying to jam evidence of dates into a pattern that would support conclusions about fossils which, on closer inspection, the fossils themselves would not sustain 

(Johanson and Edey, 1981, pp. 257,258, emp. added).

He went on to admit: “It is hard for me now to admit how tangled in that thicket I was. But the insidious thing about bias is that it does make one deaf to the cries of other evidence” (p. 277).

https://www.apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=9&article=76

Yeah it's like CM said they know evolution is a crock. And they sure as hell know our true origins?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
You are commenting as a guest. If you have an account, please sign in.
Reply to this topic...

×   You have pasted content with formatting.   Restore formatting

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor


Our website is made possible by displaying online advertisements to our visitors.

Please consider supporting us by disabling your ad blocker.