It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: adnanmuf
of course I read your refs that say evolution theory is descriptive. Which has no power. It was damaged by the much stronger science DNA. The DNA science matching the creation story of Adam can only be
originally posted by: AngryCymraeg
a reply to: adnanmuf
It might help if you actually read the cites that you have been sent. Instead you are now wilfully distorting the facts. Which is SOP for a creationist person-who-lives-under-a-bridge.
originally posted by: adnanmuf
There is actually a calculator online that can calculate the Mrca of 2 males. So mrca of me and my brother would have lived 30 years before us and that would be our father. Me and you would have same grandfather mrca lived say 20000 years ago.me and a man from potswana would have same ancestor father side lived 50000 years ago and that would be Adam himself.
originally posted by: adnanmuf
You need cohort studies minimum to prove causative relationship otherwise your theory is weak and not accepted.
For example scientists need to see Nova explosion from the beginning.
You cannot do that with dinosaur. It is all descriptive.
Dating bones or fossils by dating nearby sediments etc is association.
It is also very weak scientific clue like finding heart attack in coffee drinkers while the real cause cigarettes is associated with coffee drinking.
Bones cannot be dated by themselves.
originally posted by: AngryCymraeg
originally posted by: adnanmuf
of course I read your refs that say evolution theory is descriptive. Which has no power. It was damaged by the much stronger science DNA. The DNA science matching the creation story of Adam can only be
originally posted by: AngryCymraeg
a reply to: adnanmuf
It might help if you actually read the cites that you have been sent. Instead you are now wilfully distorting the facts. Which is SOP for a creationist person-who-lives-under-a-bridge.
Really? You read them? Erm, I was actually talking about the other cites that you were sent. By other people. Which you seem to have dismissed out of hand. By the way what exactly do you mean by the statement 'Evolution theory is descriptive', because that doesn't really made much sense. Evolution is based on science. On evidence. On fossils. On basic studies of biology. Of anthropology. On, well, facts.
originally posted by: randyvs
a reply to: Krazysh0t
I thought it was just the truth.
originally posted by: adnanmuf
The claim that some of human DNA is from is a big scam. Since the DNA from so called Neanderthal is only maternal which only go from mother unchanged. Moreover if Neanderthal died 20000 years ago then nothing of Neanderthal will be left in current humans if they mated 20k ago. A person would have got 50% from Neanderthal mother. His child will get only 25% from his Neanderthal grandmother.next generation 12%.next 4% next 2%.next 1%.next. 0.5%.next.3%.next 0.1%.next 0.05% only from Neanderthal and we are still in the 9th generation of 20000 years which is 1000 generations!!!!!
originally posted by: adnanmuf
The claim that some of human DNA is from is a big scam. Since the DNA from so called Neanderthal is only maternal which only go from mother unchanged. Moreover if Neanderthal died 20000 years ago then nothing of Neanderthal will be left in current humans if they mated 20k ago. A person would have got 50% from Neanderthal mother. His child will get only 25% from his Neanderthal grandmother.next generation 12%.next 4% next 2%.next 1%.next. 0.5%.next.3%.next 0.1%.next 0.05% only from Neanderthal and we are still in the 9th generation of 20000 years which is 1000 generations!!!!!
originally posted by: Krazysh0t
originally posted by: adnanmuf
The claim that some of human DNA is from is a big scam. Since the DNA from so called Neanderthal is only maternal which only go from mother unchanged. Moreover if Neanderthal died 20000 years ago then nothing of Neanderthal will be left in current humans if they mated 20k ago. A person would have got 50% from Neanderthal mother. His child will get only 25% from his Neanderthal grandmother.next generation 12%.next 4% next 2%.next 1%.next. 0.5%.next.3%.next 0.1%.next 0.05% only from Neanderthal and we are still in the 9th generation of 20000 years which is 1000 generations!!!!!
Your entire arguments can be summed up as such, "Nuh uh! I'm right and you are wrong! And I don't have to prove anything I say. To HELL with denying ignorance."
ETA: to the rest of the posters in this thread: It would probably be a good idea to not talk to this guy until he figures out how to link sources. It's just not worth it. You might as well be talking to a parrot.
originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: AngryCymraeg
That I can handle. I've talked to enough of those people in this forum. What is annoying is his flat out refusal to back ANYTHING he says up with proof. At least other Creationists will give us links to AiG or something, this guy just argues like an 8 year old. It's insulting to the people he is talking to's intelligence.