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.

 

Origin of Creationism

page: 12
7
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 30 2014 @ 05:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: adnanmuf

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.

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


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.




posted on Jul, 30 2014 @ 06:34 PM
link   
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.



posted on Jul, 30 2014 @ 07:21 PM
link   
a reply to: adnanmuf

I am shocked that you think I attend a university for paleontology. I've never made that claim and confused as to how you've come to that conclusion... I think my posts have generally been pretty clear on the fact that I am a student of geology (yes, I have taken a paleontology class focused on marine invertebrates) and only an avid collector of fossils (Specifically, middle Devonian phacopid and dalmantid trilobites). I am further shocked that you believe a great deal of knowledge of DNA would be useful to most paleontologists... DNA does not get preserved over long periods of geologic time, so it is rather useless to anyone not specializing in more modern endeavors.

And again, I will point you to the fact that those studies were not conducted using DNA, but modeling. Yes, DNA and its assumed mutation rates were used, but not every human's DNA was used (silly to do so, but that is what you are implying). Models were constructed based off of a good wealth of knowledge and a few assumptions. The model that suggested a few thousand years apparently included the assumption of people reproducing with nearby people, creating isolated pockets which would allow for any out-breeding to instantly relate one person to an entire population. Decent assumption, yes, but not DNA evidence.

That said, I've just explained to you why you can have less recent common ancestors as well as the most recent common ancestor. I've also just now explained the ability of small populations and "in-group" breeding (in essence geographic isolation of a group) to make the most common ancestor pushed back in time. And guess what, this very process of geographic isolation is what allows for speciation in most events. When you use this information and data, you are using genetic isolation and... the theory of evolution.

Regards,
Hydeman



posted on Jul, 30 2014 @ 08:07 PM
link   
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.



posted on Jul, 30 2014 @ 08:18 PM
link   

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.


The calculator uses DNA lab test which cost just 1hundred dollars only.. so no mrca before Adam or if you prefer the man who is the most recent Common Ancestor of all humans living today or even dead but their y DNA is still valid like a mumy 5k years old.. so it's surprising that a tribe of chimps have more DNA diversity than all 6 billion humans and also have a much older mrca than all humans.



posted on Jul, 31 2014 @ 03:26 AM
link   

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.


Right, so further proof that you don't know what you're talking about. Thanks for confirming that!



posted on Jul, 31 2014 @ 06:11 AM
link   
Actually DNA was finally collected from dinosour and proved again they were chicken.older microscope exam of fossilized dinosaur soft tissue also found only in birds so paleontologists classification of dinosaur as lizards were all wrong.if so then all their classifications are it could be wrong especially the evolution part of it.



posted on Jul, 31 2014 @ 06:19 AM
link   
You not only contradict your self, but you also started quoting your self.

Well done!


So, what about new report that Adam has lived much earlier - proven by new and improved DNA research? (mentioned multiple times on this post)

Let me guess - if it does not support your fairy tales that there was 'real' Adam - it did not happen.


Again - please start providing links to research for claims you make.



posted on Jul, 31 2014 @ 06:29 AM
link   
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!!!!!



posted on Jul, 31 2014 @ 06:37 AM
link   
Remember - claim require evidence - proof.

Waiting for evidence of above claim - if you fail to provide - your theory just does not stand...

Stop spamming and trolling - concentrate to prove your claims...



posted on Jul, 31 2014 @ 06:37 AM
link   

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg

originally posted by: adnanmuf

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.

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


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.


Don't forget it's also based in genetics, DNA.
edit on 31-7-2014 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 31 2014 @ 06:51 AM
link   
a reply to: adnanmuf

[citation needed]



posted on Jul, 31 2014 @ 06:53 AM
link   

originally posted by: randyvs
a reply to: Krazysh0t

I thought it was just the truth.



Well you thought wrong. Your thinking is flawed. You have started with the premise that the bible is true. Well the only evidence that the bible is true originates FROM the bible. That is circular reasoning and a logical fallacy. Plus Occam's Razor says that the solution with the least amount of assumptions is probably the right one. The bible is just one long assumption with smaller assumptions in between. Not to mention, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that the stories in the bible are embellished to the extreme and in reality were probably NOT as spectacular as the book claims. To believe that the Book of Revelation has ANY relevance on today's events takes a HUGE confirmation bias. Actually to believe that the BoR has any truth AT all knowing how unlikely the rest of the bible is to be truthful, requires cognitive dissonance.



posted on Jul, 31 2014 @ 06:57 AM
link   

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.
edit on 31-7-2014 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 31 2014 @ 07:17 AM
link   

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!!!!!


(Facepalm)

Please stop commenting on things that you know nothing about. You're making a total fool of yourself as you demonstrate that you don't have a clue.



posted on Jul, 31 2014 @ 07:29 AM
link   

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.


We can send him all the sources we like. He's not going to concede that any of them refute his position. He's doing a Canute - the water's up to his nostrils but he's still pretending that it doesn't exist. He's a creationist. Facts that disagree with his fixed and utterly untenable position are to be ignored, belittled and manipulated.



posted on Jul, 31 2014 @ 07:47 AM
link   
a reply to: randyvs

"If I create something I'm not
satisfied with. Guess what pal ? I have the right to destroy it, let it decay,
or let it be destroyed."

So you're saying if you had a child you weren't happy with, you'd neglect it until it died or just outright murder it?



posted on Jul, 31 2014 @ 07:48 AM
link   
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.
edit on 31-7-2014 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 31 2014 @ 08:11 AM
link   

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.


It's like talking to Ken Ham. The man still doesn't realise that his debate with Bill Nye destroyed whatever else remained of his position. He probably thinks that he's some kind of religious martyr. The world just sees a man who is too bigoted to understand basic science.



posted on Jul, 31 2014 @ 08:17 AM
link   
a reply to: stooge247

If his child disobeyed him he'd have every Biblical right to kill his child. Like Father, like son.



new topics




 
7
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join