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: 15
7
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 1 2014 @ 05:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: adnanmuf

originally posted by: adnanmuf
Not possible because all humans have the Neanderthal DNA not just few of them!
l do agree that life started 400 million years ago but that is no proof that animals evolved from animals. All animals are created anew by god


(Facepalm)

Oh dear.... You really do know nothing about evolution.




posted on Aug, 1 2014 @ 06:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg

originally posted by: adnanmuf

originally posted by: adnanmuf
Not possible because all humans have the Neanderthal DNA not just few of them!
l do agree that life started 400 million years ago but that is no proof that animals evolved from animals. All animals are created anew by god


(Facepalm)

Oh dear.... You really do know nothing about evolution.
evolution does not exist that is why I don't know nothing about evolution because it's only in your mind a non existing hypothesis.



posted on Aug, 1 2014 @ 06:35 PM
link   
a reply to: adnanmuf

Do you have a learning disability? Are you retarded?



By your lack of comprehension, you're either purely wilfully ignorant, have a serious cognitive deficiency or are about 5 years old.

It's been amusing; in a painful way... life will be difficult for you if this is how you interact with people.

I feel sorry for you.



posted on Aug, 1 2014 @ 06:47 PM
link   
Since no revolutionist dared to debate or answer my question. I hereby declare creationism the winner and that Christianity and the prophets were true.



posted on Aug, 1 2014 @ 06:59 PM
link   
a reply to: adnanmuf

Spoken like a true creationist.

Bravo!

(... and the pigeon looks triumphantly at the chess board!)



posted on Aug, 1 2014 @ 07:31 PM
link   
Evolutionists failed the debate of whom who showed up and the rest cowereded.the DNA facts matching prophets claims makes them credible



posted on Aug, 2 2014 @ 03:21 AM
link   

originally posted by: adnanmuf
Since no revolutionist dared to debate or answer my question. I hereby declare creationism the winner and that Christianity and the prophets were true.


If you want to revert to being ten years old again, I trump your infantile claim by declaring victory because: SCIENCE!!!!


I told you all that he would do this. He's an ignorant creationist troll who appears to be 10 years old and doesn't know any better.



posted on Aug, 2 2014 @ 03:58 AM
link   
What is science to you. Did you buy it. From Target recently.



posted on Aug, 2 2014 @ 04:18 AM
link   

originally posted by: adnanmuf
What is science to you. Did you buy it. From Target recently.


No, from big papery things called books. They have words with more than one syllable in them and then contain these things called 'facts'. What do you have?



posted on Aug, 2 2014 @ 10:49 AM
link   

originally posted by: adnanmuf
Evil spirits and satan interacted with lowly humans (trash of people of every generation) and convinced them there is no go, humans did not come from space as humans been told by their fathers since Adam,they were told that they were actually descendents of animals (chimps amd mice) (the evolution theory).


Lol.

I think you will find many here will agree that we aren't descended from chimps or mice.

So, with molecular studies indicating that modern humans could have bred with Neanderthals..... and as we have quite a few Neanderthal fossils.....this would indicate to you that they didn't really exist?

Yet god, angels, satan...............no fossils, no molecular biological studies, no observations, no anything to indicate they do or ever have existed.....this indicates that they exist for sure!

Would you have a hypothesis for exactly how god made the first human from mud? You know, a real viable explanation?



edit on 2-8-2014 by Cogito, Ergo Sum because: for the heck of it



posted on Aug, 2 2014 @ 12:00 PM
link   
a reply to: adnanmuf

With critical thinking and adult concepts like logic, evidence is the only rational basis for belief. What matters is evidence, not what you find to be personally convincing, or what you've been taught since childhood. Anyone can see you've retained your childish thought patterns into your adulthood,(if, in fact you are an adult?) you have not added anything of substance to create an argument that is convincing to any but the most gullible and those who are already brainwashed.

In a real science thread you need to show empirical evidence for any claim, no matter how tentatively held.
That burden of proof is on you!
To shift that burden to your critics is unreasonable and intellectually dishonest.

Do you admit that your beliefs are based on faith and not evidence?

Also, can you admit that when you ask others to disprove your claims without offering evidence yourself, that you are committing the burden of proof fallacy?

It's time to put up or shut up!



posted on Aug, 2 2014 @ 05:49 PM
link   
Why don't any one of you answer my question??? Instead of speaking about science in general. You are running away from answering. I also answered my question and my answer was the evidence. You are neither debunking my answer nor having a different answer that goes along with evolution.
It is been few days to my challenge and henceforth can only explained by the fact that I and creationism and the prophets are the winners.



posted on Aug, 3 2014 @ 04:08 AM
link   

originally posted by: adnanmuf
Why don't any one of you answer my question??? Instead of speaking about science in general. You are running away from answering. I also answered my question and my answer was the evidence. You are neither debunking my answer nor having a different answer that goes along with evolution.
It is been few days to my challenge and henceforth can only explained by the fact that I and creationism and the prophets are the winners.


Because your questions have been answered in previous posts on this thread - and also on other threads. You are doing the standard creationist troll schtick of pretending to earnestly ask questions and then repeat the questions several pages later to get more responses. I've got some news for you - it's not working. Go back under your bridge.
edit on 3-8-2014 by AngryCymraeg because: Typo



posted on Aug, 4 2014 @ 01:33 AM
link   
Never been answered yet. The handyman is geologist and he spoke generalities.
however evolutionists are welcome anytime to answer and reclaim their honor.



posted on Aug, 4 2014 @ 02:04 AM
link   

originally posted by: adnanmuf

Science prove without doubt that all living humans branched from one man in recent history 50k years.

I doubt you understand what this would imply (if it were correct). Are you seriously trying to say that the first "man" was magically popped into existence 50k yrs ago? The fact that modern humans are known to have existed long before this not relevant....?


Indeed, luminescence dating, paleovegetation changes, and skeletal remains suggest that Australia was inhabited by modern humans by 60,000 years ago



The age implies that people who were skeletally within the range of the present Australian indigenous population colonized the continent during or before oxygen isotope stage 4 (57,000-71,000 years).


www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...



originally posted by: [post=18214457]adnanmuf
Actually DNA was finally collected from dinosour and proved again they were chicken.

..... or did they claim to have found proteins/collagen that shared similarities with modern chickens (and frogs)?....Can you cite the paper to back your claims up with?

Your other claims have all been responded to and it has been explained thoroughly why you are simply wrong. From Stanford at the Tech "ask a biologist" responding to the following question....


Question. Does the existence of Mitochondrial Eve mean there was a time on Earth when there was just one woman? Does Y-Adam mean the same thing for men?

Answer. No they don't.
.....
A man in South Carolina was found to have a paternal line so different from everyone else’s that he represents a previously undiscovered branch back into our past. His DNA changed Y-Adam from a man who lived between 60,000 and 142,000 years ago to a “man” from 237,000 and 581,000 who may not yet have even been human!

genetics.thetech.org...

Your "Neanderthal" ideas have also been debunked. Neanderthals did exist as shown in the fossil record and the below quote from a random paper also seems to indicate. There are no end of articles discussing the Neanderthal genome and there is a lot of paleoanthropological science to ignore if you take the view they "didn't exist". Whether you wish to see them as modern humans or anything else, it is likely both groups (Neanderthalensis and Sapiens) evolved separately from an earlier form of human (probably Heidelbergensis). It is also possible that there was some interbreeding with Neanderthal and modern humans.


Despite many technical challenges, the whole-genome sequence for a Homo species other than modern human is now there for the first time in just five years of the establishment of the project.


www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

Congratulations on your "triumph".



edit on 4-8-2014 by Cogito, Ergo Sum because: for the heck of it



posted on Aug, 4 2014 @ 02:51 AM
link   
The study about a man in carolina. Is not recognised by DNA consortium because you need many men to make a new phylology. A study of a one sample person is also funny.the study was not published in us but EU. The sample from the nonexistent man was. Blood from two persons of the earliest 2 branches after Adam.anybody can mix two bloods from haplogroup a and b and then study it. Nobody knows who that man is because sample was sent by mail. He should provide a new sample in the lab with photos since such a man should be. A celebrity theonly one of his kind.


As for the skeleton found in Australia already dated 10000 yeard ago based on DNA testing. Buynow somebody came and said the grass near him belong to 60000 years. We don't know if the grass remains was connected to the skeleton just the testimony of a one. Person of course the man. Who discovered it and assured us he was telling the truth.

As for the DNA of bones claim ed to be 60000 years old. Then whose DNA is it the bones or the generations of germs that lived on the bones for 60000 years. Each generation lives on the dead remains of old generation even germs change Flora. So the DNA they sequenced is the DNA of mozaic of leftover s of all germs plus the 2% from the human of the bones which of course. Matched current humans.
Also DNA from 60000 years ago cannot beacceted as evidence since they refuse to test just 5000 years old bones DNA because it got changed by death and lost.



posted on Aug, 4 2014 @ 03:08 AM
link   
The study about a man in carolina. Is not recognised by DNA consortium because you need many men to make a new phylology. A study of a one sample person is also funny.the study was not published in us but EU. The sample from the nonexistent man was. Blood from two persons of the earliest 2 branches after Adam.anybody can mix two bloods from haplogroup a and b and then study it. Nobody knows who that man is because sample was sent by mail. He should provide a new sample in the lab with photos since such a man should be. A celebrity theonly one of his kind.


As for the skeleton found in Australia already dated 10000 yeard ago based on DNA testing. Buynow somebody came and said the grass near him belong to 60000 years. We don't know if the grass remains was connected to the skeleton just the testimony of a one. Person of course the man. Who discovered it and assured us he was telling the truth.

As for the DNA of bones claim ed to be 60000 years old. Then whose DNA is it the bones or the generations of germs that lived on the bones for 60000 years. Each generation lives on the dead remains of old generation even germs change Flora. So the DNA they sequenced is the DNA of mozaic of leftover s of all germs plus the 2% from the human of the bones which of course. Matched current humans.
Also DNA from 60000 years ago cannot beacceted as evidence since they refuse to test just 5000 years old bones DNA because it got changed by death and lost.



posted on Aug, 4 2014 @ 03:29 AM
link   
a reply to: adnanmuf

Translation please. You really don't know anything about this - but you think you do. Tragic.



posted on Aug, 4 2014 @ 04:37 AM
link   

originally posted by: adnanmuf
The study about a man in carolina. Is not recognised by DNA consortium because you need many men to make a new phylology. A study of a one sample person is also funny.the study was not published in us but EU. The sample from the nonexistent man was.Blood from two persons of the earliest 2 branches after Adam.anybody can mix two bloods from haplogroup a and b and then study it. Nobody knows who that man is because sample was sent by mail. He should provide a new sample in the lab with photos since such a man should be. A celebrity theonly one of his kind.

Oh, you mean Albert Perry, who was not anonymous in this study which published it's results in the peer reviewed scientific publication known as The American Journal of Human Genetics (which also sounds American).

www.newscientist.com...

As to the article in the previous post. Why not read it, it explains quite clearly why your basic premise itself is wrong and why it doesn't in any way mean the proposed "Adam" was the first "man" (as you seem to claim). He was one of thousands alive at the time, who also had parents of his own, who also had parents and so on, all products of the process of evolution.


As for the skeleton found in Australia already dated 10000 yeard ago based on DNA testing. Buynow somebody came and said the grass near him belong to 60000 years. We don't know if the grass remains was connected to the skeleton just the testimony of a one. Person of course the man. Who discovered it and assured us he was telling the truth.

As for the DNA of bones claim ed to be 60000 years old. Then whose DNA is it the bones or the generations of germs that lived on the bones for 60000 years. Each generation lives on the dead remains of old generation even germs change Flora. So the DNA they sequenced is the DNA of mozaic of leftover s of all germs plus the 2% from the human of the bones which of course. Matched current humans.
Also DNA from 60000 years ago cannot beacceted as evidence since they refuse to test just 5000 years old bones DNA because it got changed by death and lost.

Not even sure what you are talking about here, or if we are talking about the same thing, as you never supply sources. As you seem to have some trouble accepting anything palaeontology based, try this.


ABORIGINAL AUSTRALIANS ARE descendents of the first people to leave Africa up to 75,000 years ago, a genetic study has found, confirming they may have the oldest continuous culture on the planet.

the ancestors of Australian Aboriginals had split from the first modern human populations to leave Africa, 64,000 to 75,000 years ago. Dr Joe Dortch, a scientist at UWA, says the discovery turns on its head the existing theory that Aboriginals arrived here less than 50,000 years ago. The findings are detailed today in the journal Science.


www.sciencemag.org...
www.australiangeographic.com.au...

Still waiting for you to back your claims re dinosaurs and chickens. The first half of this video probably sums it up, though as you don't supply sources to particular studies but simply make vague claims, makes it difficult.



ps. if you look at real research in this area, instead of believing biased creationist claims, you will find it is fascinating.


edit on 4-8-2014 by Cogito, Ergo Sum because: for the heck of it



posted on Aug, 4 2014 @ 05:15 AM
link   
Yes one person is not accepted period
A respectable study has to find the anomaly by doing acceptable random sampling and do statistical analysis. The probability of one person not through sampling is Fake ((blood from two men very easy).
As for the Australia sceleton if you continued two more lines he says the DNA evidence could be from 63k to present so he used the other bogus associated grass nearby.
Both studies fail




top topics



 
7
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join