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: 16
7
<< 13  14  15    17  18  19 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 4 2014 @ 05:38 AM
link   

originally posted by: adnanmuf

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

If you are going to try debunking it, at least read it. As you simply seem to claim all fossils that don't agree with your pov are bogus, it has little to do with fossils.

www.sciencemag.org...

www.australiangeographic.com.au...


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).

Oh, ok. So can you direct me to the real study, the one that takes in every individual on earth? You do realise that such results are likely to change as the study broadens?

If you read the original article, from a real scientist, it explains clearly why you base your claims on nonsense. It doesn't require any previous knowledge or education. Other than the ability to read and a bit of comprehension.

Could you find a source from any (sane) scientist who thinks either your "Adam" or "Eve" didn't have parents of their own, from exactly the same species?

genetics.thetech.org...

Still waiting for a source re your dinosaurs/chickens claims. Did you conduct the research yourself, did someone else? A link would be good thanks.


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




posted on Aug, 4 2014 @ 05:38 AM
link   

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



posted on Aug, 4 2014 @ 06:03 AM
link   

originally posted by: Cogito, Ergo Sum

originally posted by: adnanmuf

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

If you are going to try debunking it, at least read it. It has nothing to do with fossils.

www.sciencemag.org...

www.australiangeographic.com.au...

Still waiting for a source re your claims of dinosaurs/chickens. Did you conduct the research yourself, did someone else? A link would be good thanks.


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).

Oh, ok. So can you direct me to the real study, the one that takes in every individual on earth? You do realise that such results are likely to change as the study broadens?

If you read the original article, it explains clearly why you base your claims on nonsense. It doesn't require any previous knowledge or education. Other than the ability to read and a bit of comprehension.

Could you find a source from any (sane) scientist who thinks either your "Adam" or "Eve" didn't have parents of their own, from exactly the same species?


my sources are in the articles you provided. Your researcher confess that the DNA evidence he got is that that its age between 63000 and present.. the maternal haplogroup he mentioned is a later branch of tree. He didn't know that genetic diversity outside Africa is only 15%.!
So he chose the 63k the maximum he assigned by himself., that maximum is based on the scamic ancestral mutation rate not seen in real world. The mutation is at 4% as determine by direct observation to sperms and frozen polar birds frosen 40k years ago.the ancestral mutation was faked by john shandler of mit



posted on Aug, 4 2014 @ 06:20 AM
link   
a reply to: adnanmuf

No he got a dispersal date of between 62k and 75k years ago. Not that it will be anything you feel you can't explain away, using nothing other than your opinion...

So every palaeontology find that doesn't support your opinion is either bogus or misinterpreted by nefarious atheist scientists. Every genetic study that disagrees with your opinion (which is basically every one), likewise. Explanations from geneticists that obviously disagree, likewise.

Rather than offering anything to support your position, you simply refute anything submitted to you and feel this fulfils such requirement.

Fair enough.

How would you refute the scientist in this link, who certainly seems to disagree with you, again...

genetics.thetech.org...

If you feel our species just "popped" into existence in the recent past, now it is time to give your scientific explanation for how that happened.

You also might have missed the following in the last few posts.....

Still waiting for an explanation re your dinosaur/chicken claims. Did you conduct the research yourself, did someone else? A link would be good thanks.



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



posted on Aug, 4 2014 @ 06:23 AM
link   
Time to meet Lucy, our great-great..... great grandma!


3.2 million years ago...

Let's write all zeros, as you probably will better understand impact of this fossil find:

That is 3,200,000 YEARS AGO.

So you were saying something about 50k years ago?



posted on Aug, 4 2014 @ 09:23 AM
link   

originally posted by: adnanmuf

originally posted by: Cogito, Ergo Sum

originally posted by: adnanmuf

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

If you are going to try debunking it, at least read it. It has nothing to do with fossils.

www.sciencemag.org...

www.australiangeographic.com.au...

Still waiting for a source re your claims of dinosaurs/chickens. Did you conduct the research yourself, did someone else? A link would be good thanks.


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).

Oh, ok. So can you direct me to the real study, the one that takes in every individual on earth? You do realise that such results are likely to change as the study broadens?

If you read the original article, it explains clearly why you base your claims on nonsense. It doesn't require any previous knowledge or education. Other than the ability to read and a bit of comprehension.

Could you find a source from any (sane) scientist who thinks either your "Adam" or "Eve" didn't have parents of their own, from exactly the same species?


my sources are in the articles you provided. Your researcher confess that the DNA evidence he got is that that its age between 63000 and present.. the maternal haplogroup he mentioned is a later branch of tree. He didn't know that genetic diversity outside Africa is only 15%.!
So he chose the 63k the maximum he assigned by himself., that maximum is based on the scamic ancestral mutation rate not seen in real world. The mutation is at 4% as determine by direct observation to sperms and frozen polar birds frosen 40k years ago.the ancestral mutation was faked by john shandler of mit


Try reading the quotes and not misinterpreting them horribly.



posted on Aug, 4 2014 @ 08:08 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Let's say you're some guy that thinks he's a 'science' guy living in the now. So your thoughts are that everything always existed in one form or another. The universe started as some little dot of matter that suddenly exploded into an infinite universe that no human mind can comprehend the size of because some guy in a wheelchair with a cool voice told you so because he's more 'sciencey' than you.

I don't care how smart you are. The human mind cannot understand time on that scale. Just because you don't believe in the bible, doesn't mean you can't believe that there was some supreme being that had to create it all. How is believing that it all came from nothing any better than believing it all came from a creator? When does anything get created from nothing?

Either way, it's ridiculous and incomprehensible.

People seem to think science knows everything or will some day. We're a single species that has been alive/intelligent on one planet in a universe full of trillions of galaxies and we've only been intelligent enough to 'science' for maybe 100,000 years at the most.

But some day, we are totes gonna figure all that evolution and universal why we are hear # out without philosophy or religion. It's all about 'SCIENCE'

If there are other species in the universe, this must be the most arrogant and annoying one in existence. It's like we're the mosquito of the universe. I really hope they don't have the Internet to read you're little

"ohhh science, you believe in a creator so you don't like science, ohhh' diatribe.

I'm totally with you. Our science can tell you 'facts' about stuff that you can totally/maybe read papers on and understand that there's words in it.

Tell me when science can tell me when the universe started and how. and when the monkeys stop throwing # (bombs) at each other. i suppose you had a big hand in inventing and coming up with all that 'science'.



posted on Aug, 4 2014 @ 08:46 PM
link   
a reply to: wtf2008

Howdy,

I realize I'm not the person who you are addressing, but perhaps that is a good thing. You seem to be quite frustrated and upset with Krazysh0t, so I do hope that you don't mind if perhaps I step in and maybe address some of the things you talk about.

I am a geology student, so I am fully aware of how poorly equipped my brain is to understand geologic time. There have been many different attempts, both visual and mathematical, which were supposed to help me understand the great vastness, and yet I still feel that those attempts have been inadequate. Sure, I routinely smash rocks approximately 410 million years old. That doesn't really register though. Probably never will, fully.

But your following logic is flawed. Let me illustrate this... You say all things have been created, and nothing has never been not created. You then imply that a higher power created this, falsifying your first assumption unless that higher power was created by something itself. See, in a lot of ways, it is more logically consistent to believe that a creator did not create all that is around us, unless you want to tackle with where that creator came from... (Common argument, faulty logic.)

Science is also not an entity. It is at times (depending on the context) a method by which we acquire knowledge, or alternatively the sum total of said collected (under the methodology of science) knowledge. It cannot know anything, as science itself is not an entity which can know. Yet, quite remarkably, I'd say we've only been "sciencing" for a few hundred years, and look at how far man has come. Life expectancy, ease/standard of living, and communication have all benefited so greatly from this use of science. Also, science is not something invented or "come up with." It is something observed. (I should also point out that science started as a philosophy. You can still consider it one, I suppose.)

I don't know how other (alien) intelligences would feel about us as a species. Perhaps pity, perhaps apathy. Maybe they would be proud of those science-y people (like the one in the wheelchair with the cool voice) who are attempting to objectively know more about the universe. Maybe they think that anyone, like a Bible literalist, is truly arrogant for claiming to know how and when the universe originated without attempting to entertain any other possibilities. This is but speculation, so I really don't know, but that's how I might feel about such things.

Science can tell you pretty much how the universe got to be where it is from mere seconds after its existence. Look up the Big Bang. I know it's difficult to understand certain things, I'm certainly no theoretical physicist. But you can see that scientists often present independently verifiable data, and that following the same methods, good results will be repeatedly verified.

In short, stop being a monkey throwing number signs complaining about how you don't understand science. Go pick up a science textbook and actually learn how to understand it, and I'm sure you will find that most of what you complain about is rather... ridiculous.

Sincere regards,
Hydeman



posted on Aug, 4 2014 @ 10:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg

originally posted by: adnanmuf

originally posted by: Cogito, Ergo Sum

originally posted by: adnanmuf

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

If you are going to try debunking it, at least read it. It has nothing to do with fossils.

www.sciencemag.org...

www.australiangeographic.com.au...

Still waiting for a source re your claims of dinosaurs/chickens. Did you conduct the research yourself, did someone else? A link would be good thanks.


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).

Oh, ok. So can you direct me to the real study, the one that takes in every individual on earth? You do realise that such results are likely to change as the study broadens?

If you read the original article, it explains clearly why you base your claims on nonsense. It doesn't require any previous knowledge or education. Other than the ability to read and a bit of comprehension.

Could you find a source from any (sane) scientist who thinks either your "Adam" or "Eve" didn't have parents of their own, from exactly the same species?


my sources are in the articles you provided. Your researcher confess that the DNA evidence he got is that that its age between 63000 and present.. the maternal haplogroup he mentioned is a later branch of tree. He didn't know that genetic diversity outside Africa is only 15%.!
So he chose the 63k the maximum he assigned by himself., that maximum is based on the scamic ancestral mutation rate not seen in real world. The mutation is at 4% as determine by direct observation to sperms and frozen polar birds frosen 40k years ago.the ancestral mutation was faked by john shandler of mit


Try reading the quotes and not misinterpreting them horribly.


its you who cannot read them or understand them. you just kepp talking about here the prooof here the evidence here is science and so forth.
you are a parrot.

As I mentioned before evolution never happened. all things degrade in time including the increasing of harmful mutations. there never been a bebeficial mutation. mutation is a mistake by difinition.
understand it people.
Only a supreme being creat animals and everything anew.
it looks evolution to you by way of magic of the magicians who lie to you and hypnotise you with words.

they are members of the secret societies scientology who are subordin ate to he evil spirits who are living on tis earth for millions of years, and envy humans and like to degrade them by make humans believe they are animals and they use the magi to hypnotise you with lies and fake science (all paid )



posted on Aug, 5 2014 @ 03:21 AM
link   
a reply to: adnanmuf
The more I read, the more I seriously believe you need medical help.



posted on Aug, 5 2014 @ 03:30 AM
link   
so you dont believe in metaphysique or ufos aliens?



posted on Aug, 5 2014 @ 03:33 AM
link   
a reply to: adnanmuf

Please keep proving my point. You're being very, very, entertaining.



posted on Aug, 5 2014 @ 04:14 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
If the universe has always existed, when exactly would this "Poof and the universe is here" moment have occurred?

When the eyes open the light appears and something seems to appear, when before there was nothing. In the beginning there was nothing - there still is nothing but it appears to be something - what appears is an image of light and that which thinks itself separate then brings an illusionary universe into being.
All there really is, is the light that is appearing presently and the light is not a thing. The light appears as everything - one image that may contain words speaking of 'other times' and 'other places' and 'words' which tell stories which lead one astray. The present image is contantly changing and moving but never is more than one image.
God now has a whole imaginary world/universe to play in but he never really goes anywhere - he never leaves presence but pretends he lives in time and space. God plays hide and seek with himself.

edit on 5-8-2014 by Itisnowagain because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 5 2014 @ 04:19 AM
link   
Everything that is appearing to exist presently is being created and destroyed right now. How can there be movement if everything stays the same?
There is something (which is not a thing) which never changes and that is 'that' which knows that the appearance is changing - it never 'appears' to exist but without it nothing could appear to exist.
edit on 5-8-2014 by Itisnowagain because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 5 2014 @ 06:43 AM
link   
a reply to: SuperFrog
How can you be so sure that Lucy was not just a hoax or stab in the dark?
Please check this site to read more.
www.forerunner.com...

But hold on, the story gets better. Dr. Johanson gave a lecture at the University of Missouri in Kansas City, Nov. 20, 1986, on Lucy and why he thinks she is our ancestor. It included the ideas already mentioned and that Lucy’s femur and pelvis were more robust than most chimps and therefore, “could have” walked upright. After the lecture he opened the meeting for questions. The audience of approximately 800 was quiet so some creationists asked questions. Roy Holt asked; “How far away from Lucy did you find the knee?” (The knee bones were actually discovered about a year earlier than the rest of Lucy). Dr. Johanson answered (reluctantly) about 200 feet lower (!) and two to three kilometers away (about 1.5 miles!). Continuing, Holt asked, “Then why are you sure it belonged to Lucy?” Dr. Johanson: “Anatomical similarity.” (Bears and dogs have anatomical similarities).



posted on Aug, 5 2014 @ 07:29 AM
link   

originally posted by: wtf2008
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Let's say you're some guy that thinks he's a 'science' guy living in the now. So your thoughts are that everything always existed in one form or another. The universe started as some little dot of matter that suddenly exploded into an infinite universe that no human mind can comprehend the size of because some guy in a wheelchair with a cool voice told you so because he's more 'sciencey' than you.


I don't listen to "some guy in a wheelchair with a cool voice" about my science. I take his advise, but I also look at the evidence. There is plenty of evidence to support what Dr. Hawkins says about the universe. I can easily corroborate or refute whatever he says by just analyzing the evidence. You make it seem like, all I'm doing is letting someone preach at me about how the universe works. That's not science, that is religion. Science lets you TEST the claims that are being made. You or I are more than welcome to test anything a doctor in whatever science field says is true.


I don't care how smart you are. The human mind cannot understand time on that scale. Just because you don't believe in the bible, doesn't mean you can't believe that there was some supreme being that had to create it all. How is believing that it all came from nothing any better than believing it all came from a creator? When does anything get created from nothing?


I don't believe the universe came from nothing, nor does science. You JUST got done correctly describing the Big Bang (that it all was compressed to a tiny dot then expanded) then you made the incorrect statement that it came from nothing. We DO NOT KNOW what happened with the universe before the Big Bang. To say that the universe came from nothing is JUST as assumptive as saying that God created it. My answer for that (as well as the rest of science) is "I don't know." What you just did there is called a strawman fallacy. Just stop.

The reason I cannot say that a supreme being created the universe is because that is ALSO an assumption. I don't make assumptions. I just say that I don't know and wait until more evidence to explain it is uncovered. If the necessary evidence isn't uncovered in my lifetime, then so be it. Maybe future generations will figure it out.


Either way, it's ridiculous and incomprehensible.


We are certainly doing a pretty good job of comprehending it as time goes on by building to our existing knowledge with new evidence and findings.


People seem to think science knows everything or will some day. We're a single species that has been alive/intelligent on one planet in a universe full of trillions of galaxies and we've only been intelligent enough to 'science' for maybe 100,000 years at the most.


Anyone who truly understands science understands that it DOESN'T know everything and that there is a possibility that it won't explain everything someday, but it is the best tool we have to aspire to that goal. People who think that science explains everything are just as deluded as the people who think that religion explains everything.


But some day, we are totes gonna figure all that evolution and universal why we are hear # out without philosophy or religion. It's all about 'SCIENCE'


Religion is worthless. It is just a control tool designed to control a large population by browbeating the same thing over and over again into the populous until they accept it as true while relying on humans' ability to exaggerate things in retellings. Philosophy is just a a bunch of thought exercises. It certainly has more beneficial uses than religion but it certainly isn't a valid tool to explain how the universe works. It's a great tool to use to expand your thinking or come up with new ideas, but once those new ideas are formulated you need to use science to test them as true.


If there are other species in the universe, this must be the most arrogant and annoying one in existence. It's like we're the mosquito of the universe. I really hope they don't have the Internet to read you're little


Everything we know about intelligence and life on this planet suggests that intelligence outside our planet would act just like we would given our social attitudes and the fact that everything we do that we consider "sinful or destructive" can be seen in some form or another in the animal kingdom. Even beavers pollute. But yes we certainly ARE arrogant to assume that a God created the ENTIRE universe JUST for us than proceeded to stick us on an inconsequential blue rock in the middle of some inconsequential part of a random galaxy in a inconsequential part of the universe.


"ohhh science, you believe in a creator so you don't like science, ohhh' diatribe.

I'm totally with you. Our science can tell you 'facts' about stuff that you can totally/maybe read papers on and understand that there's words in it.

Tell me when science can tell me when the universe started and how. and when the monkeys stop throwing # (bombs) at each other. i suppose you had a big hand in inventing and coming up with all that 'science'.


Sorry all we can do is date the universe back to the start of timespace. Anything before that we cannot explain. Though I wonder why that means you shouldn't listen to its explanations about things we CAN currently explain. Why do you have to wait until science can answer those select questions? What happens when science DOES answer those questions? Are you going to just make up new questions that science cannot answer? Because for every question science answers, we discover like 1000+ new questions in the process of answering that one question. So you could play that game into infinity. But that certainly doesn't make the findings that science discovers in the meantime less valid.



posted on Aug, 5 2014 @ 07:40 AM
link   
a reply to: Itisnowagain

Yea... This wasn't an explanation for anything, much less an answer to my question. That was just some random sermon using vague wording to try to say that god did it. Yet I asked a question about WHEN this happened. Not to mention it is completely out of context since the person I was talking to was misrepresenting my claim that the universe possibly existed forever and that person was claiming that I said the universe came from nothing.



posted on Aug, 5 2014 @ 07:41 AM
link   

originally posted by: Itisnowagain
a reply to: SuperFrog
How can you be so sure that Lucy was not just a hoax or stab in the dark?
Please check this site to read more.
www.forerunner.com...

But hold on, the story gets better. Dr. Johanson gave a lecture at the University of Missouri in Kansas City, Nov. 20, 1986, on Lucy and why he thinks she is our ancestor. It included the ideas already mentioned and that Lucy’s femur and pelvis were more robust than most chimps and therefore, “could have” walked upright. After the lecture he opened the meeting for questions. The audience of approximately 800 was quiet so some creationists asked questions. Roy Holt asked; “How far away from Lucy did you find the knee?” (The knee bones were actually discovered about a year earlier than the rest of Lucy). Dr. Johanson answered (reluctantly) about 200 feet lower (!) and two to three kilometers away (about 1.5 miles!). Continuing, Holt asked, “Then why are you sure it belonged to Lucy?” Dr. Johanson: “Anatomical similarity.” (Bears and dogs have anatomical similarities).


Apart from creationist somewhat flawed idea that all what palaeontologist are doing is just trying to create conspiracy and falsify findings to create hoax, you forgot main idea behind science that applies to palaeontology as well any other science field - model has to be proven to work and has to be testable.

Please note, they found about 40% of skeleton, and no bones were duplicated. More about finding you can read in WIKI or follow sources.

And to answer your original question - how do I know she is our ancestor - no, I don't know for sure, as it might be another branch of humanoid that is not even related to us, witch at that time frame is very unlikely (3.2 million years ago).

BTW, everything that starts with 'But hold on, the story gets better.' is giving your argument just false credibility and points on background of site you offer. Look at this topic, all creationism argument 'can't get better'.
But hold on, the topic gets better...




originally posted by: Itisnowagain
Everything that is appearing to exist presently is being created and destroyed right now. How can there be movement if everything stays the same?
There is something (which is not a thing) which never changes and that is 'that' which knows that the appearance is changing - it never 'appears' to exist but without it nothing could appear to exist.

I am sure that you did not lost just me in this word play, but yourself as well...

But I am sure you are not trying to explain how come we have evidence that 98% of life forms on earth are extinct... would that make our creator somewhat 'not knowing how to do it' kind of being/entity? (just noticing)
edit on 5-8-2014 by SuperFrog because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 5 2014 @ 08:20 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Hey crazy

Just wanted to point out that we dont know anything about our universe pre cosmic microwave map

Thats as far a we can go

anything before that is speculation at best

For now at least

Until ofcoures we create another universe to study and experiment on

At which point at least 50% of know universes will have been created

With that number only climbing higher


edit on am820143108America/ChicagoTue, 05 Aug 2014 08:25:49 -0500_8u by Another_Nut because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 5 2014 @ 08:20 AM
link   
2
edit on am820143108America/ChicagoTue, 05 Aug 2014 08:21:03 -0500_8000000 by Another_Nut because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 13  14  15    17  18  19 >>

log in

join