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.

 

Evolution is a farce: Evidence

page: 86
27
<< 83  84  85    87  88  89 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 19 2014 @ 01:12 PM
link   
There I am 2000 years ago digging the ground for my crops and lo and behold I dig up the skelton of a man in armour. I recognise the armour and then make a subconscious note about the bones and how the "human" would have looked. My friend, the artist , has a garden who did the same but found a dog skeleton. My other friends went up into the hills and found an enormous 4 foot long skull with 6 inch teeth and 6 foot long rib bones. Jesus H what size of dog was that they joked. The artist decided to draw what the animal would have looked like :

THE "DRAGON" IS BORN WITHOUT A SOUL EVER SEEING A LIVE ONE

Sheeeeeeeesh !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! reality check creationists !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1
edit on 19/12/2014 by yorkshirelad because: oops bad tags......it must be a conspiracy.....never an accident!




posted on Dec, 19 2014 @ 01:56 PM
link   
a reply to: josehelps

en.wikipedia.org...

www.youtube.com...

www.youtube.com...

www.cnn.com...

www.independent.co.uk...

www.dailymail.co.uk... ml

www.telegraph.co.uk...

rt.com...

www.bbc.com...

www.iflscience.com...

www.bbc.com...

www.bbc.com...

www.bbc.com...

www.techtimes.com...

www.techtimes.com...

news.sky.com...

www.medicalnewstoday.com...

When the primers employed in 2003 found corresponding fragments on the Starchild’s mtDNA, the primers rendered a positive signal from the PCR indicating “this particular part of the mtDNA is human, or highly human-like.” However, that did not mean other untouched sections of the mtDNA would not vary considerably from the human mtDNA. And this, apparently, is what happened—the 2003 sampling proved to be too small.

(Pye was onto a three parent baby long before we had even known it exists. And of course the DNA technicians through the labs he worked with were the ones that had to educated him on how this was possible.)



posted on Dec, 19 2014 @ 02:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: josehelps
a reply to: josehelps

en.wikipedia.org...

www.youtube.com...

www.youtube.com...

www.cnn.com...

www.independent.co.uk...

www.dailymail.co.uk... ml

www.telegraph.co.uk...

rt.com...

www.bbc.com...

www.iflscience.com...

www.bbc.com...

www.bbc.com...

www.bbc.com...

www.techtimes.com...

www.techtimes.com...

news.sky.com...

www.medicalnewstoday.com...

When the primers employed in 2003 found corresponding fragments on the Starchild’s mtDNA, the primers rendered a positive signal from the PCR indicating “this particular part of the mtDNA is human, or highly human-like.” However, that did not mean other untouched sections of the mtDNA would not vary considerably from the human mtDNA. And this, apparently, is what happened—the 2003 sampling proved to be too small.

(Pye was onto a three parent baby long before we had even known it exists. And of course the DNA technicians through the labs he worked with were the ones that had to educated him on how this was possible.)


When are you going to admit that you don't have a clue as to what you're talking about? Out of your last 5 posts, 3 of them were complete copy and pastes. You are just wrong over and over and over again. We show you this as best as we can, but you utterly disregard it and keep on chugging along. You just posted "Three parent babys are not the same as IVF." Yet, in your latest post where you inexplicably listed 17 links, the VERY FIRST one states in the VERY FIRST sentence that "Three-parent babies are human offspring with three genetic parents, created through a specialized form of In vitro fertilisation."

What is wrong with you? You are making the claim the Lloyd Pye theorized that the alien was a 3 person baby. He never did this. Yes, we all know that 3 person baby's now are possible, and you for some reason thought it necessary to post 17 links explaining the same exact thing. THIS DOES NOT MEAN IT WAS LLOYD PYE'S THEORY. LLOYD PYE SPECIFICALLY STATES HE BELIEVED IT TO BE THE RESULT OF AN EXTRATERRESTRIAL MAN AND A HUMAN WOMAN. List me just ONE source where Lloyd Pye states this. Don't you think that if that was his theory, he would say it just once?

Your above comment does NOTHING to prove that Lloyd Pye was "onto" 3 person baby. Your quote that you copy and pasted is saying that the section of MtDNA they sequenced was from likely a human. They went on to say that this does not necessarily mean that all other sections of it would yield the same results, but this is obvious. This does not mean anything. It is just the most appropriate way to state that the MtDNA they sequenced appeared to be human. Show me ONE piece of evidence that Lloyd Pye was "onto a 3 parent baby long before we had even know it exists." ITS NOT EVEN POSSIBLE FOR THIS STATEMENT TO BE CORRECT. The Starchild child skull was found in 1999. The first case of successful 3 parent baby using cytoplasmic transfer was in 1997. 1997 is before 1999. You're wrong. You're wrong about everything you say, I have never seen anything like this. ADMIT THAT YOU'RE WRONG.



posted on Dec, 19 2014 @ 02:58 PM
link   
a reply to: josehelps

what does a baby with three parents have to do with evolution?



posted on Dec, 19 2014 @ 04:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: TzarChasm
a reply to: josehelps

what does a baby with three parents have to do with evolution?


I'm looking into my crystal ball now.

"Evolution says that we all have 2 parents, so 3 parents is against evolution...." then off onto some other tangent about something unrelated like lactose intolerance, target food, or deformed babies, followed by bible quotes and the definition of the word "supernatural" and other unrelated words.
edit on 19-12-2014 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 20 2014 @ 06:45 AM
link   
a reply to: josehelps

Oh, itsthetooth, how I missed you around here. And there's no doubt it's you when you drop gems like this...


We are whats left over after God has dealt all of his damage to us, including but not limited to the removal of our Supernatural abilities.

Please enumerate the "supernatural abilities" we used to have before the aliens took them away and what is your evidence that these abilities existed?


I started looking at this back in 2009 through an Etiology and finished it about two weeks ago.

An etiology of what, exactly? An arcane virus, perhaps?


he abducted Adam and Eve and relocated them here to Earth. God was NOT our creator which can be proven in about half a dozen scientific examples, but the most damning is the article about Mitochondrial Eve. There is NO WAY GOD could have created us just 6,000 years ago when Y-Chromosome Adam goes back as far as 587,000 years ago. Where were we living?

Science says we are of this planet, and that what we would consider anatomically modern humans evolved from an ancestor about 250,000 years ago. Your version of religion says that we were created 6000 years ago. (Aside: Nowhere in the Bible does it say we were created 6000 years ago. A Bishop came up with that number based on treating the Bible as an absolute genealogy.) So we have two possibilities:

1. The Bible is not a "historical document" and shouldn't be taken as one, and the evidence-backed science of the origin of our species should be accepted.

2. Aliens took us from our home planet and deposited us here.


We were tricked.

Only if by "we" you mean you.



posted on Dec, 20 2014 @ 09:07 AM
link   
a reply to: iterationzero
I was thinking the same. The ideas might not be exactly the same but the posting styles are very similar. It is an evolved "itsthetooth".



posted on Dec, 20 2014 @ 11:26 AM
link   
a reply to: Quadrivium

Removed by me
edit on 20-12-2014 by kayej1188 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 20 2014 @ 11:36 AM
link   
a reply to: kayej1188


itsthetooth.wix.com...
edit on 20-12-2014 by kayej1188 because: (no reason given)

edit on 20-12-2014 by kayej1188 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 20 2014 @ 12:09 PM
link   
Yup
edit on 20-12-2014 by kayej1188 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 20 2014 @ 12:16 PM
link   
a reply to: kayej1188

Including wikipedia, which is full of contradictory claims. It can only mean one thing; he has read the entirety of wiki.



posted on Dec, 20 2014 @ 12:23 PM
link   
a reply to: Cambot

Removed by me
edit on 20-12-2014 by kayej1188 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 20 2014 @ 12:23 PM
link   
a reply to: kayej1188

Dude, doxxing people isn't cool and probably against the site's T&Cs. Personally, I would edit these posts before you get banned by the admins.



posted on Dec, 20 2014 @ 12:26 PM
link   
a reply to: GetHyped

Thanks.



posted on Dec, 20 2014 @ 12:44 PM
link   
a reply to: josehelps

Lawrence, I've got a question for you. I noticed that a while back, you stated that "During the finishing of my site I find an article from the same people working on the human genome project, dated back 2007, claiming they are 100% proof positive to have now figured out that codes in our Junk DNA sectors were NOT created on Earth, but by Extraterrestrials." You then posted the article you were referring to: rense.com...

My question to you. Do you still consider this a valid source of evidence for the claim the certain sections of human DNA were created by extraterrestrials? Looking forward to hearing from you.



posted on Dec, 20 2014 @ 12:49 PM
link   
a reply to: josehelps

Another question for you, Lawrence. You you also made the statement: I told you I told you, The bible told you if you only knew how to read it, and now science is telling you. It starts back in January 1988 in a Newsweek magazine, that featured their main article which was "Mitochondrial Eve." It proves that the same science that tells us who murdered your neighbor, the same science that tells us who the father of a child is, is now telling us that their is obviously no way that God created us about 6,000 years ago. Additionally Eves female contemporaries, except her mother, failed to produce a direct unbroken female line to any living woman in the present day. This was a blow to Christianity. It also speculated the two were abducted and brought here. You went on to post this link: www.virginia.edu...

I must have missed it, but could you please show me where in this article they "speculate the two were abducted and brought here." Thanks, looking forward to hearing from you.



posted on Dec, 20 2014 @ 04:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: Barcs

originally posted by: TzarChasm
a reply to: josehelps

what does a baby with three parents have to do with evolution?


I'm looking into my crystal ball now.

"Evolution says that we all have 2 parents, so 3 parents is against evolution...." then off onto some other tangent about something unrelated like lactose intolerance, target food, or deformed babies, followed by bible quotes and the definition of the word "supernatural" and other unrelated words.


and still no actual evidence of a supernatural cause for either the universe, the earth, or the human species.

and most (if not all) of the proponents for an intelligent designer appear to have abandoned the chase.

can we finally lay this thread to rest and forget it happened?



posted on Dec, 21 2014 @ 07:57 AM
link   
a reply to: GetHyped

Anyone who was around during the time itsthetooth was active would immediately recognize the josehelps is the same person. It's not only that the concepts are the same, and keep in mind that itsthetooth had a relatively unique set of views for his posts on the O&C forums, but josehelps uses some of the exact same phrases that he did when he was posting as itsthetooth -- think of it as his fingerprint or, maybe more appropriately to discussions on evolution, his DNA. By simply reviewing josehelps's first couple of posts from late November when he rejoined ATS (Aside: I believe having multiple usernames here is also against the T&C, no?), you can pick out that it's just a rebranded itsthetooth almost immediately. Here's some highlights:


We are whats left over after God has dealt all of his damage to us, including but not limited to the removal of our Supernatural abilities.

Itsthetooth made frequent claims that "God", which in his lexicon means aliens, removed our naturally occurring "supernatural" abilities and that Jesus's ability to perform miracles was just these abilities manifesting themselves somehow.


God was ANOTHER alien race, just like us, he abducted Adam and Eve and relocated them here to Earth.

Another hallmark of itsthetooth -- Adam and Eve were not from this planet, and that the "God" aliens transplanted them from their place of origin about 600 years ago. When pushed for an explanation of why we share so much genetic material with species that he believes are indigenous to this planet, he'll claim that some of them were transplanted with us. Why we're the only transplanted species from that original planet that can't seem to thrive here, he never really explains.


God was NOT our creator which can be proven in about half a dozen scientific examples, but the most damning is the article about Mitochondrial Eve. There is NO WAY GOD could have created us just 6,000 years ago when Y-Chromosome Adam goes back as far as 587,000 years ago. Where were we living?

More "we're not from this planet" claims, but this time misunderstanding the basic concept of Mitochondrial Eve and Y-Chromosome Adam and using that misunderstanding as "evidence". Again, classic itsthetooth. I've never seen anyone else ever make this kind of clustermess out of the genetic dating from mEve and yAdam.


The bible is actually prefaced as dealing with Supernatural events, which in English means if you don't have that background, you're not qualified to understand it.

Itsthetooth frequently claimed that the Bible explicitly states that it deals with supernatural events, but could never actually point to a passage that was translated as that. He also seemed to be confused that the Bible actually started with Genesis and that any preface to it is from a particular edition and not written as part of the Bible. It's difficult to explain how literally itsthetooth takes things if you haven't experienced him in full. By way of example, if you had a Bible with a footnote on a particular word, he would think that the actual author of that part of the Bible put that footnote in himself.


I myself have over 34 years of experience in the field,

This is a big one. When he first started posting on ATS back in 2011, he constantly made reference to his "over 30 years of research in the field".


NIH is not very forthcoming with strange things hidden in our DNA, so research had to be looked else where. A good source for such comes from someone that happened to have a lot of money in his pocket to research an alien skull, and along the way learned much about our human genome. You can view the link here...

Link to a Lloyd Pye video... check.


The fact that there is tampering in our DNA proves intervention, certainly by aliens. To answer your question, the over 4,000 gross defects that are beyond understanding, most likely are from us being inbred.

Parroting Pye's claim that we have over 4000 genetic defects, not understanding that Pye was never claiming that every person has all 4000... check.


Earth-is-not-our-home-hebrews-111-16.html

Another hallmark of itsthetooth, quoting Hebrews (though he can never seem to get the right passage) to show that we were abducted by aliens from our home planet and brought here. What he's looking for is actually Hebrews 13:14:


For this world is not our home; we are looking forward to our city in heaven, which is yet to come.

He takes this, as well as anything else he reads, literally and with zero understanding of context or the meaning the author is trying to convey.

All of these things, and more from the rest of josehelps's recent posts, clearly points to josehelps being itsthetooth. So the natural inclination is to Google "itsthetooth" and see what he's been up to. You immediately get to itsthetooth's WIX site. It takes about five second of reading to see that there are two possibilities:

1. Itsthetooth and josehelps are two different people that just happened to come to the same set of unique conclusions and decided to post them in the same style here on ATS, to the point that you can actually see where josehelps has cut & pasted information from itsthetooth's site for his posts.

or

2. Itsthetooth and josehelps are the same person.

It's not anyone's fault but itsthetooth/josehelps that he regularly attaches what he appears to be his real name to his itsthetooth alias. Is what kayej1188 did doxing? Technically, it may be. Is a squirrel a rodent? Technically, but I doubt anyone would confuse it with a capybara.



posted on Dec, 21 2014 @ 08:08 AM
link   
a reply to: iterationzero

Holy crap you are a better detective than Hong Kong fuee
.
So did itsthetooth get banned? And if not why the name change?.



posted on Dec, 21 2014 @ 08:35 AM
link   
a reply to: josehelps

I knew I'd find the smoking gun if I took a few more minutes.



people don't lie, the person lies


Itsthetooth #1

Itsthetooth #2

So, itsthetooth / josehelps -- why the deception?

More importantly, how long until you bring up target food?




top topics



 
27
<< 83  84  85    87  88  89 >>

log in

join