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.

 

Renowned genetics expert claims to have found proof on Adam and Eve existence

page: 5
11
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 31 2015 @ 10:42 AM
link   
a reply to: CharlieSpeirs

At what point in the conversation do you start making sense?




posted on Jul, 31 2015 @ 10:50 AM
link   
a reply to: peter vlar

Yea, I knew that as soon as I read, "scientist from Answers in Genesis".



posted on Jul, 31 2015 @ 11:23 AM
link   
according to Genesis, Eve was created as a 'companion' for Adam because God the Creator 'knew' Adam would desire/need a companion and get a Family started on this planet.
the Dna humans share with plants fish trees bears and lobsters might be restricted to this one planet only, has anyone ever compared to a 'lifeform' from another planet or moon ?



posted on Jul, 31 2015 @ 11:24 AM
link   

originally posted by: CharlieSpeirs

originally posted by: Prezbo369
originally posted by: CharlieSpeirs


flesh and blood transformers 


It's hard (if not impossible) to not assume someone knows nothing on the TOE when they post such nonsense.

However it shows that there is something to be said on the comedic value of Creationists.






Flesh and blood transformers is as genuine a definition as "invisible sky fairies" and "a magic man in the clouds"...

But that's fair game right?
Amarite?


When you factor in that Evolution is an actual scientific theory and Creationism doesn't meet any criteria of the scientific method and that there is so much evidence in favor of evolution that less than 5% of Earth Scientists who are members of the National Academy of Sciences disagree with it and over 95% agree that evolution is a fact based on testable and repeatable data and then compare that with no testable or repeatable evidence in favor of any tenet of creationism or factor in that no aspect of evolutionary theory includes anything remotely resembling "flesh and blood transformers"... Sky fairies doesn't even need to come into at here. Creationism as a theory though? Completely fair game since it's barely eligible to be considered to be a hypothesis.



posted on Jul, 31 2015 @ 01:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: CharlieSpeirs
Flesh and blood transformers is as genuine a definition as "invisible sky fairies" and "a magic man in the clouds"...

But that's fair game right?
Amarite?


Yeah no

The TOE is a comprehensive explanation for the diversity of life on earth, and nowhere is it stated that organisms 'transform'.

We have no such explanation for any of the myriad of different gods and ghouls. All we have are incredibly vague writings that make claims of the existence gods from incredibly superstitious and hysterical people in ancient times.

There's literally no difference between those claims any any random thought or idea you or I might pull from our rear ends while we're sat on the toilet.

But you weren't to know this seeing as you've obviously never taken the time to learn about evolution.




posted on Jul, 31 2015 @ 03:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: blacktie
according to Genesis, Eve was created as a 'companion' for Adam because God the Creator 'knew' Adam would desire/need a companion and get a Family started on this planet.
the Dna humans share with plants fish trees bears and lobsters might be restricted to this one planet only, has anyone ever compared to a 'lifeform' from another planet or moon ?


So God created Adam and Eve and they had 3 sons. Could you please care to explain how the world was then populated? Who gave birth to mankind?
edit on 31-7-2015 by Agartha because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 31 2015 @ 03:18 PM
link   
a reply to: Frocharocha

Someone went naughty with a monkey?



posted on Jul, 31 2015 @ 03:19 PM
link   
a reply to: Frocharocha

It doesn't take a scientist or religious researcher to know that the final product of evolution meaning by nature or higher beings, was the human man and women of the animal species.

dah........ we are prof of it.


edit on 31-7-2015 by marg6043 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 31 2015 @ 03:20 PM
link   


the Dna humans share with plants fish trees bears and lobsters might be restricted to this one planet only, has anyone ever compared to a 'lifeform' from another planet or moon ?


I never thought about it like that, new eye opener!



posted on Jul, 31 2015 @ 03:21 PM
link   
a reply to: marg6043

But humans AREN'T the final product of evolution. There are animals that have evolved to their current state after humans have, plus evolution is still ongoing, including for humans. In 100,000 years we likely won't look anything like we do now.



posted on Jul, 31 2015 @ 03:22 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

I am talking on terms of modern man and woman, I understand what you mean, we are not over in our evolutionary ride yet, actually we are way far from it.



posted on Jul, 31 2015 @ 04:00 PM
link   
Confirmation bias. They started, from their very name, with answers in genesis, rather than questions in a laboratory. How shocking that their "science" came to the same answer as the book of genesis!

The disagreement here is over how fast genes change. The Christians say two conflicting things- 1. That 100,000 years of provable human evolution actually fits into the last 5,000 years...
2. That the past billion or so years of evolution wouldn't fit into the entire history of the cosmos.

The scientific argument is that most processes work at a uniform rate that can be observed and mathematically extrapolated, thus giving us a pretty accurate picture of what has happened from trace evidence.

The truth is a lot closer to the scientific side, but we've begin to see signs that a lot of processes are more punctuated and orderly than we believed and can move pretty rapidly under the right conditions. We have for example discovered that adverse conditions actually cause dna replication errors- it's not a fully random process- dna actually tries harder to evolve when you fight it.

This means that 1. Evolution is a more plausible theory than detractors contend, and yes the mechanisms we observe would do the job in the time allowed.

2. Science could be missing some very impressive flashes in the evolutionary pan (perhaps even unknown bottlenecks and divergences in our genetic history) because their way of averaging things out doesn't account for EVERY tool that evolution has at it's disposal.

In so many words, I like your bible stories and I'd like to believe that some of it is valid observation that can be analyzed with science to fill in some history, but you can't change working scientific theories to preserve your story better.



posted on Jul, 31 2015 @ 04:10 PM
link   
I will be impressed if they prove a talking snake ever existed. But this to me seems like a load of tosh. If they can't even get basic genetic ancestory facts right.



posted on Jul, 31 2015 @ 04:13 PM
link   
a reply to: Frocharocha

Any accredited scientist who is a member of this group (Answers in Genesis) is going to abide by it's particular statement of faith.

Here is the first part of the Statement of Faith of Answers in Genesis:


1. The scientific aspects of creation are important, but are secondary in importance to the proclamation of the gospel of Jesus Christ.
2. The doctrines of Creator and Creation cannot ultimately be divorced from the gospel of Jesus Christ.

(B) BASICS
1. The 66 books of the Bible are the written Word of God. The Bible is divinely inspired and inerrant throughout. Its assertions are factually true in all the original autographs. It is the supreme authority in everything it teaches.
2. The final guide to the interpretation of Scripture is Scripture itself.
3. The account of origins presented in Genesis is a simple but factual presentation of actual events and therefore provides a reliable framework for scientific research into the question of the origin and history of life, mankind, the earth, and the universe.
4. The various original life-forms (kinds), including mankind, were made by direct creative acts of God. The living descendants of any of the original kinds (apart from man) may represent more than one species today, reflecting the genetic potential within the original kind. Only limited biological changes (including mutational deterioration) have occurred naturally within each kind since Creation.
5. The great Flood of Genesis was an actual historic event, worldwide (global) in its extent and effect.
6. The special creation of Adam (the first man) and Eve (the first woman), and their subsequent fall into sin, is the basis for the necessity of salvation for mankind.
7. Death (both physical and spiritual) and bloodshed entered into this world subsequent to and as a direct consequence of man's sin.


Any "scientists" touting their credentials who are doing creationism and ID are not following the scientific method, and therefore are not doing science.
They are bound by faith, using their scientific credentials in a fraudulent manner!

edit on fFriday152574f252004 by flyingfish because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 31 2015 @ 04:24 PM
link   
'Answers in Genesis' is never going to give you unbiased science. Look at all the other things that Answers in Genesis swear are real, and you will get an idea of how "scientific" they are. They are not. They are religious wingnuts.

Not sure if anyone here has read Bryan Sykes' "The Seven Daughters of Eve." The book traces all modern European human mitochondrial genetics back to a common female in Africa. This doesn't mean that there were no other families, just that those who survived, thrived, and spread seem to have been genetically related to the 'Mitochondrial Eve.' The name was given as an easy reference only, and not to prove anything Biblical.
Most of the book is quite dry and spends a lot of time covering numerous peer reviews, double/triple/quadruple checking of all data, revisiting old data as new evidence emerges, and reviewing the history of man to the extent of scientific knowledge.
It does not simply say, "Here's something I read that was written hundreds of years ago, and that I now believe, and here's how I tried very hard to prove it was true despite the likelihood of that being zero." This is what Answers in Genesis does on a daily basis.

Even if one cedes a common ancestor as an "Eve" figure, there is absolutely no evidence, or reality in anything claimed in the Bible (or variations thereof), and certainly nothing claimed by the idiots at Answers in Genesis.



posted on Jul, 31 2015 @ 05:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: Agartha

originally posted by: blacktie
according to Genesis, Eve was created as a 'companion' for Adam because God the Creator 'knew' Adam would desire/need a companion and get a Family started on this planet.
the Dna humans share with plants fish trees bears and lobsters might be restricted to this one planet only, has anyone ever compared to a 'lifeform' from another planet or moon ?


So God created Adam and Eve and they had 3 sons. Could you please care to explain how the world was then populated? Who gave birth to mankind?


The main problem with the bible standarts it's that it doesn't account the genetic variation. People probably didn't know back then, but incest can lead to abort or genetic deformation. So either adam and eve was packed with a mysterious cocktail of DNA, or i'm more inclined to believe there was more than a single human around back then.

Anyway, the reason we share the same dna with most creatures on earth can be seen on the similarities with the living beings. At a certain point, a single organism (belived to came from Sarcopterygii) survived and from them almost all living animals became tetrapods (two arms and two legs, or four legs.) The same can be applied to most fish.



posted on Jul, 31 2015 @ 05:22 PM
link   
If I'm not mistaken, mitochondrial DNA is 'inherited wholly down the female line'...

The 'story' says Adam was created first (again, I might be mistaken)...glitch, or no glitch?

...and that pesky Land of Nod...

Å99



posted on Jul, 31 2015 @ 07:38 PM
link   
a reply to: Frocharocha


You asked what I think?
Why?
This is not an exercise of thought when we speak of creationism. It is easily refuted by using Occam's Razor.

The simplest explanation for Millions of Species is evolution.

Applying biblical BS to a study of species is lunacy.
That's what I think.
And thanks for the opportunity to further disparage a totally worthless (REALLY!!) point of view.



posted on Jul, 31 2015 @ 08:12 PM
link   
Maybe its just me, but I fail to see where she 'proved' anything. All I saw was her pointing at someone else's research and saying she has proof.



posted on Jul, 31 2015 @ 11:46 PM
link   
Jesus of Nazareth was a real person, too -- a hippy stoner, cult leader who was put to death by the Romans at the behest of the Jews (in order to placate them) on the grounds of heresy (against Judaism) and blasphemy (against the Jewish brand of "God", Yahweh / Elohim) , and whose bloodied, abused corpse, nailed to a medieval torture device through his hands and feet, today adorns trinkets worn around children's necks and finials atop cult recruitment centres the Christian world over, as a tool of subliminal programming for the indoctrination of fear, subjugation and otherworldly perdition...(!)

However, this does not mean said hippy stoner's hands had X-Men-like healing properties, that he could levitate or that he was immortal.

>Even the Devil can cite scripture (Shakespeare) and even an idiot can misinterpret it (anon).
edit on 31-7-2015 by AlexJowls because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
11
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join