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.

 

My Trip to the Creation Museum... and What it's REALLY All About

page: 2
5
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 15 2009 @ 08:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by Welfhard
reply to post by JPhish
 


Why? All humans were descended from a single man who lived about 60,000 years ago in Africa. We are all also descended from a single female ancestor who lived between 150,000 to 250,000 years ago in Africa. In both cases, the lineages of all other people died out and all living people are to find themselves in the surviving lineage of Y Chromosomal Adam and Mitochondrial Eve.

SCIENCE! It delivers.

[edit on 15-10-2009 by Welfhard]


sorry man, but you need to search for the truth regarding your past and forget aboutt hisstory.

everything you just said is PURE conjecture arrived at through inferences gathered ex post facto; AKA ground and consequence.

But you are close, it's a sort of science; it's BAD science.*

[edit on 10/15/2009 by JPhish]




posted on Oct, 15 2009 @ 09:05 PM
link   
reply to post by JPhish
 


JP,

OT's been trying to kindly show him this for a few yrs now....

Thx!

OT



posted on Oct, 16 2009 @ 02:16 AM
link   
reply to post by JPhish
 


sorry man, but you need to search for the truth regarding your past and forget aboutt hisstory.

everything you just said is PURE conjecture arrived at through inferences gathered ex post facto; AKA ground and consequence.

But you are close, it's a sort of science; it's BAD science.*


On the Contrary, genetics is some of the strongest evidence one can find, so powerful infact that genetics alone can send a man to the electric chair if genetic evidence deems him guilty.

In the case of tracking back our genealogies, it's a bit more complicated but not too complicated. Being as how the vast majorities are completely neutral (say in genes that are switched off), each baby born has in the range of 150 new mutations. These mutations can become passed on but only to it's own offspring and you could track it amongst people who do not carry these mutations.

The Y chromosome is only passed down the male side and Mitochondrial DNA is only passed down the female line - males of course do get mitochondrial DNA but don't pass theirs on.

All the genetic lineages converge on Y Chromosomal Adam - the common male ancestor for all humanity, and Mitochondrial Eve, the common female ancestor for all humanity.

It's also why genetic diversity in humans is pathetic because of this rather recent bottleneck in our genetics. Chimps have far far more genetic diversity than we do.


SCIENCE! It delivers.



OT..

JP,

OT's been trying to kindly show him this for a few yrs now....

Thx!


Your answer will never be better than sciences because you start with your conclusions first, and then like an idiot, actually rely on confirmation bias. You do not have a methodology capable of detecting truth, rather one that'll lead you from it.

Truth cannot be hidden according to your bible, then why is it that you can never prove me wrong? Why is it that science has an answer for all your criticisms of evolution? Why are your criticisms born out of a depressingly poor understanding of evolutionary theory?

You'll never show me anything because you have nothing of merit, hence why I departed from it in the first place.

[edit on 16-10-2009 by Welfhard]



posted on Oct, 16 2009 @ 05:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by Welfhard
reply to post by JPhish
 


sorry man, but you need to search for the truth regarding your past and forget aboutt hisstory.

everything you just said is PURE conjecture arrived at through inferences gathered ex post facto; AKA ground and consequence.

But you are close, it's a sort of science; it's BAD science.*


On the Contrary, genetics is some of the strongest evidence one can find, so powerful infact that genetics alone can send a man to the electric chair if genetic evidence deems him guilty.

What poor logic . . .

DNA evidence is considered very reliable in court
Therefore
DNA evidence is reliable when analyzing genetic lineages.

No dice.

Weak induction(1)


In the case of tracking back our genealogies, it's a bit more complicated but not too complicated. Being as how the vast majorities are completely neutral (say in genes that are switched off), each baby born has in the range of 150 new mutations. These mutations can become passed on but only to it's own offspring and you could track it amongst people who do not carry these mutations.

The Y chromosome is only passed down the male side and Mitochondrial DNA is only passed down the female line - males of course do get mitochondrial DNA but don't pass theirs on.

All the genetic lineages converge on Y Chromosomal Adam - the common male ancestor for all humanity, and Mitochondrial Eve, the common female ancestor for all humanity.

It's also why genetic diversity in humans is pathetic because of this rather recent bottleneck in our genetics. Chimps have far far more genetic diversity than we do.

argumentum verbosium(2)

all of the above was so illogical in context that I wouldn’t know where to start. If you want to highlight the aspects of your post that you believe have any merit at all, I will begin with those . . .


SCIENCE! It delivers.
science requires the application of logic.


[edit on 10/16/2009 by JPhish]



posted on Oct, 16 2009 @ 06:12 AM
link   
reply to post by JPhish
 


Why no go back your your original premise?


But you are close, it's a sort of science; it's BAD science.*

Why? Show the flaws & weaknesses.

And what would you instead believe and why?

[edit on 16-10-2009 by Welfhard]



posted on Oct, 16 2009 @ 06:30 AM
link   
reply to post by jupiter869
 


Well done for a balanced and well written blog OP. The museum sounds like one of the satirical ones in the Simpsons.

I look forward to another 4000 posts where religous people argue with aethists...



posted on Oct, 16 2009 @ 07:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Welfhard
reply to post by JPhish
 


Why no go back your your original premise?

My original premise where, you claiming to know, that there was an “adam” and “eve’, when they existed, how they came to be and how we came to be is bad science?

Fine we’re back to it.



Why? Show the flaws & weaknesses.


I think you’ve already highlighted them quite well, not realizing you should take your own advice . . .


Originally posted by Welfhard as a reply to OldThinker
“Your answer will never be –valid- because you start with your conclusions first, and then like –misguided person-, actually rely on confirmation bias. You do not have –an ideology- capable of detecting truth, rather one that'll lead you from it.”-(paraphrased & slightly modified)


Now I say this to you. It applies to you much more so than it does OT. I’m willing to elucidate my claims and will do so as long as you don’t kick and scream while I’m giving you the “red pill”.


And what would you instead believe and why?

I’m questioning the manner in which you express your beliefs. What I believe is of no consequence.

Do you accept the red pill?



posted on Oct, 16 2009 @ 07:40 PM
link   
In your fluffy, cotton-wool World of religion, God and all things blessed, how do you explain the ramifications of incest from the offspring of Adam & Eve?



posted on Oct, 16 2009 @ 11:46 PM
link   
reply to post by PrisonerOfSociety
 


who is your question being directed toward exactly?

this is not a second line.

[edit on 10/16/2009 by JPhish]



posted on Oct, 17 2009 @ 12:42 AM
link   
reply to post by JPhish
 


Any religious nut-job.



posted on Oct, 17 2009 @ 12:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by PrisonerOfSociety
reply to post by JPhish
 


Any religious nut-job.


well that seems sort of random then.

GL with your hate baiting.



posted on Oct, 17 2009 @ 04:10 AM
link   
reply to post by JPhish
 


My original premise where, you claiming to know, that there was an “adam” and “eve’, when they existed, how they came to be and how we came to be is bad science?

I think you're putting intent into my words that isn't there.

These conclusions are not concrete - they never are in science - but they are the best and most accurate based on the knowledge of facts we have.



Now I say this to you. It applies to you much more so than it does OT. I’m willing to elucidate my claims and will do so as long as you don’t kick and scream while I’m giving you the “red pill”.

Hardly. OT believes in the stories in a book and takes the idea that they are 100% true on faith. My views are subject to change based on the science - a system that constantly updates and refines as new facts are found.

Science vs Religion. One will always have more factual answers than the other.

[edit on 17-10-2009 by Welfhard]



posted on Oct, 18 2009 @ 04:15 AM
link   
Here is a trip to the museum.



Enjoy

Different vid...

Peace

[edit on 18-10-2009 by letthereaderunderstand]



posted on Oct, 18 2009 @ 04:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by Welfhard
reply to post by JPhish
 


My original premise where, you claiming to know, that there was an “adam” and “eve’, when they existed, how they came to be and how we came to be is bad science?

I think you're putting intent into my words that isn't there.

These conclusions are not concrete - they never are in science - but they are the best and most accurate based on the knowledge of facts we have.



Now I say this to you. It applies to you much more so than it does OT. I’m willing to elucidate my claims and will do so as long as you don’t kick and scream while I’m giving you the “red pill”.

Hardly. OT believes in the stories in a book and takes the idea that they are 100% true on faith. My views are subject to change based on the science - a system that constantly updates and refines as new facts are found.

Science vs Religion. One will always have more factual answers than the other.

[edit on 17-10-2009 by Welfhard]


Hey welfhard....I can prove Adam and Eve exist. You just have to know what the words mean.

Adam means "mankind" and that includes Man and Woman. Eve means "Life giver".

It could be said...."That's one small step for Adam, one giant leap for Adamkind" and you would be saying the same thing that Neil said.

Adam was NEVER a single guy. It has NEVER meant "Hey meet my buddy adam".

Refute the meaning that christians give because it is simply wrong, but you can't refute that Mankind doesn't exist. I mean you can, but it seams kind of silly because Mankind does exist.

Peace



posted on Oct, 18 2009 @ 04:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by Welfhard
reply to post by JPhish
 


My original premise where, you claiming to know, that there was an “adam” and “eve’, when they existed, how they came to be and how we came to be is bad science?

I think you're putting intent into my words that isn't there.
nope, you spouted these things as truths.


These conclusions are not concrete -

You should make that known whenever you speak of such things.


they never are in science

No, some conclusions are concrete in science. That’s what scientific laws are.


- but they are the best and most accurate based on the knowledge of facts we have.
in your opinion.



Hardly. OT believes in the stories in a book and takes the idea that they are 100% true on faith.
no, see therein lies why OT is justified and you are out of place. He says that he BELIEVES, you say that you KNOW.



My views are subject to change based on the science -

Who’s science? Others “scientific” endeavors or your own?



a system that constantly updates and refines as new facts are found.
NO, facts are not found, they are hypothesized. INFERENCES are found using the 5 senses and then those inferences are weighed by human logic using the scientific method to determine whether or not the hypothesis is substantiated enough to become an adequate conclusion and or agreeable law.



Science vs Religion. One will always have more factual answers than the other.
false dichotomy

[edit on 10/18/2009 by JPhish]



posted on Oct, 25 2009 @ 08:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by LightFantastic
reply to post by jupiter869
 


Well done for a balanced and well written blog OP. The museum sounds like one of the satirical ones in the Simpsons.

I look forward to another 4000 posts where religous people argue with aethists...



Ya know what? It almost IS a satire of the Simpsons!



posted on Nov, 28 2009 @ 09:27 AM
link   
Too many people have the audacity to think they know everything there is to know.



posted on Nov, 28 2009 @ 09:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by OldThinker
reply to post by jupiter869
 


J, nice blog friend!

Question-How 'old' was Adam and Eve? On the day after they were created?

"Adam and Eve" was nothing but humanoid aliens that landed on Earth to observe.
Source: Courtney Brown's Cosmic Voyage book



posted on Nov, 28 2009 @ 09:42 AM
link   
reply to post by sphinx551
 


Remember that time didn't exist in the sense it does today.
Remember the Bible: A thousand years is but a day.
Adam and eve were 'timeless'. (But in the Museum, they were depicted as being maybe 20-25.



posted on Nov, 28 2009 @ 10:06 AM
link   
reply to post by jupiter869
 

Does it tell us whether Adam and Eve had belly-buttons or navels?
Do we get to see a naked Adam (or with a fig-leaf). What race is he? Maybe he's modelled on some famous man - hopefully not John Hagee or any of the other evangelists.
Genesis also says thet Eve was cursed to bear children in pain and agony ("I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception", according to the KJV, Genesis 3:16). This meant that women were not given pain-killers during child-birth until Queen Victoria changed the rules. Is there anything on that? Why don't Christian women obey this anymore?
(On queen Victoria and her struggle with the religion regarding labor pain see www3.telus.net...)

[edit on 28-11-2009 by halfoldman]




top topics



 
5
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join