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.

 

It's official, GOD was a space alien, and NOT our real creator

page: 39
160
<< 36  37  38    40  41 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 7 2011 @ 04:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by iterationzero
reply to post by itsthetooth
 


IMO ( I just had to throw my 2 cents in on this, as you 2 were hashing over this ) I think there are all types out there. There are probably scientists with agendas, and scientists that just want to get to the truth. Of course when a scientists skews their findings to work toward an agenda, it can sometimes be obvious, and easily exposed.

I agree, but I'd even take it a step further - it's not only easily exposed, but it will always be exposed. And, in today's world of near instant access to information, cases of scientific fraud get exposed by other scientists faster than ever before.


When you have many with the same direction, and indisputable findings, that's when it's probably the right direction. A good example I can think of is the alterations in human DNA. Lloyd Pye explains that the only way these changes are possible is in a LAB.

It's just that Pye's explanation is wrong. I've provided several example of how precisely the same mechanisms have been observed to occur in nature. Keep in mind that we were able to sequence DNA and observe these mechanisms occurring naturally long before we determined how to do them in a laboratory setting.

I must have missed your examples. Are they solid examples, or theory?

I have never heard of the same forensics that occur when we tamper with DNA to have been found naturally, can you please explain where you heard this? Because if your correct then it adds concearn to how we trust DNA to determine family and crimes.


I agree, because all other life has solid only blue laminate. Some argue with me and say its an unknown or could be evolution. Like we are the only thing here on earth that has evolved in that idea. He explains the findings to clear the air as though some other scientists may differ on this. Scientists are still studying DNA but as far as making changes, they have done that for a long time now and are pretty familiar with it. It's just hard to accept the idea that there is proof of changes in our DNA but with trace elements of laminate changing colors the same way we would do it today.

You keep bringing up this colored laminate. I've watched three of Pye's videos, browsed his website a couple of times, and even tried googling it... I can find no mention of the "solid only blue laminate" you keep referring to. The only thing he refers to consistently is finding inversions which, as mentioned above, have been observed to occur in nature. So if you have a secondary reference on this or can direct me to Pye's claims about a "laminate", I'd be interested in reading about it.

It was other research I did on DNA, not explained by Pye. However, it's not hard to spot the idea in Pye's video if you read between the lines. It's clear from all research I have found that our signs of gene splicing are not something that occurs naturaly.



So some scientists might disagree with Pye's explanation of this, and that could just be difference in understanding. There could however be something much deeper going on. Some scientists could be scared with what this means and simply refuse to accept it. Another possibility is that it obviously means there was highly intelligent life back in biblical times, or possibly alien life. Some people don't like the idea of these things.

Just my opinion, but I think Pye has convinced himself of alien involvement and will see it wherever he looks, regardless of the evidence to the contrary.

I might be able to understand your take on this if we could just find anything that tells us he is wrong. Again people I wont accept that you feel Jesus in your heart.


There is still yet another side to this as well, it's scary, real scary, with what it means. I totally understand why some people would not want to accept it. It's reasons like this, why we have scientists with different views.

There's no doubt that experimental results can be challenging when they go against current thinking, but scientists have to show the discipline to go where the evidence leads, regardless of the consequences. The evidence just doesn't lead to where Pye thinks it does.
edit on 1/6/2011 by iterationzero because: (no reason given)


I agree in part.
From what I have followed in his direction, it would seem to me that he might be feeling that aliens actually created us. I'll tell you what.... if it's true, than the real creator will have a kinipshin fit trying to figure out how it is they were able to recreate the blue laminate.
You see, even if your right that gene splicing evidence has been found naturaly at times ( and I seriously question that ) one thing still stands in the way. How did someone manage to recreate the blue laminate? It's something we can only imagine in our wildest dreams.

Personally I don't think it's possible. Gene splicing is possible using chemicals, but the blue laminate would seem to only be possible in they crazy order of the unknown creation. From what I can tell, watching history channel it looks like space soup. Debris changes to gases, to clouds, to form a planet, that somehow just so happens to end up with life on it.

All hail to Trevor the giant celestial squid.
Just frikken weird.
In the order of creation, the blue laminate is all natural within our science anyhow.
This is why I was shocked to find the 6 gene spliced sections that showed obvious proof. Not even the guy that pretended to be our creator was able to recreate the blue laminate.




posted on Jun, 7 2011 @ 04:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by TheNetherlands

Originally posted by itsthetooth
I can honestly say, my experience would make me an authority in the paranormal field, so maybe I am qualified to use official. WOW. Is three decades long enough?


Lol, took me about 3 minutes to realize God is a physical alien from a physical planet instead of an all-knowing heavenly entity.

God came to Earth in a silver cloud, surrounded with fire and thunder? Seems like a metallical spaceship entering the atmosphere to me.

Maria gave birth without ever having sex? seems like impregnating someone with medical technology and science to me, something we do for years now...

Jesus rised up IN a cloud? you vannot be IN a cloud, you would fall trough... seems like a spaceship again to me.

That city that was destroyed, cant remember the name, but common people, think! It was an atomic bomb. Does an almighty God need nucleair weapons to destroy something? No, he uses his will and mind, not a weapon.

I can go on and on and on but people just dont want to realize this. They dont want to because their world would be teared apart!

The gods and angels and stuff from the bible all are aliens from another planet people, wake the f*ck up!!!


Exactly.....
And don't forget that mind control is rampandt through out the bible as well. It shouldn't sound shocking with GOD doing all this murdering through out the bible and people still loved him and followed him. It's shocking to think people in those days could be so stupid. They weren't, they were controled. Telepathy and simular powers seem to only work in an area. This is how GOD lost control of us. He wasn't able to mind control all of us all of the time.



posted on Jun, 7 2011 @ 08:42 AM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 


I must have missed your examples. Are they solid examples, or theory?

Observable, reproducible, and peer-reviewed. I doubt that you’re going to read them or that they’re going to meet your personal burden of proof based on your previous comments.

This article describes horizontal gene transfer, which you would recognize as gene splicing.

Integrative and conjugative elements (ICEs) are self-transmissible mobile genetic elements that are increasingly recognized to contribute to lateral gene flow in prokaryotes.
Shaping bacterial genomes with integrative and conjugative elements.

The replication errors described in this article are also mechanisms that you would refer to as gene splicing. The context of this article is wholly negative, as it deals with cancer from an evolutionary standpoint, but not all mutations are harmful. Most are actually neutral and some are beneficial.

This damage can be the result of endogenous processes such as errors in replication of DNA, the intrinsic chemical instability of certain DNA bases or from attack by free radicals generated during metabolism.
The molecular biology of cancer.

This article describes how the amount of genetic information in an organism increases which, in effect, provide more raw material for further mutations. Again, this isn’t necessarily a negative type of mutation since it more typically occurs in a non-coding portion.

Deletions and duplications of chromosomal segments (copy number variants, CNVs) are a major source of variation between individual humans and are an underlying factor in human evolution and in many diseases, including mental illness, developmental disorders and cancer. CNVs form at a faster rate than other types of mutation, and seem to do so by similar mechanisms in bacteria, yeast and humans.
Mechanisms of change in gene copy number.


I have never heard of the same forensics that occur when we tamper with DNA to have been found naturally, can you please explain where you heard this? Because if your correct then it adds concearn to how we trust DNA to determine family and crimes.

You have yet to provide a source that discusses the forensic evidence of DNA tampering. Until you do, it’s difficult to have a discussion about it.


It was other research I did on DNA, not explained by Pye. However, it's not hard to spot the idea in Pye's video if you read between the lines. It's clear from all research I have found that our signs of gene splicing are not something that occurs naturaly.

I’ve asked for a source on “blue laminate” in previous posts and you continue to not provide one. “Reading between the lines” when it comes to claims as extraordinary as Pye’s doesn’t cut it – it needs to be explicitly stated and backed with some kind of evidence. The only specific mechanism that Pye discusses in his video is inversion. Here’s an example of an inversion occurring naturally:


Here, we report the comparative analysis of this region with its orthologous regions in the wild progenitor species (O. nivara, AA) of Asian rice and African rice (O. glaberrima) using the BB genome Oryza species (O. punctata) as an outgroup, and investigation of transposon insertion sites and a segmental inversion event in the AA genomes at the population level.
Exceptional lability of a genomic complex in rice and its close relatives revealed by interspecific and intraspecific comparison and population analysis.

In fact, every specific type of gene splicing that you’ve cited so far has an analogue observed to occur naturally.


I might be able to understand your take on this if we could just find anything that tells us he is wrong. Again people I wont accept that you feel Jesus in your heart.

I’ve provided multiple sources showing that what Pye claims are DNA alterations which can only be done in a lab are repeatedly observed in nature. You choose to ignore them.


I agree in part.
From what I have followed in his direction, it would seem to me that he might be feeling that aliens actually created us. I'll tell you what.... if it's true, than the real creator will have a kinipshin fit trying to figure out how it is they were able to recreate the blue laminate.

This is my second request in this reply for some kind of reference on the “blue laminate”.


You see, even if your right that gene splicing evidence has been found naturaly at times ( and I seriously question that ) one thing still stands in the way. How did someone manage to recreate the blue laminate? It's something we can only imagine in our wildest dreams.

Not “at times” – every human being has somewhere between 50-200 mutations that don’t come from either of their parents. These mutations are all the results of naturally occurring mechanisms that are indistinguishable from what you’re calling “gene splicing”. You “seriously questioning” that they occur naturally is an argument from personal incredulity. I’ve provided objective evidence of them and you’ve ignored it. Much like you’re going to ignore my third request in this post for a source for information about this “blue laminate” of yours.


Personally I don't think it's possible. Gene splicing is possible using chemicals, but the blue laminate would seem to only be possible in they crazy order of the unknown creation. From what I can tell, watching history channel it looks like space soup. Debris changes to gases, to clouds, to form a planet, that somehow just so happens to end up with life on it.

You need to get some sources that don’t involve television or Youtube. Anyone can make any claim they want to in those media, without any kind of objective evidence to back it up. I know I’ve said this before, but it bears repeating – I am completely staggered by the fact that you’re applying a different burden of proof to objective evidence than you are to pure speculation based on scientific falsehoods. I’m at least applying the same level of skepticism to all of the information.


In the order of creation, the blue laminate is all natural within our science anyhow.
This is why I was shocked to find the 6 gene spliced sections that showed obvious proof.
Not even the guy that pretended to be our creator was able to recreate the blue laminate.

So you’ve made five mentions of “blue laminate” in this post. You have yet to provide a source for information on it.



posted on Jun, 9 2011 @ 02:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by iterationzero
reply to post by itsthetooth
 


I must have missed your examples. Are they solid examples, or theory?

Observable, reproducible, and peer-reviewed. I doubt that you’re going to read them or that they’re going to meet your personal burden of proof based on your previous comments.

I read them. This information was all we had prior to the decoding of the human genome. Can you get me a date on that?

This article describes horizontal gene transfer, which you would recognize as gene splicing.

Integrative and conjugative elements (ICEs) are self-transmissible mobile genetic elements that are increasingly recognized to contribute to lateral gene flow in prokaryotes.
Shaping bacterial genomes with integrative and conjugative elements.

for some reason I think I'm taking this a different way.
Anyhow, if this was the case, they could prove it, right?

The replication errors described in this article are also mechanisms that you would refer to as gene splicing. The context of this article is wholly negative, as it deals with cancer from an evolutionary standpoint, but not all mutations are harmful. Most are actually neutral and some are beneficial.

This damage can be the result of endogenous processes such as errors in replication of DNA, the intrinsic chemical instability of certain DNA bases or from attack by free radicals generated during metabolism.
The molecular biology of cancer.

I don't want to believe that every human is a defect, but I guess we could be.

This article describes how the amount of genetic information in an organism increases which, in effect, provide more raw material for further mutations. Again, this isn’t necessarily a negative type of mutation since it more typically occurs in a non-coding portion.

Deletions and duplications of chromosomal segments (copy number variants, CNVs) are a major source of variation between individual humans and are an underlying factor in human evolution and in many diseases, including mental illness, developmental disorders and cancer. CNVs form at a faster rate than other types of mutation, and seem to do so by similar mechanisms in bacteria, yeast and humans.
Mechanisms of change in gene copy number.

So are you taking this as evolution? You have to realize that these are visible as such, not as normal blue laminate.


I have never heard of the same forensics that occur when we tamper with DNA to have been found naturally, can you please explain where you heard this? Because if your correct then it adds concearn to how we trust DNA to determine family and crimes.

You have yet to provide a source that discusses the forensic evidence of DNA tampering. Until you do, it’s difficult to have a discussion about it.

Watch Lloyd Pye's video on DNA. He says it best.


It was other research I did on DNA, not explained by Pye. However, it's not hard to spot the idea in Pye's video if you read between the lines. It's clear from all research I have found that our signs of gene splicing are not something that occurs naturaly.

I’ve asked for a source on “blue laminate” in previous posts and you continue to not provide one. “Reading between the lines” when it comes to claims as extraordinary as Pye’s doesn’t cut it – it needs to be explicitly stated and backed with some kind of evidence. The only specific mechanism that Pye discusses in his video is inversion. Here’s an example of an inversion occurring naturally:


Here, we report the comparative analysis of this region with its orthologous regions in the wild progenitor species (O. nivara, AA) of Asian rice and African rice (O. glaberrima) using the BB genome Oryza species (O. punctata) as an outgroup, and investigation of transposon insertion sites and a segmental inversion event in the AA genomes at the population level.
Exceptional lability of a genomic complex in rice and its close relatives revealed by interspecific and intraspecific comparison and population analysis.

And thats fine, but are they also showing the same signs of being gene spliced? And if so, how do we not know it was done by us? After all.

In fact, every specific type of gene splicing that you’ve cited so far has an analogue observed to occur naturally.


I might be able to understand your take on this if we could just find anything that tells us he is wrong. Again people I wont accept that you feel Jesus in your heart.

I’ve provided multiple sources showing that what Pye claims are DNA alterations which can only be done in a lab are repeatedly observed in nature. You choose to ignore them.


I agree in part.
From what I have followed in his direction, it would seem to me that he might be feeling that aliens actually created us. I'll tell you what.... if it's true, than the real creator will have a kinipshin fit trying to figure out how it is they were able to recreate the blue laminate.

This is my second request in this reply for some kind of reference on the “blue laminate”.

I googled Gene splicing and found several that explain it.


You see, even if your right that gene splicing evidence has been found naturaly at times ( and I seriously question that ) one thing still stands in the way. How did someone manage to recreate the blue laminate? It's something we can only imagine in our wildest dreams.

Not “at times” – every human being has somewhere between 50-200 mutations that don’t come from either of their parents. These mutations are all the results of naturally occurring mechanisms that are indistinguishable from what you’re calling “gene splicing”. You “seriously questioning” that they occur naturally is an argument from personal incredulity. I’ve provided objective evidence of them and you’ve ignored it. Much like you’re going to ignore my third request in this post for a source for information about this “blue laminate” of yours.

Even if your right, about the mutations, I'll bet they are still blue!


Personally I don't think it's possible. Gene splicing is possible using chemicals, but the blue laminate would seem to only be possible in they crazy order of the unknown creation. From what I can tell, watching history channel it looks like space soup. Debris changes to gases, to clouds, to form a planet, that somehow just so happens to end up with life on it.

You need to get some sources that don’t involve television or Youtube. Anyone can make any claim they want to in those media, without any kind of objective evidence to back it up. I know I’ve said this before, but it bears repeating – I am completely staggered by the fact that you’re applying a different burden of proof to objective evidence than you are to pure speculation based on scientific falsehoods. I’m at least applying the same level of skepticism to all of the information.

I guess I missed the memo that TV and youtube cant give accurate info.


In the order of creation, the blue laminate is all natural within our science anyhow.
This is why I was shocked to find the 6 gene spliced sections that showed obvious proof.
Not even the guy that pretended to be our creator was able to recreate the blue laminate.

So you’ve made five mentions of “blue laminate” in this post. You have yet to provide a source for information on it.


There is a plethora of videos on youtube. I have not read any books on it yet.



posted on Jun, 9 2011 @ 05:16 AM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 


I read them. This information was all we had prior to the decoding of the human genome. Can you get me a date on that?

If you really read them, you'd know what the dates were on them and that they all came after the conclusion of the human genome project in 2000. Further, you're laboring under the misconception that the completion of the human genome project would mean that all prior study of genetic mechanisms would be invalid. The human genome project is a mapping project and didn't directly study how changes take place. That's up to other researchers.


for some reason I think I'm taking this a different way.
Anyhow, if this was the case, they could prove it, right?

If you're taking it a different way, then you don't understand enough about genetics to be developing reasonable conclusions about it. It's there in black and white.


I don't want to believe that every human is a defect, but I guess we could be.

Sorry if the evidence points you in a direction that you don't want to go, but that's how real science is carried out.


So are you taking this as evolution?

It's part of evolution, but I'm presenting it because it's something that occurs naturally (i.e. outside of a lab) that you would call gene splicing.


You have to realize that these are visible as such, not as normal blue laminate.

Until you can provide me with a reference for the blue laminate, I'm going to ignore you when you bring it up. It's getting ridiculous that I'm providing you with hard evidence and you can't give me anything.


Watch Lloyd Pye's video on DNA. He says it best.

No, he says nothing about "blue laminate" and I've provided a citation for the inversions he's talking about occurring naturally.


And thats fine, but are they also showing the same signs of being gene spliced? And if so, how do we not know it was done by us? After all.

What signs? The crops referred to in that paper aren't GMOs.


I googled Gene splicing and found several that explain it.

Post a link, then. I gave you four published papers with hard evidence that you're wrong. You've given me nothing.


Even if your right, about the mutations, I'll bet they are still blue!

Provide a reference and I'll believe you. Until then, you're references to a blue laminate are delusion.


I guess I missed the memo that TV and youtube cant give accurate info.

Unless you can find an objective independent source that backs up what you're seeing on TV or Youtube, it's just opinions and speculation.


There is a plethora of videos on youtube. I have not read any books on it yet.

So post some links specifically about the blue laminate, then. At this point, I don't think you can provide a single reference to it. Don't bother continuing this conversation until you can.



posted on Jun, 9 2011 @ 07:43 PM
link   
To say God is an alien has got to be the stupidest sounding thing...
Sure you can say the God of the bible and the information within come from ancestors/aliens.

But who created the aliens/ancestors... God!

So yeah your thread is a failure for saying God doesn't exist.. WHO CREATED THE ALIENS OR THE UNIVERSE WE LIVE IN???

That's what I thought.

What people need to do is arrest and interrogate the Illuminati and world leaders to find out what they know and make it public.



posted on Jun, 9 2011 @ 10:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by iterationzero
reply to post by itsthetooth
 


I read them. This information was all we had prior to the decoding of the human genome. Can you get me a date on that?

If you really read them, you'd know what the dates were on them and that they all came after the conclusion of the human genome project in 2000. Further, you're laboring under the misconception that the completion of the human genome project would mean that all prior study of genetic mechanisms would be invalid. The human genome project is a mapping project and didn't directly study how changes take place. That's up to other researchers.

I never said I read the actuall findings on the genome, what I read about it was re written.
I understand why it was done, but I also understand they found some things they weren't prepared for.


for some reason I think I'm taking this a different way.
Anyhow, if this was the case, they could prove it, right?

If you're taking it a different way, then you don't understand enough about genetics to be developing reasonable conclusions about it. It's there in black and white.

Well thats my take on it, just like the bible, I guess there are always different versions on it.


I don't want to believe that every human is a defect, but I guess we could be.

Sorry if the evidence points you in a direction that you don't want to go, but that's how real science is carried out.

I'm sorry I just can't accept mutations as proof of evolution.


So are you taking this as evolution?

It's part of evolution, but I'm presenting it because it's something that occurs naturally (i.e. outside of a lab) that you would call gene splicing.

Now how exactly do you know they are one in the same?


You have to realize that these are visible as such, not as normal blue laminate.

Until you can provide me with a reference for the blue laminate, I'm going to ignore you when you bring it up. It's getting ridiculous that I'm providing you with hard evidence and you can't give me anything.


Watch Lloyd Pye's video on DNA. He says it best.

No, he says nothing about "blue laminate" and I've provided a citation for the inversions he's talking about occurring naturally.

I don't have audio for a few weeks but I do recall him pointing it out. He did not specify using the word laminate, I learned the definition from another source.
There is information avialable on google about any of this.


And thats fine, but are they also showing the same signs of being gene spliced? And if so, how do we not know it was done by us? After all.

What signs? The crops referred to in that paper aren't GMOs.

I thought you just said they were!


I googled Gene splicing and found several that explain it.

Post a link, then. I gave you four published papers with hard evidence that you're wrong. You've given me nothing.


Even if your right, about the mutations, I'll bet they are still blue!

Provide a reference and I'll believe you. Until then, you're references to a blue laminate are delusion.


I guess I missed the memo that TV and youtube cant give accurate info.

Unless you can find an objective independent source that backs up what you're seeing on TV or Youtube, it's just opinions and speculation.

Does that mean that TV and youtube cant be presented by an indipendant source? I know I'm behind the times but come on.


There is a plethora of videos on youtube. I have not read any books on it yet.

So post some links specifically about the blue laminate, then. At this point, I don't think you can provide a single reference to it. Don't bother continuing this conversation until you can.


Well here are some links to look at. Aside, I learned about some of this in seminar. No it wasn't an alien seminar.
www.youtube.com...
www.youtube.com...
www.youtube.com...
Laminate is not a technical term used to identify what holds the protiens together, if that was throwing you off.



posted on Jun, 9 2011 @ 10:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by co3423
To say God is an alien has got to be the stupidest sounding thing...
Sure you can say the God of the bible and the information within come from ancestors/aliens.

But who created the aliens/ancestors... God!

So yeah your thread is a failure for saying God doesn't exist.. WHO CREATED THE ALIENS OR THE UNIVERSE WE LIVE IN???

That's what I thought.

What people need to do is arrest and interrogate the Illuminati and world leaders to find out what they know and make it public.


You must not have read my whole post. God, or the person that we came to know as god was not our creator. I'm not making any claims that I know who or what is, only that he wasn't.



posted on Jun, 9 2011 @ 11:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by iterationzero
reply to post by itsthetooth
 


I read them. This information was all we had prior to the decoding of the human genome. Can you get me a date on that?

If you really read them, you'd know what the dates were on them and that they all came after the conclusion of the human genome project in 2000. Further, you're laboring under the misconception that the completion of the human genome project would mean that all prior study of genetic mechanisms would be invalid. The human genome project is a mapping project and didn't directly study how changes take place. That's up to other researchers.


for some reason I think I'm taking this a different way.
Anyhow, if this was the case, they could prove it, right?

If you're taking it a different way, then you don't understand enough about genetics to be developing reasonable conclusions about it. It's there in black and white.


I don't want to believe that every human is a defect, but I guess we could be.

Sorry if the evidence points you in a direction that you don't want to go, but that's how real science is carried out.


So are you taking this as evolution?

It's part of evolution, but I'm presenting it because it's something that occurs naturally (i.e. outside of a lab) that you would call gene splicing.


You have to realize that these are visible as such, not as normal blue laminate.

Until you can provide me with a reference for the blue laminate, I'm going to ignore you when you bring it up. It's getting ridiculous that I'm providing you with hard evidence and you can't give me anything.


Watch Lloyd Pye's video on DNA. He says it best.

No, he says nothing about "blue laminate" and I've provided a citation for the inversions he's talking about occurring naturally.


And thats fine, but are they also showing the same signs of being gene spliced? And if so, how do we not know it was done by us? After all.

What signs? The crops referred to in that paper aren't GMOs.


I googled Gene splicing and found several that explain it.

Post a link, then. I gave you four published papers with hard evidence that you're wrong. You've given me nothing.


Even if your right, about the mutations, I'll bet they are still blue!

Provide a reference and I'll believe you. Until then, you're references to a blue laminate are delusion.


I guess I missed the memo that TV and youtube cant give accurate info.

Unless you can find an objective independent source that backs up what you're seeing on TV or Youtube, it's just opinions and speculation.


There is a plethora of videos on youtube. I have not read any books on it yet.

So post some links specifically about the blue laminate, then. At this point, I don't think you can provide a single reference to it. Don't bother continuing this conversation until you can.


Ok, here is a better description of laminate.
en.wikipedia.org...

The nucleotide repeats contain both the segment of the backbone of the molecule, which holds the chain together, and a nucleobase, which interacts with the other DNA strand in the helix. A nucleobase linked to a sugar is called a nucleoside and a base linked to a sugar and one or more phosphate groups is called a nucleotide.

You would call it a backbone. The seminar I was in, was someone disscussing how how this preacher needed a gimic to impress people since he was so interested in other life out in the cosmos. He got to meet and spend some time with a real genetisist that told him he needs to use the word laminate. Was directed to google research it, and I did too, but for some reason I'm not finding what I found weeks ago.
Anyhow, the microscope view of the actuall laminate believe it or not, is somewhat in the shape of a cross.
Now I'm not making any claims here, it's BS as far as I'm concearned and just an attempt of making something out of a coincedence.



posted on Jun, 9 2011 @ 11:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by iterationzero
reply to post by itsthetooth
 


I read them. This information was all we had prior to the decoding of the human genome. Can you get me a date on that?

If you really read them, you'd know what the dates were on them and that they all came after the conclusion of the human genome project in 2000. Further, you're laboring under the misconception that the completion of the human genome project would mean that all prior study of genetic mechanisms would be invalid. The human genome project is a mapping project and didn't directly study how changes take place. That's up to other researchers.


for some reason I think I'm taking this a different way.
Anyhow, if this was the case, they could prove it, right?

If you're taking it a different way, then you don't understand enough about genetics to be developing reasonable conclusions about it. It's there in black and white.


I don't want to believe that every human is a defect, but I guess we could be.

Sorry if the evidence points you in a direction that you don't want to go, but that's how real science is carried out.

I'm sorry, if I didn't allready answer this. I'm not seeing any evidence pointing me in the direction that we are evolved defects. The only thing I have ever gotten from Evo peeps off here is theory and speculation. I love theory, and consider any within reason. I think evolution has the weakest I have ever seen. Not only because they are hard to believe but little proof exists, and NO proof exists they apply to humans.


So are you taking this as evolution?

It's part of evolution, but I'm presenting it because it's something that occurs naturally (i.e. outside of a lab) that you would call gene splicing.


You have to realize that these are visible as such, not as normal blue laminate.

Until you can provide me with a reference for the blue laminate, I'm going to ignore you when you bring it up. It's getting ridiculous that I'm providing you with hard evidence and you can't give me anything.


Watch Lloyd Pye's video on DNA. He says it best.

No, he says nothing about "blue laminate" and I've provided a citation for the inversions he's talking about occurring naturally.


And thats fine, but are they also showing the same signs of being gene spliced? And if so, how do we not know it was done by us? After all.

What signs? The crops referred to in that paper aren't GMOs.


I googled Gene splicing and found several that explain it.

Post a link, then. I gave you four published papers with hard evidence that you're wrong. You've given me nothing.


Even if your right, about the mutations, I'll bet they are still blue!

Provide a reference and I'll believe you. Until then, you're references to a blue laminate are delusion.


I guess I missed the memo that TV and youtube cant give accurate info.

Unless you can find an objective independent source that backs up what you're seeing on TV or Youtube, it's just opinions and speculation.


There is a plethora of videos on youtube. I have not read any books on it yet.

So post some links specifically about the blue laminate, then. At this point, I don't think you can provide a single reference to it. Don't bother continuing this conversation until you can.



posted on Jun, 10 2011 @ 05:24 AM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 


I never said I read the actuall findings on the genome, what I read about it was re written.
I understand why it was done, but I also understand they found some things they weren't prepared for.

So another piece of research that you're trying to use as evidence, but haven't actually read for yourself.


Well thats my take on it, just like the bible, I guess there are always different versions on it.

No, there aren't different interpretations of that article. It's clearly showing horizontal gene transfer. If you're taking it another way, you're simply wrong.


I'm sorry I just can't accept mutations as proof of evolution.

Evolution is natural selection acting on random mutation. Evolution is a fact. It's observable, testable and verifiable. Which is more than can be said for any claim you've advanced here. By the way, all of the research on genetics that you keep mangling to fit your hypothesis? Part of what referred to as modern evolutionary synthesis aka the theory of evolution.


Now how exactly do you know they are one in the same?

Because the only evidence you've provided is via Pye and, as I've shown, every single mechanism he describes as "gene splicing" has another name and is shown to occur in nature.


I don't have audio for a few weeks but I do recall him pointing it out. He did not specify using the word laminate, I learned the definition from another source.
There is information avialable on google about any of this.

Until you can show me some evidence, it's a lie or a delusion.


I thought you just said they were!

GMOs specifically refer to organisms that have been manipulated in a laboratory setting. What I presented was evidence of the same mechanisms occurring naturally. How do you think we learned to do those things in a lab? We observed them occurring in nature first, then figured out how to replicate it.


Does that mean that TV and youtube cant be presented by an indipendant source? I know I'm behind the times but come on.

Without references supplied for the claims? No, they're not independent sources, they're dependent sources. I've seen Youtube vids that include citations for their claims.


Well here are some links to look at. Aside, I learned about some of this in seminar. No it wasn't an alien seminar.
www.youtube.com...
www.youtube.com...
www.youtube.com...

The videos you provided are just introductions to the concept of gene splicing. Based on your claims, I'd argue that I have a profoundly better understanding of it than you do, as mine wasn't gained from Youtube videos.


Laminate is not a technical term used to identify what holds the protiens together, if that was throwing you off.

Case in point - DNA isn't made of proteins. If you even had a basic level of understanding of the science you're trying to use to bolster your case, you'd know that.

So still no evidence for your "blue laminate" and your only refutation for the objective sources I provided is "I don't want to believe it." Maybe we'll have more luck in the next post...
 

reply to post by itsthetooth
 


Ok, here is a better description of laminate.

Just so we're clear - there's no use of the word "laminate" in the Wikipedia article you linked or any indication that your fictitious laminate turns blue when manipulated in a lab.



The nucleotide repeats contain both the segment of the backbone of the molecule, which holds the chain together, and a nucleobase, which interacts with the other DNA strand in the helix. A nucleobase linked to a sugar is called a nucleoside and a base linked to a sugar and one or more phosphate groups is called a nucleotide.

All you've done here is descrive the chemical constituents of DNA, which "gene splicing" doesn't alter. All DNA is comprised of alternating phosphate and sugar residues, with one of the four bases (adenine, thymine, cytosine, guanine) bonded to the sugar residue. Attachment between the two chains is in the form of hydrogen bonds between the bases. I don't see any mention of "laminate" or its color here.


You would call it a backbone.

So your fictitious color-changing "laminate" is the alternating sugar and phosphate residues? You realize that no one else in the world calls the backbone of a polymer the "laminate"? And you still haven't provided a single piece of evidence that it changes color when manipulated in a lab. Which you're not going to be able to for the simple reason that no new chemical constituents are introduced into the backbone of the DNA molecule when splicing occurs - regardless of the source of the new DNA or the source of the DNA it's being inserted in to, it's still the same alternating sugar and phosphate residues on the backbone and the same four bases attached to the sugar residue.


The seminar I was in, ...

Seminar? You told me that all of this information was available online if I Googled it.


was someone disscussing how how this preacher needed a gimic to impress people since he was so interested in other life out in the cosmos. He got to meet and spend some time with a real genetisist that told him he needs to use the word laminate. Was directed to google research it, and I did too, but for some reason I'm not finding what I found weeks ago.

So it's a case of whisper down the lane and you can't even find the evidence that you based this whole "blue laminate" cock and bull story on? Seriously? Because this is the big thing that you retreated to when I started presenting scientific research that directly refuted Pye's claims.


Anyhow, the microscope view of the actuall laminate believe it or not, is somewhat in the shape of a cross.
Now I'm not making any claims here, it's BS as far as I'm concearned and just an attempt of making something out of a coincedence.

I couldn't possibly care less about this in the context of this thread.

So now that you'll be abandoning your "blue laminate" argument due to a complete and total lack of evidence, can you at least acknowledge, based on the scientific research I provided (and those were just the first articles I found on each of the four specific mechanisms I discussed, there are literally thousands more), that Pye's claim that "gene splicing" can only happen in a lab is false and that genetic manipulation in nature is indistinguishable from what occurs in a lab?
edit on 10/6/2011 by iterationzero because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 10 2011 @ 09:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by iterationzero
reply to post by itsthetooth
 


I never said I read the actuall findings on the genome, what I read about it was re written.
I understand why it was done, but I also understand they found some things they weren't prepared for.

So another piece of research that you're trying to use as evidence, but haven't actually read for yourself.

So because it wasn't directly from the author it cant be true?
Hey the sky is blue, but don't believe me, I'm not the scientists that discovered it.


Well thats my take on it, just like the bible, I guess there are always different versions on it.

No, there aren't different interpretations of that article. It's clearly showing horizontal gene transfer. If you're taking it another way, you're simply wrong.

I seriously doubt and question many things about it. I think the author is a fake for one. Your trying to convince me that molecules and viruses are smart enough to not only alter DNA but know exactly which DNA they want to alter and how. Sorry man, its just a little over my head.


I'm sorry I just can't accept mutations as proof of evolution.

Evolution is natural selection acting on random mutation. Evolution is a fact. It's observable, testable and verifiable. Which is more than can be said for any claim you've advanced here. By the way, all of the research on genetics that you keep mangling to fit your hypothesis? Part of what referred to as modern evolutionary synthesis aka the theory of evolution.

I know, but there is still no proof. You have none and you never will because it's hard to prove something that didn't happen.


Now how exactly do you know they are one in the same?

Because the only evidence you've provided is via Pye and, as I've shown, every single mechanism he describes as "gene splicing" has another name and is shown to occur in nature.

Honestly, I would tend more to believe those were manipulated by man or alien and they just didn't know it.


I don't have audio for a few weeks but I do recall him pointing it out. He did not specify using the word laminate, I learned the definition from another source.
There is information avialable on google about any of this.

Until you can show me some evidence, it's a lie or a delusion.

I would agree with you if you proved that. Calling someone a fake, or siding with someone that tried to debunk him does not mean he is wrong. Have you personally tested this DNA yourself?


I thought you just said they were!

GMOs specifically refer to organisms that have been manipulated in a laboratory setting. What I presented was evidence of the same mechanisms occurring naturally. How do you think we learned to do those things in a lab? We observed them occurring in nature first, then figured out how to replicate it.

Only if you believe mutations are proof of evolution. Your forgetting one simple thing. Mutations usually have signs of being off symmetrically.


Does that mean that TV and youtube cant be presented by an indipendant source? I know I'm behind the times but come on.

Without references supplied for the claims? No, they're not independent sources, they're dependent sources. I've seen Youtube vids that include citations for their claims.

I have also seen a lot of evolution scientists getting busted for false claims. I have yet to find one that seems like he is onto something correct.


Well here are some links to look at. Aside, I learned about some of this in seminar. No it wasn't an alien seminar.
www.youtube.com...
www.youtube.com...
www.youtube.com...

The videos you provided are just introductions to the concept of gene splicing. Based on your claims, I'd argue that I have a profoundly better understanding of it than you do, as mine wasn't gained from Youtube videos.

Are they all wrong? I have talked to your type before, everyone is wrong, and ONLY YOU are right. They were chosen specifically about gene splicing because your claiming the same evidence is present naturally. Is it really? Does it actually appear in the exact same way, and under the same circumstances?




Laminate is not a technical term used to identify what holds the protiens together, if that was throwing you off.

Case in point - DNA isn't made of proteins. If you even had a basic level of understanding of the science you're trying to use to bolster your case, you'd know that.

Well your wrong there, and that was my first mistake. DNA is not made of proteins its amino's. Genes are made up of proteins.
Maybe you better watch at least one video.


So still no evidence for your "blue laminate" and your only refutation for the objective sources I provided is "I don't want to believe it." Maybe we'll have more luck in the next post...
 

reply to post by itsthetooth
 


Ok, here is a better description of laminate.

Just so we're clear - there's no use of the word "laminate" in the Wikipedia article you linked or any indication that your fictitious laminate turns blue when manipulated in a lab.
I know for a fact I googled it weeks ago and there was a plethora of things about it, including the microscope image of it. I am however no longer on my computer or my internet service so perhaps thats why.



The nucleotide repeats contain both the segment of the backbone of the molecule, which holds the chain together, and a nucleobase, which interacts with the other DNA strand in the helix. A nucleobase linked to a sugar is called a nucleoside and a base linked to a sugar and one or more phosphate groups is called a nucleotide.

All you've done here is descrive the chemical constituents of DNA, which "gene splicing" doesn't alter. All DNA is comprised of alternating phosphate and sugar residues, with one of the four bases (adenine, thymine, cytosine, guanine) bonded to the sugar residue. Attachment between the two chains is in the form of hydrogen bonds between the bases. I don't see any mention of "laminate" or its color here.

Ok, lets see if we can clear this up.
Your contradicting yourself. Your claiming there is no laminate yet your whole argument is based on the changes occuring naturaly. Well how do you know anything has changed to begin with?


You would call it a backbone.

So your fictitious color-changing "laminate" is the alternating sugar and phosphate residues? You realize that no one else in the world calls the backbone of a polymer the "laminate"? And you still haven't provided a single piece of evidence that it changes color when manipulated in a lab. Which you're not going to be able to for the simple reason that no new chemical constituents are introduced into the backbone of the DNA molecule when splicing occurs - regardless of the source of the new DNA or the source of the DNA it's being inserted in to, it's still the same alternating sugar and phosphate residues on the backbone and the same four bases attached to the sugar residue.


The seminar I was in, ...

Seminar? You told me that all of this information was available online if I Googled it.

Yep like I said, it was googled weeks ago, and I went over it in great length but now I can't find it.


was someone disscussing how how this preacher needed a gimic to impress people since he was so interested in other life out in the cosmos. He got to meet and spend some time with a real genetisist that told him he needs to use the word laminate. Was directed to google research it, and I did too, but for some reason I'm not finding what I found weeks ago.

So it's a case of whisper down the lane and you can't even find the evidence that you based this whole "blue laminate" cock and bull story on? Seriously? Because this is the big thing that you retreated to when I started presenting scientific research that directly refuted Pye's claims.

So if I'm wrong, how you able to stand up to methylation occuring naturaly? That trace evidence is a cock and bull story right?


Anyhow, the microscope view of the actuall laminate believe it or not, is somewhat in the shape of a cross.
Now I'm not making any claims here, it's BS as far as I'm concearned and just an attempt of making something out of a coincedence.

I couldn't possibly care less about this in the context of this thread.

So now that you'll be abandoning your "blue laminate" argument due to a complete and total lack of evidence, can you at least acknowledge, based on the scientific research I provided (and those were just the first articles I found on each of the four specific mechanisms I discussed, there are literally thousands more), that Pye's claim that "gene splicing" can only happen in a lab is false and that genetic manipulation in nature is indistinguishable from what occurs in a lab?
edit on 10/6/2011 by iterationzero because: (no reason given)


No, I'm still going to believe in Pye's take on it. Your welcome to believe what you want, but I think as its displayed in ANY video about gene splicing, they can tell changes have been made by the laminate / backbone / ladder / or whatever you want to call the sides that hold it all together, changing color.

Your seriously the type of person that would take my term laminate and claim that everything else I have posted has to be inaccurate simply because YOU werent able to find it or make sense of it. A lot like how Pye, and sitchen were debunked. Sorry, I have about 8 other things that tell me I'm still correct about the DNA aside from your argument of the word.



posted on Jun, 10 2011 @ 10:15 PM
link   
Something I think you missed about Pye's video.
He clearly shows defects being a different laminate color than methylation. That is odd that you missed that.

Something I wasn't able to find about the GMO's you mentioned was, did they observe the before and after to determine there was actually a change, or did they just find rice that has methylation? How do we know for sure there was not intervention that caused the change?

Before and after pictures are the idea here, not that they can be trusted, but you get my point. I think Pye is dead on. He paid the thousands of dollars to get this type of detailed infomation about Star child. You and I haven't. I would trust the money, especially with the details of the presentation.

If hes just a good actor, than he should get an award. The idea of an alien skull not only proving alien mother and father, but human mtdna is mind blowing. No one, and I mean no one likes the idea of aliens having sex with us, much less using us for baby factorys, but its very common in the reports. What a coincidence the DNA in the skull tells the same story.

I think evolution was a best attempt in its time to help us understand something we couldn't for the times. The bible is accurate, we have just been reading it wrong is all.
When I read the bible, it makes total sense to me now, and I DONT believe in magic or miracles. God altered our DNA. Now Pye never says that, FYI. Sitchen never says that FYI. I know it It's in the bible, all you have to do is open your eyes, and read.



posted on Jun, 11 2011 @ 05:12 AM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 


So because it wasn't directly from the author it cant be true?
Hey the sky is blue, but don't believe me, I'm not the scientists that discovered it.

You analogy is invalid. You're taking someone else's word about the findings of the HGP without reading the actual results for yourself. You're taking it on blind faith that what they're saying is correct because it's what you want to believe. You've essentially just created a religion for yourself.


I seriously doubt and question many things about it. I think the author is a fake for one. Your trying to convince me that molecules and viruses are smart enough to not only alter DNA but know exactly which DNA they want to alter and how. Sorry man, its just a little over my head.

So in spite of the fact that the methodology and data are presented, and that it's been peer reviewed and replicated, the author is a fake? But your anecdotal evidence that is backed up by nothing but another person's word isn't fake? You're just deluding yourself into believing what you want to believe. How many other journal articles clearly showing horizontal gene transfer would it take to meet your personal burden of proof? 10? 100? 1000? Or will you never believe it in spite of the overwhelming evidence because it doesn't fit the fairy tale you've created for yourself?

Your ignorance of how evolution works is showing again. Mutations are random. Mutations that improve the chances of that organism reproducing under a particular set of environmental conditions will be selected for. The DNA doesn't "know" which mutations the organisms needs.


I know, but there is still no proof. You have none and you never will because it's hard to prove something that didn't happen.

There's over 150 years of proof of evolution. Do you know how many piece of evidence contradict the theory of evolution? None.


Honestly, I would tend more to believe those were manipulated by man or alien and they just didn't know it.

That's fine if you want to believe it in spite of the evidence. But don't claim it's science. You've invented a little fairy tale religion for yourself here.


I would agree with you if you proved that. Calling someone a fake, or siding with someone that tried to debunk him does not mean he is wrong. Have you personally tested this DNA yourself?

You don't have any evidence for the claim you're making about "blue laminate". You've effectively debunked yourself because you either made it up consciously, in which case you're a liar, or unconsciously, in which case you're delusional. I'll be happy to retract that statement once you can provide evidence of "blue laminate".


Only if you believe mutations are proof of evolution. Your forgetting one simple thing. Mutations usually have signs of being off symmetrically.

Mutations in an of themselves aren't proof of evolution, they're a naturally occurring part of the imperfect process of DNA replication. Environmental pressures select for mutations that improve reproductive fitness. The fact of genetics was predicted by evolution before genes were ever discovered because the theory of evolution stated that there must be some mechanism by which traits are heritable. Your statement about asymmetry of mutations is nonsense. Your messiah, Pye, frequently talked about 4000 genetic mistakes in humans. What he's referring to are single point mutations that wouldn't have a single effect on the symmetry of the DNA molecule. His other favorite, inversions, wouldn't either.


I have also seen a lot of evolution scientists getting busted for false claims. I have yet to find one that seems like he is onto something correct.

Can you name one or are you pulling that out of your rectum, like the "blue laminate"?


Are they all wrong? I have talked to your type before, everyone is wrong, and ONLY YOU are right. They were chosen specifically about gene splicing because your claiming the same evidence is present naturally. Is it really? Does it actually appear in the exact same way, and under the same circumstances?

No, the videos are great basic explanations of gene splicing. They just don't support your argument, especially your argument for "blue laminate", at all.


Well your wrong there, and that was my first mistake. DNA is not made of proteins its amino's. Genes are made up of proteins.
Maybe you better watch at least one video.

I'm wrong, even though you just admitted that you made a mistake about DNA being a protein? And your ignorance is showing again - only the central molecules of DNA strands are amines ("aminos", BTW, is meaningless by itself - it's a prefix derived from "amine" that describes another class of molecule). The backbone is all phosphate-sugar linkages. And then you go on to double down on your ignorant statements - genes are not proteins either. Genes are just stretches of DNA or RNA that can code for proteins or RNA. If you actually understood the science you're talking about instead of just pulling things out of your rectum, you'd know that.


I know for a fact I googled it weeks ago and there was a plethora of things about it, including the microscope image of it. I am however no longer on my computer or my internet service so perhaps thats why.

So the information on "blue laminate" just magically disappeared from the internet in your part of the country? Do you realize how ridiculous you sound right now?


Ok, lets see if we can clear this up.
Your contradicting yourself. Your claiming there is no laminate yet your whole argument is based on the changes occuring naturaly. Well how do you know anything has changed to begin with?

Before and after comparison of gene sequences. You know we've been sequencing parts of genomes for decades now, right? We didn't just start doing it for the human genome project. In fact, the HGP wasn't even the first time we had sequenced the complete genome of another organism. Your understanding of what's been going on in science is pretty poor. Maybe you should stop looking for sky fairies for a minute and educate yourself on what's been going on in the science you like to cite.


Yep like I said, it was googled weeks ago, and I went over it in great length but now I can't find it.

Liar or delusional. Maybe the aliens took the evidence away from you...


So if I'm wrong, how you able to stand up to methylation occuring naturaly? That trace evidence is a cock and bull story right?

Methylation is observed occurring naturally in plants, animals, bacteria, fungi, and virii. In fact, it's been observed in every single vertebrate that's ever been examined. I'd post links, but you'll just tell me that they're fake or that you don't believe them because the scientific facts don't say what you want them to. Sorry, but I'm not going to waste my time.


No, I'm still going to believe in Pye's take on it. Your welcome to believe what you want, but I think as its displayed in ANY video about gene splicing, they can tell changes have been made by the laminate / backbone / ladder / or whatever you want to call the sides that hold it all together, changing color.

You can believe in the messiah of your fairy tale religion all you want in spite of the overwhelming evidence to the contrary. You're taking yourself out of the realm of science and straight into faith. At least have the honesty to admit that.


Your seriously the type of person that would take my term laminate and claim that everything else I have posted has to be inaccurate simply because YOU werent able to find it or make sense of it. A lot like how Pye, and sitchen were debunked. Sorry, I have about 8 other things that tell me I'm still correct about the DNA aside from your argument of the word.

No, I've refuted each of your points in turn with objective evidence. But you keep retreating to the fictitious "blue laminate" every time I do. And I'm not saying that you're lying about the "blue laminate" because I can't find any evidence of it (and without any evidence, there's literally nothing to try and make sense of) - I'm saying that you're lying about the "blue laminate" because you can't even find the evidence for it.


Something I think you missed about Pye's video.
He clearly shows defects being a different laminate color than methylation. That is odd that you missed that.

Wait… you think the colors that the people used in the animations are what you actually see when you look at DNA under a microscope? Are you kidding me? You do know that DNA is too small to reflect visible light? And that electron micrographs are in black and white or greyscale? And that people apply color filters to those micrographs for publication to give contrast to the picture or highlight key areas of interest? Tell me that you're whole "blue laminate" argument isn't predicated on the colors given to molecules and atoms in animations and illustrations.


Something I wasn't able to find about the GMO's you mentioned was, did they observe the before and after to determine there was actually a change, or did they just find rice that has methylation? How do we know for sure there was not intervention that caused the change?

Nah, you must be right. I'm sure that Bob, the magical sky pony, came by in the middle of the night, chewed up some rice, methylated it in his gut, and then defecated it back out to be found by scientists. Go learn science so you can understand what the article says.


Before and after pictures are the idea here, not that they can be trusted, but you get my point. I think Pye is dead on. He paid the thousands of dollars to get this type of detailed infomation about Star child. You and I haven't. I would trust the money, especially with the details of the presentation.

No, the sheep that support him have paid thousands of dollars to have the testing done. Your messiah is working on raising $7M.


If hes just a good actor, than he should get an award. The idea of an alien skull not only proving alien mother and father, but human mtdna is mind blowing. No one, and I mean no one likes the idea of aliens having sex with us, much less using us for baby factorys, but its very common in the reports. What a coincidence the DNA in the skull tells the same story.

You can't even represent the word of your messiah properly. The mtDNA is human because the mother was human. He's stated that pretty clearly. The results on the nuclear DNA are still inconclusive. Why do you think he's having still more testing done?


I think evolution was a best attempt in its time to help us understand something we couldn't for the times.

Evolution is a scientific fact that is observable, testable, and verifiable. Which is more than can be said for any claim that you've presented here.


The bible is accurate, we have just been reading it wrong is all.
When I read the bible, it makes total sense to me now, and I DONT believe in magic or miracles. God altered our DNA. Now Pye never says that, FYI. Sitchen never says that FYI. I know it It's in the bible, all you have to do is open your eyes, and read.

I think you mean that all you have to do is close your eyes to the evidence.

I'm going to take my leave of this thread now. You've shown that you're going to believe your new fairy tale religion of evil aliens regardless of the objective evidence and that your understanding of the science you're using to try and bolster those claims is grossly inadequate for the task.



posted on Jun, 11 2011 @ 05:20 AM
link   
I CAN SE HE HAS GIVE IT A LOT OF THOUGHT......

THIS LIFE IS LIKE A DREAM. THEN ONE DAY WE WAKE UP IN THE REAL LIFE.....





PETER



posted on Jun, 12 2011 @ 12:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by iterationzero
reply to post by itsthetooth
 


So because it wasn't directly from the author it cant be true?
Hey the sky is blue, but don't believe me, I'm not the scientists that discovered it.

You analogy is invalid. You're taking someone else's word about the findings of the HGP without reading the actual results for yourself. You're taking it on blind faith that what they're saying is correct because it's what you want to believe. You've essentially just created a religion for yourself.

Right! Quit being so ignorant. Like anyone would want to believe there race was abducted and got powers removed and turned into slaves. Are you seriously thinking about what your saying. At least in religion people believe they get to go to heavan. What do I get out of this? Honestly? Evolutionists trying to say I'm wrong.



I seriously doubt and question many things about it. I think the author is a fake for one. Your trying to convince me that molecules and viruses are smart enough to not only alter DNA but know exactly which DNA they want to alter and how. Sorry man, its just a little over my head.

So in spite of the fact that the methodology and data are presented, and that it's been peer reviewed and replicated, the author is a fake? But your anecdotal evidence that is backed up by nothing but another person's word isn't fake? You're just deluding yourself into believing what you want to believe. How many other journal articles clearly showing horizontal gene transfer would it take to meet your personal burden of proof? 10? 100? 1000? Or will you never believe it in spite of the overwhelming evidence because it doesn't fit the fairy tale you've created for yourself?

Well if you think the bible is a fairy tale, do you perhaps have some proof on that as well?

Your ignorance of how evolution works is showing again. Mutations are random. Mutations that improve the chances of that organism reproducing under a particular set of environmental conditions will be selected for. The DNA doesn't "know" which mutations the organisms needs.


I know, but there is still no proof. You have none and you never will because it's hard to prove something that didn't happen.

There's over 150 years of proof of evolution. Do you know how many piece of evidence contradict the theory of evolution? None.

I guess your overlooking at it being a theory, an unprovable one.


Honestly, I would tend more to believe those were manipulated by man or alien and they just didn't know it.

That's fine if you want to believe it in spite of the evidence. But don't claim it's science. You've invented a little fairy tale religion for yourself here.

I know, and our day to day living, and DNA, and bible, and vestigal organs are all wrong as well. Like I said, your right, and everyone and everything else is wrong.



I would agree with you if you proved that. Calling someone a fake, or siding with someone that tried to debunk him does not mean he is wrong. Have you personally tested this DNA yourself?

You don't have any evidence for the claim you're making about "blue laminate". You've effectively debunked yourself because you either made it up consciously, in which case you're a liar, or unconsciously, in which case you're delusional. I'll be happy to retract that statement once you can provide evidence of "blue laminate".

Why would I have to retract mine, you haven't done so yourself, and you have no personal proof.


Only if you believe mutations are proof of evolution. Your forgetting one simple thing. Mutations usually have signs of being off symmetrically.

Mutations in an of themselves aren't proof of evolution, they're a naturally occurring part of the imperfect process of DNA replication. Environmental pressures select for mutations that improve reproductive fitness. The fact of genetics was predicted by evolution before genes were ever discovered because the theory of evolution stated that there must be some mechanism by which traits are heritable. Your statement about asymmetry of mutations is nonsense. Your messiah, Pye, frequently talked about 4000 genetic mistakes in humans. What he's referring to are single point mutations that wouldn't have a single effect on the symmetry of the DNA molecule. His other favorite, inversions, wouldn't either.

Lol, I wasn't referring to the genetics.


I have also seen a lot of evolution scientists getting busted for false claims. I have yet to find one that seems like he is onto something correct.

Can you name one or are you pulling that out of your rectum, like the "blue laminate"?

Oh thats like all I'm able to find about evolution online. And just read an article from discover yesterday on one as well. I think the guys name was Hauser.


Are they all wrong? I have talked to your type before, everyone is wrong, and ONLY YOU are right. They were chosen specifically about gene splicing because your claiming the same evidence is present naturally. Is it really? Does it actually appear in the exact same way, and under the same circumstances?

No, the videos are great basic explanations of gene splicing. They just don't support your argument, especially your argument for "blue laminate", at all.

Well then your just not getting it.


Well your wrong there, and that was my first mistake. DNA is not made of proteins its amino's. Genes are made up of proteins.
Maybe you better watch at least one video.

I'm wrong, even though you just admitted that you made a mistake about DNA being a protein? And your ignorance is showing again - only the central molecules of DNA strands are amines ("aminos", BTW, is meaningless by itself - it's a prefix derived from "amine" that describes another class of molecule). The backbone is all phosphate-sugar linkages. And then you go on to double down on your ignorant statements - genes are not proteins either. Genes are just stretches of DNA or RNA that can code for proteins or RNA. If you actually understood the science you're talking about instead of just pulling things out of your rectum, you'd know that.

No. protiens make up genes that make up DNA. Your previous reply was off.


I know for a fact I googled it weeks ago and there was a plethora of things about it, including the microscope image of it. I am however no longer on my computer or my internet service so perhaps thats why.

So the information on "blue laminate" just magically disappeared from the internet in your part of the country? Do you realize how ridiculous you sound right now?

Well like I said I'm on new internet now, and it might be filterd or controled.


Ok, lets see if we can clear this up.
Your contradicting yourself. Your claiming there is no laminate yet your whole argument is based on the changes occuring naturaly. Well how do you know anything has changed to begin with?

Before and after comparison of gene sequences. You know we've been sequencing parts of genomes for decades now, right? We didn't just start doing it for the human genome project. In fact, the HGP wasn't even the first time we had sequenced the complete genome of another organism. Your understanding of what's been going on in science is pretty poor. Maybe you should stop looking for sky fairies for a minute and educate yourself on what's been going on in the science you like to cite.

Your not telling me anything new. I like how you side stepped my question.


Yep like I said, it was googled weeks ago, and I went over it in great length but now I can't find it.

Liar or delusional. Maybe the aliens took the evidence away from you...

I think you have to be pretty ignorant to believe that 4 million people are lying about contacts with aliens, and the fact that we have over 5 million species alone here on earth. You really do live in a box. Do you think the earth is flat?


So if I'm wrong, how you able to stand up to methylation occuring naturaly? That trace evidence is a cock and bull story right?

Methylation is observed occurring naturally in plants, animals, bacteria, fungi, and virii. In fact, it's been observed in every single vertebrate that's ever been examined. I'd post links, but you'll just tell me that they're fake or that you don't believe them because the scientific facts don't say what you want them to. Sorry, but I'm not going to waste my time.

Well you need to ask yourself why you might think that? Because you know its fake, or you just think I'm being mean.



No, I'm still going to believe in Pye's take on it. Your welcome to believe what you want, but I think as its displayed in ANY video about gene splicing, they can tell changes have been made by the laminate / backbone / ladder / or whatever you want to call the sides that hold it all together, changing color.

You can believe in the messiah of your fairy tale religion all you want in spite of the overwhelming evidence to the contrary. You're taking yourself out of the realm of science and straight into faith. At least have the honesty to admit that.

I guess you weren't smart enough to realize that I also explained why people might think its a fairy tale. It is pretty deep though but shocks me how you can see so well with DNA but not in the bible. Everything that happened in the bible was real. If something is a little to hard to believe, I guarantee you its only because you are in the dumb down factor. And that was part of what god did to us. I guess its working overtime on you. Pick any part of the bible you think is a fair tale that just makes you think its fake.
Its another example of everyone else and everything else is wrong and you are the only one thats right.



Your seriously the type of person that would take my term laminate and claim that everything else I have posted has to be inaccurate simply because YOU werent able to find it or make sense of it. A lot like how Pye, and sitchen were debunked. Sorry, I have about 8 other things that tell me I'm still correct about the DNA aside from your argument of the word.

No, I've refuted each of your points in turn with objective evidence. But you keep retreating to the fictitious "blue laminate" every time I do. And I'm not saying that you're lying about the "blue laminate" because I can't find any evidence of it (and without any evidence, there's literally nothing to try and make sense of) - I'm saying that you're lying about the "blue laminate" because you can't even find the evidence for it.

I have seriously never heard of the references you present, at least you have heard of Pye.


Something I think you missed about Pye's video.
He clearly shows defects being a different laminate color than methylation. That is odd that you missed that.

Wait… you think the colors that the people used in the animations are what you actually see when you look at DNA under a microscope? Are you kidding me? You do know that DNA is too small to reflect visible light? And that electron micrographs are in black and white or greyscale? And that people apply color filters to those micrographs for publication to give contrast to the picture or highlight key areas of interest? Tell me that you're whole "blue laminate" argument isn't predicated on the colors given to molecules and atoms in animations and illustrations.

Yes, and do you have proof we don't know the color? Your basically saying they would have no way of knowing changes have been made. Come on man.


Something I wasn't able to find about the GMO's you mentioned was, did they observe the before and after to determine there was actually a change, or did they just find rice that has methylation? How do we know for sure there was not intervention that caused the change?

Nah, you must be right. I'm sure that Bob, the magical sky pony, came by in the middle of the night, chewed up some rice, methylated it in his gut, and then defecated it back out to be found by scientists. Go learn science so you can understand what the article says.

Ya and I'm sure that every crop circle, and every ufo sighting and every nazda line or egyptian hyrogliphis is all fake too. You seriously need a reality check dude. If you want to believe we are alone, then I'm sure your probably right.


Before and after pictures are the idea here, not that they can be trusted, but you get my point. I think Pye is dead on. He paid the thousands of dollars to get this type of detailed infomation about Star child. You and I haven't. I would trust the money, especially with the details of the presentation.

No, the sheep that support him have paid thousands of dollars to have the testing done. Your messiah is working on raising $7M.

LOL, hes dead. OMG.


If hes just a good actor, than he should get an award. The idea of an alien skull not only proving alien mother and father, but human mtdna is mind blowing. No one, and I mean no one likes the idea of aliens having sex with us, much less using us for baby factorys, but its very common in the reports. What a coincidence the DNA in the skull tells the same story.

You can't even represent the word of your messiah properly. The mtDNA is human because the mother was human. He's stated that pretty clearly. The results on the nuclear DNA are still inconclusive. Why do you think he's having still more testing done?

I think I saw the second part to that and your talking about the first. In fact the technicians were the one that told him it was a zygoat, and had to explain it to him because he didn't understand how it could even be possible.


I think evolution was a best attempt in its time to help us understand something we couldn't for the times.

Evolution is a scientific fact that is observable, testable, and verifiable. Which is more than can be said for any claim that you've presented here.

Like I keep saying, everyone and everything else is wrong and you are right.


The bible is accurate, we have just been reading it wrong is all.
When I read the bible, it makes total sense to me now, and I DONT believe in magic or miracles. God altered our DNA. Now Pye never says that, FYI. Sitchen never says that FYI. I know it It's in the bible, all you have to do is open your eyes, and read.

I think you mean that all you have to do is close your eyes to the evidence.

I think if there was any proof of us evolving from evolution, it would be made public and we would all accept it. I must point out one important thing that I think your totally over looking here..... even if evolution is real, it doesnt mean thats how we were made, especially without any of the proof from bones. I think you seriously dropped the ball here.

I'm going to take my leave of this thread now. You've shown that you're going to believe your new fairy tale religion of evil aliens regardless of the objective evidence and that your understanding of the science you're using to try and bolster those claims is grossly inadequate for the task.


Just to let you know, I actualy don't believe what most do in the bible, but your probably dropped the ball again, and I even gave explanation why we have people that beleive the way you do.



posted on Jun, 12 2011 @ 11:06 AM
link   
WOW this is getting heavy......Good though very interesting you may get the science people saying .....(it's now thought) .....but never say they were wrong.
We were put on this planet to be punished and its our big brain that punishes us, no other animal has laws rules or feel emotions, yet its funny how they don't wipe each other out
This is because they are in heaven and are oblivious to the devastation we cause

You can return but only after proving you are not evil anymore:@
Alot of people are going spend alot more time with their big brain



posted on Jun, 13 2011 @ 12:55 AM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 


God was not a little grey dude who drove around on a flying saucer. God is a better being...a perfect of all perfect examples of life. He created us in his image..which would explain the perfect cells etc. (To me anyway) God is (most probably) from another dimension. Not another planet. And what is to say Aliens are not from other dimensions? I do not wish to contradict your opinion, but only to shed light on another one!
Hope you think it through!



posted on Jun, 13 2011 @ 05:12 PM
link   
My own faith is ufonautis, which is the name of my religion, that worship's most of the ET's, as Gaods, that have taking a liking to our Earth and it's occupants. That's because I don't have anything, or anybody better to worship for at the moment.

The chance that humans were brought to this planet by ET's, is not out of the realm of possibilty. But evolution is much more in the realm of likely thinking that has much basis in fact.

But whether we were seeded here on Earth or not, does not escape the fact that ET's and Earth people are a product of evolution; including the whole Universe as well.

Foofighter's

Erno86
edit on 13-6-2011 by Erno86 because: added a word

edit on 13-6-2011 by Erno86 because: typo

edit on 13-6-2011 by Erno86 because: ditto

edit on 13-6-2011 by Erno86 because: added a word

edit on 13-6-2011 by Erno86 because: ditto



posted on Jun, 13 2011 @ 05:44 PM
link   
Also, I don't believe in the faith that Gaod created us in his own image. Because that belief is mired in racism. Just because: anybody who is "different looking than us," or not having the "right colored skin" is on the pathway to evil, demonization and the dark side.


Foofighter's forever.

Erno86
edit on 13-6-2011 by Erno86 because: typo

edit on 13-6-2011 by Erno86 because: ditto



new topics




 
160
<< 36  37  38    40  41 >>

log in

join