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.

 

Pell says Adam and Eve didn't exist

page: 26
21
<< 23  24  25    27  28  29 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 17 2012 @ 03:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by SplitInfinity
I am very good at Biology, Physics and Math...thank you. And although the Human Genome Mapping project was not done for the purpose to prove or disprove our beginnings...after comparing the thousands of other Animals and Plants Genomes that we have mapped so far....one thing is common...VIRAL DNA. The Human Genome is between 9 and 11 percent viral encoding.

WHEN, in 2001, the human genome was sequenced for the first time, we were confronted by several surprises. One was the sheer lack of genes: where we had anticipated perhaps 100,000 there were actually as few as 20,000. A bigger surprise came from analysis of the genetic sequences, which revealed that these genes made up a mere 1.5 per cent of the genome. This is dwarfed by DNA deriving from viruses, which amounts to roughly 9 per cent.

On top of that, huge chunks of the genome are made up of mysterious virus-like entities called retrotransposons, pieces of selfish DNA that appear to serve no function other than to make copies of themselves. These account for no less than 34 per cent of our genome. We Humans are the EVOLUTIONARY byproduct of the Universe since evolution applies to Atomic and Molecular Evolution. In our Star...Hydrogen is fused into Helium...in SUPERNOVAS....heavy elements such as Iron, Copper, Gold...etc...were produced so we are made from the stuff Stars.

Human Beings are the Multiversal Byproduct of this Divergent Universal Reality and state of 13.75 plus or minus .11 Billion Years. EVOLUTION is the process as it applies to both Living and Non-Living things. So when you tell me to read a Biology Book...you should include ALOT more in the concepts for which you have decided proves or disproves my post.

A VIRUS IS NOT ALIVE! That's right! It is a snippet of DNA that once has penetrated a cell will multiply and cause that cell to BURST...thus allowing for easy trasmital. One the Original Single Celled Organism from which ALL Plant and Animal life came from was INFECTED...three things happened that allow us to trace our origins.
1. The Single celled Organism infected with the Virus...burst and allowed transmition of Viuses to other Single Celled Organisms.
2. The VIRUS DNA changed after infection of it's host.
3. The Single Celled Organism which was able to ward off full penetration of it's cell wall by the Virus and although infected was was able to continue living and reproducing by Mitosis. It's reproduced versions of itself were now immune to this Virus.
THIS SINGLE CELLED ORGANISM...now carried within its DNA and it's Progeny...Innert Viral DNA. This Innert DNA was carried along to all currently living Plants and Animals on the Face of this Earth. PLUS...the Original VIRUS that had it fought off DNA can be compared to current VIRAL DNA that although the Viruses have also evolved...they still maintain part of the Original Virus in their Non-Living short chain Amino acid structure.

THIS is why we know that ALL ANIMAL AND PLANT LIFE came from an Original Single Celled Animal.

As far as believing in GOD and CREATION...I NEVER mentioned the Bible....One could say that GOD used the Process of EVOLUTION to create the MULTIVERSE...OUR DIVERGENT UNIVERSAL REALITY....AND ALL LIFE IN IT....including Humans. Split Infinity



This is the first time I've ever heard viruses as an argument for evolution, interesting. Nevertheless, my answer would be that correlation is not causation. Look, if you take a simple prokaryotic cell and introduce it to a virus, the virus will penetrate the cell membrane and use the host cells DNA to replicate it's own and produce copies of the virus. The cell does have the chance to still undergo mitosis, thus each copy of the infected cell has viral DNA. If you look at some of the studies on retrotransponsons, you can see that it's effect on DNA is useless OR progressively adverse. So then how does viral transmittal produce productive genetic changes? How can one make the argument that the "crap" was the definite cause of the evolutionary leap from single celled organisms to a multi-cellular organisms? You simply cannot. For example, take a plant cell and measure the amount of retrotransponsons in it's genome (90%!). Compared to animal cells, there is a substantial amount more of the useless viral product in plant cells. The plant cell being stronger because of it's thick cell wall, should have more complexity than animal cells, yet this is not the case!

There is no such thing as atomic or molecular evolution. What you're describing is the theory of stellar nucleosynthesis, which in my opinion does not explain the origins of the solar system. When a star of sufficient mass dies, it's called a supernova. The succession of steps to produce elements heavier than iron include, r-process material capture neutrons onto the seed nuclei of Ni-56.R-process is the predominant observed processes in supernova. Yada Yada Yada. Okay that's all cool, but then we
edit on 17-4-2012 by CaptainNemo because: (no reason given)




posted on Apr, 17 2012 @ 03:34 AM
link   
reply to post by CaptainNemo
 


hit a wall. Scientists have to explain how x amount of supernova in x amount of time (Time it took for Sol to form) accounts for the abundance of heavy elements on Earth and the lack there of on the other planets. If you look at the utter perfection, by all definitions of the word, of our solar system compared to others then one is left to wonder. The concentric orbits of the planets (Somebody is going to argue semantics with me, okay ELIPTICAL e=0.000000001), the heavy elements, and magnetic field, all point towards intelligent design.

God did it.
edit on 17-4-2012 by CaptainNemo because: Anticipating heat from that last line, but that's fine.



posted on Apr, 17 2012 @ 06:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by SplitInfinity

Originally posted by addygrace

Originally posted by SplitInfinity
reply to post by addygrace
 

You look at Humanity as if we started as a small group or two of Homosapiens.....EVOLUTION BABY! Split Infinity
So there were more than one Adam and Eve? Did they evolve in 2 seperate lines, at 2 seperate times? How could that be?


How can you still not get this?

Reread what I posted on how Humanity evolved....Adam and Eve is a nice STORY....nothing more.
Split Infinity


That's not true, it's a very sad story too. But there is always a bright side with God.



posted on Apr, 17 2012 @ 08:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by NOTurTypical

Originally posted by SplitInfinity

Originally posted by addygrace

Originally posted by SplitInfinity
reply to post by addygrace
 

You look at Humanity as if we started as a small group or two of Homosapiens.....EVOLUTION BABY! Split Infinity
So there were more than one Adam and Eve? Did they evolve in 2 seperate lines, at 2 seperate times? How could that be?


How can you still not get this?

Reread what I posted on how Humanity evolved....Adam and Eve is a nice STORY....nothing more.
Split Infinity


That's not true, it's a very sad story too. But there is always a bright side with God.


Well, we know for a FACT there were never only 2 homo sapiens...so the story is clearly that...a fictional story.

Our mitochondrial Eve (who wasn't the only woman of her time!!) didn't even live around the same time as "Adam".



posted on Apr, 17 2012 @ 08:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by CaptainNemo
God did it.


Who did god?
If everything needs a creator : Who or what created god*?

(* god is outside of time and space answers are not accepted as a valid answer)



posted on Apr, 17 2012 @ 10:08 AM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 



Mitochondrial Eve is alleged to have lived in Africa at the beginning of the Upper Pleistocene period (between 100,000 and 200,000 years ago). She has been described as the most-recent common ancestor of all humans on Earth today, with respect to matrilineal descent. The validity of these assertions, however, is dependent upon two critically important assumptions: (1) that mtDNA is, in fact, derived exclusively from the mother; and (2) that the mutation rates associated with mtDNA have remained constant over time. However, we now know that both of these assumptions are wrong!


www.trueorigin.org...



posted on Apr, 17 2012 @ 10:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by Deetermined
reply to post by MrXYZ
 



Mitochondrial Eve is alleged to have lived in Africa at the beginning of the Upper Pleistocene period (between 100,000 and 200,000 years ago). She has been described as the most-recent common ancestor of all humans on Earth today, with respect to matrilineal descent. The validity of these assertions, however, is dependent upon two critically important assumptions: (1) that mtDNA is, in fact, derived exclusively from the mother; and (2) that the mutation rates associated with mtDNA have remained constant over time. However, we now know that both of these assumptions are wrong!


www.trueorigin.org...


Like I said, Mitochondrial Eve isn't an "Eve" in the religious sense. She was one of MANY early homo sapiens.

As for mtDNA being derived exclusively from the mother...every single time we look at mtDNA that's the case, so it's a very reasonable assumption. We also have no indication that mtDNA mutation rates have changed drastically over time.

Either way, as much as many creationists loooooove to quote that mitochondrial Eve, it's really not comparable to the Genesis story.

And because we know there was no single woman and single man at any given point in time, we know for a FACT that the literal interpretation of the Genesis account is complete and utter nonsense



posted on Apr, 17 2012 @ 12:22 PM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 


You're absurdly loose with the terms "we" and "fact".



posted on Apr, 17 2012 @ 12:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by MrXYZ
 


You're absurdly loose with the terms "we" and "fact".


"We" as in scientists (and myself because I read up on it), and "fact" because well...it is a fact.



posted on Apr, 17 2012 @ 12:26 PM
link   
reply to post by XyZeR
 



(* god is outside of time and space answers are not accepted as a valid answer)


Well get your arse off of ATS and go get the Nobel Prize for showing that Einstein was a raving fool with his General Relativity theory. (The same theory that's been proven by 14 different methods down to 19 decimal places)

What are you waiting for??? Get that million bucks friend!!!




posted on Apr, 17 2012 @ 12:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by XyZeR
 



(* god is outside of time and space answers are not accepted as a valid answer)


Well get your arse off of ATS and go get the Nobel Prize for showing that Einstein was a raving fool with his General Relativity theory. (The same theory that's been proven by 14 different methods down to 19 decimal places)

What are you waiting for??? Get that million bucks friend!!!



What are you talking about??? Einstein's general relativity theory never made any statements regarding god's outside time and space



posted on Apr, 17 2012 @ 12:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by MrXYZ

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by MrXYZ
 


You're absurdly loose with the terms "we" and "fact".


"We" as in scientists (and myself because I read up on it), and "fact" because well...it is a fact.


Science tests and observes things that are repeatable. The origin of man is not. FAIL #1

And you know what you're talking about because you read books. Well, that's a brilliant argument, I read books too so I'm also right.

And like I said, your definition of the term "FACT" is absurdly loose. Get back to that indoctrin.. I mean education, you're not even close. Once science discovered the DNA strand Darwin was killed immediately, it was a mountain of overkill.

3 out of 4 error correcting code cannot exist by random chance processes. It's mathematically impossible by a factor of 10^5000th power. Modern computer programmers cannot do this yet today, they are trying to. And your "science" defines anything greater than 10^50th as "impossible".

I don't think you know much at all about Physics or science actually just by what you say here. I have serious doubts, maybe you misspoke.



posted on Apr, 17 2012 @ 12:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by MrXYZ

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by XyZeR
 



(* god is outside of time and space answers are not accepted as a valid answer)


Well get your arse off of ATS and go get the Nobel Prize for showing that Einstein was a raving fool with his General Relativity theory. (The same theory that's been proven by 14 different methods down to 19 decimal places)

What are you waiting for??? Get that million bucks friend!!!



What are you talking about??? Einstein's general relativity theory never made any statements regarding god's outside time and space


Stay completely out of this discussion, you're taking a water pistol to a nuclear war. A Physicist would immediately know I'm talking about the nature of time and it's an illusion we perceive being inside the time domain.

Stop.


edit on 17-4-2012 by NOTurTypical because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 17 2012 @ 12:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by XyZeR

Originally posted by CaptainNemo
God did it.


Who did god?
If everything needs a creator : Who or what created god*?

(* god is outside of time and space answers are not accepted as a valid answer)



He just existed as an infinite singularity. Then he created the universe. Through what process? I don't know. Maybe it was similar to the big bang.



posted on Apr, 17 2012 @ 12:39 PM
link   
I can destroy Darwinian Evolutionary theory with one question.



posted on Apr, 17 2012 @ 12:43 PM
link   
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 





Science tests and observes things that are repeatable. The origin of man is not. FAIL


I just posted a link showing you that they CAN prove the origin of man


Clearly you haven't even bothered to read the link...I'll spare you the "FAIL" because I'm not a 13 year old school girl





And you know what you're talking about because you read books. Well, that's a brilliant argument, I read books too so I'm also right.


It's not about the quantity of books, but rather the quality. For something like the evolution of man I prefer OBJECTIVE scientific evidence over fairytale myths





And like I said, your definition of the term "FACT" is absurdly loose. Get back to that indoctrin.. I mean education, you're not even close. Once science discovered the DNA strand Darwin was killed immediately, it was a mountain of overkill.



No it not absurd to call evolution a fact, and no, DNA doesn't disprove the theory, quite on the contrary in fact





3 out of 4 error correcting code cannot exist by random chance processes. It's mathematically impossible by a factor of 10^5000th power. Modern computer programmers cannot do this yet today, they are trying to. And your "science" defines anything greater than 10^50th as "impossible".


Ah the old "scientists claim life started by accident"


Comon', you can't be serious...that's not what scientists say





I don't think you know much at all about Physics or science actually just by what you say here. I have serious doubts, maybe you misspoke.


Well, given that EVERYTHING you posted above is scientifically wrong...don't you think it's ironic that you're questioning my science credentials



posted on Apr, 17 2012 @ 12:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
I can destroy Darwinian Evolutionary theory with one question.


Oh please do...this should be fun



posted on Apr, 17 2012 @ 12:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by NOTurTypical

Originally posted by MrXYZ

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by XyZeR
 



(* god is outside of time and space answers are not accepted as a valid answer)


Well get your arse off of ATS and go get the Nobel Prize for showing that Einstein was a raving fool with his General Relativity theory. (The same theory that's been proven by 14 different methods down to 19 decimal places)

What are you waiting for??? Get that million bucks friend!!!



What are you talking about??? Einstein's general relativity theory never made any statements regarding god's outside time and space


Stay completely out of this discussion, you're taking a water pistol to a nuclear war. A Physicist would immediately know I'm talking about the nature of time and it's an illusion we perceive being inside the time domain.

Stop.


edit on 17-4-2012 by NOTurTypical because: (no reason given)


Do you reven realize why he said that answer isn't allowed??? Because if it were, you could make up whatever the hell you wanted


So OF COURSE that answer would be nonsense.

And don't worry about my water pistol, the others might have nuclear bombs, but they seem too dumb to find the launch button



posted on Apr, 17 2012 @ 12:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by MrXYZ

Like I said, Mitochondrial Eve isn't an "Eve" in the religious sense. She was one of MANY early homo sapiens.

As for mtDNA being derived exclusively from the mother...every single time we look at mtDNA that's the case, so it's a very reasonable assumption. We also have no indication that mtDNA mutation rates have changed drastically over time.


It helps when you read the links provided to you.


Mammalian mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) is thought to be strictly maternally inherited…. Very small amounts of paternally inherited mtDNA have been detected by the polymerase chain reaction (PCR) in mice after several generations of interspecific backcrosses…. We report the case of a 28-year-old man with mitochondrial myopathy due to a novel 2-bp mtDNA deletion…. We determined that the mtDNA harboring the mutation was paternal in origin and accounted for 90 percent of the patient’s muscle mtDNA (Schwartz and Vissing, 2002, 347:576, emphasis added).



Either way, as much as many creationists loooooove to quote that mitochondrial Eve, it's really not comparable to the Genesis story.


You're right and wrong. Mitochondrial Eve isn't capable of proving anything, but what we have learned from science is that there's a large probability that mtDNA exists in all life upon the earth. And where did all life most likely get it's mtDNA? From soil life. And how did God say Adam was created?

Genesis 2:7


And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.


SOIL LIFE

en.wikipedia.org...


And because we know there was no single woman and single man at any given point in time, we know for a FACT that the literal interpretation of the Genesis account is complete and utter nonsense


You know this as a FACT how?



posted on Apr, 17 2012 @ 12:57 PM
link   
reply to post by Deetermined
 





You know this as a FACT how?


Yes!! Why? Well...ask your son and daughter to produce a baby and you'll know why



new topics

top topics



 
21
<< 23  24  25    27  28  29 >>

log in

join