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: 27
21
<< 24  25  26    28  29  30 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 17 2012 @ 01:15 PM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 


That's the only answer you have?

Can you give us some scientific insight from your sources?




posted on Apr, 17 2012 @ 01:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by Deetermined
reply to post by MrXYZ
 


That's the only answer you have?

Can you give us some scientific insight from your sources?


Look, anyone with common sense knows that the entire human population can't stem from 1 brother and 1 system. If they're blood relatives, it would result in massive genetic defects, and science fully backs that up. Do I really have to post pictures of those defects??



posted on Apr, 17 2012 @ 01:25 PM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 


Well, I'm sure science and common sense never led us to believe that man could be created from the dust of the earth either, but I think science is on it's way to proving it and the Bible already told us that it was so.



posted on Apr, 17 2012 @ 01:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by Deetermined
reply to post by MrXYZ
 


Well, I'm sure science and common sense never led us to believe that man could be created from the dust of the earth either, but I think science is on it's way to proving it and the Bible already told us that it was so.


All the evidence we have points towards life starting out in the oceans, and not the soil...but whatever. But yeah, first life probably started out of base molecules, call it "dust" if you'd like.

Either way, once first life started, evolution kicked in as we know...and there never was only 2 homo sapiens


So if you want to claim it's a metaphor...fine. But claiming there really was a brother and sister who mated an created the entire species is silly in the 21st century.
edit on 17-4-2012 by MrXYZ because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 17 2012 @ 01:45 PM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 


If science can't figure out how life first started, how can they figure out with certainty how it evolved? Isn't that like putting the chicken before the egg? Sure, we can all say evolution exists, but if science can't figure out what made it evolve, how can we know for sure what anything evolved from? Science can come up with all the similarities they want, but it's all a puzzle where even one missing piece can change the total outcome.



posted on Apr, 17 2012 @ 02:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by Deetermined
reply to post by MrXYZ
 


If science can't figure out how life first started, how can they figure out with certainty how it evolved? Isn't that like putting the chicken before the egg? Sure, we can all say evolution exists, but if science can't figure out what made it evolve, how can we know for sure what anything evolved from? Science can come up with all the similarities they want, but it's all a puzzle where even one missing piece can change the total outcome.


They can do that because all the objective evidence (fossils, DNA, migratory trends, climate change, etc) supports the theory. So it doesn't matter how life started as the theory doesn't make any claims regarding that, all it does is explain the biodiversity we see today through analyzing objective evidence.

If a pink space unicorn farted life into existence, the theory of evolution would still be valid. If abiogenesis is responsible, it also would be valid...and yes, even if a god (pick one, there's tons) did it, evolution would still be the way he/she/it did it.

Oh, and they can say what's responsible for the change. That's how they ACTIVELY APPLY the theory in modern medicine. If the theory were wrong, we wouldn't have a ton of the meds we have today.

Scientists can also figure out if you have parts of Neanderthal DNA in you as so many people do...but they don't need to know how life started for that either



posted on Apr, 17 2012 @ 02:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by MrXYZ

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



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


Go check out the "scientific method", the origin of man is neither observable nor repeatable. Your speculation of it is "religion" be default.


Oh please do...this should be fun


You've already shown you don't have the specialized training or understanding to even attempt a qualified response.


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



posted on Apr, 17 2012 @ 02:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by MrXYZ

Originally posted by Deetermined
reply to post by MrXYZ
 


That's the only answer you have?

Can you give us some scientific insight from your sources?


Look, anyone with common sense knows that the entire human population can't stem from 1 brother and 1 system. If they're blood relatives, it would result in massive genetic defects, and science fully backs that up. Do I really have to post pictures of those defects??


The original two wouldn't have corrupted gene pool and mating-specific mutations in their DNA strand.

*facepalm*



posted on Apr, 17 2012 @ 02:28 PM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 


Okay, stop saying "we", you aren't a scientist nor a molecular biologist.


Your question to answer:


Which came first the protein or the RNA?



posted on Apr, 17 2012 @ 02:29 PM
link   
What does that guy know, I was there, i saw Adam and Eve. They were the first human people, everybody else was republican back then.



posted on Apr, 17 2012 @ 02:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by MrXYZ

Scientists can also figure out if you have parts of Neanderthal DNA in you as so many people do...but they don't need to know how life started for that either




The heck they don't!! Just because we share common DNA with Neanderthals doesn't mean anything. We also share common DNA with dirt for crying out loud!! Do you get my point here? Until they can match DNA 100%, they have nothing.



posted on Apr, 17 2012 @ 02:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by NOTurTypical

Originally posted by MrXYZ

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



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


Go check out the "scientific method", the origin of man is neither observable nor repeatable. Your speculation of it is "religion" be default.


Oh please do...this should be fun


You've already shown you don't have the specialized training or understanding to even attempt a qualified response.


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


I know scientific method very well...but I guess you don't. Because "repeatable" isn't in there and it was in fact observed





"a method or procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses."


LINK

An event doesn't have to occur more than once to be studied...but that's besides the point because we have in fact repeatedly seen the same objective evidence. Hell, we're ACTIVELY APPLYING IT in modern medicine.



Which came first the protein or the RNA?


Current research suggest RNA, but it's not 100% solved. But as I explained half a dozen times, it doesn't matter, the theory makes no claims regarding anything before the first life started. Your question has therefore NOTHING to do with the theory...it would be an interesting question for the hypothesis (!!) of abiogenesis though.



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



posted on Apr, 17 2012 @ 02:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by Deetermined

Originally posted by MrXYZ

Scientists can also figure out if you have parts of Neanderthal DNA in you as so many people do...but they don't need to know how life started for that either




The heck they don't!! Just because we share common DNA with Neanderthals doesn't mean anything. We also share common DNA with dirt for crying out loud!! Do you get my point here? Until they can match DNA 100%, they have nothing.


Dirt doesn't have DNA...but whatever


And what do you mean by "match DNA 100%"?? They have matched Neanderthal DNA with homo sapiens sapiens DNA...so I don't know what your point is.



posted on Apr, 17 2012 @ 02:59 PM
link   
Its sad watching ignorant religious people confuse Evolution and Abiogenesis.

When are they going pull their heads out of their preachers butts and learn something?



posted on Apr, 17 2012 @ 03:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by NOTurTypical

Originally posted by MrXYZ

Originally posted by Deetermined
reply to post by MrXYZ
 


That's the only answer you have?

Can you give us some scientific insight from your sources?


Look, anyone with common sense knows that the entire human population can't stem from 1 brother and 1 system. If they're blood relatives, it would result in massive genetic defects, and science fully backs that up. Do I really have to post pictures of those defects??


The original two wouldn't have corrupted gene pool and mating-specific mutations in their DNA strand.

*facepalm*


Read the bible...Eve was made out of Adam, so they're technically genetic siblings (or even a clones, lol). FACEPALM!!



posted on Apr, 17 2012 @ 03:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by MrXYZ

Dirt doesn't have DNA...but whatever


Alright, let's call it the DNA of the living organisms found in dirt...but whatever.


And what do you mean by "match DNA 100%"?? They have matched Neanderthal DNA with homo sapiens sapiens DNA...so I don't know what your point is.


My point is, we supposedly SHARE 96% of the same DNA with chimpanzees, but that doesn't make us one!

news.nationalgeographic.com...

Who cares what DNA we share if science can't figure out the sequencing?



posted on Apr, 17 2012 @ 03:12 PM
link   
reply to post by Deetermined
 





My point is, we supposedly SHARE 96% of the same DNA with chimpanzees, but that doesn't make us one!


Of course not...our DNA isn't 100% the same





Who cares what DNA we share if science can't figure out the sequencing?


But we have sequenced it...that's how we know we share 96% in common for crying out loud!!!



posted on Apr, 17 2012 @ 03:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by MrXYZ
reply to post by Deetermined
 





My point is, we supposedly SHARE 96% of the same DNA with chimpanzees, but that doesn't make us one!


Of course not...our DNA isn't 100% the same





Who cares what DNA we share if science can't figure out the sequencing?


But we have sequenced it...that's how we know we share 96% in common for crying out loud!!!


96%? That's not enough certainty to convict someone of a triple homicide. It definitely isn't enough to state that humans came from monkeys



posted on Apr, 17 2012 @ 03:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by Deetermined

Originally posted by MrXYZ

Dirt doesn't have DNA...but whatever


Alright, let's call it the DNA of the living organisms found in dirt...but whatever.


And what do you mean by "match DNA 100%"?? They have matched Neanderthal DNA with homo sapiens sapiens DNA...so I don't know what your point is.


My point is, we supposedly SHARE 96% of the same DNA with chimpanzees, but that doesn't make us one!

news.nationalgeographic.com...

Who cares what DNA we share if science can't figure out the sequencing?


Ok - we have Adam and Eve, they have 2 sons, Cain and Abel, one is killed.
Would have to be the end of humanity right there and then.



posted on Apr, 17 2012 @ 03:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by CaptainNemo

Originally posted by MrXYZ
reply to post by Deetermined
 





My point is, we supposedly SHARE 96% of the same DNA with chimpanzees, but that doesn't make us one!


Of course not...our DNA isn't 100% the same





Who cares what DNA we share if science can't figure out the sequencing?


But we have sequenced it...that's how we know we share 96% in common for crying out loud!!!


96%? That's not enough certainty to convict someone of a triple homicide. It definitely isn't enough to state that humans came from monkeys


It's not 96% "certainty", it's an identical match of 96% with only 4% difference. So comparing it to a court case is silly, those 2 percentages have entirely different meanings



new topics

top topics



 
21
<< 24  25  26    28  29  30 >>

log in

join