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: 28
21
<< 25  26  27    29  30  31 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 17 2012 @ 03:43 PM
link   
reply to post by Sailor Sam
 


You need to read the entire genealogy list in Genesis 5.

The Bible mentions that Adam and Eve had other sons and daughters besides Cain, Abel and Seth.




posted on Apr, 17 2012 @ 03:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by Deetermined
reply to post by Sailor Sam
 


You need to read the entire genealogy list in Genesis 5.

The Bible mentions that Adam and Eve had other sons and daughters besides Cain, Abel and Seth.


Yes, since Adam and Eve are clones, their offspring would have genetics defects...which is why the entire notion is silly if you take it literally



posted on Apr, 17 2012 @ 03:52 PM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 


Looks like you need to do more research, regardless.


Despite the similarities in human and chimp genomes, the scientists identified some 40 million differences among the three billion DNA molecules, or nucleotides, in each genome.

The vast majority of those differences are not biologically significant, but researchers were able to identify a couple thousand differences that are potentially important to the evolution of the human lineage.



news.nationalgeographic.com...



posted on Apr, 17 2012 @ 03:54 PM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 



and experiment


What do you think "repeatable" means? Why do scientists do experiments? To get different results than their theories expect to find?

Come on. lol

And you cannot have one before the other, RNA tells the protein how to form from the cellular level, and the different types of protein make up the RNA.

It's impossible for them to have both evolved without the other, they must have been created at the exact same moment in time. It's a mathematical impossibility of absurd proportions.

That's the proverbial "nail" in Darwin's coffin. The discovery of the nature and makeup of the DNA and RNA destroyed Darwin. Shredded his theory which at the time he made it had no clue about DNA or RNA. Mostly the only folks who still cling to the theory are Evolutionary Biologists, that's it. And they are ill-qualified and educated to argue against the discoveries made at the molecular level.



posted on Apr, 17 2012 @ 03:56 PM
link   
reply to post by Deetermined
 



Despite the similarities in human and chimp genomes


We actually share more similarities with sunflower plants than chimps, guess we had a common ancestor with them too.



posted on Apr, 17 2012 @ 06:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Deetermined
reply to post by MrXYZ
 


Looks like you need to do more research, regardless.


Despite the similarities in human and chimp genomes, the scientists identified some 40 million differences among the three billion DNA molecules, or nucleotides, in each genome.

The vast majority of those differences are not biologically significant, but researchers were able to identify a couple thousand differences that are potentially important to the evolution of the human lineage.



news.nationalgeographic.com...






So yeah, there are differences...which is exactly what scientists are saying. What's your point???



posted on Apr, 17 2012 @ 06:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by Deetermined
 



Despite the similarities in human and chimp genomes


We actually share more similarities with sunflower plants than chimps, guess we had a common ancestor with them too.



Actually...we don't. There was a study done that showed that Cytochrome C in humans works about the same as in sunflowers. That's NOT DNA. Creationist websites claim that a change in DNA should also lead to a proportional change in Cytochrome C, which simply isn't the case. But in their blissful ignorance, they simply pretend Cytochrome C is about the same as DNA, and if Cytochrome C is similar, so should DNA...again, that's simply not the case


We are more closely related to sunflowers than mushrooms...creationists simply replace the mushrooms with chimps



posted on Apr, 17 2012 @ 06:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by MrXYZ
 



and experiment


What do you think "repeatable" means? Why do scientists do experiments? To get different results than their theories expect to find?

Come on. lol

And you cannot have one before the other, RNA tells the protein how to form from the cellular level, and the different types of protein make up the RNA.

It's impossible for them to have both evolved without the other, they must have been created at the exact same moment in time. It's a mathematical impossibility of absurd proportions.

That's the proverbial "nail" in Darwin's coffin. The discovery of the nature and makeup of the DNA and RNA destroyed Darwin. Shredded his theory which at the time he made it had no clue about DNA or RNA. Mostly the only folks who still cling to the theory are Evolutionary Biologists, that's it. And they are ill-qualified and educated to argue against the discoveries made at the molecular level.



How is it the "nail in Darwin's coffin" if his theory makes no claims regarding how life started


FACT: We don't know what came first because we DON'T KNOW how life started in the first place. You simply fill a gap in knowledge with magic (aka a god). The "god did it" track record is pretty damn horrible...comets, plagues and so on...all attributed to god because people filled a gap in knowledge with magic. Now we know better.

Oh, and regarding the "repeatable" thing, I already told you that scientists have witnessed it in the lab and in nature, so clearly it is an ongoing (repeated) process. For crying out loud, scientists are "repeating" it every single day in labs when they develop new modern medicine. If the theory were wrong, we wouldn't have many of the meds we have today...another fact you blissfully ignore



posted on Apr, 17 2012 @ 07:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by MrXYZ

We are more closely related to sunflowers than mushrooms...creationists simply replace the mushrooms with chimps


I think your brain is getting tired to a point where you're confusing your research objects.


Modern human DNA reveals all sorts of unsuspected data: for example that humans are more closely related to mushrooms than sunflowers. Analysis of DNA of humans and mushrooms indicated the two groups split about 1.5 billion years ago. The split between humans and flowers was before that.


factsanddetails.com...

I'd tell you to research the article for information regarding Neanderthals, but you'd mix that up somehow too.



posted on Apr, 17 2012 @ 07:09 PM
link   
reply to post by Deetermined
 


It was a typo...meant to write it the other way around.



posted on Apr, 17 2012 @ 11:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by MrXYZ

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


Let me put it into perspective to you. The identical matches between parts of the human and monkey genome are certain, established beyond doubt. In court, the job of the prosecution is to prove something beyond a reasonable doubt. If you were the prosecution, you damage your case if you try to marginalize the difference.



posted on Apr, 18 2012 @ 01:20 AM
link   
reply to post by CaptainNemo
 

I wrote a post in reply but for some reason it has disapeared. Too bad. BUT...the good news is I will post again!

In my original post I congratulated you on being able to Impress Me...as that does not happen often. I found your reply to be very intelligent and far too many times on this board I get a response that is just....AAAHHH!

So in response...I was not infering by my post that Viral Infections were the answer to what drives EVOLUTION...however...I believe they do play a part.

As far as your Plant Cell Thickness issue...I described a plant in Africa that has a Symbiotic Relationship with a Virus that forces the plant to grow posyuals around the plants seeds that are sought after many Birds and other animals. Since the plants seeds are near impossible to digest....they are by the animals...spread as they leave their undigested waste in areas further away from the original plant thus ensuring a higher probability of survival of the plant species.

As far as using the word EVOLUTION to how Stars fuse Hydrogen into Helium and heavy elements are the byproducts of Supernovas....I believe the term is applicable. As far as your description of what will cause a Supernova....it is not just a matter of a Red Giant eventually exploding. There are many other factors involved.

But needless to say...I enjoyed your post! Split Infinity



posted on Apr, 18 2012 @ 01:30 AM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 



How is it the "nail in Darwin's coffin" if his theory makes no claims regarding how life started


Well why did the guy write a book titled "Origin of Species..."




posted on Apr, 18 2012 @ 01:32 AM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 



FACT: We don't know what came first because we DON'T KNOW how life started in the first place.


Speak for yourself for one thing. And for two, USE YOUR BRAIN.


Which came first the protein or the RNA? Thiiiiiiiink. Soon you should realize it's impossible unless both were instantaneously created.


Oh, and regarding the "repeatable" thing, I already told you that scientists have witnessed it in the lab.


I hope you're not going to talk about the Miller experiment. That's an experiment in intelligent design, he set up the conditions of the test. And for two he had the wrong mixture for what was once thought was the atmosphere present when life began.


edit on 18-4-2012 by NOTurTypical because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 18 2012 @ 03:13 AM
link   
I just wanted to say a couple of things to the believers of the Bible and God.
The account of Adam and Eve, in the Bible, is not a an allegory.
If you believe it was an allegory, then you have to believe the story of Jesus to be an allegory.
Jesus's lineage is traced back to Adam and Eve.

Adam is all over the Bible, not just in Genesis.

A Catholic Cardinal that doesn't believe in the story of Jesus....makes him a false prophet.

Does anybody truly believe the Adam and Eve account to be allegorical? If so, explain to everybody how that wouldn't unravel the whole thread of Christianity.



posted on Apr, 18 2012 @ 04:35 AM
link   
reply to post by addygrace
 


It doesn't take much to unravel christianity when all I have to do is ask for proof.



posted on Apr, 18 2012 @ 04:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by CaptainNemo

Originally posted by MrXYZ

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


Let me put it into perspective to you. The identical matches between parts of the human and monkey genome are certain, established beyond doubt. In court, the job of the prosecution is to prove something beyond a reasonable doubt. If you were the prosecution, you damage your case if you try to marginalize the difference.


What do you mean by "marginalizing the difference"??? They say that 96% of human DNA is identical with that of chips, which is the truth...4% are different.

You said: "96%? That's not enough certainty..."

The 96% figure has NOTHING to do with certainty in the first place, so your comment was completely pointless. The figure pertains to the amount of DNA that is identical, not the overall "certainty" of the matchup.

Again: What's your point? Why do you keep on talking about a prosecution of those 2 percentages have entirely different meanings?



posted on Apr, 18 2012 @ 05:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by MrXYZ
 



How is it the "nail in Darwin's coffin" if his theory makes no claims regarding how life started


Well why did the guy write a book titled "Origin of Species..."



Because it's catchy??? Technically the origin goes back to before the big bang, doesn't mean he has to include that too


The theory never makes a single statement regarding how life started...and I have to admit I'm a bit baffled you didn't know that.



posted on Apr, 18 2012 @ 05:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by MrXYZ
 



FACT: We don't know what came first because we DON'T KNOW how life started in the first place.


Speak for yourself for one thing. And for two, USE YOUR BRAIN.


Which came first the protein or the RNA? Thiiiiiiiink. Soon you should realize it's impossible unless both were instantaneously created.


Oh, and regarding the "repeatable" thing, I already told you that scientists have witnessed it in the lab.


I hope you're not going to talk about the Miller experiment. That's an experiment in intelligent design, he set up the conditions of the test. And for two he had the wrong mixture for what was once thought was the atmosphere present when life began.


edit on 18-4-2012 by NOTurTypical because: (no reason given)


Newsflash: You don't know either how life started in the first place. You delude yourself into pretending "blind belief" is "knowledge", but deep down (at least I hope so) you know that your belief isn't knowledge.

And scientists don't know what came first, there's no objective answer either way...so more research is required. You on the other hand seem to be perfectly happy to fill that gap in knowledge with magic (aka god). According to that "approach", we can make up whatever the hell we want and never have to prove anything. Planes you ask? They fly because giant invisible unicorns lift them through the skies. Proof you ask? Who cares about proof, just blindly believe


Oh, and I am using my brain and logic/rationality...you on the other hand don't seem to be a friend of logic at all


Oh, and I'm sorry to burst your bubble...but there's been tons of experiments since Miller. They already managed to create fully functional RNA based on the conditions of earth back then. LINK

What I think is hilarious is that you attack science, yet so far you failed completely at presenting the slightest bit of evidence yourself. Can't blame you though, the bible is obviously not objective evidence given how much in it is DEMONSTRABLY wrong, and there simply is no objective evidence...but you could at least entertain us and give it a try



posted on Apr, 18 2012 @ 06:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by MrXYZ

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by MrXYZ
 



FACT: We don't know what came first because we DON'T KNOW how life started in the first place.


Speak for yourself for one thing. And for two, USE YOUR BRAIN.


Which came first the protein or the RNA? Thiiiiiiiink. Soon you should realize it's impossible unless both were instantaneously created.


Oh, and regarding the "repeatable" thing, I already told you that scientists have witnessed it in the lab.


I hope you're not going to talk about the Miller experiment. That's an experiment in intelligent design, he set up the conditions of the test. And for two he had the wrong mixture for what was once thought was the atmosphere present when life began.



Newsflash: You don't know either how life started in the first place.


God said "Let there be...".


You delude yourself into pretending "blind belief" is "knowledge",


I've never adhered to "blind belief" nor suggested it to anyone. I've only been a Christian for a short part of my adult life. You don't know crap about where I came from, which is obvious.


but deep down (at least I hope so) you know that your belief isn't knowledge.


Try telling that to those who formerly worshiped demons. They will look a you like you're a complete moron, then may ask you if you wish to see the bite and scratch scars. Then ask them what Name makes the demons shudder in terror.


And scientists don't know what came first, there's no objective answer either way...so more research is required.


WRONG! Evolutionary Biologists don't have a clue. Molecular Biologists know unless they are morons that it's an impossibility by chance of random processes. They are jumping the Darwinian Evolution ship in DROVES.
I suppose you go to your oil change mechanic for back surgery?



You on the other hand seem to be perfectly happy to fill that gap in knowledge with magic (aka god). According to that "approach", we can make up whatever the hell we want and never have to prove anything. Planes you ask? They fly because giant invisible unicorns lift them through the skies. Proof you ask? Who cares about proof, just blindly believe


Straw man. I've already gave you numerous breadcrumbs.


Oh, and I am using my brain and logic/rationality...you on the other hand don't seem to be a friend of logic at all


You just used a straw man, and you're arguing for a theory that was proved impossible with the discovery of DNA and RNA, by way of a process that has factors of probability greater then 10^5000th power.

Don't dare talk to me about "logical". Scientists will tell you anything with a probability of 10^50th is "impossible". You're arguing for something that's = impossible X 1,000.


Oh, and I'm sorry to burst your bubble...but there's been tons of experiments since Miller. They already managed to create fully functional RNA based on the conditions of earth back then. LINK


Your bubble was burst long ago. Any experiment envisioned and designed by human thought and activated by human engineering is an experiment proving INTELLIGENT DESIGN. It's by definition NOT RANDOM.


What I think is hilarious is that you attack science,


No, I'm attacking Evolutionary Biology, that's IT.


yet so far you failed completely at presenting the slightest bit of evidence yourself.


That's a lie or you're still standing on the well worn path of complete ignorance with your eyes gouged out and fingers in your ears shouting "Na, na, na, na, na, I CANT hear yooooooooooooou!!!!" and I'm saying: "Come on little fella, science is over here, leave the Evolutionary Biologists on that path leading over a the cliff of absurdity, this way bro, this way."



Can't blame you though, the bible is obviously not objective evidence given how much in it is DEMONSTRABLY wrong, and there simply is no objective evidence...but you could at least entertain us and give it a try


Why try and entertain your red herring Mr. Logic? Explain why I should do so, this will be interesting. FOCUS. I don't need the Bible to prove Evolution is absurd. 101 level Molecular Biologists are doing that for me!!! And when the subject is the accuracy of the Bible then we can discuss that, until then throw your herring back into the pond of irrational thought and argumentation, let the little guy grow some more, he's just a guppy.





edit on 18-4-2012 by NOTurTypical because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
21
<< 25  26  27    29  30  31 >>

log in

join