The 23rd Cromosome.....Evolution is Wrong

reply to post by diamondoftheworld


cause they'll put you in the dock and ya won't a come a back
thankyou very much

reply to post by diamondoftheworld


I have seen this insanity before a little fellow by the name of

www.abovetopsecret.com...

I notice his account has been banned and suddenly we have a new diamond among us. the blithering rantings are very familiar as are the pointless threads.

Where are the mods when you need them.

this is one of Diamondsmiths idiotic threads

God exists because .....www.abovetopsecret.com...

......we all owe Him a Life and a Death. This is a Fact. Rich or poor ,kings or queens ,pharaohs, good or bad, believers or nonbelievers we all owe a death. Even for only the fact that life is limited and we must think of this reality. Many of us say that they are not afraid of near-death.Still I think the facts are different. When the time comes if we know,I believe that we start thinking to the existence of God. The question is why don't we think before to this life changing event. Because it is a life changing event.We move from one life to another. The only choice we can make is what kind of life that would be. In Heaven In Hell or in between. The only thing we take with us there are.... our works here on Earth. So,everything depends of your works here on Earth. So simple but so complicated in the same time.

Oh yes also his original account states his last post was on the 30th of march 2012 and this new account was opened on the 11th of april 2012. same style of nonsense its him for sure.

reply to post by diamondoftheworld


Oh dear Gods

Why rely on Wikipedia to "prove" this? You clearly do not understand genetics very well, beyond googlefu use of wikipedia.

First in women, one of the two X chromosomes is turned off all the time.
Second there are men who have two X chromosomes, but part of a Y has broken off and stuck on an X (usually but not always), thus ensuring the genes that the Y chromosome carries (which activate other genes, which thus cause maleness to occur...um occur).
Thirdly there are examples of males with multiple Y chromosomes too. Its usually not a problem compared to multiple X's as well the Y Chromosome is pretty much a genetic desert
etc

This is off the top of my head (I've done genetic research for a living as well as Pharmaceutical).

Simply your proof, proves nothing.



oh and




In case you claim the Bible is infallible

Originally posted by stumason
Trust me, public nudity is only a crime if there is an intent to "cause alarm or distress". The naked cyclist managed to get from Land's end all the way to the border with Scotland before getting harassed by the Law (it is against the Law in Scotland no matter what...)

The ancient Picts would be rather upset with this law

From all the creatures on Earth Humans are the only ones aware of the sexual act.

That is the Forbiden Apple.


Though I also cannot see how you came to that conclusion it matters not to me as I didn't need all this so called proof to answer the question. We are not evolving but we are still trying to catch up , as it were. The advanced races that came thousands of years before us in the form of the Bene Alohim and the corresponding Nephilim were so advanced in respect to our minimal achievements it would take us another thousand years to catch up to the astounding scientific inventions that still confound most scientists. In fact, the large majority of these 'scientists' simply disregard the evidence and choose to think it doesn't exist rather than admit they are wrong. Sad, really when to think we could be benefiting from so many things as yet are unknown to most of us.

reply to post by diamondoftheworld


What difference does it make?

None.

Everything that is to be done... you and me must do. There is no special bull# that will save us.

The fact that the OP is quoting directly from Wikipedia...made me lose interest after the first quote. Really? Wikipedia as a reliable resource? Shakes head. Shame shame.

Originally posted by Charmeine
The fact that the OP is quoting directly from Wikipedia...made me lose interest after the first quote. Really? Wikipedia as a reliable resource? Shakes head. Shame shame.

Wikipedia is perfectly reliable and what he was quoting about the genes/chromosomes is true, he just misunderstood and then added his own slant to it.

Wiki articles list their sources at the bottom of the page and, by and large, they will be the same websites people will trot out as reliable while dismissing Wiki. A study back in 2010, I think, showed that on most articles of a factual nature, Wiki was as accurate as the Encyclopaedia Brittanica, which if someone used that as a source would be unquestioned.

At the end of the day, as is the same with any other site used as evidence, it is worth checking the sources AND understanding the subject matter at hand.

diamondoftheworld AKA diamondsmith, I'm pretty sure you were banned from ATS for a reason, so why keep coming back and posting the same crap?

Your entire post along with all of your responses make zero sense, as usual, but thank you for providing undeniable evidence supporting the occurrence of evolution.

reply to post by stumason


I think the problem here is the OP is quoting without understanding, and claiming "proof" when there is none. So it is either Trolling, or stupidity.

reply to post by TiM3LoRd

I have seen this insanity before a little fellow by the name of

And who r u?

I believe we didn't met...and never will...

reply to post by stumason


Depending on who actually enters the information onto wikipedia. Much of the information on there is entered by regular every day people. Hence why it is not a very reliable source.

Originally posted by paradox
diamondoftheworld AKA diamondsmith, I'm pretty sure you were banned from ATS for a reason, so why keep coming back and posting the same crap?

Your entire post along with all of your responses make zero sense, as usual, but thank you for providing undeniable evidence supporting the occurrence of evolution.

edit on 7-12-12 by paradox because: (no reason given)

Talking about other members it is not my business or attacking other members I sugest you to stay on topic therefore I see no counterargument against my theory.

Thanks

reply to post by Charmeine


Again, totally misunderstanding how to use Wiki..

Yes, "regular people" might make the entries, but for most factual topics these entries are lifted, word for word, from their source articles which are listed at the bottom of the page to check. Like I said, if you don't check your sources, anything you trot out as evidence is open to criticism, whether it be Wikipedia or any other website.

Merely dismissing it because it is made by regular people is moronic. Again, as I said above, a study done a few years ago by the scientific journal Nature shows it is as accurate as any printed Encyclopaedia for most factual topics..

reply to post by RSF77

Everything that is to be done... you and me must do. There is no special bull# that will save us.

I believe we shouldn't abandone ourselves to things that could and will come ,showing the truth cannot be that bad.

To believe in something is better than to believe in nothing.

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
reply to post by diamondoftheworld

 

Originally posted by diamondoftheworld

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
reply to post by diamondoftheworld

 

So...is this why God got rid of Lilith and replaced her with Eve? He made the first woman wrong?

Not necessary wrong but to be loved...with all the power that a man is capable of...and she...you know...

edit on 11-7-2012 by diamondoftheworld because: -n

Um, no. No, I don't know. Would you care to elaborate?

There was a need to legalize(in a way) the Sin and therefore as Napoleon said once....I will not quote.....Anyway everything is written and nothing can be changed.

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
reply to post by diamondoftheworld

 

Your grammar makes it difficult to understand, but your post seems to imply that every woman evolves, literally genetically evolves, in the course of her lifetime. Am I reading this right?

edit on 11-7-2012 by AfterInfinity because: (no reason given)

Develops or regresses depending on how you look at it but spiritually regressed so probably also genetically the same thing happens but very slow to realize.

Originally posted by Noinden
reply to post by diamondoftheworld

 

Oh dear Gods

Why rely on Wikipedia to "prove" this? You clearly do not understand genetics very well, beyond googlefu use of wikipedia.

First in women, one of the two X chromosomes is turned off all the time.
Second there are men who have two X chromosomes, but part of a Y has broken off and stuck on an X (usually but not always), thus ensuring the genes that the Y chromosome carries (which activate other genes, which thus cause maleness to occur...um occur).
Thirdly there are examples of males with multiple Y chromosomes too. Its usually not a problem compared to multiple X's as well the Y Chromosome is pretty much a genetic desert

etc

This is off the top of my head (I've done genetic research for a living as well as Pharmaceutical).

Simply your proof, proves nothing.

oh and




In case you claim the Bible is infallible

edit on 11-7-2012 by Noinden because: new idea

This is a reply to your link regarding Joseph having 2 fathers.

There are several possible explanations for the difference In Matthew 1:16 & Luke 3:23
1. Jacob and Heli might be two different names for the same person. It was not unheard of at the time for people to go by two names or to change their name (for example, Peter was originally Simon; Paul was originally Saul). People do the same thing today.

2. The greek text does not contain the word "son of" in Luke. Some suggest that Joseph might be Heli's son-in-law. I.e. Heli is Mary's father.

3. In Hebrew law if a man died childless then his brother would marry the widow to provide children. Heli and Jacob may have been brothers, and one of them died. So Heli may have been the biological father and Jacob the legal father (or vice versa)

4. It was not uncommon for genealogies to skip a generation. Perhaps Luke skipped Jacob while Matthew skipped Heli.

From a historians perspective these kind of subtle differences actually enrich the Bible's credibility, as it demonstrates that Matthew has not just copied his genealogy from Luke or vice versa, so it shows they're multiple distinct attestations that are for the most part in agreement.

Originally posted by azureskys

This is a reply to your link regarding Joseph having 2 fathers.

There are several possible explanations for the difference In Matthew 1:16 & Luke 3:23
1. Jacob and Heli might be two different names for the same person. It was not unheard of at the time for people to go by two names or to change their name (for example, Peter was originally Simon; Paul was originally Saul). People do the same thing today.

2. The greek text does not contain the word "son of" in Luke. Some suggest that Joseph might be Heli's son-in-law. I.e. Heli is Mary's father.

3. In Hebrew law if a man died childless then his brother would marry the widow to provide children. Heli and Jacob may have been brothers, and one of them died. So Heli may have been the biological father and Jacob the legal father (or vice versa)

4. It was not uncommon for genealogies to skip a generation. Perhaps Luke skipped Jacob while Matthew skipped Heli.

From a historians perspective these kind of subtle differences actually enrich the Bible's credibility, as it demonstrates that Matthew has not just copied his genealogy from Luke or vice versa, so it shows they're multiple distinct attestations that are for the most part in agreement.

You forgot #5:

5. Bible is just collection of fictional stories.

It is really wrong to show enrichment of Bible by pointing to inconsistent material.

It is well know that bible was edited more then once, fixed but still inconsistent. Do you ask your self ever why?

Originally posted by GunzCoty
reply to post by stumason

 

He said sexual act.
And I believe what he means, or what the source means is that we are the only living tings that have sex just for fun.

And that is false, because Dolphins, chimps, bonobos and a few others intelligent mammals are known to have sex just for pleasure. A simple google search will show you that. The reason sexual pleasure exists in the first place is for incentive to reproduce (sexual selection is a big part of natural selection). If animals didn't have sexual urges they would probably go extinct. Just because humans are smart enough to analyze sex and understand how it works, doesn't mean that animals don't understand that it feels good.

Originally posted by germaniajim
From all the creatures on Earth Humans are the only ones aware of the sexual act.

That is the Forbiden Apple.

Why would sex be forbidden when it's the key to populating the earth? Didn't the bible claim god said to "be fruitful and multiply". That means have LOTS of sex and populate the earth, but then later in the same book it talks about how it's wrong to have sex unless exclusively for reproductive reasons.

In fact, the large majority of these 'scientists' simply disregard the evidence and choose to think it doesn't exist rather than admit they are wrong.

Which evidence is disregarded?