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.

 

The Contradictions (and complete misunderstandings) of Christianity

page: 3
6
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 29 2013 @ 03:59 PM
link   
reply to post by Klassified
 


Thanks for the welcome. The universe is the Creator. Eternal. Infinite. And wholly (holy) wonderful




posted on Jul, 29 2013 @ 04:00 PM
link   
reply to post by tinfoilman
 


What about male and female twins? They share the same DNA. As explained in my post earlier, chromosomes (genes) can be turned on and off.



edit on 29-7-2013 by windword because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 29 2013 @ 04:01 PM
link   
While I agree with many of these points, in the sense that its definitely laid out with obvious clues for those who are led to look under the hood, then is a problem. There is both the way back home and ascension/progression and some dark side stuff there.

This doesnt make sense though:


Wake up Christians. And understand who the real Creator is, and stop being duped.


Satan and the Demiurge or ETs, or Elohims or Annanuki, none of these guys are our Father/Mother/Infinite Consciousness Source: they're just like us, kiddies in the school. Some of them assume they're on higher levels or bigger fish in the pond, but unless they're Love they're tiny fish inside, more AI than soul/spirit/consciousness for that regressed.

Real Love is in there, we're to go within, meditate, and awaken on the frequency of Love/Light/Goodness, (which does not mean giving everything you own away and watching your own children starve in the streets, for the bible is metaphor for inner processes), but it does mean equality and sharing and being kind should be a normal thing for those who think they're following Christ or in any other religion or spiritual development other than consciously choosing to serve evol.
edit on 29-7-2013 by Unity_99 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 29 2013 @ 04:10 PM
link   
reply to post by windword
 


The article you linked is from 2001. See the nytimes article I linked about the current understanding of geneticists.



posted on Jul, 29 2013 @ 04:12 PM
link   
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 





I don't think eve was a clone, so no the DNA wouldn't be identical.


From Adam's rib came Eve. Please explain how this isn't cloning?

Update: Never mind. You explained it pretty well with this:




If she were a clone of Adam she never could have carried Cain in her WOMB.

edit on 7/29/2013 by jiggerj because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 29 2013 @ 04:12 PM
link   
reply to post by windword
 


I saw your post where identical twins can have the same DNA, but male and female twins aren't identical twins. They're fraternal twins. Men and women have different chromosomes. Did I miss another post of yours where fraternal twins can have the same DNA? If so, could you please relink it?



posted on Jul, 29 2013 @ 04:13 PM
link   
reply to post by CircleOfDust
 


Well then why make a thread if you don't intend to support your prejudicial arbitrary conjectures? You could have stuck this in the Rant forum for that approach. And I didn't say anything about dispensations. I asked two pointed questions. When was the command given to not procreate with close relatives? And how can you say the rapture is a new concept when the word rapture is a theological carryover term from the Vulgate?

Thank you for addressing my post.
edit on 29-7-2013 by NOTurTypical because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 29 2013 @ 04:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by jiggerj
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 





I don't think eve was a clone, so no the DNA wouldn't be identical.


From Adam's rib came Eve. Please explain how this isn't cloning?


Because I have a penis, and if you clone me, my clone will have a penis. You're gonna have to change something to make it have a vagina and not a penis. If you do then it's no longer an identical clone.
edit on 29-7-2013 by tinfoilman because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 29 2013 @ 04:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by jiggerj
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 





I don't think eve was a clone, so no the DNA wouldn't be identical.


From Adam's rib came Eve. Please explain how this isn't cloning?


Well, not to get too deep into 5th grade Health class on you, but Adam had a penis and Eve had a vagina. Had Eve been a "clone" of Adam she would have likewise had a penis.

EDIT: I see you edited your post above so likewise, nvmd.
edit on 29-7-2013 by NOTurTypical because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 29 2013 @ 04:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by tinfoilman
reply to post by windword
 


I saw your post where identical twins can have the same DNA, but male and female twins aren't identical twins. They're fraternal twins. Men and women have different chromosomes. Did I miss another post of yours where fraternal twins can have the same DNA? If so, could you please relink it?


And her article that she linked is over a decade old. I linked to a recent article that says the previous understanding is incorrect and identical twins don't even carry identical DNA. See page 1.



posted on Jul, 29 2013 @ 04:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by NOTurTypical

Originally posted by tinfoilman
reply to post by windword
 


I saw your post where identical twins can have the same DNA, but male and female twins aren't identical twins. They're fraternal twins. Men and women have different chromosomes. Did I miss another post of yours where fraternal twins can have the same DNA? If so, could you please relink it?


And her article that she linked is over a decade old. I linked to a recent article that says the previous understanding is incorrect and identical twins don't even carry identical DNA. See page 1.


I was under the impression that SOMETIMES identical twins can have matching DNA, but even when they're identical they usually don't even have the same DNA. And there are cases where you can have a mutation that causes female/male IDENTICAL twins, but the DNA NEVER matches in those cases and many times leads to the female having Turner syndrome which almost always leaves the female unable to reproduce. So, I don't believe Eve had that. I'm pretty sure she mated, being the first women and all.
edit on 29-7-2013 by tinfoilman because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 29 2013 @ 04:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by tinfoilman
reply to post by windword
 


I saw your post where identical twins can have the same DNA, but male and female twins aren't identical twins. They're fraternal twins. Men and women have different chromosomes. Did I miss another post of yours where fraternal twins can have the same DNA? If so, could you please relink it?



Aneuploidy

For example, take the situation of an egg fertilized by a Y-bearing sperm. It has been found (Opitz, 1993) that monozygotic twinning is associated with higher than normal amounts of aneuploidy; so it is possible that if twinning were to occur through the failure of the first two blastomeres to adhere to one another, aneuploidy might also occur. In that case, the twins would have different chromosome complements. If the aneuploidy were for the X chromosome, one twin might by male (XY or XYY) while the other would be female (XO).

Such male/female "identical twins" have been found (Edwards et al., 1966; Machin, 1996). These twins would be assumed dizygotic, when they actually had originated monozygotically.
9e.devbio.com...



posted on Jul, 29 2013 @ 04:34 PM
link   
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 


How can new DNA be introduced when only one egg, one sperm, one combination of DNA exists for two bodies. Chromosomes are expressed differently. The DNA remains the same.



posted on Jul, 29 2013 @ 04:36 PM
link   
reply to post by windword
 


I already covered monozygotic twins and while called "identical" they do not share the same DNA. Most "identical" twins actually don't share the same DNA. Only a small subset.

Edit: This is only referring to the case where one identical twin is a different sex than the other. The reason they don't match is because having identical twins of a different sex is caused by a genetic mutation, add, loss of a chromosome to one of the babies. This is why they don't have the same DNA. Because one of them has a mutation in it's DNA causing it to be a different sex. mutation=change=not the same DNA.
edit on 29-7-2013 by tinfoilman because: (no reason given)

edit on 29-7-2013 by tinfoilman because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 29 2013 @ 04:50 PM
link   
Caesarion son of the saviour
Egyptian names
In addition to his Greek name and nicknames, Caesarion also had a full set of royal names in the Egyptian language:
Iwapanetjer entynehem
Setepenptah
Irmaatenre
Sekhemankhamun
These are usually translated as:

"Heir of the God who saves"
"Chosen of Ptah"
"Carrying out the rule of Ra"
"Living Image of Amun"



posted on Jul, 29 2013 @ 05:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by tinfoilman
reply to post by windword
 


I already covered monozygotic twins and while called "identical" they do not share the same DNA. Most "identical" twins actually don't share the same DNA. Only a small subset.

Edit: This is only referring to the case where one identical twin is a different sex than the other. The reason they don't match is because having identical twins of a different sex is caused by a genetic mutation, add, loss of a chromosome to one of the babies. This is why they don't have the same DNA. Because one of them has a mutation in it's DNA causing it to be a different sex. mutation=change=not the same DNA.
edit on 29-7-2013 by tinfoilman because: (no reason given)

edit on 29-7-2013 by tinfoilman because: (no reason given)


Of course they share the same DNA!


Although monozygotic twins are genetically very similar, a study of 92 pairs of monozygotic twins, carried out in November of 2012, has found that monozygotic twins acquire hundreds of genetic differences early in fetal development, due to mutations (or copy errors) taking place in the DNA of each twin after the splitting of the embryo. It is estimated that, on average, a set of monozygotic twins will have about 360 genetic differences that occurred early in fetal development.


Mutations and copy errors cause a change during development.

The fact that Eve was supposedly cloned from Adam's rib, and not created in the womb from the same egg as Adam, has little effect on the scientific reality of the story.

The creation story of Adam and Eve is just bad science. Their DNA would have been too similar to create the diversity needed to support human life as we know it. The human race would have died out if the story was true.



posted on Jul, 29 2013 @ 05:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by windword

Originally posted by tinfoilman
reply to post by windword
 


I already covered monozygotic twins and while called "identical" they do not share the same DNA. Most "identical" twins actually don't share the same DNA. Only a small subset.

Edit: This is only referring to the case where one identical twin is a different sex than the other. The reason they don't match is because having identical twins of a different sex is caused by a genetic mutation, add, loss of a chromosome to one of the babies. This is why they don't have the same DNA. Because one of them has a mutation in it's DNA causing it to be a different sex. mutation=change=not the same DNA.
edit on 29-7-2013 by tinfoilman because: (no reason given)

edit on 29-7-2013 by tinfoilman because: (no reason given)


Of course they share the same DNA!


Although monozygotic twins are genetically very similar, a study of 92 pairs of monozygotic twins, carried out in November of 2012, has found that monozygotic twins acquire hundreds of genetic differences early in fetal development, due to mutations (or copy errors) taking place in the DNA of each twin after the splitting of the embryo. It is estimated that, on average, a set of monozygotic twins will have about 360 genetic differences that occurred early in fetal development.


Mutations and copy errors cause a change during development.

The fact that Eve was supposedly cloned from Adam's rib, and not created in the womb from the same egg as Adam, has little effect on the scientific reality of the story.

The creation story of Adam and Eve is just bad science. Their DNA would have been too similar to create the diversity needed to support human life as we know it. The human race would have died out if the story was true.



reply to post by windword
 



Yes mutations and copy errors in the DNA. When you copy something with an error they're not identical anymore.

When DNA gets mutated, it's now different. That's why we can test for genetic mutations with DNA tests. Because after the mutation the DNA is now different and therefore not identical. Just like if I copied your post, but changed one word. My copy wouldn't be identical to your copy.

Seriously, stop trolling. I know first graders that understand this. Mutation means change, change means not the same.

And we're not talking about a random genetic mutation in the case of Genesis. We're talking about a change done on purpose by God. If God made Eve from Adam and changed her DNA while doing so to make her a women. He could have very well changed other parts of her DNA to make her different enough, that Adam and Eve could have mated just fine.

And yes the story, in a literal context, might not make any sense to you. That's okay, I'm not a creationists. In a literal context, it doesn't make much sense to me either.

However, the hypothesis that it can't be true because Adam and Eve were clones, is blown out of the water. One had a winky, the other didn't. They couldn't have been clones. Everything we know about DNA says that couldn't have been true.

And you're the one using science to prove your point? If scientists have to misrepresent and lie about their own science to prove Genesis wrong, then we have a problem. Perhaps we should take Genesis more seriously then.
edit on 29-7-2013 by tinfoilman because: (no reason given)

edit on 29-7-2013 by tinfoilman because: (no reason given)

edit on 29-7-2013 by tinfoilman because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 29 2013 @ 05:28 PM
link   
reply to post by tinfoilman
 





And you're the one using science to prove your point? If scientists have to misrepresent and lie about their own science to prove Genesis wrong, then we have a problem. Perhaps we should take Genesis more seriously then.


Science doesn't have to lie to disprove the creation story of Adam and Eve. The story makes no scientific sense.


His team, working with top geneticists across the United States, Europe, Israel and Africa, did a genetic analysis of DNA samples from the Y chromosomes of more than 1,000 men from 22 geographic areas and determined that their most recent common ancestor was a man who lived in Africa around 59,000 years ago.

Only men have Y chromosomes and researchers can look at gradual genetic mutations in them to “count” generations.

Other studies have used mitochondrial DNA, which women seem to pass down virtually unchanged from mother to daughter, to show that the genetic “Eve” lived 143,000 years ago.
abcnews.go.com...



posted on Jul, 29 2013 @ 06:07 PM
link   
reply to post by windword
 


After our previous exchange, I honestly don't think you should be posting anything scientific. You've shown you're willing to misquote it to prove your point. You should probably leave it up to the scientists.

But further more, like I previously said, most people don't take the creation story literally. I'm not a creationist and I don't read it literally. It wasn't read literally for most of its existence. Only in recent times did people start thinking that the creation story was literal, but it was never meant to be read that way.

Like I'm saying, I'm not a creationist, I don't read the story literally. But when your theory is so jacked up that it doesn't even make sense if it WAS a literal story I kinda gotta point it out and say, wow that's whack.

But you do the classic atheist thing, and when proven wrong, instead of just admitting it you move onto the next point like nothing ever happened. Well I didn't come to debunk every thought you ever had, or defend the creation story as literal.

That wasn't my goal. My only goal was point out you were wrong about that one thing and the conversation doesn't need to go any farther than that.
edit on 29-7-2013 by tinfoilman because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 29 2013 @ 06:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by windword
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 


How can new DNA be introduced when only one egg, one sperm, one combination of DNA exists for two bodies. Chromosomes are expressed differently. The DNA remains the same.


I already accept that God called every atom, particle of light, and law of science into existence by just speaking the command. And believe He formed Adam from dust. It's not a difficult leap of faith to believe He formed Eve's genetic structure in the same fashion He did with Adam.He's God after all. Why don't you put off being hung up about the minute details and plan on just asking Him the how's and the why's? It's not something I can speak dogmatically about. All I can do is offer conjecture.




top topics



 
6
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join