How DNA killed Evolution

examples of roman-ism in atheistic thought

papal interpretation of the flood event. check
papal interpretation of the creation event. check
papal interpretation of the flatness of the world. check.
papal interpretation of the age of the planet. check.
papal interpretation of one man and one woman in the creation event. check.
papal decrees regarding other religious views. check.
roman catholic higher criticism. check.
refusal to consider any other view. check.
disposing of dissenters by debasement, imprisonment, enslavement or murder. check.

i'm sure there's many more such examples.

reply to post by Vandettas

The OP's point is "every scientist for the last 100 years has been faking discoveries and evidence".

i dunno about the op, but i witnessed how this is pulled off, thusly:

science departments are only allotted so much money to function with. so what they do is they date a dig site, once. then all evidence found within that dig site that doesn't adhere visually, to the date, is thrown away as contamination. the reason given is, that it would cost too much and they don't have the equipment, man power or funds to date each out of place artifact found in a dig site.

this, all by itself, allows a multitude of mistakes and wiggle room of such immense proportions that virtually any theory could be built on the results. add to that, the artifacts that ARE dated, if they don't adhere to that one time dating of the entire site, they are disregarded as unreliable evidence.

Originally posted by UnifiedSerenity

Originally posted by AthiestJesus
reply to post by UnifiedSerenity

 

So , we have been manufacturing fossils and planting them for centuries ... for what ? .... to pretend there is no magic man in the sky ? ... c'mon .

No, in order to take Darwin's observation of adaptation which he then proferred common ancestry which he thought would be found in the fossil record. It was not found and in order to offer proof, liars fabricated proof. I am not going to re-post the information on on the hoaxes. Read that thread.

In your opinion. but if you are willing to be open minded and realistic about human behaviour you will come to a different conclusion:
A. Money (this still goes on today to get funding so they don't have to "work"for a living)
B. Fame (this still on goes on today with faked result to get Nobel prizes !!!)

What you also need to do is list the quite literally hundreds of thousands of genuine original non faked fossils which show evolution across the hundreds of millions of years.

Complex cells is not proof of intelligent design but changes over hundreds of millions of years. Just because the concept is difficult to grasp is no reason to invent God.

God / the intelligent designer. Where did God come from? If you are willing to accept a highly complex being (by definition MUSt be more complex than the creatures it created) then you are willing to accept that this highly complex organism or thing or being just happened to come into existence out of thin air or has always existed? That concept is far more convoluted and contrived than the slow emergence of complex life from slightly simpler life over hundreds of millions of years and billions of generations and thus billions of potential changes.

Originally posted by UnifiedSerenity
Why are you putting words in my mouth? I presented reasons to believe in intelligent design. Please tell me where I said, "Every scientist" anything? I said that scientists have faked their evidence. You basically have no point but to ridicule which is something I asked to not happen. You obviously don't get my point and that is that there is clear evidence of intelligent design.

Putting words in your mouth? These quotes are not yours?

This image is amazingly complex and it ties into the idea of irreducible complexity. It looks very much designed,

"scientists" created fake fossils to prove evolution.

You have not provided clear evidence of intelligent design, nor has anyone ever.

I believe in intelligent design because of how life works on the cellular level.

Why?

You are now bringing in a completely off topic issue and seem to need to mock. Again, not a suitable way to have a meaningful conversation.

Its not off-topic, you just don't want to have to deal with the fact that god is a ever receding pocket of scientific ignorance that's getting smaller and smaller. That little story I typed up has a place in every single discussion having to do with science, god, creationism, and evolution. Every time you can't respond to a question because you know your wrong, you say its off topic or you avoid the question completely.

I believe in intelligent design because of how life works on the cellular level. I believe in species adaptation within the environment, but not species evolution to new species. I base this on the DNA issues. I am going to share these videos. If you don't watch them, then we cannot talk from a common point of reference.

I'll ask for the third time, do you know what adaption means? I honestly don't think you know what evolution or adaption means.

reply to post by undo

Originally posted by undo
no no, the chart is all wrong. this is what it actually looks like

yes if you are an atheist, you are a roman. welcome to the (holy) roman empire.

how do you know you are a roman?
easy. observe:

- you quote only papal writs as evidence
- you quote only texts which continue to propagate papal writs
- you deliberately obfuscate what is in the texts of the ancient world in order to prop up papal writs
- you only allow papal decrees such as acts of war, to color your view of the ancient world
- you only cite activity of the papacy as your debunking tool
- no other authority on the subject is considered except the papacy, papal history
- and you are following the critical texts of roman catholic professors written 300 years ago, to color your view of the ancient world, even in the face of archaeological evidence to the contrary.

conclusion: atheism is, as a world view, roman catholic, who will consider no other view of the biblical text except the papal interpretation, which survives to this day due to your efforts. pat yourself on the back.

edit on 14-8-2013 by undo because: (no reason given)

...Um, you do realize that atheism is, by definition, disbelief in a god? Why would an atheist consult an intensely religious institution? I think the term you are looking for here is 'Roman Catholic'. If you are 'Roman Catholic', or possibly even any kind of Catholic, then one or more of the above probably applies to you.

But not if you are atheist. If you're an atheist, the above is probably an abhorrent method of investigation and debate. Undo, you should probably proof read your posts and be sure that you know what you're talking about before attempting to define an entire group of people according to their beliefs and behaviors.

reply to post by yorkshirelad

Complex cells is not proof of intelligent design but changes over hundreds of millions of years. Just because the concept is difficult to grasp is no reason to invent God.

The text doesn't say "god" anyway, it says "gods" and it doesn't say one man and one woman were created, it says multiple males and females were copied in the likeness of the gods. that means many males and females of some species were cloned from the gods. it wasn't even a man at that point, it was just called the adam, which sounds like an entire race of some kind. there's no indication it was even mammalian. it isn't till the adam are given procreation that they become human. sounds like mammalian procreation was spliced in to the genome of the previous species.

please, if you're going to debunk the text, use the actual text, not some regurgitated version of a papal interpretation from 1000 years ago. and then if it turns out to be wrong, at least you will know WHAT is wrong. but claiming something is wrong that was never right to begin with, is a straw man of immense proportions.

reply to post by AfterInfinity


good cop / bad cop = all cops so what's the difference?
all are under the control of the papal authority, even atheists. that's my point. the papacy defined
the argument and then insisted the argument always be phrased in that manner.

reply to post by undo


No, you used the term 'atheist' according to exactly what an atheist is not. I may as well talk about using fire to nourish my plants as they were dry and thirsty.

I'm still interested in what constitutes a being as a god. I haven't received a clear and reasonable answer on that subject. All answers are fraught with dogma and unreliable standards that tend to fluctuate with both culture and individual personality. In fact, the term "god" seems to be more a label describing our general state of expectations regarding divinity rather than a set of parameters defining the existence of a divine being.

But I suppose that's a topic for another thread, although...Serenity, you say you believe in intelligent design. I have a question for you, a very important question - if you believe in intelligent design, exactly what sort of intelligence did the designing?

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
reply to post by undo

 

No, you used the term 'atheist' according to exactly what an atheist is not. I may as well talk about using fire to nourish my plants as they were dry and thirsty.

I'm still interested in what constitutes a being as a god. I haven't received a clear and reasonable answer on that subject. All answers are fraught with dogma and unreliable standards that tend to fluctuate with both culture and individual personality. In fact, the term "god" seems to be more a label describing our general state of expectations regarding divinity rather than a set of parameters defining the existence of a divine being.

But I suppose that's a topic for another thread, although...Serenity, you say you believe in intelligent design. I have a question for you, a very important question - if you believe in intelligent design, exactly what sort of intelligence did the designing?

edit on 14-8-2013 by AfterInfinity because: (no reason given)

300 years ago, the papacy decreed and set up, the council of higher criticism. their job was to debunk the ancient texts of the world, so that only the papal interpretation of the bible would remain as viable history. they sought to redefine the entire ancient world. this started with the incorrect theory that the ancient greeks couldn't write when their texts were said to be written. greek histories, epics, financial records, etc were thrown out of historical documents and were no longer allowed to offer their information to support the histories of other ancient texts. this continued till the entire ancient world was ruled fake, except the papal interpretation.

it was then quite easy to just chuck out the papal version (since it was not accurate), and then the bible was pitched out as well since there was no longer any corroborating evidence from other ancient histories as they had all been ruled unreliable fairy tales. let's not mention that this just suddenly happened when people had the ability to read the text of the bible for the first time and realized what the papacy was calling christianity was nothing of the sort. in other words, they were in danger of losing control.

this is the foundation of atheism as a world view. it states that anything unusual in ancient texts, which the papacy defined as supernatural (a word that means "not naturally occurring" and powerful (which could mean advanced science, but that argument is not allowed into the discussion!), is a fairy tale. think about that. 300 years ago, atheism as a world view started and as their opening stanza, they threw away over 5500 years of ancient histories. the papal authority is single-handedly responsible for the atheist world view. no doubt about it.

oh oh, here's a big one: the word "sorcery" was originally a word that meant "medicine"
we were told it means supernatural magic activity of the bad kind. while there's no viable argument
against such a proposal, since mind altering substances have been used in ritual magic, this does not
mean that the word sorcery originally meant anything besides "medicine" which was later used in
ritual magic to create an environment outside the normal human experience by altering how the brain perceives reality.

so there you have 2 other things the papacy was responsible for:

the idea that supernatural magic activity = sorcery
and
the cover up that sorcery was originally just a word for medicine

reply to post by undo


Your argument is quite weak. Your 3 or 4 replies in this thread discussing papal and atheism is wrong. Papal and church stuff only has to do with religion. Atheism is the opposite of religion and can be born at any time anywhere by a thinking man. A person can be born on this earth, grow, and be an atheist without ever hearing of papal or roman catholic stuff. Just as someone could posit the existence of a god before papal and church and religion was established. An atheist thinks they are using their own judgement, logic and reason to come to their conclusion. I understand it is a weak atheistic argument to say " The bible is weird and has stupid and funny things in it, its wrong about a lot of things, and mentions magic, and there is no magic...therefore there is no god" that is a bad argument, and if that is what you are talking about, then fine. But that is one sliver in the pie chart of atheists and how they come about.

as regards the op:

this is the staff of moses! was moses practicing magic? no, he was practicing MEDICINE. the serpent entwined staff is the rod of asclepius, a medical symbol that represents part of your DNA (as in, deoxyribonucleic acid),.



so much is hidden, that is why the history of the world of science is not a graph that goes up gradually with a dark spot in the middle, but a continuous, ongoing compartmentalization, continuing up to today.

reply to post by undo


There were atheists long before there was a papacy . . . or Christianity, Judaism, et al.

More over, what do any of your postings have to do with Evolutionary Theory or I.D.?

Originally posted by ImaFungi
reply to post by undo

 

Your argument is quite weak. . .

ah but you (or rather atheists) can't argue the atheist case without appealing to papal writs, papal interpretations and papal decrees, and finally papal higher criticism. how can they hope to evangelize the believer into unbelief, if they don't use what the text actually says as their evidence but rather a quite easy to debunk papal interpretation?
the final result is to cement the believer even more firmly in the belief that atheism is just roman catholicism part 2.

reply to post by undo

Snakes entwined the staffs both of Hermes (the caduceus) and of Asclepius, where a single snake entwined the rough staff. On Hermes' caduceus, the snakes were not merely duplicated for symmetry, they were paired opposites. (This motif is congruent with the phurba.) The wings at the head of the staff identified it as belonging to the winged messenger, Hermes, the Roman Mercury, who was the god of magic, diplomacy and rhetoric, of inventions and discoveries, the protector both of merchants and that allied occupation, to the mythographers' view, of thieves. It is however Hermes' role as psychopomp, the escort of newly-deceased souls to the afterlife, that explains the origin of the snakes in the caduceus since this was also the role of the Sumerian entwined serpent god Ningizzida, with whom Hermes has sometimes been equated.

In Late Antiquity, as the arcane study of alchemy developed, Mercury was understood to be the protector of those arts too and of arcane or occult "Hermetic' information in general. Chemistry and medicines linked the rod of Hermes with the staff of the healer Asclepius, which was wound with a serpent; it was conflated with Mercury's rod, and the modern medical symbol— which should simply be the rod of Asclepius— often became Mercury's wand of commerce. Another version is used in alchemy whereas the snake is crucified, known as Nicolas Flamel's caduceus. Art historian Walter J. Friedlander, in The Golden Wand of Medicine: A History of the Caduceus Symbol in Medicine (1992) collected hundreds of examples of the caduceus and the rod of Asclepius and found that professional associations were just somewhat more likely to use the staff of Asclepius, while commercial organizations in the medical field were more likely to use the caduceus.

The caduceus, phurba, and serpents in general were never symbolic of DNA, or RNA (in the instance of Asclepius) . . . that's modern day rationalization. The symbolism of the serpent and the rod have very well established histories . . . it is all to simplistic to just go by mere looks.

the serpent in the tree in the garden is DNA. it's the part that was spliced in that gave humans "knowledge". as evidence i present the ACTUAL text rather than a papal interpretation:

Adam knew his wife and she begat.

knowledge meant sex. and trees meant genetics. so the serpent in the tree of knowledge, was that portion of DNA responsible for procreation.

to know or have knowledge, was to have sex. it's all about genetics.

what is the serpent in the tree a symbol of? same thing as the serpent on the staff of moses. it was a medical symbol, eons before it was used in modern pharmacy

I am not a religious person, but I am a spiritual person. 100 years ago, if you told people on a wide scale that we were once apes, it was the most offensive thing you could say. Now it is the opposite. I have a question, according to darwin's theory a species evolved by adaptation and survival thereby evolving with its surroundings. If this is true then why are there still apes? Wouldn't they have al died or evolved into humans?

Our bodies are so mysterious that we don't even know exactly what our pineal gland is used for besides secreting hormones for our body. So you are telling me that "scientists" can figure out where we came from but can't explain every organ/gland in our own human bodies and what exactly they are for?

My whole life I never believed in darwin, he was someone who wasn't even sure of himself. (read documents by him) he didn't fully believe in his own theory, but modern science has tried to make it a fact.

reply to post by UnifiedSerenity


So... the premise of your thread is; "it looks complex so it must have been designed"?

okay...

Originally posted by undo
the serpent in the tree in the garden is DNA. it's the part that was spliced in that gave humans "knowledge". as evidence i present the ACTUAL text rather than a papal interpretation:

Adam knew his wife and she begat.

knowledge meant sex. and trees meant genetics. so the serpent in the tree of knowledge, was that portion of DNA responsible for procreation.

to know or have knowledge, was to have sex. it's all about genetics.

what is the serpent in the tree a symbol of? same thing as the serpent on the staff of moses. it was a medical symbol, eons before it was used in modern pharmacy

edit on 14-8-2013 by undo because: (no reason given)

Again . . . this is all modern interpretation (rationization) to tie archaic symbology to modern knowledge. The symbology of the snake has a well known history. It symbolized life for it regenerative powers (emerges from the ground and sheds it's skin). It was in a constant state of renewel and is why it was used a symbol for medicine as far back as Mesopotamia. It also represented the duality of male and female for it's phallic shape and undulation (male) and engulfing belly (female). And to other cultures it symbolized something completely different, but there is much overlap in the symbolism for "primal life".

Since you are talking about the bible . . . you must represent what it meant to the Hebrews. Otherwise, you are being intellectually dishonest by conflating cultures. To Hebrews, the snake symbolized primal energy, the underworld (evil) and sin. It was a warning towards prudence. They were seen as poisonous, unclean animals. Just like the Norse viewed the serpent . . . a constant threat to humanity (higher self).

Originally posted by undo
the serpent in the tree in the garden is DNA. it's the part that was spliced in that gave humans "knowledge". as evidence i present the ACTUAL text rather than a papal interpretation:

Adam knew his wife and she begat.

knowledge meant sex. and trees meant genetics. so the serpent in the tree of knowledge, was that portion of DNA responsible for procreation.

to know or have knowledge, was to have sex. it's all about genetics.

what is the serpent in the tree a symbol of? same thing as the serpent on the staff of moses. it was a medical symbol, eons before it was used in modern pharmacy

edit on 14-8-2013 by undo because: (no reason given)

Yep..the feathered serpent in many ancient mythologies is the bringer of knowledge. Guess what a DNA strand looks like under an electron microscope....

Have you ever read "The Cosmic serpent" by Jeremy Narby? Or Ishmael by Daniel Quinn? Highly recommend for a "thinker" like yourself.