How DNA killed Evolution

Originally posted by undo
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.

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

If what you say is true, all of archeology is worse than the grave robbers by destroying every site they touch.

reply to post by solomons path

modern interpretation

no it's not modern. it's right in the text. it says it. Adam KNEW his wife and she begat. It doesn't say Adam had sex with his wife, but we know that's what it means. unless you wish to argue the point that adam knowing his wife, doesn't mean he actually has sex with her, at which point i must ask, why then does it say his knowledge of her is connected to her becoming pregnant and giving birth.

sometimes it's just too obvious

reply to post by TinfoilTP


archaeology is very careful, however, anthropology, throws out evidence all the time on the premise that it's out of place in the timeline

Originally posted by Altair909
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.

You don't really understand evolutionary theory.

We didn't "come from apes". We are a species of ape. Other apes are our relatives. Apes didn't come from monkeys. They are distant cousins. That is why there are still apes and monkeys.

Different linages lead to different species . . . while we may have all come from a common ancestor, that ancestor is hundreds of million years in the past.

We know where we came from because we can track morphology and, now, genetic similarities. When comparing genomes, we can not only tell lineage, but even how long ago the split occurred.

As far as the human body, it doesn't seem like you realize we know a lot of that stuff too . . . The pineal gland for example evolved in vertebrates to aid in photoreception . . . i.e. senses light. It is believed to have been necessary for organisms to evolve from one eye to two and acted as light sensing circadian clock. It still has this function in birds, while in humans the hypothalamus has taken over a more advanced circadian function.

This is all over simplified, but the information is out there if you are actually serious about gaining the knowledge.

reply to post by undo


Now you're moving goal posts . . . I know what "knew" meant in ancient times. I'm not talking about that and neither were you, nor was that what was being discussed when I pointed out your modern rationalization to archaic symbolism. You claim the snake and rod is a symbol for RNA. It's not and never was. Again, the symbology is well document for those items and furthermore, the Hebrews had a totally different symbology for the snake.

The modern interpretation is about the snake and rod symbology . . . not what "knew" means.

Originally posted by solomons path
reply to post by undo

 

Now you're moving goal posts . . . I know what "knew" meant in ancient times. I'm not talking about that and neither were you, nor was that what was being discussed when I pointed out your modern rationalization to archaic symbolism.

yes it was what i was talking about. DNA is the serpent in the tree of knowledge. knowledge at the time, meant to have sex. what else could it be, since trees in the bible are likened to family inheritance, which is genetics. moses raised a serpent on a piece of a tree (a wooden staff) to bring healing to the people jesus referred to himself as the serpent moses raised on the staff to bring healing to the people.

how much more obvious can it be? what happened after that? we were genetically nerfed to have shortened lifespan. what else can shorten your lifespan besides modifications to your dna?

argh, this conversation is so frustrating.

reply to post by undo


It's not obvious . . . it's called confirmation bias.

You are completely ignoring why those cultures used the snake as a totem and the symbology behind it, while trying to frame it under a modern interpretation based on the appearance of DNA and RNA.

Don't worry you are not alone in your confirmation bias . . . I've seen many a new age writer make the same leap, while ignoring the actual history of snake, tree, and staff symbolism.

Meanwhile . . . none of this has anything to do with the OP or evolutionary theory, so I'll let you discuss with someone else.

Originally posted by solomons path
reply to post by undo

 

It's not obvious . . . it's called confirmation bias.

You are completely ignoring why those cultures used the snake as a totem and the symbology behind it, while trying to frame it under a modern interpretation based on the appearance of DNA and RNA.

so why did the hebrews use a snake as a totem? this i gotta hear.

reply to post by undo


Already posted . . . in one of my previous responses to you. I think three of my posts back. Or you could just read a book on symbolism and what totems meant to different cultures throughout history.

EDIT - my last post on page 4.

the word is serpent from the word nachash. it means a sorcerer or enchanter = medicine.

Originally posted by solomons path
reply to post by undo

 

Already posted . . . in one of my previous responses to you. I think three of my posts back. Or you could just read a book on symbolism and what totems meant to different cultures throughout history.

EDIT - my last post on page 4.

edit on 8/14/13 by solomons path because: (no reason given)

why then did moses raise a serpent on a staff so the people would know where to go to get medicine for poisonous snake bites?

Originally posted by solomons path
reply to post by undo

 

Now you're moving goal posts . . . I know what "knew" meant in ancient times. I'm not talking about that and neither were you, nor was that what was being discussed when I pointed out your modern rationalization to archaic symbolism. You claim the snake and rod is a symbol for RNA. It's not and never was. Again, the symbology is well document for those items and furthermore, the Hebrews had a totally different symbology for the snake.

The modern interpretation is about the snake and rod symbology . . . not what "knew" means.

The Caduceus, a winged staff with two serpents twined around it, carried by Hermes.

Hermes: Messenger, scribe and herald of the gods. He bridges the gap between the metalinguistic and the sublinguistic in the form of the message, language itself.

Language is simply code.

DNA is code.

In the beginning was the word (code) and the word (code) became life...

The Caduceus in ancient Babylonian culture symbolized fertility, wisdom, and healing.

The modern symbol of the Caduceus originated in Sumer.

It's not that difficult to connect the dots....

reply to post by Blarneystoner

In the beginning was the word (code) and the word (code) became life...

absolutely. confirmation bias is when an anthropologist dates a dig site once and refuses to accept as evidence, anything that doesn't fit his bias

reply to post by UnifiedSerenity


I hope you realize that it was science that found those fossils to be frauds.

Pointing out how science constantly improves upon itself does nothing but show how much more credible scientific opinion is.....

reply to post by Blarneystoner


Yes . . . connecting dots. That is exactly what your brain is doing. That is the way we are wired. Unfortunately, the caduceus wasn't put together as a symbol in order to show the structure of life. It wasn't imparted to the people by divine or extra-terrestrial intelligence describe the structure of DNA. It was derived by cultures that had specific meanings (symbolism) for both the snake and the Hermetic staff. Each of which have symbolism, but together take on a conflation of that symbolism (life energy, fertility, magic, healing).

Your brain (and others) are then placing a connection based on the coincidence of appearance. However, you are ignoring the fact that this is in no way what those symbols meant to the people of that time or those cultures. While a nice conversation to have over a smoke, next to a lava lamp, it's simply your brain "connecting the dots".

Originally posted by Wertdagf
reply to post by UnifiedSerenity

 

I hope you realize that it was science that found those fossils to be frauds.

Pointing out how science constantly improves upon itself does nothing but show how much more credible scientific opinion is.....

Please don't bring critical thinking skills to a philosophy debate . . . it will just cause cognitive dissonance.

2nd . . .

Originally posted by solomons path

Originally posted by Wertdagf
reply to post by UnifiedSerenity

 

I hope you realize that it was science that found those fossils to be frauds.

Pointing out how science constantly improves upon itself does nothing but show how much more credible scientific opinion is.....

Please don't bring critical thinking skills to a philosophy debate . . . it will just cause cognitive dissonance.

2nd . . .

i think that would just as easily apply to you as to anyone else in the thread.

so here is the adam and eve figures in the garden. there are special trees that do various things to their bodies. there's a serpent in one tree that gives them knowledge that is later defined as sex. then their lifespans are nerfed by blocking the path to the tree of life, which is another thing regarding their bodies. but we're supposed to believe none of that actually has anything to do with dna and that the fact we point it out, shows we have confirmation bias. at this rate, saying the sky is blue on a sunny day will be evidence of confirmation bias.

Originally posted by undo

Originally posted by solomons path

Originally posted by Wertdagf
reply to post by UnifiedSerenity

 

I hope you realize that it was science that found those fossils to be frauds.

Pointing out how science constantly improves upon itself does nothing but show how much more credible scientific opinion is.....

Please don't bring critical thinking skills to a philosophy debate . . . it will just cause cognitive dissonance.

2nd . . .

i think that would just as easily apply to you as to anyone else in the thread.

I didn't realize critical thinking meant employing confirmation bias, superstitious interpolation, and modern reinterpretation of archaic symbolism.

Here, I always thought it meant looking at empirical evidence and making a decision if something is true, mostly true, sometimes true, or false?

As far as you last post . . . you proved my point.

Please provide evidence that the writers had knowledge of DNA at the time of these stories or that they were imparted by knowledgeable divine or extra-terrestrial sources. Please show me these archaic story tellers had any knowledge of biological processes (at the cellular level) at all.

reply to post by solomons path


well tell me at what point did you toss your critical thinking skills out while considering a set of passages that show over and over again that it is talking about the human body, first being given procreation and secondly, having the life span nerfed as it relates to trees with serpents in them? and instead, we're going to say that it has nothing to do with dna and is instead about their belief that snakes were sin related. what about the rest of the story? all you've agreed to view critically is the snake=sin (sex=sin) but left out the rest of the information surrounding it. why? why why WHY? why be so hard headed when the information is right in the text?