| Topic: |
Religions > Bible |
| User: |
"Dr Tam" |
| Date: |
04 Apr 2005 10:02:18 PM |
| Object: |
Creation |
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4408187.stm
A European team claims to have obtained the first direct image of a planet
beyond our own Solar System.
The "extrasolar planet" is said to orbit a star called GQ Lup - thought to
be like a young version of our Sun.
Similar claims have been made in the past, but sceptical scientists believe
the pictures merely show objects that share the same view in the sky.
The GQ Lup object is far more certain claims Ralph Neuhaeuser's team in the
journal Astronomy & Astrophysics.
GQ Lup and its companion are located in a star-forming region about 400
light-years away.
Dr Tam
.
|
|
| User: "Wonder" |
|
| Title: Re: Isn't incest wrong Pastor Dave? |
15 Apr 2005 08:59:45 AM |
|
|
Wonder <nospam@hotmail.com> wrote:
"Robibnikoff" <witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote:
"Wonder" <nospam@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:2hev515vjc3faoa1oo1rgq2b4m45mku0pl@4ax.com...
Ninth Commandment <ninthcommandment@yabbadabbadoo.com> wrote:
Unfortunatly there were lots of Elohim running around at the time.
On Wed, 13 Apr 2005 17:57:40 +1200, Ned Kelly <republican@email.com>
wrote:
Tell me, if Adam and Eve were the first humans then didn't the third
generation come about by incest?
Isn't that wrong according to God?
Ned
As Adam and Eve were the first humans they were not related to each
other. They did not have human parents. It was the will of god that
they mate and have children.
Yes, so says your myth. However, who did Adam and Eve's children mate with?
Each other?
The bible states that Adam and Eve had two son's. One of the son's,
Cain had a wife who gave him a gave him a son. The bible suggests that
Cain meet his wife when he moved to the land of Noid, on the east of
Eden. As there are parts of Genesis that are missing in the bible then
where Cain's wife came from is not revealed.
There was a TV program called "banned from the bible" that made if
clear that not all past scriptures were added to the bible.
Bible Studier
Take a look at http://reluctant-messenger.com/lost_forgotten_books.htm
Bible Studier
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mephisto" |
|
| Title: Re: Isn't incest wrong Pastor Dave? |
16 Apr 2005 06:42:52 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 16 Apr 2005 00:59:21 +1200, Wonder <nospam@hotmail.com> wrote:
Ninth Commandment <ninthcommandment@yabbadabbadoo.com> wrote:
Unfortunatly there were lots of Elohim running around at the time.
On Wed, 13 Apr 2005 17:57:40 +1200, Ned Kelly <republican@email.com>
wrote:
Tell me, if Adam and Eve were the first humans then didn't the third
generation come about by incest?
Isn't that wrong according to God?
Ned
As Adam and Eve were the first humans they were not related to each
other.
Eve was made from Adam's rib, so they would have been as closely
related as twins. That in itself is conclusive proof (as if any more
were needed) that the creation story has no basis in fact. If you try
and breed an entire population from a gene pool that small, disease
and abnormalities start to pervade and the population dies out.
Mephisto
.
|
|
|
| User: "Wonder" |
|
| Title: Re: Isn't incest wrong Pastor Dave? |
17 Apr 2005 01:57:10 AM |
|
|
Mephisto <mephisto@go.away> wrote:
On Sat, 16 Apr 2005 00:59:21 +1200, Wonder <nospam@hotmail.com> wrote:
Ninth Commandment <ninthcommandment@yabbadabbadoo.com> wrote:
Unfortunatly there were lots of Elohim running around at the time.
On Wed, 13 Apr 2005 17:57:40 +1200, Ned Kelly <republican@email.com>
wrote:
Tell me, if Adam and Eve were the first humans then didn't the third
generation come about by incest?
Isn't that wrong according to God?
Ned
As Adam and Eve were the first humans they were not related to each
other.
Eve was made from Adam's rib, so they would have been as closely
related as twins. That in itself is conclusive proof (as if any more
were needed) that the creation story has no basis in fact. If you try
and breed an entire population from a gene pool that small, disease
and abnormalities start to pervade and the population dies out.
Mephisto
But don't forget Adam and Eve were healthy without and disease or
adnormalites and the same goes for his children (you'd need to be in
great health to live will beyond 100 years). It's after many
generations that adnormalites started to appear.
Have you ever wondered how mankind has survives all these years when
many things could have wiped out the population of humans.
Bible Studier
.
|
|
|
| User: "Robibnikoff" |
|
| Title: Re: Isn't incest wrong Pastor Dave? |
17 Apr 2005 07:17:27 AM |
|
|
"Wonder" <nospam@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:nt14611v3vaoos0kst28k6domoalv1h20p@4ax.com...
snip
But don't forget Adam and Eve were healthy without and disease or
adnormalites and the same goes for his children (you'd need to be in
great health to live will beyond 100 years).
Do you honestly believe this?
--
---------
Robyn
Resident Witchypoo
#1557
.
|
|
|
| User: "Wonder" |
|
| Title: Re: Isn't incest wrong Pastor Dave? |
17 Apr 2005 10:30:04 AM |
|
|
"Robibnikoff" <witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote:
"Wonder" <nospam@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:nt14611v3vaoos0kst28k6domoalv1h20p@4ax.com...
snip
But don't forget Adam and Eve were healthy without and disease or
adnormalites and the same goes for his children (you'd need to be in
great health to live will beyond 100 years).
Do you honestly believe this?
I believe that Adam and Eve and their children were healthy without
and disease or adnormalites.
Bible Studier
.
|
|
|
| User: "Robibnikoff" |
|
| Title: Re: Isn't incest wrong Pastor Dave? |
17 Apr 2005 10:36:56 AM |
|
|
"Wonder" <nospam@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:t305611rcm062tma1t38o2kpnd7h61hn35@4ax.com...
"Robibnikoff" <witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote:
"Wonder" <nospam@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:nt14611v3vaoos0kst28k6domoalv1h20p@4ax.com...
snip
But don't forget Adam and Eve were healthy without and disease or
adnormalites and the same goes for his children (you'd need to be in
great health to live will beyond 100 years).
Do you honestly believe this?
I believe that Adam and Eve and their children were healthy without
and disease or adnormalites.
LOL, oh my. Frankly it amazes me how a grownup can believe these people
actually existed.
--
---------
Robyn
Resident Witchypoo
#1557
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "The Great Hairy One" |
|
| Title: Re: Isn't incest wrong Pastor Dave? |
17 Apr 2005 04:25:01 PM |
|
|
In article <t305611rcm062tma1t38o2kpnd7h61hn35@4ax.com>,
nospam@hotmail.com says...
I believe that Adam and Eve and their children were healthy without
and disease or adnormalites.
Can you provide any non-biblical evidence that they actually existed??
Cheers,
TGHO
--
The Great Hairy One,
ICQ: 118086514
All BAAWA and blue
SMASH! Aha! They'll save every one of us!
====================================
CEO EAC Roleplaying Division
The last thing many players
hear is me asking for 45d6...
(Remove spam block to email)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Wonder" |
|
| Title: Re: Isn't incest wrong Pastor Dave? |
17 Apr 2005 07:29:38 PM |
|
|
The Great Hairy One <the.great.hairy@GEEmail.com> wrote:
In article <t305611rcm062tma1t38o2kpnd7h61hn35@4ax.com>,
nospam@hotmail.com says...
I believe that Adam and Eve and their children were healthy without
and disease or adnormalites.
Can you provide any non-biblical evidence that they actually existed??
Cheers,
TGHO
In time with technical advances in science it will likely to be
proved.
There are some scientific evidence that Noah's Ark does exists.
Bible Studier
.
|
|
|
| User: "Robibnikoff" |
|
| Title: Re: Isn't incest wrong Pastor Dave? |
17 Apr 2005 07:48:05 PM |
|
|
"Wonder" <nospam@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:qiv561pgb8jvg7n5deqb6vhvopsghjsuf9@4ax.com...
The Great Hairy One <the.great.hairy@GEEmail.com> wrote:
In article <t305611rcm062tma1t38o2kpnd7h61hn35@4ax.com>,
nospam@hotmail.com says...
I believe that Adam and Eve and their children were healthy without
and disease or adnormalites.
Can you provide any non-biblical evidence that they actually existed??
Cheers,
TGHO
In time with technical advances in science it will likely to be
proved.
There are some scientific evidence that Noah's Ark does exists.
Such as?
--
---------
Robyn
Resident Witchypoo
#1557
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Liquid Grace" |
|
| Title: Re: Isn't incest wrong Pastor Dave? |
18 Apr 2005 05:43:23 AM |
|
|
In article <qiv561pgb8jvg7n5deqb6vhvopsghjsuf9@4ax.com>,
nospam@hotmail.com leapt about on one foot, screaching...
The Great Hairy One <the.great.hairy@GEEmail.com> wrote:
In article <t305611rcm062tma1t38o2kpnd7h61hn35@4ax.com>,
nospam@hotmail.com says...
I believe that Adam and Eve and their children were healthy without
and disease or adnormalites.
Er....say, Sparky....in your mythology, aren't we all the children of
Adam and Eve? When did the non-disease bit drop off? When Abel slew
Cain (rock band name!), after being cast out of the garden? When?
Oh, and, given that the words "non-biblical evidence" give you the
heebie jeebies, maybe you can just post chapter & verse, mkay?
Can you provide any non-biblical evidence that they actually existed??
Cheers,
TGHO
In time with technical advances in science it will likely to be
proved.
There are some scientific evidence that Noah's Ark does exists.
Yeah, sure. It's been 2000 years, Sparky. We've gone from stone tool
making folks to the space shuttle since then. Could ya think perhaps
maybe just one eensy bit of the Wholly Babble mighta been proven by now?
No? Hmmm...
Bible Studier
Grace
--
EAC Vile Harridan and Deranged Harpy
a.a. #1752, BAAWA Knight who Demands Shrubbery!
Lost In Oz....
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "The Great Hairy One" |
|
| Title: Re: Isn't incest wrong Pastor Dave? |
18 Apr 2005 03:21:19 AM |
|
|
In article <qiv561pgb8jvg7n5deqb6vhvopsghjsuf9@4ax.com>,
nospam@hotmail.com says...
Gidday BS,
In time with technical advances in science it will likely to be
proved.
How so? What evidence will scientists uncover to "prove" (no proof in
science, remember) that Adam and Eve actually were real people?
There are some scientific evidence that Noah's Ark does exists.
Oh really? Care to state what it is, please. I am unaware of any actual
evidence supporting the existence of the ark, so if you have something,
I'd love to hear it.
Cheers,
TGHO
--
The Great Hairy One,
ICQ: 118086514
All BAAWA and blue
SMASH! Aha! They'll save every one of us!
====================================
CEO EAC Roleplaying Division
The last thing many players
hear is me asking for 45d6...
(Remove spam block to email)
.
|
|
|
| User: "ChristiaNazism" |
|
| Title: Re: Isn't incest wrong Pastor Dave? |
29 Jan 2008 10:21:16 AM |
|
|
In article <qiv561pgb8jvg7n5deqb6vhvopsghjsuf9@4ax.com>,
nospam@hotmail.com says...
Gidday BS,
In time with technical advances in science it will likely to be
proved.
How so? What evidence will scientists uncover to "prove" (no proof in
science, remember) that Adam and Eve actually were real people?
There are some scientific evidence that Noah's Ark does exists.
Oh really? Care to state what it is, please. I am unaware of any actual
evidence supporting the existence of the ark, so if you have something,
I'd love to hear it.
There are ZERO - NADA - NONE, absolutely NO art-FACTS from the Bible's
man-made STORIES...if there were it would be earth-shattering news OF
BIB-LICK-ALL PROPORTIONS ... literally AND figuratively...so I'd love to
***SEE*** it too.
Cheers,
TGHO
--
The Great Hairy One,
ICQ: 118086514
All BAAWA and blue
SMASH! Aha! They'll save every one of us!
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
CEO EAC Roleplaying Division
The last thing many players
hear is me asking for 45d6...
(Remove spam block to email)
--
Religion needs Spirituality; Spirituality NEEDS NOT religion...=81
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Antagonist for God" |
|
| Title: Re: Isn't incest wrong Pastor Dave? |
18 Apr 2005 09:43:50 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 18 Apr 2005 18:21:19 +1000, The Great Hairy One
<the.great.hairy@GEEmail.com> spake thusly:
In time with technical advances in science it will likely to be
proved.
How so? What evidence will scientists uncover to "prove" (no proof in
science, remember) that Adam and Eve actually were real people?
We already know we all trace back to one woman.
Instead of acknowledging Eve, you prefer to believe
that out of all the possible lines, only one woman's
line survived. All others either died off, or became
sterile. Yea, right, that happened. (:
Now go ahead and keep telling everyone how Adam and Eve
is a fairy tale, while swallowing that pill. <chuckle>
--
Antagonist for God
Silence in the Face of Doctrinal Criticism is Suicide
http://www.ecclesia.org/truth/solution.html
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: Isn't incest wrong Pastor Dave? |
18 Apr 2005 12:39:13 PM |
|
|
Antagonist for God <news-group-mail@nospam-tampa-bay.rr.com> wrote in
news:lph761hb8ml2tkuiuul5tniegriprvhbl8@4ax.com:
On Mon, 18 Apr 2005 18:21:19 +1000, The Great Hairy One
<the.great.hairy@GEEmail.com> spake thusly:
In time with technical advances in science it will likely to be
proved.
How so? What evidence will scientists uncover to "prove" (no proof in
science, remember) that Adam and Eve actually were real people?
We already know we all trace back to one woman.
Instead of acknowledging Eve, you prefer to believe
that out of all the possible lines, only one woman's
line survived. All others either died off, or became
sterile. Yea, right, that happened. (:
Now go ahead and keep telling everyone how Adam and Eve
is a fairy tale, while swallowing that pill. <chuckle>
Apparantly you share the common misunderstanding of the "mitochondrial
Eve".
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
"You know you're over the target when you start receiving flak."
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Séimí mac Liam" |
|
| Title: Re: Isn't incest wrong Pastor Dave? |
18 Apr 2005 10:41:15 AM |
|
|
Antagonist for God <news-group-mail@nospam-tampa-bay.rr.com> wrote in
news:lph761hb8ml2tkuiuul5tniegriprvhbl8@4ax.com:
We already know we all trace back to one woman.
No, what is known is that we all descend from one woman, doesn't necessarily
mean that she is the only woman from whom we descend in that generation. Nor
that we all only descend from the same set of women in that generation.
--
Saint Séimí mac Liam
Carriagemaker to the court of Queen Maeve
Prophet of The Great Tagger
Canonized December '99
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "The Great Hairy One" |
|
| Title: Re: Isn't incest wrong Pastor Dave? |
18 Apr 2005 04:31:39 PM |
|
|
In article <lph761hb8ml2tkuiuul5tniegriprvhbl8@4ax.com>, news-group-
mail@nospam-tampa-bay.rr.com says...
We already know we all trace back to one woman.
Erm, no. We can trace the human mitochondrial genome back to a few
families - not to one particular individual.
And you do know that we can go beyond this particular bottleneck, and
work further down the hominid tree of evolution, right? That we can
trace humanity back through many other species and offshoots? How does
all that fit in with "one man - one woman"?
Instead of acknowledging Eve, you prefer to believe
that out of all the possible lines, only one woman's
line survived. All others either died off, or became
sterile. Yea, right, that happened. (:
Actually, no it didn't. Sorry. :)
Now go ahead and keep telling everyone how Adam and Eve
is a fairy tale, while swallowing that pill. <chuckle>
It is a fairy tale mate. Unless you can provide actual evidence, like
Adam's skeleton, missing a rib, or something.
Cheers,
TGHO
--
The Great Hairy One,
ICQ: 118086514
All BAAWA and blue
SMASH! Aha! They'll save every one of us!
====================================
CEO EAC Roleplaying Division
The last thing many players
hear is me asking for 45d6...
(Remove spam block to email)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Antagonist for God" |
|
| Title: Re: Isn't incest wrong Pastor Dave? |
18 Apr 2005 05:25:18 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 19 Apr 2005 07:31:39 +1000, The Great Hairy One
<the.great.hairy@GEEmail.com> spake thusly:
In article <lph761hb8ml2tkuiuul5tniegriprvhbl8@4ax.com>, news-group-
mail@nospam-tampa-bay.rr.com says...
We already know we all trace back to one woman.
Erm, no. We can trace the human mitochondrial genome back to a few
families - not to one particular individual.
Sorry, wrong. That's why she's called, "Mitochondrial
Eve".
And you do know that we can go beyond this particular bottleneck, and
work further down the hominid tree of evolution, right? That we can
trace humanity back through many other species and offshoots? How does
all that fit in with "one man - one woman"?
Sorry, there is no "hominid tree".
Instead of acknowledging Eve, you prefer to believe
that out of all the possible lines, only one woman's
line survived. All others either died off, or became
sterile. Yea, right, that happened. (:
Actually, no it didn't. Sorry. :)
Yet that is the only other possibility.
Now go ahead and keep telling everyone how Adam and Eve
is a fairy tale, while swallowing that pill. <chuckle>
It is a fairy tale mate. Unless you can provide actual evidence, like
Adam's skeleton, missing a rib, or something.
Not my job. I responded to your accusation.
--
Antagonist for God
Silence in the Face of Doctrinal Criticism is Suicide
http://www.ecclesia.org/truth/solution.html
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: Isn't incest wrong Pastor Dave? |
18 Apr 2005 08:21:30 PM |
|
|
Antagonist for God <news-group-mail@nospam-tampa-bay.rr.com> wrote in
news:erc8615ik4lfbvk0b65mav8i90hv3br0j5@4ax.com:
On Tue, 19 Apr 2005 07:31:39 +1000, The Great Hairy One
<the.great.hairy@GEEmail.com> spake thusly:
In article <lph761hb8ml2tkuiuul5tniegriprvhbl8@4ax.com>, news-group-
mail@nospam-tampa-bay.rr.com says...
We already know we all trace back to one woman.
Erm, no. We can trace the human mitochondrial genome back to a few
families - not to one particular individual.
Sorry, wrong. That's why she's called, "Mitochondrial
Eve".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitochondrial_Eve
Although she was named after the Biblical Eve, mitochondrial Eve was not
the sole living human female of her day. As many as 20,000 individuals
of Eve's species may have lived at the same time as she. But only Eve
produced an unbroken line of daughters that persists today. As a result,
only Eve's mitochondria have descendants in the cells of living humans.
Eve is the only female of her generation from whom all living people
descend along their maternal lines.
Mitochondrial Eve was the most recent mitochondrial ancestor of all
living humans, but, of course, her mother, maternal grandmother, and so
on were also the maternal-line ancestors of all living humans.
The mitochondrial Eve for currently living humans was quite possibly not
the same individual as the mitochondrial Eve for humans living thousands
of years ago or thousands of years from now [1]
(http://computing.dcu.ie/~humphrys/FamTree/Royal/ca.html).
Note that Eve need not be our most recent common ancestor. However,
because sexual reproduction shuffles the DNA of the chromosomes, the
dating of a more recent common ancestor remains impossible to explore by
current means...
....A recent challenge to the Eve theory has been the observation that
the mitochondria of sperm are sometimes passed to offspring. Still other
evidence suggests that sperm and egg mitochondrial DNA may "recombine",
or swap pieces of sequence with each other. So mitochondria may not be
so pure a matrilineal marker as they were supposed when the theory was
advanced. Depending on how frequently paternal inheritance and
recombination occurred, as well as when they occurred, it may be that no
Eve even existed. But scientists still disagree on whether these
processes do occur, and if they do, whether they occur frequently enough
to rule out an Eve.
And you do know that we can go beyond this particular bottleneck, and
work further down the hominid tree of evolution, right? That we can
trace humanity back through many other species and offshoots? How does
all that fit in with "one man - one woman"?
Sorry, there is no "hominid tree".
Instead of acknowledging Eve, you prefer to believe
that out of all the possible lines, only one woman's
line survived. All others either died off, or became
sterile. Yea, right, that happened. (:
Actually, no it didn't. Sorry. :)
Yet that is the only other possibility.
No, it's not. Genetics isn't that neat and tidy.
[more from the above cite]
Chain of events
The surprising fact that no other all-female lines have survived from
Eve's day is assumed to be an effect of chance rather than natural
selection. A woman wins the title "Eve" retroactively through an
exceptional streak of daughters: In each of her decendant generations
there is a daughter who gives birth to another daughter. Only when the
streaks of all other contenders are broken does Eve take possession of
her title. As a result, the award is less than absolutely certain,
because not every individual is tested for descent and among the
billions on Earth a few stragglers from other maternal lines might well
be out there.
Essentially, the hypothesized process by which all lineages but one
disappear is the same as the genetic drift of alleles. As is true for
the "fixation" or supplantation of all other alleles under genetic
drift, the process of matrilineal fixation is much slower and much less
likely to reach completion in a large population than in a small one. If
Eve had lived among a million or a billion other females, it is very
unlikely that the matrilineal ancestries of all humans alive today would
converge on Eve (or any one contemporary of Eve's).
Why might the community of Eve's peers have been so small? One
possibility is that the world population of humans in Eve's day passed
through a bottleneck. Another is that Eve lived in a subpopulation of
humans that came to supplant all others. A still more extreme version of
this latter scenario is that Eve lived shortly after whatever isolating
event caused the speciation of anatomically modern humans. Of Homo
sapiens remains discovered so far, in fact, the oldest that match the
bones of living humans date from around the time that Eve lived.
[edit]
Relation to Adam
On the other hand, there was a most recent man, "Y-chromosomal Adam,"
who fathered an unbroken line of males that are forebears of all the men
on earth. Y-chromosomal Adam appears to have lived only about half as
long ago as Eve. This means that another bottleneck, besides the one
surrounding Eve, affected the human lineage after her. The fact that the
bottleneck in Adam's day appears not to have produced also a matrilineal
ancestor of all living humans — a more recent Eve, in other words —
illustrates that the branching and disappearance of lineages depends on
chance (alternatively, male lineages may dwindle faster, perhaps due to
a history of polygamy, which would have allowed only a portion of males
to produce offspring). Some researchers say evidence of this second
bottleneck exists also in the mitochondrial DNA data. It is also
possible that the mismatched dates of Eve and Adam may illustrate the
imperfectness of the molecular clock technique, which continues to
undergo revisions.
Now go ahead and keep telling everyone how Adam and Eve
is a fairy tale, while swallowing that pill. <chuckle>
It is a fairy tale mate. Unless you can provide actual evidence, like
Adam's skeleton, missing a rib, or something.
Not my job. I responded to your accusation.
Another discussion of these issues, including rebuttals to an AiG
article.
http://www.evolutionpages.com/Mitochondrial%20Eve.htm
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
"You know you're over the target when you start receiving flak."
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "The Great Hairy One" |
|
| Title: Re: Isn't incest wrong Pastor Dave? |
19 Apr 2005 07:04:01 AM |
|
|
In article <erc8615ik4lfbvk0b65mav8i90hv3br0j5@4ax.com>, news-group-
mail@nospam-tampa-bay.rr.com says...
Sorry, wrong. That's why she's called, "Mitochondrial
Eve".
Heh. You know that there is many more than one "mitochondrial eve"
right? And that the mitochondrial genome possessed by this
"mitochondrial eve" was possessed by a number of women, not just one
woman?
Sorry, there is no "hominid tree".
Uh-huh.
So how do you explain all those hominid fossils? How do you explain that
nearly all scientists who study human evolution disagree with you?
Yet that is the only other possibility.
Again, nope. You need to realise that "mitochondrial eve" is a title,
not a person. Like "Queen" or "Prime Minister".
Not my job. I responded to your accusation.
Not your job to provide evidence for your claims? Why not? You're making
a claim - it's pretty standard to back that up with actual evidence.
Cheers,
TGHO
--
The Great Hairy One,
ICQ: 118086514
All BAAWA and blue
SMASH! Aha! They'll save every one of us!
====================================
CEO EAC Roleplaying Division
The last thing many players
hear is me asking for 45d6...
(Remove spam block to email)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Antagonist for God" |
|
| Title: Re: Isn't incest wrong Pastor Dave? |
19 Apr 2005 08:52:17 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 19 Apr 2005 22:04:01 +1000, The Great Hairy One
<the.great.hairy@GEEmail.com> spake thusly:
In article <erc8615ik4lfbvk0b65mav8i90hv3br0j5@4ax.com>, news-group-
mail@nospam-tampa-bay.rr.com says...
Sorry, wrong. That's why she's called, "Mitochondrial
Eve".
Heh. You know that there is many more than one "mitochondrial eve"
No, there isn't and saying there is, doesn't solve your
problem.
Sorry, there is no "hominid tree".
Uh-huh.
So how do you explain all those hominid fossils? How do you explain that
nearly all scientists who study human evolution disagree with you?
There is no hominid tree. If there were, this argument
would have been over long ago. If you think there is,
then prove it, but be ready to discuss each and every
fossil you name along the way.
--
Antagonist for God
Silence in the Face of Doctrinal Criticism is Suicide
http://www.ecclesia.org/truth/solution.html
.
|
|
|
| User: "The Great Hairy One" |
|
| Title: Re: Isn't incest wrong Pastor Dave? |
20 Apr 2005 07:18:27 AM |
|
|
In article <madb611f48jta96ndtts3iat4ri95obdf5@4ax.com>, news-group-
mail@nospam-tampa-bay.rr.com says...
No, there isn't and saying there is, doesn't solve your
problem.
"That's not an argument, that's just a contradiction!"
"No it isn't."
"Yes it is."
"No it isn't."
"Yes it is!"
"No it isn't."
Please provide evidence to refute the fact that there is more than one
mitochondrial Eve. Got a link, or scientific journal to back up your
statement?
There is no hominid tree.
Let me ask again - how do you refute those hominid fossils? How do you
explain all those similarities between us and other primates, both at
the genetic level and the phenotypical level.
If there were, this argument would have been over long ago.
Yes, you're right. This argument *should* have been over a long time
ago. It's only a very small minority of silly theists who seem to have
some problem with the whole human evolution thing. They want to spring,
fully formed, out of their god-concept's forehead, like Athena.
If you think there is,
then prove it, but be ready to discuss each and every
fossil you name along the way.
This has been done for me already: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/
So, let's start from the top, shall we? Please provide scientific
evidence refuting this fossil, hey:
AL 288-1, "Lucy", Australopithecus afarensis
So, you can provide scientific papers, discussions from well known and
well respected paleoanthropologist and factual and widely accepted
scientific evidence that this fossil has nothing to do with human
evolution.
Oh, and can I ask where you got your PhD from? What papers have you
published recently? What your credentials are for analysing and
commenting on fossils?
:)
Cheers,
TGHO
--
The Great Hairy One,
ICQ: 118086514
All BAAWA and blue
SMASH! Aha! They'll save every one of us!
====================================
CEO EAC Roleplaying Division
The last thing many players
hear is me asking for 45d6...
(Remove spam block to email)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Antagonist for God" |
|
| Title: Re: Isn't incest wrong Pastor Dave? |
20 Apr 2005 08:03:44 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 20 Apr 2005 22:18:27 +1000, The Great Hairy One
<the.great.hairy@GEEmail.com> spake thusly:
In article <madb611f48jta96ndtts3iat4ri95obdf5@4ax.com>, news-group-
mail@nospam-tampa-bay.rr.com says...
No, there isn't and saying there is, doesn't solve your
problem.
"That's not an argument, that's just a contradiction!"
"No it isn't."
"Yes it is."
"No it isn't."
"Yes it is!"
"No it isn't."
Please provide evidence to refute the fact that there is more than one
mitochondrial Eve. Got a link, or scientific journal to back up your
statement?
As I thought.
There is no hominid tree.
Let me ask again - how do you refute those hominid fossils?
As I thought.
--
Antagonist for God
Silence in the Face of Doctrinal Criticism is Suicide
http://www.ecclesia.org/truth/solution.html
.
|
|
|
| User: "The Great Hairy One" |
|
| Title: Re: Isn't incest wrong Pastor Dave? |
20 Apr 2005 08:11:37 AM |
|
|
In article <aokc611i4rqol5rmighsk3un1ipijmsjbk@4ax.com>, news-group-
mail@nospam-tampa-bay.rr.com says...
As I thought.
As I thought.
Please provide evidence that you actually think. It's yet to be proven
that you have either the capacity or the capability.
;)
Ta ta,
TGHO
--
The Great Hairy One,
ICQ: 118086514
All BAAWA and blue
SMASH! Aha! They'll save every one of us!
====================================
CEO EAC Roleplaying Division
The last thing many players
hear is me asking for 45d6...
(Remove spam block to email)
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Post Colonial Boy" |
|
| Title: Re: Isn't incest wrong Pastor Dave? |
21 Apr 2005 12:31:49 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 20 Apr 2005 13:03:44 GMT, Antagonist for God
<news-group-mail@nospam-tampa-bay.rr.com> wrote:
On Wed, 20 Apr 2005 22:18:27 +1000, The Great Hairy One
<the.great.hairy@GEEmail.com> spake thusly:
In article <madb611f48jta96ndtts3iat4ri95obdf5@4ax.com>, news-group-
mail@nospam-tampa-bay.rr.com says...
No, there isn't and saying there is, doesn't solve your
problem.
"That's not an argument, that's just a contradiction!"
"No it isn't."
"Yes it is."
"No it isn't."
"Yes it is!"
"No it isn't."
Please provide evidence to refute the fact that there is more than one
mitochondrial Eve. Got a link, or scientific journal to back up your
statement?
As I thought.
There is no hominid tree.
Let me ask again - how do you refute those hominid fossils?
As I thought.
If you want to convince us Dave...you're going to have to provide
evidence.
PCB
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Azrael" |
|
| Title: Re: Isn't incest wrong Pastor Dave? |
19 Apr 2005 11:19:12 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 20 Apr 2005 01:52:17 GMT, Antagonist for God
<news-group-mail@nospam-tampa-bay.rr.com> wrote:
On Tue, 19 Apr 2005 22:04:01 +1000, The Great Hairy One
<the.great.hairy@GEEmail.com> spake thusly:
In article <erc8615ik4lfbvk0b65mav8i90hv3br0j5@4ax.com>, news-group-
mail@nospam-tampa-bay.rr.com says...
Sorry, wrong. That's why she's called, "Mitochondrial
Eve".
Heh. You know that there is many more than one "mitochondrial eve"
No, there isn't and saying there is, doesn't solve your
problem.
Sorry, there is no "hominid tree".
Uh-huh.
So how do you explain all those hominid fossils? How do you explain that
nearly all scientists who study human evolution disagree with you?
There is no hominid tree. If there were, this argument
would have been over long ago. If you think there is,
then prove it, but be ready to discuss each and every
fossil you name along the way.
Hominid Time Spans
Species Time Span (millions of years ago)
Ardipethicus ramidus 4.4
Australopithecus anamensis 4.2 - 3.9
Australopithecus afarensis 3.9 - 3.0
Australopithecus africanus 2.8 - 2.4
Australopithecus aethiopicus 2.7 - 1.9
Australopithecus boisei 2.3 - 1.4
Australopithecus robustus 1.9 - 1.0
Homo sp. 2.5 - ?
Homo rudolfensis 2.4 - 1.9
Homo habilis 1.9 - 1.6
Homo ergaster 1.8 - 1.5
Homo erectus 1.2 - 0.4
Homo heidelbergensis 0.6 - 0.2
Homo neanderthalensis 0.3 - 0.03
Homo sapiens 0.1 - present
There is a graphic of it here:
http://www.people.virginia.edu/~rjh9u/humtree.html
.
|
|
|
| User: "westprog" |
|
| Title: Re: Isn't incest wrong Pastor Dave? |
20 Apr 2005 05:15:45 AM |
|
|
"Azrael" <god@my.computer.palace.com> wrote in message
news:tulb61pe0didbgfj5figaq276llhb9gj9n@4ax.com...
On Wed, 20 Apr 2005 01:52:17 GMT, Antagonist for God
<news-group-mail@nospam-tampa-bay.rr.com> wrote:
On Tue, 19 Apr 2005 22:04:01 +1000, The Great Hairy One
<the.great.hairy@GEEmail.com> spake thusly:
In article <erc8615ik4lfbvk0b65mav8i90hv3br0j5@4ax.com>, news-group-
mail@nospam-tampa-bay.rr.com says...
Sorry, wrong. That's why she's called, "Mitochondrial
Eve".
Heh. You know that there is many more than one "mitochondrial eve"
No, there isn't and saying there is, doesn't solve your
problem.
Sorry, there is no "hominid tree".
Uh-huh.
So how do you explain all those hominid fossils? How do you explain that
nearly all scientists who study human evolution disagree with you?
There is no hominid tree. If there were, this argument
would have been over long ago. If you think there is,
then prove it, but be ready to discuss each and every
fossil you name along the way.
Hominid Time Spans
Species Time Span (millions of years ago)
Ardipethicus ramidus 4.4
Australopithecus anamensis 4.2 - 3.9
Australopithecus afarensis 3.9 - 3.0
Australopithecus africanus 2.8 - 2.4
Australopithecus aethiopicus 2.7 - 1.9
Australopithecus boisei 2.3 - 1.4
Australopithecus robustus 1.9 - 1.0
Homo sp. 2.5 - ?
Homo rudolfensis 2.4 - 1.9
Homo habilis 1.9 - 1.6
Homo ergaster 1.8 - 1.5
Homo erectus 1.2 - 0.4
Homo heidelbergensis 0.6 - 0.2
Homo neanderthalensis 0.3 - 0.03
Homo sapiens 0.1 - present
There is a graphic of it here:
http://www.people.virginia.edu/~rjh9u/humtree.html
PD will explain that some of those are clearly, totally human, and some of
them clearly, totally animals, and that the division is obvious and anyone
who disagrees is a fraud and a liar.
J/
SOTW: "Your Racist Friend" - They Might Be Giants
http://homepage.eircom.net/~albedo1/
.
|
|
|
| User: "The Great Hairy One" |
|
| Title: Re: Isn't incest wrong Pastor Dave? |
20 Apr 2005 07:19:38 AM |
|
|
In article <NYp9e.51872$Z14.41013@news.indigo.ie>,
says...
PD will explain that some of those are clearly, totally human, and some of
them clearly, totally animals, and that the division is obvious and anyone
who disagrees is a fraud and a liar.
Then we'll ask him which are clearly apes and which are clearly human.
And then we'll ask him why his opinion doesn't match any other
creationists opinion.
:)
Cheers,
TGHO
--
The Great Hairy One,
ICQ: 118086514
All BAAWA and blue
SMASH! Aha! They'll save every one of us!
====================================
CEO EAC Roleplaying Division
The last thing many players
hear is me asking for 45d6...
(Remove spam block to email)
.
|
|
|
| User: "westprog" |
|
| Title: Re: Isn't incest wrong Pastor Dave? |
20 Apr 2005 11:07:56 AM |
|
|
"The Great Hairy One" <the.great.hairy@GEEmail.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.1cd0f3e67ce71320989701@freenews.iinet.net.au...
In article <NYp9e.51872$Z14.41013@news.indigo.ie>,
says...
PD will explain that some of those are clearly, totally human, and some
of
them clearly, totally animals, and that the division is obvious and
anyone
who disagrees is a fraud and a liar.
Then we'll ask him which are clearly apes and which are clearly human.
And then we'll ask him why his opinion doesn't match any other
creationists opinion.
That should put him in a good mood.
J/
SOTW: "Your Racist Friend" - They Might Be Giants
http://homepage.eircom.net/~albedo1/
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Antagonist for God" |
|
| Title: Re: Isn't incest wrong Pastor Dave? |
20 Apr 2005 08:04:33 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 20 Apr 2005 22:19:38 +1000, The Great Hairy One
<the.great.hairy@GEEmail.com> spake thusly:
In article <NYp9e.51872$Z14.41013@news.indigo.ie>,
says...
PD will explain that some of those are clearly, totally human, and some of
them clearly, totally animals, and that the division is obvious and anyone
who disagrees is a fraud and a liar.
Then we'll ask him which are clearly apes and which are clearly human.
And then we'll ask him why his opinion doesn't match any other
creationists opinion.
In other words, you'll try to play dodge ball.
Goodbye.
--
Antagonist for God
Silence in the Face of Doctrinal Criticism is Suicide
http://www.ecclesia.org/truth/solution.html
.
|
|
|
| User: "T N Nurse" |
|
| Title: Re: Isn't incest wrong Pastor Dave? |
20 Apr 2005 08:57:00 AM |
|
|
In article <6qkc615n5a55h37696lo4j1ev04hukve2a@4ax.com>,
Antagonist for God <news-group-mail@nospam-tampa-bay.rr.com> wrote:
On Wed, 20 Apr 2005 22:19:38 +1000, The Great Hairy One
<the.great.hairy@GEEmail.com> spake thusly:
In article <NYp9e.51872$Z14.41013@news.indigo.ie>,
says...
PD will explain that some of those are clearly, totally human, and some of
them clearly, totally animals, and that the division is obvious and anyone
who disagrees is a fraud and a liar.
Then we'll ask him which are clearly apes and which are clearly human.
And then we'll ask him why his opinion doesn't match any other
creationists opinion.
In other words, you'll try to play dodge ball.
Isn't that what you're doing Mr 'prove it'?
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
