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.

 

After the flood, what did the Carnivors eat???

page: 13
13
<< 10  11  12   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 15 2018 @ 08:52 AM
link   
Would have hated to go to the "insect deck".....lol.




posted on Jan, 15 2018 @ 12:58 PM
link   
a reply to: dogstar23

You are in the first generation of Christians to believe that .. why???

Because you are taking a modern view of genetics and technology and shoe horning in Christianity in whatever way it will fit..


Religion always hides in the dark corner of what we don’t understand..

As we understand more, it gets pushed further and further back into that corner.

As “proof” of that..

Shouldn’t gods earliest followers have known about bacteria and dna???

If they are building DNA catalogs and cloning machines they would have to right??

Well they obviously didn’t..

Imagaine how many lives that save through out history if instead of “don’t worship false idols” god instead said “ hey, disease is caused by super tiny bugs and you gotta wash your hands a lot..


In fact isn’t their an ancient Jewish tradition where the rabbi sucks the blood after a circumsision??

Well shouldn’t they have known the mouth was too dirty to allow into open wounds??



posted on Jan, 15 2018 @ 05:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: JoshuaCox
a reply to: dogstar23

You are in the first generation of Christians to believe that .. why???

Because you are taking a modern view of genetics and technology and shoe horning in Christianity in whatever way it will fit..


Religion always hides in the dark corner of what we don’t understand..

As we understand more, it gets pushed further and further back into that corner.

As “proof” of that..

Shouldn’t gods earliest followers have known about bacteria and dna???

If they are building DNA catalogs and cloning machines they would have to right??

Well they obviously didn’t..

Imagaine how many lives that save through out history if instead of “don’t worship false idols” god instead said “ hey, disease is caused by super tiny bugs and you gotta wash your hands a lot..


In fact isn’t their an ancient Jewish tradition where the rabbi sucks the blood after a circumsision??

Well shouldn’t they have known the mouth was too dirty to allow into open wounds??


Wow where do you get this stuff, you are a strange one, sucking blood. It's against Jewish law, yet, what?
Care to elaborate or do you not consider yourself accountable
Some atheists have killed their children, do I say all atheists do that

As for disease, have you ever read the bible, the Old Testament laws.
Removing the sick from the community, washing hands in clean water, throwing away pots and bowls with cracks, eating certain foods and not others
Sounds like the Hebrews knew more about germs than you give them credit for

They obviously did...



posted on Jan, 15 2018 @ 06:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: JoshuaCox
a reply to: dogstar23
...

Imagaine how many lives that save through out history if instead of “don’t worship false idols” god instead said “ hey, disease is caused by super tiny bugs and you gotta wash your hands a lot..

In fact isn’t their an ancient Jewish tradition where the rabbi sucks the blood after a circumsision??

Well shouldn’t they have known the mouth was too dirty to allow into open wounds??


That is so incredibly untrue as to be openly and reprehensibly racist!

For one thing, consumption of blood (of anything) is against the Mosaic Law (Leviticus 17:10-14).

Jewish Kosher laws are extremely 'clean' and existed for millennia before anyone had a concept of bacteria. They are highly compliant with the best practices for cleanliness used in modern medicine.

edit on 15/1/2018 by chr0naut because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 15 2018 @ 07:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: Justoneman
Not yuk, because it was the plan. Using perfect DNA that had no flaws would have been Adam, in theory. Over time the DNA would be altered, particularly when UV rays were strong after the "firmament" of clouds over the Earth ended when the flood happened. DNA was then subject to being altered by photons of UV rays hitting all the animals and people on Earth. So in today's time diversity is our strength but initially it was superior DNA is my understanding.


Not a bit of that paragraph makes any scientific sense. Please define "superior DNA" for instance. How can DNA be perfect?


I don't know about perfect, but We have a large amount of non functional DNA.

I imagine 'perfect' DNA to have a high epigenetic potential variability, no horizontally transferred sequences, longer and better protected Telomeres and no non-functional gene sequences. I imagine also that cell apoptosis would be more balanced in such an organism.

Everything for that particular organism to survive and reproduce maximally with no wastage.

We'll just find something else that can be improved with it. The thing is that there is never a point where something is created, built, grown, whathaveyou that can't be improved upon. DNA is no exception. You could perfect those things but then as our understanding of DNA increases there will be more imperfections we identify, and as those are corrected, yet more will be discovered.

I seriously believe that perfection is impossible in the universe.


I actually quite agree with that.

(See, I'm not always a contradictory curmudgeon).




posted on Jan, 15 2018 @ 08:53 PM
link   
a reply to: Raggedyman

It is an example of how the earliest priests still had no idea how the world really worked.


It wasn’t the earliest jews who established the world was round or that the earth revolved around the sun..



posted on Jan, 15 2018 @ 10:02 PM
link   
a reply to: JoshuaCox

Oh Please! The Bible says Jesus is a worm and you think it means a mangod is a worm. Thats your problem,not smart peoples.

There are nine order of angels for example. Who told you they are a government of flying humanoids? Not the ancients! Modern idiots, who don't know how the world works.



posted on Jan, 15 2018 @ 10:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: chr0naut
No, I'm not. In the evolutionary sequence, you cannot get to speciation, except by variation (like as occurs in a single organism's mutation). It is a mandatory and foundational step.


That has nothing to do with minimum viable population. That applies to groups, not individuals with slightly different mutations. That very much is about speciation, not an individual mutation. If it can breed with the others and have viable offspring, than it's the same species and no problem for this at all. A mutation may start with an individual, but it's not it's own species, so it's not like a species is starting from scratch with 2 individuals.



Firstly, populations tend to gravitate to ecological niches and I know of no species that populates the whole Earth.

Apparently, I can also initiate a population from a breeding pair at whim and have done so. I have good reason to believe that similar occurs in nature.


You know what I meant by populate the earth. I mean the species will succeed and not go extinct. There's a reason incest doesn't work. There's not enough genetic diversity which causes problems. No you can't start anything for the long term with a single ISOLATED breeding pair. You seem to think that isolation has nothing to do with it, but that's precisely what MVP is about. If it was just 2 indiviudals in a population that breed with other people and share genes, that is completely different than populating an entire group or population with 2 individuals.


Please source your contradictory evidence.


Sources on the MVP have already been posted. You are trying to argue something that doesn't even make sense.


Where did the population come from?

From a previous population of ancestors.


I did not actually suggest that a single mutation was speciating, however, even when accumulated genetic change becomes speciating, how does that get into the population?


You falsely suggested that passing down traits to offspring and incorporating it into the population over time is the same as 2 individuals starting a population from scratch with no diversity or external sharing of genes and it's clearly not.


Populations are groups of individuals. If you remove all the individuals from a population, there is nothing left of the population. It makes no sense to talk of populations without consideration of the individuals that constitute that population.


Why is it always word games with you? No kidding populations consist of individuals. That doesn't mean each individual is starting a new population from one breeding pair every time they reproduce. Populations all interact together, they don't start with one breeding couple and isolate all the offspring. They breed together and keep sharing genes.


The suggestion that 'a population' (not an individual) all changed at the same time, in exactly the same way and that, therefore, they could breed together, sounds like 'magical thinking'.


Who suggested that? You are completely taking MVP out of context in your post here and now you are trying to rationalize it completely dishonestly. Isolation is a big factor.

edit on 1 15 18 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 15 2018 @ 10:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: Justoneman
I totally disagree. The DNA is for something other than junk, I can almost guarantee it.


That's exactly what I said. It's only labeled junk because it's non coding, not because it has no purpose.



posted on Jan, 15 2018 @ 10:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: chr0naut
Jewish Kosher laws are extremely 'clean' and existed for millennia before anyone had a concept of bacteria. They are highly compliant with the best practices for cleanliness used in modern medicine.


That is only for ritualistic ceremonial purposes in the old testament. It had nothing to do with germs and washing hands before eating. It was all about being clean for rituals.



posted on Jan, 16 2018 @ 12:46 AM
link   

originally posted by: JoshuaCox
a reply to: Raggedyman

It is an example of how the earliest priests still had no idea how the world really worked.


It wasn’t the earliest jews who established the world was round or that the earth revolved around the sun..





Everyone thought the world was flat
Whats your point?

We were discussing germs and hygene, not if the woerld is flat
Whats a flat earth to do with it
Not getting enought attention or something Josh?

Do you want to discuss hygene in the Old Testament

Read this and come back and join the adults in their conversation

bible.knowing-jesus.com...

historymedjournal.com...

www.tomorrowsworld.org...


But why would you need that Josh, you seem to know everything
Thanks anyway



posted on Jan, 16 2018 @ 12:47 AM
link   

originally posted by: Barcs

originally posted by: chr0naut
Jewish Kosher laws are extremely 'clean' and existed for millennia before anyone had a concept of bacteria. They are highly compliant with the best practices for cleanliness used in modern medicine.


That is only for ritualistic ceremonial purposes in the old testament. It had nothing to do with germs and washing hands before eating. It was all about being clean for rituals.


And you know that because?
You want us to have our faith in your word?

Religious atheists everywhere now days



posted on Jan, 16 2018 @ 12:53 AM
link   

originally posted by: Barcs

originally posted by: chr0naut
No, I'm not. In the evolutionary sequence, you cannot get to speciation, except by variation (like as occurs in a single organism's mutation). It is a mandatory and foundational step.


That has nothing to do with minimum viable population. That applies to groups, not individuals with slightly different mutations. That very much is about speciation, not an individual mutation. If it can breed with the others and have viable offspring, than it's the same species and no problem for this at all. A mutation may start with an individual, but it's not it's own species, so it's not like a species is starting from scratch with 2 individuals.



Firstly, populations tend to gravitate to ecological niches and I know of no species that populates the whole Earth.

Apparently, I can also initiate a population from a breeding pair at whim and have done so. I have good reason to believe that similar occurs in nature.


You know what I meant by populate the earth. I mean the species will succeed and not go extinct. There's a reason incest doesn't work. There's not enough genetic diversity which causes problems. No you can't start anything for the long term with a single ISOLATED breeding pair. You seem to think that isolation has nothing to do with it, but that's precisely what MVP is about. If it was just 2 indiviudals in a population that breed with other people and share genes, that is completely different than populating an entire group or population with 2 individuals.


Please source your contradictory evidence.


Sources on the MVP have already been posted. You are trying to argue something that doesn't even make sense.


Where did the population come from?

From a previous population of ancestors.


I did not actually suggest that a single mutation was speciating, however, even when accumulated genetic change becomes speciating, how does that get into the population?


You falsely suggested that passing down traits to offspring and incorporating it into the population over time is the same as 2 individuals starting a population from scratch with no diversity or external sharing of genes and it's clearly not.


Populations are groups of individuals. If you remove all the individuals from a population, there is nothing left of the population. It makes no sense to talk of populations without consideration of the individuals that constitute that population.


Why is it always word games with you? No kidding populations consist of individuals. That doesn't mean each individual is starting a new population from one breeding pair every time they reproduce. Populations all interact together, they don't start with one breeding couple and isolate all the offspring. They breed together and keep sharing genes.


The suggestion that 'a population' (not an individual) all changed at the same time, in exactly the same way and that, therefore, they could breed together, sounds like 'magical thinking'.


Who suggested that? You are completely taking MVP out of context in your post here and now you are trying to rationalize it completely dishonestly. Isolation is a big factor.


It was said that a poppulatiuon couldnt start from a mvp, of two.
Yet evolution can only provide a mvp as its source of two, how, we dont know, and then you want to say religion is faith
Barcs, you dont think this through, do you...

Talk about dishounest

Adam and Eve, creation = two, not possible

Evolution, somehow, unexplained = two and everything on earth alive today, logical

You want MVP to trash creation yet want it to support evolution, thats dumb, why cant you see that???
Do you have no logic at all, do you hate science that much?



posted on Jan, 16 2018 @ 01:40 AM
link   
a reply to: Raggedyman

Um... evolution wise we didn’t pop up fully formed lol.

And single called organisms are probably almost exclusively, if not exclusively asexual..

So by the time it was multi cellular and reproducing sexually , you had a big enough population to deal with the genetics..


By the time you had animals and such there were plenty of other potential sexual partners..

So either I am misunderstanding you, or you have zero knowledge of how evolution works..



posted on Jan, 16 2018 @ 01:43 AM
link   
a reply to: Raggedyman

No I was discussing what they not only didn’t know, but were completely 100% wrong about..

Things that anyone who actually knew the true nature of reality should have known..


The thought that some ancient goat herders knew more about the universe than we do.. in ANY WAY.. is ridiculous..



posted on Jan, 16 2018 @ 01:44 AM
link   
a reply to: JoshuaCox

he has zero knowledge of anything science... yet loves to tell people they hate what he doesn't understand

Can't wait til Barcs reads his reply though

should be hilarious


edit on 16-1-2018 by Akragon because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 16 2018 @ 02:02 AM
link   
a reply to: Akragon

Welcome to Tuesday on ATS. Lol..


Just one month of ATS moving all the fake stories to a “fraud bin” should send about half the board to infowars lol.




top topics



 
13
<< 10  11  12   >>

log in

join