|
Post by Cody™ on Nov 29, 2018 14:25:10 GMT
It took a while but good to see that science is finally catching up with the bible.
|
|
|
Post by faustus5 on Nov 29, 2018 17:49:56 GMT
It took a while but good to see that science is finally catching up with the bible. It took a while for you to pick up this bullshit article by a journalist who doesn't understand the slightest aspect of biology. You should have made a fool of yourself last week with this, but you waited to stick your foot down your throat today. Oh, well. I suppose it was inevitable that you'd fall for it in time. This work concerns Y chromosome "Adam" and mitochondrial "Eve," not two people who lived at the same time and mated, you ignorant piece of shit. And it isn't new. We've know about this stuff for decades, but one can always count on religious fuckwits to misunderstand what the science is actually saying.
|
|
|
Post by lowtacks86 on Nov 29, 2018 19:19:10 GMT
"It took a while but good to see that science is finally catching up with the bible."
Not really. According to your holy book, the earth is only about 6,000 years old, the article claims the pair were from 100,000-200,000 years ago. Which is it?
|
|
|
Post by rizdek on Nov 29, 2018 19:29:12 GMT
It took a while but good to see that science is finally catching up with the bible. If true, what do you think this would prove?
|
|
|
Post by Cody™ on Nov 29, 2018 20:02:34 GMT
"It took a while but good to see that science is finally catching up with the bible." Not really. According to your holy book, the earth is only about 6,000 years old, the article claims the pair were from 100,000-200,000 years ago. Which is it? Where does the good book say the earth is only about 6000 years old?
|
|
|
Post by Cody™ on Nov 29, 2018 20:03:24 GMT
It took a while but good to see that science is finally catching up with the bible. It took a while for you to pick up this bullshit article by a journalist who doesn't understand the slightest aspect of biology. You should have made a fool of yourself last week with this, but you waited to stick your foot down your throat today. Oh, well. I suppose it was inevitable that you'd fall for it in time. This work concerns Y chromosome "Adam" and mitochondrial "Eve," not two people who lived at the same time and mated, you ignorant piece of shit. And it isn't new. We've know about this stuff for decades, but one can always count on religious fuckwits to misunderstand what the science is actually saying. LOL Yeah I thought this thread might trigger you Faustus old boy...
|
|
|
Post by lowtacks86 on Nov 29, 2018 20:05:40 GMT
"It took a while but good to see that science is finally catching up with the bible." Not really. According to your holy book, the earth is only about 6,000 years old, the article claims the pair were from 100,000-200,000 years ago. Which is it? Where does the good book say the earth is only about 6000 years old? How old do you believe it is? Most Biblical literalists (which seems to be what you are) believe the Earth is only a few thousand years old. In fact, I'm almost certain I've heard you shovel out Young Earth talking points.
|
|
|
Post by Cody™ on Nov 29, 2018 20:08:12 GMT
Where does the good book say the earth is only about 6000 years old? How old do you believe it is? Most Biblical literalists (which seems to be what you are) believe the Earth is only a few thousand years old. Tbh I don’t know.
|
|
|
Post by lowtacks86 on Nov 29, 2018 20:12:46 GMT
How old do you believe it is? Most Biblical literalists (which seems to be what you are) believe the Earth is only a few thousand years old. Tbh I don’t know. Ok well if you consider yourself a Biblical literalist, that is what they generally consider the age of the Earth to be. It doesn't explicitly state 6000 years old, but if you add up the timeliness in the Bible, it does seem to point in that direction.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 29, 2018 21:05:20 GMT
"First, Stoeckle and Thaler only ever said that their data was "consistent" with the existence of a founding pair. That doesn't mean much, and they immediately conceded that the same pattern could have arisen "within a founding population of thousands that was stable for tens of thousands of years". The fact is, genomic data doesn't do a great job of revealing the sizes of past populations except in broad-brush terms. The human population was probably pretty small for a long time, but there is no reason to think it was two." (From Forbes) So, in other words no, they did not in fact confirm that all humans are descended from two people. Nice try, though.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 29, 2018 21:09:41 GMT
It took a while but good to see that science is finally catching up with the bible. So the bible claims Adam and Eve were part of a previous human race, wiped out by a catastrophic event? I do wanna see the apologist's explanation of this! One has to wonder why no link to the actual report was provided in the article, hmm...
|
|
|
Post by goz on Nov 30, 2018 0:36:46 GMT
.. and which two people would that be?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 30, 2018 3:01:36 GMT
.. and which two people would that be? Kevin and Bob.
|
|
|
Post by Feologild Oakes on Nov 30, 2018 13:34:50 GMT
|
|
|
Post by faustus5 on Nov 30, 2018 13:48:26 GMT
Yeah I thought this thread might trigger you Faustus old boy... Yeah, when ignorant morons post complete bullshit I tend to get angry. The most amazing thing about you is that you have absolutely no self awareness or shame about posting lies. You aren't even embarrassed for having made a complete fool of yourself in a public space.
|
|
|
Post by Cody™ on Nov 30, 2018 14:34:35 GMT
Yeah I thought this thread might trigger you Faustus old boy... Yeah, when ignorant morons post complete bullshit I tend to get angry. The most amazing thing about you is that you have absolutely no self awareness or shame about posting lies. You aren't even embarrassed for having made a complete fool of yourself in a public space. Going by my sporadic interactions with you and your general board etiquette there is no question you are a more dishonest person than I am. I know that for a fact. And there is nothing in this article that is a lie.
|
|
|
Post by faustus5 on Nov 30, 2018 14:48:30 GMT
Going by my sporadic interactions with you and your general board etiquette there is no question you are a more dishonest person than I am. I know that for a fact. You couldn't cite a single falsehood I've ever posted if your useless life depended on it. Actually, the entire premise of the article is a lie and a distortion of actual science. But since you have no morals to speak of, you don't care.
|
|
|
Post by Cody™ on Nov 30, 2018 15:24:56 GMT
Going by my sporadic interactions with you and your general board etiquette there is no question you are a more dishonest person than I am. I know that for a fact. You couldn't cite a single falsehood I've ever posted if your useless life depended on it. Actually, the entire premise of the article is a lie and a distortion of actual science. But since you have no morals to speak of, you don't care. Some of your greatest hits: - You said the United States Army is a ‘Christian’ terrorist group and Christianity’s equivalent of ISIS and Boko Haram. - You stated that a Christian theocracy would look exactly like what we currently see in the sharia ruled Middle East. - You insisted that not a single problem in the Middle East is connected to Islam. When I refuted you by pointing out Sharia law, you tried to move the goalpost. - You’ve stated recommending to woman to smile more and complimenting her beauty is sexist. You’re either too intellectually challenged to realise most of these are complete disingenuous bs or you’re outright lying. My quess is it’s a bit of both. You’re both stupid and dishonest.
|
|
|
Post by faustus5 on Nov 30, 2018 15:35:22 GMT
Some of your greatest hits: - You said the United States Army is a ‘Christian’ terrorist group and Christianity’s equivalent of ISIS and Boko Haram. No, I did not. You are a lying sack of shit. It more or less would--and did before you assholes were put in check during the Enlightenment. Before then, you people were torturing and killing people for not being "Christian" enough. And women were just property. No, I did not. You are a lying sack of shit. It is. But since you are a sexist piece of shit, you are clueless as to why. It is so delightful watching you face-palm yourself over and over and over.
|
|
|
Post by Cody™ on Nov 30, 2018 16:07:46 GMT
faustus5 On this thread you clearly describe the US army bombing Muslim nations as Christian terrorism. imdb2.freeforums.net/thread/132455/truth-islamNo, it wouldn’t and deep down you know it wouldn’t. You are a lying sack of shit. Your quote in a discussion about problems in the Middle East: “You can't point to anything substantial or significant over there that is entirely and only the cause of Islam rather than other political and social forces” No, it isn’t. To anyone with a semblance of common sense and who isn’t a complete psycho, there is nothing discriminatory or prejudice in advising a member of the opposite sex to smile more and complimenting their beauty. You are a dishonest sack of shit.
|
|