Things in the bible that science confirms but doesn't confirm

21 views
Skip to first unread message

JTEM is Magic

unread,
Jan 22, 2022, 12:03:53 AMJan 22
to

I've seen some utter bullshit posted by this guy in
the past -- even shared it & why it was utter
bullshit here on usenet -- so I can't be the least bit
surprised by his dishonesty now...

#1. "Mitochondrial Eve" is bullshit.

It's understood that, over time, some mtDNA lineages
are going to fall away, become extinct. One such
linage FAR OLDER than any so called "Mitochondrial
Eve" is the LM3 line, which we probably wouldn't know
about today if it weren't for a freak mutation that copied
some of it to Chromosome 11, where it remains even
today.

Get it? Some people today carry this LM3 insert on their
Chromosome 11. It's a mtDNA line but it's only found on
Chromosome 11 in some people. Nobody still has it as
mtDNA as far as we know.

Anyhow, the only way people can be carrying this LM3
insert is if their ancestors carried it as mtDNA.

They are descended from this LM3 DNA line! And it's
far older than any "Mitochondrial Eve." And it appears
to have an origins in Asia or Oceana.

So if the "Mitochondrial Eve" hypothesis is scientific
confirmation of the bible, the existence of this LM3
insert debunks the bible, scientifically...

Oo, that's gotta hurt!

#2. Blood no more "Gives us live" than does any other
body fluid or organ.

#3. "If you interpret some passages in the bible a
certain way..."

What isn't this true for? It's an admission that the bible
can be interpreted to be saying anything you want it to
say.

#4. "Not every interpretation of the bible is literal."

Again, what isn't this true for?

What for ANYTHING to happen or be discovered, then
"Interpret" the bible, Nostradamus or Bazooka Joe
comics anyway you want.

#5. "The stars in the sky are countless"

There's reaching, honey, and then there's REACHING...

#6. "Star differs from star in glory"

Well. Who could question scientific confirmation of THAT.

#7. "Both Heaven and earth will eventually pass away"

This is yet another example of bullshit being labelled as
"scientific confirmed."

I had to stop there. He was talking faster than I could type
and, quite frankly, I brought shame on myself by watching
for just under halfway in.

I'm sorry, this guy is a fucking shit stain. People who choose
to make a living out of intentionally dumbing down others
should be tied up by their thumbs and beaten with an iron
rod.

It's one thing to foster debate or offer consideration to an
unconventional belief or line of reasoning. You could even
be intentionally provocative, I feel, without being parasitic.
But this guy low key and he pretends that his lies are
conventional, accepted and even "Scientific."

He's literally a charlatan. He's the Youtube edition of the
snake oil salesman.




-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/674029109944434688

Steven Douglas

unread,
Jan 22, 2022, 2:11:40 AMJan 22
to
On Friday, January 21, 2022 at 9:03:53 PM UTC-8, JTEM is Magic wrote:
>
> I've seen some utter bullshit posted by this guy in
> the past -- even shared it & why it was utter
> bullshit here on usenet -- so I can't be the least bit
> surprised by his dishonesty now...
>
> #1. "Mitochondrial Eve" is bullshit.
>
> It's understood that, over time, some mtDNA lineages
> are going to fall away, become extinct. One such
> linage FAR OLDER than any so called "Mitochondrial
> Eve" is the LM3 line, which we probably wouldn't know
> about today if it weren't for a freak mutation that copied
> some of it to Chromosome 11, where it remains even
> today.
>
> Get it? Some people today carry this LM3 insert on their
> Chromosome 11. It's a mtDNA line but it's only found on
> Chromosome 11 in some people. Nobody still has it as
> mtDNA as far as we know.
>
> Anyhow, the only way people can be carrying this LM3
> insert is if their ancestors carried it as mtDNA.
>
> They are descended from this LM3 DNA line! And it's
> far older than any "Mitochondrial Eve." And it appears
> to have an origins in Asia or Oceana.

Is LM3 the Lake Mungo Man? You're saying LM3 is older than
Mitochondrial Eve?
>
> So if the "Mitochondrial Eve" hypothesis is scientific
> confirmation of the bible, the existence of this LM3
> insert debunks the bible, scientifically...
>
> Oo, that's gotta hurt!

Why?

JTEM is Magic

unread,
Jan 22, 2022, 2:46:36 AMJan 22
to
Steven Douglas wrote:

> Is LM3 the Lake Mungo Man? You're saying LM3 is older than
> Mitochondrial Eve?

Yes Mungo Man carried that line, though his carries mutations
differentiating it from the Chromosome 11 insert. Meaning,
one is older than the other...

It's not me. I'm not the one who found it, I'm not the one who
came up with the dating techniques but it is older than any
so called "Mitochondrial Eve," going by the same methods that
they use to date "Mitochondrial Eve."

That is what I'm saying.

If you take the way they date this imaginary "Mitochondrial Eve"
and use it to date the LM3 line, the LM3 line is significantly
older.

> > So if the "Mitochondrial Eve" hypothesis is scientific
> > confirmation of the bible, the existence of this LM3
> > insert debunks the bible, scientifically...
> >
> > Oo, that's gotta hurt!

> Why?

Because the dickweed in the video stated the opposite: That
the science confirms the bible with Mitochondrial Eve. But it
doesn't. BILLIONS of people can trace their ancestry back much
further, along the LM3 line.



-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/84663014743


Steven Douglas

unread,
Jan 22, 2022, 4:39:41 PMJan 22
to
On Friday, January 21, 2022 at 11:46:36 PM UTC-8, JTEM is Magic wrote:
> Steven Douglas wrote:
>
> > Is LM3 the Lake Mungo Man? You're saying LM3 is older than
> > Mitochondrial Eve?
>
> Yes Mungo Man carried that line, though his carries mutations
> differentiating it from the Chromosome 11 insert. Meaning,
> one is older than the other...
>
> It's not me. I'm not the one who found it, I'm not the one who
> came up with the dating techniques but it is older than any
> so called "Mitochondrial Eve," going by the same methods that
> they use to date "Mitochondrial Eve."
>
> That is what I'm saying.

How old is Lake Mungo Man, and how old is Mitochondrial Eve?
>
> If you take the way they date this imaginary "Mitochondrial Eve"
> and use it to date the LM3 line, the LM3 line is significantly
> older.
>
> > > So if the "Mitochondrial Eve" hypothesis is scientific
> > > confirmation of the bible, the existence of this LM3
> > > insert debunks the bible, scientifically...
> > >
> > > Oo, that's gotta hurt!
>
> > Why?
>
> Because the dickweed in the video stated the opposite: That
> the science confirms the bible with Mitochondrial Eve.

Well, there is nothing in science that contradicts the Bible.
>
> But it
> doesn't. BILLIONS of people can trace their ancestry back much
> further, along the LM3 line.

How much further is "much further"?

JTEM is Magic

unread,
Jan 22, 2022, 5:30:43 PMJan 22
to
Steven Douglas wrote:

> How old is Lake Mungo Man, and how old is Mitochondrial Eve?

You're asking about two entirely different things.

"Mitochondrial Eve" is a discussion on mtDNA; how far back you
must go to arrive at a point of convergence. "Mungo Man" is an
archaeological find. It's human remains. I was speaking of the
physical remains I was speaking in the exact same context as
"Mitochondrial Eve": His mtDNA line.

As for how old "Mitochondrial Eve" is... take your pick. It's one
of my most frequent complaints: Paleo anthropology is a social
program and NOT a science. So the "Data" is whatever the
Out of Africa purity crowd needs it to be.

It was under 200,000 years. Now they're claiming it may be as
old as 230,000 years! Just doing the Google I spotted a cite that
said 100k to 230k years.

Yeah, THAT exact...

And if you think I'm exaggerating here, consider that the status
quo is now pretending that the original LM3 finds were an error.
They're passing them off as modern contamination from
people of European descent -- white Australians. But that is
literally impossible.

Yes, it IS possible that Europeans can carry the LM3 insert on
their Chromosome 11, but it's not identical. There's differences
between the LM3 insert -- which effectively STOPPED the so
called "Molecular Clock" after it copied over -- and Mungo Man.

Here:

http://www.convictcreations.com/aborigines/prehistory.htm

I shouldn't say this, being as sloppy as I am, but it's not the best
written website. And if you read these things like I do, separate
the facts from the opinion. That way you can arrive at your own
opinions, based on the facts, and compare them to his.

> How much further is "much further"?

The cite I offered posits as far back as 850k. I don't believe that,
for a number of reasons. I'll start with the fact that "Molecular
Dating" exaggerates age, particularly with genes that are subject
to heavy selection -- like mtDNA and the Y Chromosome.

ALSO: Around 800,000 years ago there was one or more large
impacts in the area. It would have been catastrophic! We're
talking Armageddon Level stuff here. It may have been one of
two events that resulted in people saying "Out of Africa" rather
than "Out of Asia" (or Oceana).




-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/tagged/AGW

Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages