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.

 

Two pics from Oilantaytambo that 100% defy evolution

page: 25
39
<< 22  23  24    26  27  28 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 21 2014 @ 09:40 AM
link   
a reply to: noonebutme

Well, at least you can auto- delete yourself?

And you can rant on me all you want to no avail.
What I find odd, is that a number people needed
no explanation at all. They just replied some denied.
But they got where I was come'n from.
So how do I interpret that? Selective understanding?

Done explaining.

Krazy


Courtroom evidence is NOT the same thing as scientific evidence.


Who cares! It's evidence!
Stands to reason seeing the Bible in every court
room used all day long in every trial. even people
of high esteem regard it's authority and truth.
edit on Ram82114v57201400000033 by randyvs because: (no reason given)




posted on Aug, 21 2014 @ 10:10 AM
link   
a reply to: randyvs

Why would I auto-delete myself? I explain my positions and my arguments.

The Bible is not in every court room ( at least not in the UK) and just because it's "The Bible" does not mean it is THE authority or THE truth in every matter. You obviously believe in that stuff - which is fine. But not everyone does. In the UK, Christians can swear upon it if they wish, atheists can choose something else. You seem to believe that the Bible is for everyone and everyone should acknowledge its "authority" and "truth". There is another group of people in this world who also believe THEIR religious views should be adopted and adhered to by everyone else. It's not right. Their religious tome is no more real that yours and to be honest, does not have a place in the court of law.

Why do you blindly accept it as truth without any empirical evidence? If the Bible is the gold standard you measure all other truths to, then i worry for anyone subject to you scrutiny or authority.

The Bible is a fascinating account of history, represented by a collated set of stories, told through multiple eyes during a time in human history when we were ignorant of how the world and reality worked. Why would anyone use that a form of truth is beyond me.



posted on Aug, 21 2014 @ 12:02 PM
link   
a reply to: noonebutme

I was just pointing out that you don't have to click
on this thread if it bothers you so much.



The Bible is a fascinating account of history,


I agree more than you'll ever know.


Why would anyone use that a form of truth is beyond me.


And so it shall remain beyond you. Because you make no attempt
to see what others are seeing, that you aren't. But your inability
to see what I see, means I'm the one who's blind?

I'm the one who sees both points of view here.
You just admited you don't.

edit on Rpm82114v06201400000030 by randyvs because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 21 2014 @ 03:44 PM
link   
a reply to: randyvs

I like how you choose my words out of context to make it sound like i agree with you, which I do not.

I was illustrating the point that the Bible is nothing more than an "account" of history from many different views, all of which were ignorant to the world around them at the time, and therefore, lacking in any form of honesty. People walking on water, coming back from the dead, water into wine, etc - all fabrications; lies.

Hence why I simply do not understand why any sane, logical, rational person would use the Bible, or any religious text, as a source of "truth" and credibility.

And why your initial post about rock cuttings somehow disprove the theory of Evolution, which they do not and you have yet to explain how they do.

I suppose the reason why I cannot understand your faith in the Bible is because I had an education, which involved science, physics, maths, chemistry and biology - the "light" which removes the ignorance of religion. Now THAT is a truth.



posted on Aug, 21 2014 @ 03:48 PM
link   
a reply to: randyvs

Oh, and for the record, I'm not saying the parables in the Bible are all nonsense - far from it. Neither am I saying Jesus was made up.

The anecdotes and parables mentioned in the Bible are not "unique" to the Bible - "Be kind to others", "Don't steal from one another", "Don't kill one another" - these are COMMON SENSE principles humanity has lived by in order to survive (as subjective as that might be to some...)

I'm sure there was a fellow names Jesus or something like that. And he was an inspirational man; believed in equality for all, empathy, peace, love and had an incredible philanthropic attitude. But as I said previously - walking on water, coming back from the dead, the son of "God" (!) - all made up stories.



posted on Aug, 21 2014 @ 04:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: noonebutme
a reply to: randyvs

Oh, and for the record, I'm not saying the parables in the Bible are all nonsense - far from it. Neither am I saying Jesus was made up.

.....

I'm sure there was a fellow names Jesus or something like that. And he was an inspirational man; believed in equality for all, empathy, peace, love and had an incredible philanthropic attitude. But as I said previously - walking on water, coming back from the dead, the son of "God" (!) - all made up stories.


Actually, there's zero contemporaneous documentation (ie. historical evidence) proving that Jesus of the Bible ever lived. Not a word was written about him until two generations after he allegedly lived.



posted on Aug, 21 2014 @ 04:45 PM
link   
a reply to: Tangerine



Actually, there's zero contemporaneous documentation (ie. historical evidence) proving that Jesus of the Bible ever lived. Not a word was written about him until two generations after he allegedly lived.


Out of the great multitude of human beings,
crucified by the Roman tyrants. Only one name was
resurrected from hopeless obscurity, because his body was
resurrected from death. And that's the reason his name exists
in everyones mind today. And the name Jesus Christ is on
every tongue. And every knee will bow.

His existence is doubtless, without any documantation at all.
Any mention of the Christians anywhere in history, is also
documentation for the object of the faith. Can't even mention
the religion without identifying him. But I'm sure you'll continue
the fantasy. Hoping it's true.


edit on Rpm82114v57201400000042 by randyvs because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 21 2014 @ 05:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: randyvs
Out of the great multitude of human beings,
crucified by the Roman tyrants. Only one name was
resurrected from hopeless obscurity, because his body was
resurrected from death.


Made up stories - there's no evidence that ever happened apart from what people wrote hundreds of years after his death. Even the current 21st Century news media with all the "instant-on" Internet, video and audio recordings cannot get a consistent story straight between them - and you believe a bunch of scared, uninformed humans 1700+ years ago were accurately writing a FACTUAL account of something that happened 200 years previously?! Madness.



And that's the reason his name exists in everyones mind today. And the name Jesus Christ is on every tongue.


I disagree. I think it's due to how the "cult" of Christ was merged and propagated in 325 AD by the council of Nicea.


And every knee will bow.


Never. I bow to no man or "God". I'm a free individual. You can follow whoever you want like a lost puppy if it pleases you, but do not speak for me - I don't follow your beliefs and I would never bow to Jesus Christ.



His existence is doubtless, without any documantation at all.


That is a terrible statement. Not only do you claim an non-provable absolute, you then state the exact reason why it cannot be absolute.



posted on Aug, 21 2014 @ 06:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: noonebutme

originally posted by: randyvs
Out of the great multitude of human beings,
crucified by the Roman tyrants. Only one name was
resurrected from hopeless obscurity, because his body was
resurrected from death.






And that's the reason his name exists in everyones mind today. And the name Jesus Christ is on every tongue.



His existence is doubtless, without any documantation at all.


That is a terrible statement. Not only do you claim an non-provable absolute, you then state the exact reason why it cannot be absolute.

Not everyone in the world has heard of Jesus. To claim they have is absurd. Harry Potter is also widely but not universally known. Does that make him real? There is zero contemporaneous documentation (ie. historical evidence) that Jesus ever lived. There are no contemporaneous records of any kind, including Roman records, that mention him including no mention of his alleged trial and execution. You are making the same absurd argument that children who desperately want to believe that Harry Potter is real make. Perhaps you should ask yourself why you're so desperate to believe it? My comments are directed at randyvs not at the person who responded to him in a logical fashion.



posted on Aug, 21 2014 @ 07:09 PM
link   
a reply to: Tangerine

There's no desperation happening any where in my life Tan.
But you do seem to be getting upset as the repetition in you posts
seems to suggest.

Contemporaneous- nice word

a reply to: noonebutme

I stand by every word in my previous post.

edit on Rpm82114v192014u19 by randyvs because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 21 2014 @ 07:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: randyvs
a reply to: Tangerine

There's no desperation happening any where in my life Tan.
But you do seem to be getting upset as the repetition in you posts
seems to suggest.

Contemporaneous- nice word




But still no evidence from you. I rest my case.



posted on Aug, 21 2014 @ 07:30 PM
link   
a reply to: Tangerine




But still no evidence from you.


Well what's your flavour?

Scientific?
Physical?
legal?
Criminal?
Factual?
Theoretical?
Subjective?
Objective?
Historical?
Documentational?
Demonstrable?
Geological?
Gas reciepts?


edit on Rpm82114v332014u14 by randyvs because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 22 2014 @ 05:00 AM
link   
a reply to: randyvs

Just answer this question with a proper description : As per your initial post, showing cuts in the rock, how does that disprove the theory of evolution?

Please state how and why without hyperbole or telling people to re-read another source.



posted on Aug, 22 2014 @ 05:49 AM
link   
a reply to: randyvs

Jesus is pretty famous alright!



posted on Aug, 22 2014 @ 06:25 AM
link   
a reply to: randyvs

The bible is subjective evidence, and nothing more. Subjective evidence does not hold up in a court of law. Eyewitness testimony that is confirmed by other people can hold up, however there's no proof that any stories in the bible are written by eyewitnesses. In fact the various versions of the stories suggest the exact opposite. Swearing on the bible is done because this country is mostly Christian so it's meaningful to them. They are ancient stories, likely originally spread down word of mouth. The only thing they prove is that people believed them back then. When people talk about valid evidence, they are looking for OBJECTIVE evidence. You can call it whatever else, but if it isn't objective than it doesn't validate any claims made in the book itself or prove anything at all about a possible creator.
edit on 22-8-2014 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 22 2014 @ 12:14 PM
link   
a reply to: noonebutme

I don't see mans capability to acheive even the slightest
representations of pre-diluvian technology, that obviously existed
in aworld prior to our own. As the evidence suggests and that has
been recorded for our reading pleasure, not to mention many cultures
globally claim such historicities that reach back to such a time. As
being something that suits the fragile pieced together timeline,
construct of evolutionary theory. Perhaps you do? I don't.

Further more, the vastness of species populating this earth, from
creation to now? Evolution would not need piecing together. It
would not be a concept so fragile. And hinged on hopes of finding
some missing monkey ass link common invisible ancestor. In other
words the evolution, science is selling.

Being weak, fragile and arguable
at best? Most of all more than any other arguments against it. That
tells me it just ain't happen'in. If it were, it wouldn't even be debatable
because of the over abundant evidence. It appears to me like
someone is pushing a weak yet tempting lie to negate an authority.
Of course it's happily embraced by the weak minded, self indulgent,
godless human beings. Souless people are wicked and can never see it
either.

Next question?

But how do the cuts disprove evolution?


Selective understanding- See circular definition - See circular definition.

You obviously can't even re read the G-D heading.

edit on Rpm82214v27201400000059 by randyvs because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 22 2014 @ 06:42 PM
link   
a reply to: Barcs

And the valid, OBJECTIVE evidence, for a common ancestor is
where? Notice the trouble this theory has being validated, in
concrete terms of the tangible materials, a physical body should
provide to the fossil record? Was it an ancestor or a species of
ancestors. How big was it? Did it have a belly button?

And yet you persist to pacify yourselves, by demanding objective
evidence of what is already freely confessed ? Not to be of this
world! And it only stands to reason people believe a truth less and
less, the further they get from it in time. Not to mention the
liberties of such forgetfulness. The Bible, in fact scripture, surviving
at all thru the history of mans hate for God and his laws. Is exactly
the miracle you close your eyes too. That you may keep it out of
your mind.



edit on Rpm82214v33201400000030 by randyvs because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 22 2014 @ 07:03 PM
link   
a reply to: randyvs

And if science provided a "body", or whatever evidence demanded by creationists, do you think they would ever accept it?

C'mon.

There are books as old and older than the Bible, does that mean they are the "truth" too?





edit on 22-8-2014 by seabhac-rua because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 22 2014 @ 07:17 PM
link   
a reply to: Barcs

Sure there are instances where things can also have another explanation than a miracle, but I'm not speaking of those. I'm talking about the ones that are truly unreconcilable with a logical explanation.

Those ones can't be proven because those that don't wish to believe in them will always have a reason to explain them away. The ones I'm talking about are only proven on an individual basis and are meant just for those witnessing the event. In those cases, the people know all about what can be explained and what can't be. Those people are just as smart as you or anyone else, although with those who have no room for real occurances of miracles, they think they are the only ones smart enough to understand what is the boundry for logic and reason, and so they draw their own curtain down and cover over any other explanation except the mundane. With noses so far up in the air like that, how could they see a miracle even if it was right in front of them?


edit on 22-8-2014 by NoCorruptionAllowed because: fix



posted on Aug, 22 2014 @ 07:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: Barcs
a reply to: randyvs

The bible is subjective evidence, and nothing more. Subjective evidence does not hold up in a court of law. Eyewitness testimony that is confirmed by other people can hold up, however there's no proof that any stories in the bible are written by eyewitnesses. In fact the various versions of the stories suggest the exact opposite. Swearing on the bible is done because this country is mostly Christian so it's meaningful to them. They are ancient stories, likely originally spread down word of mouth. The only thing they prove is that people believed them back then. When people talk about valid evidence, they are looking for OBJECTIVE evidence. You can call it whatever else, but if it isn't objective than it doesn't validate any claims made in the book itself or prove anything at all about a possible creator.


That is totally wrong. The stories in the bible have the most highest degree of likely truth or historical accuracy (Some were authored by eyewitnesses themselves), because they were written between 0 years and 200 years after they happened, not 1000 years and more after they happened like all other books of old.
The bible is the only source of history from ancient times that has that degree of historical accuracy because of that. Some eyewitnesses to events in the new testament were still alive when many of those writtings were being recorded and they were there, and they authored books that are IN the bible right now.
read this:bible authors of new testament




top topics



 
39
<< 22  23  24    26  27  28 >>

log in

join