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.

 

Evolution is a farce: Evidence

page: 15
27
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 22 2014 @ 12:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: Peeple
a reply to: borntowatch

You're just trying to have the last word!

IT'S MINE!!!



Ok you can have it




posted on Nov, 22 2014 @ 12:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: Peeple
I am deeply offended by that...

Offending people usually happens when you speak the truth.

In my experience, when ever someone says they are offended, it’s nothing more than a great catch phrase used to divert attention from themselves and onto someone else.


“Hypocrites get offended by the truth.” ~ Jess C. Scott



posted on Nov, 22 2014 @ 12:51 PM
link   
a reply to: Murgatroid

Ahem no, I was offended, because he said I don't believe in god. That's, as the answer says further down the line, not true, but a personal business, that has nothing to do with the topic.

@borntowatch: thanks see I knew deep down you're nice



posted on Nov, 22 2014 @ 02:22 PM
link   
a reply to: borntowatch

I wish you could reply to my post first.
I wondered if you would dare considering the apocryphal scriptures. Apparently you don't.

Off topic in a thread about evolution ?
Absolutely not.
Since you plug your ears each time you come across an argument that conflicts too much with your current paradoxal belief system. It is therefore impossible to get you wrong ...
If it is not possible to reconsider the content in a constructive way ... then you leave no other choice but targeting the whole container.

And that's where YOU represent a threat.
A threat to the Bible and Christianity in general.
While YEC are no shy of ridiculing themselves in the name of the Bible by promoting pseudo-science. They don't realise they ridicule the whole Bible in the process.

Since you base your understanding of the holy scriptures by considering the most LITERAL interpretation of text, like it or not, but you are the Christian equivalent of ISIS and Boko-Haram among the Muslims. They too claim to have the only literal truth.
For God sake, GET THE MESSAGE, DON'T JUST READ THE TEXT.

Of course you are far from committing the same crimes as the other lunatics.
But you bring no service to the cause you pretend to defend.
The Bible doesn't tell the same story as the Koran, but if you look well, beyond the text, the rituals, the dogmas, the core values are quite comparable.


originally posted by: TechUnique
ALL THE WHILE NOT REALIZING THAT WE ARE TRYING TO SAVE YOU.


And then this ... I skipped the rest.

All that in the name of our salvation. Thanks for trying.
Does this means you consider yourselves as saved already ...
Just for subscribing to a belief system YOU consider as true ...

I said that Pontius Pilate was the only Biblical character that happens to be acknowledge by both Theologians, Historians and Archeologists.
I find very ironical that he's famous for washing his hands and quoting "I am innocent of this man's blood; see you to it.".



posted on Nov, 22 2014 @ 02:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: Murgatroid

originally posted by: Peeple
I am deeply offended by that...

Offending people usually happens when you speak the truth.

In my experience, when ever someone says they are offended, it’s nothing more than a great catch phrase used to divert attention from themselves and onto someone else.


“Hypocrites get offended by the truth.” ~ Jess C. Scott


people are offended quite often by other people who like conduct themselves inappropriatiely and have no consideration for the feelings of those they interact with. so please, keep telling us about how you have no consideration for the feelings of those whom you have offended or might offend in the future. i hope karma acts extra swiftly when you do.
edit on 22-11-2014 by TzarChasm because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 22 2014 @ 02:57 PM
link   
a reply to: borntowatch


Be proud evolutionists, this is your whole argument , this is how your science is represented.


we are not proud, we are just closer to being right and trying to do you a favor by showing you how.



posted on Nov, 22 2014 @ 02:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: borntowatch

I never saw anything reasonable or valid, just a tired boring old disproven argument


That's because you're not looking nor are you interested in critically examining the evidence. Yu are content in your own faith based beliefs, which is fine. But to constantly demand evidence, be given exactly what you ask for and then either dismiss it out of hand or not bother even reading it and have the balls to make a statements like the one above, to me is a most bizarre incredulousness


Now listen (I want to be patronising and call you "son" back) Mr Vlar, the fact you can do no more than cut and past/link evolutionist articles indicates to me you dont have the ability to explain your own beliefs.


Why stop your patronizing condescending ways so suddenly? Its part of your charm after all. Just for the record, it was a typo from posting from a cell phone extremely early mor ing or very late at night depending on perspective. I didn't intend to call you son, it was supposed to say SO. Irregardless of the typo, I rarely cut and paste anything and it usually is my own words based on decades of research. When I do so it is to show support for a succinct point and occasionally for purposes of haste.


Your citations come from pro evolutionist groups who I pay no credence to, same as you pay no credence to creation science groups.


What you call "pro evolutionist groups" the rest of the world calls scientists. And its pretty ignorant to say I pay no heed to pro creationist literature. I wouldn't be able to rebut your linked source material on a point by point basis if I hadn't read it first. Which is far more than you are willing to do with a point of view that disagrees with yours. How can you make comments like "its the same tired disproven arguments" if you haven't actually looked at the material? Incredibly disingenuous of you to do so while in prior posts you tell me to get off my high horse...pure unadulterated irony.


Love to chat but my Archaeoraptor is cawing, she needs to be fed.


Its about as likely you're going to feed an archaeoraptor as it is the Christian god will reign down an apocalypse a la Revelations and more likely that the earth is as young as you believe it is than you feeding an archaeoraptor. No scientist claimed it was a real fossil and once private collectors allowed it to be examined it was immediately announced as a hoax. Yet you still want to fantasize about how scientists are dishonest liars and cheats who make up evidence as they go along because it makes you feel more righteous in your instant dismissals of evidence.

edit on 22-11-2014 by peter vlar because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 22 2014 @ 06:25 PM
link   
a reply to: TechUnique

I am glad to see someone else who isn't just blindly following what they are "taught" (brainwashed).

There's so much wrong with the so-called 'science' of this planet, that it's hard to know, where to start.

There is certainly something like 'evolution', but the problem is, it's not what we are told. Microevolution is a fact - a fin can evolve to be a better fin, a hand may evolve to be a more efficient hand, and so on. But a creature simply doesn't change into another creature, no matter how much time passes. It just doesn't happen.

Here is something I transcribed from a rare source (it's from a preview of a documentary movie that was cancelled, so it'd be hard to find elsewhere):


--- TRANSCRIPT STARTS --
"The problem with that theory is that there is no science that can verify it as actually being possible for that to occur. You would need for a first living thing, millions, perhaps hundreds of thousands at a minimum, perhaps millions at a maximum, of lipids (?) to make a membrane to hold that living thing. You would need sidoplasm or something to give it substance within its body. You would need five to ten strands of DNA at a minimum to do the housekeeping required, to take nourishment from the environment, and to put waste back out from the body when the nourishment had been turned into energy. It would have to be able to reproduce itself ad infinitum. All of that has to happen AT ONCE. It can't happen piecemeal, it can't be put together in parts.

So when you just look at the very beginnings of life, you see that Darwinism isn't possible. Furthermore, in the ongoing fossil record that we have for subsequent formation of life and species, they never developed one from another. That's what Darwin postulated, that macroevolution would be possible, that seaworms could turn into fish, fish could turn into amphibians, amphibians could turn into reptiles, reptiles could turn into mammals and birds, that gills could turn into lungs, that fins could turn into limbs -- there is no evidence of ANY of that, and yet it is absolutely required by Darwin's theory.

All that Darwin saw on the Galapacos was microeveolution, which is evolution in parts of bodies - and he just assumed, he just guessed, he projected, that whole bodies could change, given enough time. It was logical - it is logical, it just simply is not borne out by the facts. We've had a hundred and forty years to look for those - that evidence - it's not there, it's not going to be there, that's not how life develops on Earth.

Life seems to be - if you read the fossil record fairly and truly - life seems to be brought here in great loads, in great amounts, it is as if the Earth is being Terraformed by some superior entity or entities somewhere else - but there seems to be a conscious ongoing program of development of life on Earth - but it is not being developed here, in and of itself, in the Terrestrial - strictly within the Terrestrial bounds.

There is some kind of outside intervention occurring, whether that is interpreted as Extra-Terrestrial or Divine, it's up to the individual, but it is not happening entirely here."
---- TRANSCRIPT ENDS ---

I don't remember who said that, but I am inclined to think it's closer to the truth than anything you ever heard from a 'government teacher'.

About humans and dinos living together - of this, I am not 100% sure, it was quite a long time ago. But from these few tidbits of information:

- Dinosaurs were 'one-souled' beings, like humans, whileas animals have a 'herd/pack-soul', no individual souls per animal (there are rare exceptions, I explained this once in a post in ATS)
- DInosaurs were terrible mutations that should never have been born, that happened because of the terrible turmoils and upheavals that interrupted the normal development, caused by the imbalance of one big moon and one small moon around Terra (the upheavals were caused by them, not the development)
- Humans were being developed on this planet at the time
- Modern two-legged half-animals intuitively usually think dinos and humans lived simultaneously
- Modern t-l-f-as are very interested in dinosaurs, some even obsessively so

From this, we can conclude, that dinosaurs not only existed with humans, but they..

.. WERE humans!

They (probably) were actual human beings that were mutated because of unfortunate circumstances into these terrible lizardlike creatures and monsters. Dinos = human mutations that should never have been born.

(And this modern time worships those monsters, of course.. figures)

So, I have taken as self-evident these two things; 1) Macroevolution has never happened on this planet 2) Dinos were human beings (and thus 'lived simultaneously with humans' in any case, for obvious reasons)

But it's good to see others finding the path to this information, as well! It always rises hope, when others find these rare truths that I have found ... I always wonder why so many are in such informational darkness and distortion, and why they don't know all this - the information is out there, we can all know everything I know, but for some reason, most people just .. don't. They don't even know that what they know is mostly wrong, let alone -what- the truth about those things is.

Oh well, perhaps Apocalypse is this.. Internet might be the first messenger of Apocalypse - which really means 'revelation of information to all people', if I remember it correctly.

So, perhaps, slowly, even these modern creatures are waking up and learning the truth. Perhaps Apocalypse is a SLOW PROCESS, instead of an instant 'enlightenment'. Who knows..?



posted on Nov, 23 2014 @ 03:48 AM
link   

originally posted by: Shoujikina
a reply to: TechUnique

I am glad to see someone else who isn't just blindly following what they are "taught" (brainwashed).

There's so much wrong with the so-called 'science' of this planet, that it's hard to know, where to start.

There is certainly something like 'evolution', but the problem is, it's not what we are told. Microevolution is a fact - a fin can evolve to be a better fin, a hand may evolve to be a more efficient hand, and so on. But a creature simply doesn't change into another creature, no matter how much time passes. It just doesn't happen.

Here is something I transcribed from a rare source (it's from a preview of a documentary movie that was cancelled, so it'd be hard to find elsewhere):


--- TRANSCRIPT STARTS --
"The problem with that theory is that there is no science that can verify it as actually being possible for that to occur. You would need for a first living thing, millions, perhaps hundreds of thousands at a minimum, perhaps millions at a maximum, of lipids (?) to make a membrane to hold that living thing. You would need sidoplasm or something to give it substance within its body. You would need five to ten strands of DNA at a minimum to do the housekeeping required, to take nourishment from the environment, and to put waste back out from the body when the nourishment had been turned into energy. It would have to be able to reproduce itself ad infinitum. All of that has to happen AT ONCE. It can't happen piecemeal, it can't be put together in parts.

So when you just look at the very beginnings of life, you see that Darwinism isn't possible. Furthermore, in the ongoing fossil record that we have for subsequent formation of life and species, they never developed one from another. That's what Darwin postulated, that macroevolution would be possible, that seaworms could turn into fish, fish could turn into amphibians, amphibians could turn into reptiles, reptiles could turn into mammals and birds, that gills could turn into lungs, that fins could turn into limbs -- there is no evidence of ANY of that, and yet it is absolutely required by Darwin's theory.

All that Darwin saw on the Galapacos was microeveolution, which is evolution in parts of bodies - and he just assumed, he just guessed, he projected, that whole bodies could change, given enough time. It was logical - it is logical, it just simply is not borne out by the facts. We've had a hundred and forty years to look for those - that evidence - it's not there, it's not going to be there, that's not how life develops on Earth.

Life seems to be - if you read the fossil record fairly and truly - life seems to be brought here in great loads, in great amounts, it is as if the Earth is being Terraformed by some superior entity or entities somewhere else - but there seems to be a conscious ongoing program of development of life on Earth - but it is not being developed here, in and of itself, in the Terrestrial - strictly within the Terrestrial bounds.

There is some kind of outside intervention occurring, whether that is interpreted as Extra-Terrestrial or Divine, it's up to the individual, but it is not happening entirely here."
---- TRANSCRIPT ENDS ---

I don't remember who said that, but I am inclined to think it's closer to the truth than anything you ever heard from a 'government teacher'.

About humans and dinos living together - of this, I am not 100% sure, it was quite a long time ago. But from these few tidbits of information:

- Dinosaurs were 'one-souled' beings, like humans, whileas animals have a 'herd/pack-soul', no individual souls per animal (there are rare exceptions, I explained this once in a post in ATS)
- DInosaurs were terrible mutations that should never have been born, that happened because of the terrible turmoils and upheavals that interrupted the normal development, caused by the imbalance of one big moon and one small moon around Terra (the upheavals were caused by them, not the development)
- Humans were being developed on this planet at the time
- Modern two-legged half-animals intuitively usually think dinos and humans lived simultaneously
- Modern t-l-f-as are very interested in dinosaurs, some even obsessively so

From this, we can conclude, that dinosaurs not only existed with humans, but they..

.. WERE humans!

They (probably) were actual human beings that were mutated because of unfortunate circumstances into these terrible lizardlike creatures and monsters. Dinos = human mutations that should never have been born.

(And this modern time worships those monsters, of course.. figures)

So, I have taken as self-evident these two things; 1) Macroevolution has never happened on this planet 2) Dinos were human beings (and thus 'lived simultaneously with humans' in any case, for obvious reasons)

But it's good to see others finding the path to this information, as well! It always rises hope, when others find these rare truths that I have found ... I always wonder why so many are in such informational darkness and distortion, and why they don't know all this - the information is out there, we can all know everything I know, but for some reason, most people just .. don't. They don't even know that what they know is mostly wrong, let alone -what- the truth about those things is.

Oh well, perhaps Apocalypse is this.. Internet might be the first messenger of Apocalypse - which really means 'revelation of information to all people', if I remember it correctly.

So, perhaps, slowly, even these modern creatures are waking up and learning the truth. Perhaps Apocalypse is a SLOW PROCESS, instead of an instant 'enlightenment'. Who knows..?


There's plenty of proof of macroevolution.
However if you just dismiss it out of hand that's more a reflection of you and your BELIEF than the evidence itself.

Here's a starting point for you.
www.talkorigins.org...



posted on Nov, 23 2014 @ 10:49 AM
link   

originally posted by: borntowatch
Dont throw stones if you live in a glass house.
Evolution science is full of lies and corruption, or do you pretend it is beyond question.

I am not saying its all corrupt, but a percentage has been proven to be.

My house is made of brick, much like the house of evolution. When things are proven to be wrong, they are taken out of the theory. I don't say it's beyond question. I'm saying that you are asking the wrong questions mostly in reference to things that have nothing to do with evolution, rather simple denial.

Scientists are debating all kinds of details in regards to evolution, but there is substantial evidence to support it. Evidence that is NEVER addressed by any of the deniers, yourself included. We've run this rodeo to death now. Without addressing the scientific data that supports evolution, you aren't saying anything relevant to the discussion. Do you want to have a real discussion this time?


Mars meteors with fossils, yeah right.
Fake missing link bones.
Its endless.

You listed 2 generalities. Endless? Can you address this yet?

www.talkorigins.org...

Didn't think so.


holier than thou, holier than all.


That says it's all. We know that's what you believe.


www.nwcreation.net...

but hey I know, dont read anything that challenges your faith, it could corrupt your soul.


I've read those old long debunked creationist arguments numerous times. I'll tell you what. If you debunk my link, I'll debunk yours. Address it point by point in detail and I will do exactly the same thing.



posted on Nov, 23 2014 @ 10:59 AM
link   

originally posted by: TechUnique
What they don't understand is that they themselves are the ones blindly following. I can almost guarantee most of them have never even contributed to the publishing of a peer reviewed paper on the topic, let alone made any sort of discovery or original idea that has been adopted or accepted by this 'community' they talk of. This community is often completely divided anyway, bickering with each other over nonsense.


There is nothing blind about acknowledging scientific experiments that any scientist in the field can duplicate and verify. It is humorous that you chose to insult the intelligence of posters on here, many of which actually work in scientific fields, but yet you are acting as if you know more about the science than folks that do it for a living.


The fact of the matter is, when you've got naive people, presenting other naive people false information, based on false scientific practices and wild assertions and jumps of logic... you can NEVER argue with with.

Correct, which is why most evolution deniers on here are not taken seriously.


They will literally just laugh you off because you believe in something they believe to be impossible because their FALSE theory told them so.


From what I've read in this thread, the supporters have posted exponentially more evidence for evolution than you have, and you have not yet addressed it.

www.talkorigins.org...

Address this. If you want me to waste my time debunking another lying creationist website, then you must show me exactly here the science is wrong, and show why with conflicting data or evidence. Good luck.


All of you seem to be forgetting that the dating methods have never been proven to be accurate. It is the equivalent of the weatherman telling you what the weather is going to be like in 20 years.


www.actionbioscience.org...

Do you have any evidence to suggest they are not accurate? Do you think it's coincidence that multiple types of dating can be used to corroborate the same information? If you are suggesting that they are all wrong, then present something that conflicts it. Find an out of place fossil that isn't a religious hoax. Show me that it is possible for the isotope decay rate to change. No I don't want youtube videos, I want links to their sources with data that goes against it. Good luck.

Thus far you have been nothing but condescending and insulting toward anybody who disagrees with you. I understand you were raised on faith, but you are projecting that same concept onto a field of science, which make no logical sense at all. Denial is how you prove things. Scientific evidence is, and if you are suggesting that science is some grand conspiracy, then why does it WORK and IMPROVE society constantly? Stop fighting a war on science. Are you going to debunk gravity? Round earth? heliocentric solar system? Nuclear physics? All of these are phenomenon that science has proven as well, but you aren't attacking them for some reason. You selectively target evolution and fling wild accusations at it with nothing to back up your side.


God is not unprovable. You are ungodly. There is a massive difference so don't get it twisted. Plenty of people have proof of God. Just because you're too stupid to realize the truth doesn't mean it's not the truth.


Please present this proof of god that you refer to. Your viewpoint is based on faith in ancient scriptures, nothing more.


edit on 23-11-2014 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 23 2014 @ 01:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: Shoujikina
"The problem with that theory is that there is no science that can verify it as actually being possible for that to occur. You would need for a first living thing, millions, perhaps hundreds of thousands at a minimum, perhaps millions at a maximum, of lipids (?) to make a membrane to hold that living thing. You would need sidoplasm or something to give it substance within its body. You would need five to ten strands of DNA at a minimum to do the housekeeping required, to take nourishment from the environment, and to put waste back out from the body when the nourishment had been turned into energy. It would have to be able to reproduce itself ad infinitum. All of that has to happen AT ONCE. It can't happen piecemeal, it can't be put together in parts.


That is some of the most scientifically illiterate, nonsensical statements I've ever read on here. To verify that evolution is possible, you map the genomes of 2 parents and their offspring. There will be genetic changes every time. No creature is an exact clone of it's parent. Small changes add up over time and the better adapted creatures survive. It's that simple. Yeah I'm not reading the rest of that hogwash. Evolution isn't about the origin of life.


I don't remember who said that, but I am inclined to think it's closer to the truth than anything you ever heard from a 'government teacher'.

Yeah, I'm calling BS on that. Whoever wrote that understands literally nothing about evolution and science.


- Dinosaurs were 'one-souled' beings, like humans, whileas animals have a 'herd/pack-soul', no individual souls per animal (there are rare exceptions, I explained this once in a post in ATS)
- DInosaurs were terrible mutations that should never have been born, that happened because of the terrible turmoils and upheavals that interrupted the normal development, caused by the imbalance of one big moon and one small moon around Terra (the upheavals were caused by them, not the development)
- Humans were being developed on this planet at the time
- Modern two-legged half-animals intuitively usually think dinos and humans lived simultaneously
- Modern t-l-f-as are very interested in dinosaurs, some even obsessively so


You have evidence to verify any of that?


From this, we can conclude, that dinosaurs not only existed with humans, but they.. WERE HUMANS!

Riiiiight.



posted on Nov, 23 2014 @ 01:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: violet
Can't say as I come into this believing in one side of the evolution vs creationism debate.
Can't I just believe in both? I mean believe in evolution and God.


I believe life or all living things evolve and change because they have to in order to adapt to their everchanging surroundings and new technology, Adapting is real. Some species do not take to adapting, thus will become extinct.


If this is what you mean by adaptation or evolution, then fine, you can believe in God as well, the real one in the Bible that is. However, if by these terms you mean by common descent, that once upon a time, the magic wand of time and chance mutations changed rocks into fish, fish into amphibians, amphibians into reptiles, reptiles into birds and mammals, well, then your belief would be more applicable to the "gods" worshiped by the pagans that have preached the same kind of rubbish long before the word evolution or Darwin was even thought of, Hinduism being the prime one.


originally posted by: violetOthers put up a fight and cling to life and thrive. those dinosaurs might not have perished if given enough time to adapt to extreme temperatures. Or they were just wimps. Polar bears don't freeze to death in the middle of eating their dinner!


Or God could have just water boarded them with a mass amount of water. That's the most likely reason why we are buried in fossils.


edit on 23-11-2014 by BlackManINC because: (no reason given)

edit on 23-11-2014 by BlackManINC because: (no reason given)

edit on 23-11-2014 by BlackManINC because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 23 2014 @ 02:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: BlackManINC

originally posted by: violet
Can't say as I come into this believing in one side of the evolution vs creationism debate.
Can't I just believe in both? I mean believe in evolution and God.


I believe life or all living things evolve and change because they have to in order to adapt to their everchanging surroundings and new technology, Adapting is real. Some species do not take to adapting, thus will become extinct.


If this is what you mean by adaptation or evolution, then fine, you can believe in God as well, the real one in the Bible that is. However, if by these terms you mean by common descent, that once upon a time, the magic wand of time and chance mutations changed rocks into fish, fish into amphibians, amphibians into reptiles, reptiles into birds and mammals, well, then your belief would be more applicable to the "gods" worshiped by the pagans that have preached the same kind of rubbish long before the word evolution or Darwin was even thought of, Hinduism being the prime one.


originally posted by: violetOthers put up a fight and cling to life and thrive. those dinosaurs might not have perished if given enough time to adapt to extreme temperatures. Or they were just wimps. Polar bears don't freeze to death in the middle of eating their dinner!


Or God could have just water boarded them with a mass amount of water. That's the most likely reason why we are buried in fossils.



I wouldn't even know where to start with this post.
Or whether a reply would have any effect on what the poster "thought".



posted on Nov, 23 2014 @ 02:39 PM
link   

edit on 23-11-2014 by BlackManINC because: none of your business



posted on Nov, 23 2014 @ 02:40 PM
link   
a reply to: Pardon?

Ok, so don't bother posting then, since I wasn't replying to you anyway. Go away and move on.



posted on Nov, 23 2014 @ 02:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: HUMBLEONE
Yes it is a farce. I for example was downloaded into a human body to anchor the frequency. How about you?


hahahaha...i assume you were being funny, because it worked.


don't be so sure about that! If I brought a smile to your face, that makes me smile too! Namaste.



posted on Nov, 23 2014 @ 02:55 PM
link   
She blinded me with bad science.



You'll have to add your own "bad"



posted on Nov, 23 2014 @ 02:56 PM
link   
a reply to: BlackManINC


If this is what you mean by adaptation or evolution, then fine, you can believe in God as well, the real one in the Bible that is.


hey, if the biblical god is validated, so is every other god in history. whatever happened to seniority? surely the same arguments that make the abrahamic deity viable would also make zeus, odin, osiris, and brahma all equally as viable...you cant just pick and choose who is excepted from what rule. otherwise you ruin the illusion of authenticity.

oops, too late.
edit on 23-11-2014 by TzarChasm because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 23 2014 @ 03:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: TzarChasm
a reply to: BlackManINC


If this is what you mean by adaptation or evolution, then fine, you can believe in God as well, the real one in the Bible that is.


hey, if the biblical god is validated, so is every other god in history. whatever happened to seniority? surely the same arguments that make the abrahamic deity viable would also make zeus, odin, osiris, and brahma all equally as viable...you cant just pick and choose who is excepted from what rule. otherwise you ruin the illusion of authenticity.

oops, too late.


Actually, I never said anything about which god is and isn't validated. The Bible is the only book on the planet that tells us where these pagan gods come from and who they really are. The Bible "validates" all other gods as fallen angels and devils disguising themselves as forces of nature. This is the one thing that every other false god on earth have in common with each other. The real God Yahweh, is pure spirit and cannot be compared to anything in our created little sphere of existence, this is how you know that Yahweh is the one true God, before you even get to the archaeological evidence validating the Bible as a historical document.
edit on 23-11-2014 by BlackManINC because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
27
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join