It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Perhaps the solution is to be found if both God and Alien are one and the same or is that too far outside of your spectrum of understanding to accept?
I ask again: what experiment do you propose to objectively produce evidence for god?
Let's just say that I am willing to change my position if provided with irrefutable and reproducible proof that God does exist.
I believe in creation and I believe in UFO's! I also believe the UFO's to be piloted by the fallen angels! One more thing...I believe that these UFO pilots are inter-dimensional not extraterrestrial.
Never mind; at least you're a realist. Your refusal to engage the OP with anything more substantial than cheap shots is a clear confession that you realize you haven't got a leg to stand on
originally posted by: dusty1
I hear you NavyDoc.
But I don't think that a Supreme would need to explain or justify His existence to us,
or do a little soft shoe just for our benefit.
The simple act of certifying it's existence would be well within it's power to do so and in doing that would also solve many of the problems that plague mankind. So if it really did create all this including us I would think that doing that one little tiny thing would be of some value.
originally posted by: GetHyped
a reply to: windword
Borntowatch is not serious about debating. He doesn't understand or care what an intelligent debate is. The guy is like an avatar for the Dunning-Kruger effect.
originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: borntowatch
Well this is the point, isn't it? If you don't think that the science is "factual", you need to provide evidence to support your case. In other words, choose a particular scientific experiment in evolutionary science which has been validated through accepted scientific method standards and demonstrate that the experiment and the conclusions were wrong.
As an example, if I didn't believe a cloned human embryo could produce viable, genuine stem cells, I would have to take an experiment like the one linked below, repeat the experiment and demonstrate that the conclusion was wrong. In addition, I would have to demonstrate WHY it was wrong. This is called repeat and validate in science. It applies to every field in science from astrophysics to zoology.
So once again, pick an experiment that verified some aspect of evolution, one of course that you don't agree with - doesn't matter what the experiment is as long as it follows accepted scientific methods of validation - and proceed to demonstrate WHY the conclusion of that experiment was wrong.
originally posted by: Phantom423If you don't think that the science is "factual", you need to provide evidence to support your case.