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.

 

Who wants to argue creation?

page: 29
19
<< 26  27  28    30  31 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 28 2015 @ 01:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: Eclecticist

originally posted by: spy66

originally posted by: Eclecticist
a reply to: randyvs




Its not about what we need to do. Its about what we want to do. I Guess you work a lot With Yourself not to, by trying to find answers that dont exist within science.




Are you aware that the "resurrection myth" pre-dates Jesus and that early Christianity "borrowed" heavily from various pagan religions?


Yes. I do.

I know Jesus aint the first one to be resurrected according to other myths.

But non of the other resurrected fulfilled prophesy the way Jesus did.....Or did the other resurrected do that too?




posted on Jun, 28 2015 @ 02:31 PM
link   
a reply to: spy66

It seems you're a "true believer" so a debate with you about mythology would be futile and a waste of my time and yours.

Good day



posted on Jun, 28 2015 @ 02:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: Eclecticist
a reply to: spy66

It seems you're a "true believer" so a debate with you about mythology would be futile and a waste of my time and yours.

Good day




I believe in God. I am not much into religion. I personaly think religion have moste of it wrong.

I dont think everything in The Bible is true; Like Genesis Chapter 2. Science can pull that a part like dirt. And a lot more.



posted on Jun, 28 2015 @ 05:59 PM
link   
Eh, I tend to think of life as Another state of matter, like liquid, solid, gas. Whenever certain elements are present and energy is introduced, BAM! Life forms. And then evolves. Is there a conscious guiding force? Possibly. But it's not likely to be one that judges us for our sins. That's purely a human fabrication and conceit.



posted on Jun, 29 2015 @ 11:56 AM
link   

originally posted by: spy66
a reply to: Agartha

Dont give up......We will never get anywhere if we give up all the time. Reaching some kind of reasoning is sometimes hard..... very hard. This is just a bad phase we have to face thats all. It is nothing that cant be overcome.

Keep up Your drive and lets see where it leads.....


The problem is that you are giving your opinion on something, but acting like it is a fact. When folks disagree with that opinion and try to debate it, you ignore their counterpoints, and you insult their intelligence instead of addressing their points. If you can't focus on the subject matter and instead choose to insult anybody that disagrees with you, it is the sure sign of a lost argument. You may not like that, but that's how debates work. Attack their argument, don't attack the person. Your argument is basically like saying blue is the best color and anybody who disagrees is dumb. It's completely subjective and folks have every right to disagree with your personal opinion on god / religion.
edit on 29-6-2015 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 29 2015 @ 12:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: Barcs

originally posted by: spy66
a reply to: Agartha

Dont give up......We will never get anywhere if we give up all the time. Reaching some kind of reasoning is sometimes hard..... very hard. This is just a bad phase we have to face thats all. It is nothing that cant be overcome.

Keep up Your drive and lets see where it leads.....


The problem is that you are giving your opinion on something, but acting like it is a fact. When folks disagree with that opinion and try to debate it, you ignore their counterpoints, and you insult their intelligence instead of addressing their points. If you can't focus on the subject matter and instead choose to insult anybody that disagrees with you, it is the sure sign of a lost argument. You may not like that, but that's how debates work. Attack their argument, don't attack the person. Your argument is basically like saying blue is the best color and anybody who disagrees is dumb. It's completely subjective and folks have every right to disagree with your personal opinion on god / religion.


I have not lost anything i am still here. She is the one who left.

And she insulted me first. All i did was give som in Return. And i become the bad guy lol.

If you People dont like insults... dont give any insults Yourself.



posted on Jun, 29 2015 @ 01:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: spy66
I have not lost anything i am still here. She is the one who left.

And she insulted me first. All i did was give som in Return. And i become the bad guy lol.

If you People dont like insults... dont give any insults Yourself.


You did the same thing to me. You pretty much responded to my detailed post with stuff like "Your mind ain't built for this" and "your scientific knowledge is terrible". Instead of saying that, back up your claims and show me WHY or WHAT I am wrong about. Calling somebody wrong and stupid with no explanation is as lazy as it gets. That is why it's not even an argument. It's you giving your opinion and chastising anybody that disagrees.

Also just because you are still here, doesn't mean you are winning anything. Insults turn people off and make them not want to even discuss anything with you. Debates aren't last man standing. They are about defending your points and addressing the opposing points and I honestly have not seen you do much addressing of other people's points.
edit on 29-6-2015 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 29 2015 @ 01:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: spy66

I have not lost anything i am still here. She is the one who left.

And she insulted me first. All i did was give som in Return. And i become the bad guy lol.

If you People dont like insults... dont give any insults Yourself.


How exactly did I insult you? And insult you first??
Show me.



posted on Jun, 29 2015 @ 02:05 PM
link   
a reply to: randyvs

In addition to the theory of evolution, meaning the idea of descent with modification, one may also speak of the fact of evolution. The NAS defines a fact as "an observation that has been repeatedly confirmed and for all practical purposes is accepted as 'true.'" The fossil record and abundant other evidence testify that organisms have evolved through time. Although no one observed those transformations, the indirect evidence is clear, unambiguous and compelling.



posted on Jun, 29 2015 @ 02:14 PM
link   
Your dismissal of evolution ignores important distinctions that divide the field into at least two broad areas: microevolution and macroevolution. Microevolution looks at changes within species over time--changes that may be preludes to speciation, the origin of new species. Macroevolution studies how taxonomic groups above the level of species change. Its evidence draws frequently from the fossil record and DNA comparisons to reconstruct how various organisms may be related.
While the origin of life remains very much a mystery, biochemists have learned about how primitive nucleic acids, amino acids and other building blocks of life could have formed and organized themselves into self-replicating, self-sustaining units, laying the foundation for cellular biochemistry. Astrochemical analyses hint that quantities of these compounds might have originated in space and fallen to earth in comets, a scenario that may solve the problem of how those constituents arose under the conditions that prevailed when our planet was young.
Today's intelligent-design advocates are more sophisticated than their predecessors, but their arguments and goals are not fundamentally different. You criticize evolution by trying to demonstrate that it could not account for life as we know it and then insist that the only tenable alternative is that life was designed by an unidentified intelligence.
Time and again, science has shown that methodological naturalism can push back ignorance, finding increasingly detailed and informative answers to mysteries that once seemed impenetrable: the nature of light, the causes of disease, how the brain works. Evolution is doing the same with the riddle of how the living world took shape. Creationism, by any name, adds nothing of intellectual value to the effort.



posted on Jun, 29 2015 @ 02:29 PM
link   
a reply to: toktaylor




Time and again, science has shown that methodological naturalism can push back ignorance, finding increasingly detailed and informative answers to mysteries that once seemed impenetrable: the nature of light, the causes of disease, how the brain works. Evolution is doing the same with the riddle of how the living world took shape. Creationism, by any name, adds nothing of intellectual value to the effort.


Here's the reality of what you hold to as a crutch.

Science can only attempt to explain what has already happened.
Explaining the mechanics never negates the mechanic or the designer.
All science can do is explain the mechanics God used for a material world.
And it's utterly stupid to view that as something that resembles intellect.



posted on Jun, 29 2015 @ 03:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: Agartha

originally posted by: spy66

I have not lost anything i am still here. She is the one who left.

And she insulted me first. All i did was give som in Return. And i become the bad guy lol.

If you People dont like insults... dont give any insults Yourself.


How exactly did I insult you? And insult you first??
Show me.


I already told you. And even quoted it so that you would see it.

Are we ready to go back to topic soon?
edit on 27.06.08 by spy66 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 29 2015 @ 03:14 PM
link   
a reply to: Barcs


Do yo want to go back to the topic. And we will see where this leads?



posted on Jun, 29 2015 @ 03:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: spy66


I already told you. And even quoted it so that you would see it.

Are we ready to go back to topic soon?


Again with the fluorescent light? And again I say it was light/friendly sarcasm that you failed to recognize or understand the point. That is no insult. I did not question your intelligence or mind. That is insulting.

~rolls eyes~

No, I won't go back to the topic, I cannot discuss with a person who takes offense at light sarcasm and then goes on a rant about my cognitive abilities.... besides not accepting that other people may have researched the subject extensively and have come to their own conclusions.
And I can see I am not the only one who's given up talking to you.

My apologies to Randy because this is all gone off topic. Won't happen again, sir.



posted on Jun, 29 2015 @ 03:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: randyvs
a reply to: toktaylor




Time and again, science has shown that methodological naturalism can push back ignorance, finding increasingly detailed and informative answers to mysteries that once seemed impenetrable: the nature of light, the causes of disease, how the brain works. Evolution is doing the same with the riddle of how the living world took shape. Creationism, by any name, adds nothing of intellectual value to the effort.


Here's the reality of what you hold to as a crutch.

Science can only attempt to explain what has already happened.
Explaining the mechanics never negates the mechanic or the designer.
All science can do is explain the mechanics God used for a material world.
And it's utterly stupid to view that as something that resembles intellect.


interesting how reality sounds so much like opinion. i almost confused the two for a moment there.



posted on Jun, 29 2015 @ 04:23 PM
link   
a reply to: randyvs

and the reality of an invisible creator......?????



posted on Jun, 29 2015 @ 04:37 PM
link   
a reply to: Agartha

Thank you.

edit on 27.06.08 by spy66 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 29 2015 @ 04:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: toktaylor
a reply to: randyvs

and the reality of an invisible creator......?????


It is probably more real than you would like to admitt.

Why does light travel at a constant speed in a vacuum. Is that because the vacuum dosent exist????

What is a vacuum??? Would you be able to see the vacuum void if you tried?


edit on 27.06.08 by spy66 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 29 2015 @ 04:56 PM
link   
a reply to: spy66

Wrong
www.iflscience.com...



posted on Jun, 29 2015 @ 05:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: FlySolo
a reply to: spy66

Wrong
www.iflscience.com...


Manipulated the wave structure of some photons and they arrived later.....mmm Intersting.

So now we have to manipulate light to prove that light can travel at different speeds in a vacuum?

But the photons that were not manipulated did they travel at C in the vacuum?







 
19
<< 26  27  28    30  31 >>

log in

join