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.

 

Believing what you know ain't so

page: 5
10
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 3 2015 @ 04:26 AM
link   
a reply to: NthOther

Skeptics do not categorically reject such claims though, we just don't accept them as being true without good evidence. Saying "we don't accept it as true" does not equal "we conclude it is false".




posted on Apr, 3 2015 @ 09:32 AM
link   

originally posted by: peter vlar
a reply to: borntowatch

watch the video first. It's got nothing to do with evolution other than in your mind atheism and evolution are tied together at the waist.


Quotes from Grimpachi

"I am only about 30 minutes in but he has already described a good portion of the ATS creationist community debate tactics and personalities that I have come across.'

"I like his ending where he said "There are two groups of creationists the deceived and the deceivers there is no other category".

So Pete, again irrespective

I am just ranting at a typical atheist evolutionist and the religious belief that he holds dear as true even though Believing what you know ain't so


and what forum is it in.

So inane trying to explain the obvious to some people



posted on Apr, 3 2015 @ 09:44 AM
link   
a reply to: borntowatch

How do you figure my quotes have anything to do with evolution?

The video is about YOU and those like YOU and the tactics YOU use.




Congratulations on becoming the evidence to prove AronRa's video to be correct.



posted on Apr, 3 2015 @ 09:45 AM
link   

originally posted by: Grimpachi
a reply to: borntowatch

How do you figure my quotes have anything to do with evolution?

The video is about YOU and those like YOU and the tactics YOU use.




Congratulations on becoming the evidence to prove AronRa's video to be correct.



The video is about YOU and those like YOU and the tactics YOU use.




Congratulations on becoming the evidence to prove AronRa's video to be correct.



posted on Apr, 3 2015 @ 10:06 AM
link   
a reply to: borntowatch

LMFAO

I hand it to you because the "I know you are but what am I" tactic wasn't covered in the video.



I am thinking at this point it may be better if you don't watch the video because I think you will simply use it as an instruction manual.



posted on Apr, 3 2015 @ 10:37 AM
link   

originally posted by: borntowatch

originally posted by: OneManArmy

Thats all about individuals, acting within a group setting. You are a test subject. My test subject.
Im sorry if you think thats woo, I think its scary.


Thats so funny because I think exactly the same
I just see you as a person who is lead by another religious sect is all

The preacher in the OP is your minister, no different
he is preaching what you want to believe, just imagine for a dot you are wrong and you are being lead astray.

One coin, two sides


Im not guided by any religious sect at all, Im guided by my own mind, and by investigation.
You keep telling yourself that, it will never be true.

1 Brain, no cells.

You havent even watched the video and you are telling me that hes my preacher?
God damn man, are you that backwards? I have to ask, I really do.
The subject of the video is YOU!!!!, And you are proving the points in the video to be true every time you post a message.
Keeping talking, Im finding it hilarious.

The irony is so thick, even a knife aint cutting it, this is gonna take lasers. Or maybe nuclear hardware.
Aron isnt preaching anything, he isnt claiming a single damn thing to be the "truth" thats your forte.
Now keep going, you are a prime specimen in religious cognitive dissonance.

You ask if I have ever considered that I was being led astray, yes I did, when I was a christian. And now Im not a christian and think with my own mind, Im not being led astray.
I ask have you ever considered it, I doubt it.
edit on 20154America/Chicago04am4amFri, 03 Apr 2015 10:46:22 -05000415 by OneManArmy because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 3 2015 @ 11:42 AM
link   

originally posted by: OneManArmy

originally posted by: borntowatch

originally posted by: OneManArmy

Thats all about individuals, acting within a group setting. You are a test subject. My test subject.
Im sorry if you think thats woo, I think its scary.


Thats so funny because I think exactly the same
I just see you as a person who is lead by another religious sect is all

The preacher in the OP is your minister, no different
he is preaching what you want to believe, just imagine for a dot you are wrong and you are being lead astray.

One coin, two sides


Im not guided by any religious sect at all, Im guided by my own mind, and by investigation.
You keep telling yourself that, it will never be true.

1 Brain, no cells.

You havent even watched the video and you are telling me that hes my preacher?
God damn man, are you that backwards? I have to ask, I really do.
The subject of the video is YOU!!!!, And you are proving the points in the video to be true every time you post a message.
Keeping talking, Im finding it hilarious.

The irony is so thick, even a knife aint cutting it, this is gonna take lasers. Or maybe nuclear hardware.
Aron isnt preaching anything, he isnt claiming a single damn thing to be the "truth" thats your forte.
Now keep going, you are a prime specimen in religious cognitive dissonance.

You ask if I have ever considered that I was being led astray, yes I did, when I was a christian. And now Im not a christian and think with my own mind, Im not being led astray.
I ask have you ever considered it, I doubt it.


I cant believe you cant see that you act the same way I do, you are just on the other side of the fence.
its incredulous how misled you are

You were led astray as a christian because you were led, now you are led astray because you are being led..again.

If you thought with your own mind you would have so many questions you would not be led astray.

You are a follower, you say I am the follower but I admit readily, I dont have the answers and need evidence. You think you know everything because thats how you are led

Its all ok because you are a very smart person and smart people like you accept and believe what we say because you are smart, with warm words and a little flattery, you are led by your ego
first it was the Christian herd mentality, now its the next herd mentality option, where next

You think with the pack mind because nobody with a mind would accept what you believe with no questions, brainwashed by thinking you are so smart.
I am not saying evolution is wrong, I am saying it has no evidence, I question it
The gentleman in the video hates I have questions, so do you

You know christians are called to have faith, simply because what we believe is so incredible its not logical. You on the other hand dont need faith, you just believe because its all you have.

All you can do is point at others, look in the mirror and imagine this aron guy is describing you
he is, you are deluded



posted on Apr, 3 2015 @ 11:44 AM
link   
a reply to: peter vlar


"Life evolves meant it began from lifelessness".

You left out the question mark. I asked that question because my old school understanding of Evolution includes origins. In my day that was the argument. Obviously they still haven't proved how life began (on either bench).

Life arriving here from somewhere else answers that and is so far the only sensible answer, to me.

Theres that opinion thing again. I don't have proof of that either. I was asking the question about what evolutionists use as their argument for how life originated.

Everyone here keeps omitting that from their responses to me. I'll listen or read a link thats not ten thousand pages concluding, it must have been 'electric mud puddles'.



posted on Apr, 3 2015 @ 11:55 AM
link   

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: peter vlar


"Life evolves meant it began from lifelessness".

You left out the question mark. I asked that question because my old school understanding of Evolution includes origins. In my day that was the argument. Obviously they still haven't proved how life began (on either bench).

Life arriving here from somewhere else answers that and is so far the only sensible answer, to me.

Theres that opinion thing again. I don't have proof of that either. I was asking the question about what evolutionists use as their argument for how life originated.

Everyone here keeps omitting that from their responses to me. I'll listen or read a link thats not ten thousand pages concluding, it must have been 'electric mud puddles'.


I have not at all omitted a response to how proponents of evolutionary theory explain the origin of life. In fact I've been quite succinct about it. The origin of life is not a part of evolutionary theory. It's irrelevant to how evolution works. I just don't know how much more clear I can be after repeatedly explaining that abiogenesis etc... is the study of a chemical process, evolution is the study of a biological process. Two completely separate fields dealt with by different groups of scientists. How something started doesn't need to be known to study and understand how things have changed over time.

I'm glad to see though that your keenly aware that your stance is an opinion and hasn't a shred of data in support of it. In contrast, there is evidence that shows that abiogenesis can work. It is indeed just a hypothesis but the replication of the prerequisite amino acids necessary for forming life can be confirmed. It just can't be proven that this is definitively how things began on Earth. The bottom line is we may never know. Or we may know in a decade. there's no way to know for sure which it will be.



posted on Apr, 3 2015 @ 12:03 PM
link   
quick someone corner me with a pivotal point


Evolutionists have an emotional attachment to their belief, just look at those on here, aron ra is talking about those who swallow everything about evolution, he is describing many here, confirmation bias is alive and well in humanists on this board.
Evolutionists are taught never to question their beliefs,

What I hear is a man describing "If you cant show you are right then we cant know you are right"
All I have ever asked for if proof of evolution and Aron is using evolution as his target.
This guy is talking about evolution apologists as much as he is talking about creationists.

You are all as fundamental as fundamental christians

and yes he is preaching, make no mistake about that



posted on Apr, 3 2015 @ 12:05 PM
link   
a reply to: peter vlar


The origin of life is not a part of evolutionary theory. It's irrelevant to how evolution works. I just don't know how much more clear I can be after repeatedly explaining that abiogenesis etc… is the study of a chemical process, evolution is the study of a biological process.

I heard you over and again. And I been saying that in my day the statement "life evolved" was the pat response to how did life start? Now you omit that part and say oh, origins is separate. Convenient that. You don't have to explain origins anymore… just ongoing evolution (which can be called adaptation, too). Except that there are no man-bear-pigs roaming the woods (or in the fossil record.

tilt.



posted on Apr, 3 2015 @ 12:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: borntowatch

I cant believe you cant see that you act the same way I do, you are just on the other side of the fence.
its incredulous how misled you are



Yes there are two sides to the fence, those that think, and those that dont.
Im on the side that thinks, you seem to be on the other.




You were led astray as a christian because you were led, now you are led astray because you are being led..again.

If you thought with your own mind you would have so many questions you would not be led astray.

You are a follower, you say I am the follower but I admit readily, I dont have the answers and need evidence. You think you know everything because thats how you are led



No, I just read the bible.



Its all ok because you are a very smart person and smart people like you accept and believe what we say because you are smart, with warm words and a little flattery, you are led by your ego
first it was the Christian herd mentality, now its the next herd mentality option, where next



No, Im not a smart person, Im a person trying to expand my understanding of the world I find myself in.
I dont claim to have the answers, Im not trying to preach to anybody or convert anybody.
Im not telling anybody what to think, Im just telling them to think.
Im testing the validity of the content of the video in the OP.
Especially as I previously mentioned regarding my experiences with hampstead satanic panic hoax supporters.
The "herd mentality" you talk about.



You think with the pack mind because nobody with a mind would accept what you believe with no questions, brainwashed by thinking you are so smart.
I am not saying evolution is wrong, I am saying it has no evidence, I question it
The gentleman in the video hates I have questions, so do you


I think with my own mind, what is a "pack mind"?
Im not brainwashed, and Im certainly not smart.
Of course you have questions, questions are the thing Im encouraging.
Im not talking about evolution at all, why not stick to the topic, you are finding it really hard to do so.
I love questions, you may notice I asked the question in the OP.




You know christians are called to have faith, simply because what we believe is so incredible its not logical. You on the other hand dont need faith, you just believe because its all you have.



I dont care what you believe, I just want you to question it, you know, that questioning thing you was just talking about.
I want you to discuss the topics that were discussed in the video. And that is the attitudes of "believers".




All you can do is point at others, look in the mirror and imagine this aron guy is describing you
he is, you are deluded


I dont have to imagine anything that "this aron guy" was describing, I actually watched it to find out what he was saying.
It is you that is deluded, remember, glass houses and stones.



posted on Apr, 3 2015 @ 12:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: peter vlar


In contrast, there is evidence that shows that abiogenesis can work.


I'm glad to see though that your keenly aware that your stance is an opinion and hasn't a shred of data in support of it.



originally posted by: peter vlar
It is indeed just a hypothesis but the replication of the prerequisite amino acids necessary for forming life can be confirmed.


sorry are you saying its a hypothesis that can be confirmed then ....saying this
Flip flop


originally posted by: peter vlar
It just can't be proven


Flip flop, it can be proven...suddenly, definitely


originally posted by: peter vlar
that this is definitively how things began on Earth.


Flip Flop, so what it can be or cant, we now definetly may never know, flip flop, definetly maybe?


originally posted by: peter vlar
The bottom line is we may never know. Or we may know in a decade. there's no way to know for sure which it will be.




I'm glad to see though that your keenly aware that your stance is an opinion and hasn't a shred of data in support of it.

Unless you can prove it and I would love to see the science

You know PV, Aron vla was talking about you and what you have done here.

I intend to track down his email and send him a copy of your post cos its so bloody good



posted on Apr, 3 2015 @ 12:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: peter vlar

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: peter vlar


"Life evolves meant it began from lifelessness".

You left out the question mark. I asked that question because my old school understanding of Evolution includes origins. In my day that was the argument. Obviously they still haven't proved how life began (on either bench).

Life arriving here from somewhere else answers that and is so far the only sensible answer, to me.

Theres that opinion thing again. I don't have proof of that either. I was asking the question about what evolutionists use as their argument for how life originated.

Everyone here keeps omitting that from their responses to me. I'll listen or read a link thats not ten thousand pages concluding, it must have been 'electric mud puddles'.


I have not at all omitted a response to how proponents of evolutionary theory explain the origin of life. In fact I've been quite succinct about it. The origin of life is not a part of evolutionary theory. It's irrelevant to how evolution works. I just don't know how much more clear I can be after repeatedly explaining that abiogenesis etc... is the study of a chemical process, evolution is the study of a biological process. Two completely separate fields dealt with by different groups of scientists. How something started doesn't need to be known to study and understand how things have changed over time.

I'm glad to see though that your keenly aware that your stance is an opinion and hasn't a shred of data in support of it. In contrast, there is evidence that shows that abiogenesis can work. It is indeed just a hypothesis but the replication of the prerequisite amino acids necessary for forming life can be confirmed. It just can't be proven that this is definitively how things began on Earth. The bottom line is we may never know. Or we may know in a decade. there's no way to know for sure which it will be.


Possibly the best reply I have ever read, I am saving it for posterity its so good.

Trying to school someone in the truth and you cant make up your mind if its a fact backed up with evidence or just a hypothesis that can work without evidence, confirmable that may never happen, pure written gold

You have absolutely no evidence just like Aron ra said delusional people have. You have no questions, you swallowed it hard.
edit on b2015Fri, 03 Apr 2015 12:20:43 -050043020155pm302015-04-03T12:20:43-05:00 by borntowatch because: (no reason given)

edit on b2015Fri, 03 Apr 2015 12:40:30 -050043020155pm302015-04-03T12:40:30-05:00 by borntowatch because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 3 2015 @ 01:17 PM
link   
I don't consider myself as a very religious individual and shun going to any church or gathering with religious people, it just turns my stomach for some reason. I don't consider myself an atheist either, I believe in some higher calling after death.

There is some basis behind creationism and catastrophism, such as the great flood. Take the current population of the planet, almost 7.5 billion which doubles roughly every 50 years. If humans have been around for 200,000 years as believed by evolutionist then the population of the planet would have a person occupying every square inch of land surface.

A periodic catastrophic event would have to occur to maintain a limit to how many people can live on Earth. From this, something has to occur which causes near extinction every 10,000 years or so. With 5,000 years to recuperate and the other 5,000 years to populate. So maybe in a way creationism is metaphoric for the short term re-civilization and evolution is correct for the overall hypothesis.


edit on 3-4-2015 by eManym because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 3 2015 @ 02:27 PM
link   
a reply to: eManym




There is some basis behind creationism and catastrophism, such as the great flood. Take the current population of the planet, almost 7.5 billion which doubles roughly every 50 years. If humans have been around for 200,000 years as believed by evolutionist then the population of the planet would have a person occupying every square inch of land surface.


Not at all. Someone has misinformed you on that.






A periodic catastrophic event would have to occur to maintain a limit to how many people can live on Earth. From this, something has to occur which causes near extinction every 10,000 years or so. With 5,000 years to recuperate and the other 5,000 years to populate. So maybe in a way creationism is metaphoric for the short term re-civilization and evolution is correct for the overall hypothesis.


Catastrophic events had a small role in population reduction but not as much as wars, but if you really look at what kept populations down it was disease. With the discovery of inoculation and subsequent vaccination populations exploded. The more we learned medically the longer people lived. People used to die from rusty nails and dysentery. Families had to pop out kids in hopes a few would survive. Old age was 30 to 40.


Populations double now fairly quick, but that is only because mortality rates have never been so low. That coincides with medical discoveries and the wide use of fossil fuels.
edit on 3-4-2015 by Grimpachi because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 3 2015 @ 07:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: peter vlar


You're creating another straw man by introducing your own statement of "life evolved" and then giving your own definition.

I said, Imo, life was brought here.

It explains the gaps and the beginning. We can debate any adaptation all day, how life originated must be included. Thats why evolution is still called a theory. Neither it nor religion creation theory explains life's origins.

'Poof' doesn't do it for me.


No offense, but you need to stop beating this dead horse. Evolution is genetics and natural selection. It is not the origin of life. Yes, life could have been created and THEN evolved. Those 2 concepts are not mutually exclusive, so suggesting that evolution requires abiogenesis is dead wrong. That is not a flaw of evolution, it is a flaw in your understanding. Evolution requires DNA, not DNA that originated from basic organic compounds. Whether DNA was created or arose naturally, the environment causes mutations in the code that lead to the diversity of life on this planet. If you think evolution requires abiogenesis, then please demonstrate the overlapping mechanism and prove your case. Repeating this lie over and over again doesn't make it right.


edit on 3-4-2015 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 3 2015 @ 07:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: NthOther
He does what Scientists do--completely disregard subjective experience because it is not independently verifiable or able to be replicated in a controlled environment.

I suppose that's the way science is supposed to work, however it reveals the fundamental flaw of science--subjective experience is not included in any description of reality.


That isn't a flaw. If you take subjective experience into consideration, you basically have to believe anything anybody ever tells you without scrutiny and that is in precise conflict with what science is trying to accomplish. Follow the evidence and the logic. Humans are notoriously unreliable when it comes to 3rd party information.


See my point? There's no way to make a subjective fact objective for you. I can't prove the subjective fact that I have spiritual experiences. I nonetheless have them. I know because I was there.


And we all have to believe your story out of pure faith, rather than scrutinizing your story or verifying it. That's exactly why it is not scientific. Accepting that would open up a huge can of worms and anybody could literally claim anything and have it considered fact because they "saw" it. Humans lie and their claims should always be scrutinized. This isn't a limit of science, it's basic logic. Maybe one day we'll be able to prove such things based on personal experience, but for now saying that you saw Jesus in the woods is as valid as me saying that I have an invisible dragon living in my basement. This is why science requires evidence. If it didn't, our modern technology would be unreliable for the most part, as it would be based on beliefs and hearsay rather than repeatable, testable facts.

Also, it's important to understand that science doesn't rule out such claims either. There isn't any science that says there is no god. There may not be evidence to suggest one, but that doesn't mean a god doesn't exist. Science just treats unverified claims as neutral. They aren't true, they aren't false, they are just claims. If the claims can be verified, they can be included. Without that you have no scrutiny, and that is very important in science. In 2015 we are definitely in the "proof or it didn't happen" era.
edit on 3-4-2015 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 3 2015 @ 07:29 PM
link   
a reply to: eManym

Catastrophic events are part of natural selection. Humans conform to the environment, not the other way around. If our population gets too high to be sustained, our system will collapse, and we'll be just another notch on the earth tree of life while some new species takes over or a select pocket of humans survive and adapt to the new system. The population began accelerating do to modern medicine, it doesn't double naturally every 50 years.



posted on Apr, 3 2015 @ 09:49 PM
link   
a reply to: intrptr

Someone with this "anti-conspiracy" attitude doesn't seem like they would enjoy a conspiracy website. Why you ruffling feathers?



new topics

top topics



 
10
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join