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.

 

Dear Atheists: I will prove to you that there is a Creator to the universe. Come debate me.

page: 79
36
<< 76  77  78    80  81  82 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 11 2015 @ 04:58 PM
link   
a reply to: 5StarOracle

ah, now you and randy can form a two-man team. make this hullaballoo a little more fair for the both of you, although 0 x 2 is still 0.




posted on Aug, 11 2015 @ 05:00 PM
link   
a reply to: TzarChasm

Unless 0 is equal to 2...



posted on Aug, 11 2015 @ 05:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: Aloysius the Gaul

originally posted by: Annee
In my internet/forum travels, pretty sure researchers have never found punishment by "cross" in that area/time.

A single wooden stake in the ground --- maybe.


there's lots of evidence for Roman crucifictions - although the "cross" might not have ben the classically depicted "t" of the christian crucifix - wiki article on crucifiction


I know the cross was used.

But, last I read none had been found for the time and place of Jesus'



posted on Aug, 11 2015 @ 05:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: TzarChasm
a reply to: 5StarOracle

ah, now you and randy can form a two-man team. make this hullaballoo a little more fair for the both of you, although 0 x 2 is still 0.


Can you just go play with your hot wheels and let the adults talk?



posted on Aug, 11 2015 @ 05:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: Aloysius the Gaul

good evidence has a degree of support from checkable and/or independent sources.



Some like to use paranormal (for lack of better word) as proof of God.

I've had a lot of experiences since first memory. I do believe we are all "ripples in the same pond". Waves Hi to Odo.

Evidence? It's all interpretation of experience. If you're raised to believe it's God, thats probably what you will believe.

Human conditioning.


That is a definite trump card for me. For those who have never experienced the paranormal, it is easy to dismiss such things as probable delusions etc.

When you see objects moving through your living room on their own accord, it scares the crud out of you.

After a family musical jam session at my grandma's house, we put the instruments in the closet so we could go get something to eat. The closet door opened, and the microphone and boom floated out of the closet and back into the living room.

No, I have never done drugs. Let's just get that straight, it was no delusion since my whole family witnessed it. My Grandma put the house on sale and moved out as soon as she could.



posted on Aug, 11 2015 @ 05:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: 5StarOracle


Fossils of Neaderthal man and the features exhibited were at one time considered to elude to a primitive "sub human" known as "Homo Neandertalensis"...

However these primitive features are now know to have been caused by nutritional deficiency and pathological conditions...

he is now classified as fully human...




The fossils of Neanderthal Man were once considered to represent a primitive sub-human (Homo neanderthalensis), but these "primitive" features are now known to have resulted from nutritional deficiencies and pathological conditions; he is now classified as fully human


Source

Shall I continue?


Ramapithecus was once considered to be partially man-like, but is now known to be fully ape-like.16 Australopithecus, in the view of some leading evolutionists, was not intermediate between ape and man and did not walk upright.17 The strong bias of many evolutionists in seeking a link between apes and man is shown by the near-universal acceptance of two "missing links" that were later proved to be a fraud in the case of Piltdown Man (Eoanthropus) and a pig's tooth in the case of Nebraska Man (Hesperopithecus).


It's always a good idea to attribute your sources. The quote above is from 27/8/2013 (or 8/27/2013 in your currency).

I await with pleasure to see Peter Vlar's rebuttal of 'your' Homo neanderthalensis argument.



posted on Aug, 11 2015 @ 05:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: TheChrome

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: Aloysius the Gaul

good evidence has a degree of support from checkable and/or independent sources.



Some like to use paranormal (for lack of better word) as proof of God.

I've had a lot of experiences since first memory. I do believe we are all "ripples in the same pond". Waves Hi to Odo.

Evidence? It's all interpretation of experience. If you're raised to believe it's God, thats probably what you will believe.

Human conditioning.


My Grandma put the house on sale and moved out as soon as she could.


That's funny.

I used to "fly" a lot when I was 5/6. I used to tell my schoolmates what went on in their homes at night, and discribe their bedrooms etc. How was I supposed to know not everyone had OBEs and they got freaked out. I was a kid.

edit on 11-8-2015 by Annee because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 11 2015 @ 05:33 PM
link   
a reply to: 5StarOracle

Everything is a transitional being. Every fossil was once a transitional being, you are a transitional being.
No such thing as any missing link.
There was no first human.




Oh and just because some folk make a fraud doesn't mean everyone is....or do you want me to point out actual frauds proved in court by the creationist/ID crowd?.

edit on 11-8-2015 by boymonkey74 because: (no reason given)

edit on 11-8-2015 by boymonkey74 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 11 2015 @ 06:01 PM
link   
a reply to: boymonkey74

that's funny stuff!

you introduce a video by someone based on a book by Richard Dawkins?

Is this factual?

No it is not...

it is also non factual of its premise claiming there was no first human which in itself is not accurate..
he would have been more correct in saying there was no first "human being" but never the less wrong because if there was never a first human that could only mean there never was one...

that is fact...

Also I fail to see fish dinosaurs or the myriad of other supposed evidence attributed to the rise of man displaying characteristic's of a human...


edit on 11-8-2015 by 5StarOracle because: ...

edit on 11-8-2015 by 5StarOracle because: Edit



posted on Aug, 11 2015 @ 06:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: 5StarOracle
you introduce a video by someone based on a book by Richard Dawkins?

Is this factual?

No it is not...



The host and creator/writer

Joe Hanson, Ph.D biology.



I'm Joe Hanson, a Ph.D. biologist and science writer based in Austin, TX. I'm the creator/host/writer of PBS

I have a Ph.D in biology, and my mission in life is to tell the world about the awesomeness of ALL THE SCIENCE. I curate and publish everything you see here. We live in the future, and that future is one in which science impacts every part of our lives. But too many people aren’t taking part in that future. Too many aren’t taking part in science. We must teach science as more than facts. It’s a creative process, it’s an instant injection of wonderment, it’s the excitement we feel at the edge of knowledge. It’s for everyone.

Science is awesome, and there’s so much of it to explore. Let’s go discover it together. Remember, It’s Okay To Be Smart. If you’d like to get an idea why I love to talk about science, . . .


www.itsokaytobesmart.com...



posted on Aug, 11 2015 @ 06:14 PM
link   
a reply to: Annee

I watched the video I heard him introduce himself, I also heard him say his information was based on a book by Richard Dawkins...

prove what is claimed to be fact...

Of course there was a first human, or you and I as well as the rest are not human, because there never was one...


edit on 11-8-2015 by 5StarOracle because: Add



posted on Aug, 11 2015 @ 06:30 PM
link   
a reply to: 5StarOracle

You either didn't watch the video or didn't understand it.
You don't even understand evolution so try and study it before you dismiss it.
But this isn't about evolution because God and evolution can exist together, just go to the many failed threads which try to disprove evolution.
edit on 11-8-2015 by boymonkey74 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 11 2015 @ 06:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: 5StarOracle
a reply to: Annee

I watched the video I heard him introduce himself, I also heard him say his information was based on a book by Richard Dawkins...

prove what is claimed to be fact...

Of course there was a first human, or you and I as well as the rest are not human, because there never was one...



Dawkins is a biologist with a degree in Zoology.

What? You expect a scientist to base a presentation of the evolution of man on a book by Bob Jones?



posted on Aug, 11 2015 @ 06:49 PM
link   
Dp
edit on 11-8-2015 by 5StarOracle because: Edit



posted on Aug, 11 2015 @ 06:50 PM
link   
I guess by understanding evolution you must mean I don't agree with it...

While I can agree with creation allowing for some forms of evolution, I don't see it starting anything because you always need something else first...

Riddle me this...

What happens when all possible life forms are removed from possibility through this elimination?

You are left with the first whatever which does not simply pop out of nothing...

So to me it is far more logical to see how creation is needed to kickstart the entire process...

No matter what was used...

Here on earth or anywhere else in the Universe or for the creation of the Universe for that matter...

Nothing in the universe always was, or always will be...But something outside of the universe may very well be and therefore could also be responsible for the cause of it all...




edit on 11-8-2015 by 5StarOracle because: No need to quote my double post so edit



posted on Aug, 11 2015 @ 06:53 PM
link   
a reply to: Annee

I am saying the source is biased and non factual...

more important to include the fact he is an evolutionist...
edit on 11-8-2015 by 5StarOracle because: ...



posted on Aug, 11 2015 @ 07:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: Aloysius the Gaul

originally posted by: Annee
In my internet/forum travels, pretty sure researchers have never found punishment by "cross" in that area/time.

A single wooden stake in the ground --- maybe.


there's lots of evidence for Roman crucifictions - although the "cross" might not have ben the classically depicted "t" of the christian crucifix - wiki article on crucifixion


I know the cross was used.

But, last I read none had been found for the time and place of Jesus'


they were used by Romans to execute Jews in the revolt of 70CE as attested to by Josephus, and from that link there are also accounts of Seleucids and Jews themselves using crucifixion in the 1st and 2nd centuries BCE, by the Romans in Galilee in 4 BCE and 46-48 CE - so that is before and after, and in Galilee and Palestine.



posted on Aug, 11 2015 @ 07:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: 5StarOracle
a reply to: Annee

I am saying the source is biased and non factual...

more important to include the fact he is an evolutionist...


You mean an 'evolutionary biologist'?

RationalWiki


The term "evolutionist" is commonly used as an anti-science label by proponents of creationism and intelligent design. Sometimes the word changes to 'evilution' to indicate that belief in evolution is, in some creationist opinions, evil and of the devil. Both "evolutionist" and "evolutionism" refer to scientists and others who accept that the evidence-based theory of evolution is the best explanation for the development of life on the earth (otherwise known as over 99% of all scientists in relevant fields). Often, the term just gets thrown around to refer to anyone else they're disagreeing with at the time, such as atheists or libruls. To compound this stupidity some creationists even argue that "evolutionism" is a secular religion leading to sexual freedom and other supposed failings of present day society.


Source above.

Also, are you going to address your plagiarism that I drew attention to in my earlier post?
edit on 11-8-2015 by aorAki because: r



posted on Aug, 11 2015 @ 07:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: randyvs

originally posted by: TzarChasm
a reply to: 5StarOracle

ah, now you and randy can form a two-man team. make this hullaballoo a little more fair for the both of you, although 0 x 2 is still 0.


Can you just go play with your hot wheels and let the adults talk?


true, i am getting in the way of your education. but if only you used that time to open your mind instead of finding stuff to wedge it shut with. and you are happier for it, its not my place to undo that. as for the debate itself, the cycle begins anew, nothing to see here. hundreds more threads just like it. im sure there will be another time, another place. i bid you adieu, combattant.



posted on Aug, 11 2015 @ 07:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: 5StarOracle
a reply to: Barcs


I claim Man and apes have separate ancestry based upon the following facts...

evolutionists use highly imaginative "transitional form" between man and ape like creatures based upon fragmentary evidence though... while the fossil record documents separate origins for primates...
Or monkeys apes and man...


Please demonstrate your position. You make the claim that it is all backed by facts yet you provide nothing in the way of citations to support your contentious position that the fossil record "documents seperate origins..." It doesn't and the genetic data fully supports the physical data.


there are no "fossil traces" of a transformation from "ape like" to "man"...


Sure there are, just off the top of my head we have Oororin Tsungensis, Saehlanthropus Tchadensis up to Ardepithicus Ramidus and then into the varied array of Australopithecines. That's just the physical evidence going back roughly 7MA to not terribly long after the split with Chimpanzee at ~8MA. Then add in the copious genetic data and evidence and there is absolutely no question regarding the fact of evolution. And that's exactly what it is, a fact. The Theory is the scientific explanation that shows predictions that can be made and explains how evolution works but evolution is indeed a fact


Fossils of Neaderthal man and the features exhibited were at one time considered to elude to a primitive "sub human" known as "Homo Neandertalensis"...


Mid 19th century misunderstandings are not equitable with evidence against evolution. It's an asinine proposition to insist it is so. It doesn't look as if you have read anything regarding the actual science here and are instead copying and pasting from a creationist site. And a poorly informed one at that. Not accusing you of doing so, simply pointing out that the under-informed nature of these statements gives the appearance of such.


However these primitive features are now know to have been caused by nutritional deficiency and pathological conditions...


I think you're quite mistaken. The issues you may be referring to related to the first complete or nearly complete skeleton recovered in Germany had arthritis but was originally thought to be a hunched over primitive and ape like human ancestor. There are no other features considered to be primitive or caused by nutritional deficiencies or other pathologies. Please feel free to provide a citation showing otherwise though.


he is now classified as fully human...


You're trying to make a claim on the validity of science based on 19th century prejudices and misunderstandings. It's entirely illogical. And what do mean be "classified as fully human"? They are a member of the same genus, Homo, and while possessing many comparable and human like traits, they are still a seperate species from us with their own genetic code.


Also "Ramapithecus" was once considered to be partially "manlike"...
but Is now known to be fully "ape like"...


Based on incomplete remains. Partial jawbones, teeth etc. once more complete remains were found in the mid 70's it's was readily apparent that they were not ancestors of humans. It in no way supports your baseless supposition.


many evolutionists are also mislead by the acceptance of two "missing links"
Proven to be fraud in the case of Pitdown Man "Eoanthropus"
As well as a Pigs tooth in the case of Nebraska Man "Hesperopithecus"...


Can you support this claim in any way? Piltdown was suspected of being fraudulent from the get go. Once it was examined by zoologists, biologists and paleoanthropoloists, it was indisputably a hoax. This was a full century ago, who is being mislead by a century old, proven hoax? Can you provide a citation to support this claim? And Mevraska Man, was not a deliberate hoax. It was crappy science, there's no argument about that. But it wasn't a hoax.


I have stated facts to back up my argument other arguments against this can not yet be claimed to be factual.


But you're not actually stating facts. You're stating your opinion based on lack of understanding and ignorance of the science. Provide some appropriate citations. You can't yet claim anything to be factual. It flys in the face of the actual facts that have not just demonstrated, but also independently verified and reproduced by multiple parties. You can't just claim that the science is completely wrong and state your position as a fact without supporting your position with any sort of tenable supporting data and appropriate citations. If you can't do that all you have is an opinion.



new topics

top topics



 
36
<< 76  77  78    80  81  82 >>

log in

join