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.

 

how its possible?

page: 7
15
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 26 2018 @ 03:58 AM
link   
a reply to: humanoidlord

Yea today we are close unveiling that thin line of the esoteric ,Christianity and extraterrestrial questions wondering when this all will be revealed to one answer?




posted on Dec, 26 2018 @ 09:44 AM
link   
a reply to: KKLOCO

or as keel once said we need to tune into the superspectrum



posted on Dec, 26 2018 @ 09:47 AM
link   
a reply to: james1947

its funny you seem to agree with keel on everthing, except the UFOnauts, they must definitely be extraterrestrial!



posted on Dec, 26 2018 @ 09:48 AM
link   

originally posted by: Assemble
a reply to: 0zzymand0s

If you can tell me the difference between evolution and magic i'd be interested.

That is, can you prove evolution? As far as i'm aware, there is no proof, it is just a theory with no evidence, yet it's usually accepted as fact. That's not scientific.

I'm genuinely interested in the proof of evolution. Even just one example will do for me.


Easy...Evolution is a natural process. Magick is an intentional process (act).

You will probably NEVER see a "proof" to any theory...in science theories are typically NOT PROVEN EVER!!! Those that do are elevated to "scientific law".

In science few things (theories) are ever proven, however, the theories are also not "disproven"...in other words a theory stands until it can be shown to be wrong. In the case of Evolution nobody has been able to produce evidence that shows that Evolution is not true. If you want evidence OF evolution, I invite you to look at the world around you, and understand that 1,000,000 years ago things were vastly different, and that pet kitty of yours did not exist yet (as a species).

And, the fact that Evolution IS accepted...is VERY scientific!

The same can be said for the extraterrestrial theory.



posted on Dec, 26 2018 @ 09:51 AM
link   
a reply to: Thecakeisalie

his biggest sin was ressurecting the alleged roswell UFO crash wich before then was just a footnote on most UFO books who argued it was definitely a balloon



posted on Dec, 26 2018 @ 09:55 AM
link   
a reply to: 0bserver1

we have been trying to do that for years, the closest we got was the 70's, but then disinfo angents got butthurt and made ufology go back 40 years in the 80's



posted on Dec, 26 2018 @ 09:59 AM
link   

originally posted by: humanoidlord
a reply to: james1947

its funny you seem to agree with keel on everthing, except the UFOnauts, they must definitely be extraterrestrial!


If you say so...lol

The problem with Keel and Vallee is that apparently neither of them authored any sort of paper on their hypothesis...you need to understand that a "paper" is vastly different than a "book"...in that a "book" typically contains enough spurious information that it tends to obfuscate the original hypothesis.

Then you will need to understand that what I know does not require, or even desire, the presence of alternate realities...and that EVERYTHING is comfortably contained in this reality. So, what I see in the works of people like this (Keel / Vallee) is the re-working of what is already known in an attempt to profit from it.

edit on 26-12-2018 by james1947 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 26 2018 @ 10:27 AM
link   

originally posted by: james1947

originally posted by: Assemble
a reply to: 0zzymand0s

If you can tell me the difference between evolution and magic i'd be interested.

That is, can you prove evolution? As far as i'm aware, there is no proof, it is just a theory with no evidence, yet it's usually accepted as fact. That's not scientific.

I'm genuinely interested in the proof of evolution. Even just one example will do for me.


Easy...Evolution is a natural process. Magick is an intentional process (act).

You will probably NEVER see a "proof" to any theory...in science theories are typically NOT PROVEN EVER!!! Those that do are elevated to "scientific law".

In science few things (theories) are ever proven, however, the theories are also not "disproven"...in other words a theory stands until it can be shown to be wrong. In the case of Evolution nobody has been able to produce evidence that shows that Evolution is not true. If you want evidence OF evolution, I invite you to look at the world around you, and understand that 1,000,000 years ago things were vastly different, and that pet kitty of yours did not exist yet (as a species).

And, the fact that Evolution IS accepted...is VERY scientific!

The same can be said for the extraterrestrial theory.

A theory in the scientific sense is something that can be tested. Sure there are theories of gravity. The theories might not be right, but when we test them, what happens matches the theory.

With evolution, there are no examples of the world matching the theory.

Evolution is just a belief system. The whole point is to replace one belief system (that there is a God) with another belief system (evolution).

Here is an example of evolution not matching observable data (which shouldn't happen if a theory is correct) phys.org...

If you want to continue believing in it, that's up to you.

But the reason you couldn't provide me with even one example which verifies the theory, is because there are no examples, and yet, it appears you still continue to believe in it.



posted on Dec, 26 2018 @ 11:01 AM
link   
a reply to: james1947

how you can write a white paper about something wich we haven't even contacted yet?
apparently the people at the skinwalker ranch managed to that but the report is still classified



posted on Dec, 26 2018 @ 11:03 AM
link   
a reply to: Assemble

uhhh, can somebody explain to me, why this thread is becoming a creationist VS scientist argument?



posted on Dec, 26 2018 @ 11:04 AM
link   
a reply to: humanoidlord

I dunno, I was just answering his post.
edit on 26-12-2018 by Assemble because: corrected



posted on Dec, 26 2018 @ 11:05 AM
link   
a reply to: Assemble


A theory with no evidence you can comprehend, perhaps?


Here's my favorite "proof."


When we look at the fossil record in rocks, we see a series of stratum or "layers," representing geologic "time." No matter how you "date" the layers, the most recent strata contain the most complex fossils, while the oldest layers contain the least complex.


"Magic" is saying things like, "who knows which layer came first? No one does!" (sticks fingers in ears).



posted on Dec, 26 2018 @ 11:10 AM
link   
a reply to: Assemble

yeah but this is a bit off topic



posted on Dec, 26 2018 @ 11:12 AM
link   

originally posted by: 0zzymand0s
a reply to: Assemble


A theory with no evidence you can comprehend, perhaps?


Here's my favorite "proof."


When we look at the fossil record in rocks, we see a series of stratum or "layers," representing geologic "time." No matter how you "date" the layers, the most recent strata contain the most complex fossils, while the oldest layers contain the least complex.


"Magic" is saying things like, "who knows which layer came first? No one does!" (sticks fingers in ears).
That doesn't prove evolution. If the layers are a true representation of the time that's passed, and they haven't been disturbed - think earthquakes, tsunamis, floods and so forth, then what they show, is a certain type of creature, then all of a sudden a completely different type of creature. In case you didn't realize, that does the opposite of supporting evolution (which states that organisms gradually evolve into a different kind). What you have instead, is like having a fish, then directly above it, is a lizard, or a dog. There's no gradual changes taking place.

So, i'm not convinved. Nor will I be! (I've looked into this quite a bit
)



posted on Dec, 26 2018 @ 11:12 AM
link   

originally posted by: humanoidlord
a reply to: Assemble

yeah but this is a bit off topic
No probs, I was thinking the same myself, I won't address it here no more (I've said what I think matters on it anyway
). I Can't speak for anyone else though lol, as people can get quite defensive of their beliefs.
edit on 26-12-2018 by Assemble because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 26 2018 @ 11:21 AM
link   
a reply to: humanoidlord


I'm good. Carry on with the UFOs!



posted on Dec, 26 2018 @ 11:27 AM
link   
Hey humanoidlord,

I think actually it is relevant to the thread, and here's why.

People who believe in evolution, will be drawn to the ETH hypothesis.

Why? Because if we appeared by evolution, then it would also make sense that UFOs appeared by evolution on their planet.

To give it a paranormal explanation, goes against what evolution theory believers would claim as 'rational'.

To get to the heart of the matter, the belief in ETH and the belief in evolution, is, in my opinion, inter-changeably linked.

That's why, now that I think about it, despite the two subjects *seeming* to be unconnected, they very much are connected, and it's why the conversation came up.



posted on Dec, 26 2018 @ 11:53 AM
link   

originally posted by: humanoidlord
a reply to: james1947

how you can write a white paper about something wich we haven't even contacted yet?


Then just how can you use this "unknown thing" as a part of a hypothesis or theory?

You'll notice that in my theory demonstrating ETH that every bit of it is a "known" thing.



apparently the people at the skinwalker ranch managed to that but the report is still classified

I know not of this, nor do I particularly care, but, I will state that it may as well not exist even in idea...(that "classified" thing negates every bit...)

I found a 1989 paper by Vallee...very much not impressed! He makes assumptions that are not valid, and jumps to conclusions without sufficient data. And, then reaches the wrong conclusions based on what he wrote...in my opinion.



posted on Dec, 26 2018 @ 12:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: Assemble

Here is an example of evolution not matching observable data (which shouldn't happen if a theory is correct) phys.org...



I think you have misunderstood the paper you linked...what it is saying is that evolution (i.e. natural selection) occured, just not quite as Darwin stated.

And, I quite agree...so here is a good example of evolution for you: 4.6 billion years ago there was NO life on the Earth, than after nearly 1 billion years a single celled life form appeared. It ruled the Earth as the ONLY form of life extant for around 1.5 billion years...then there was an extinction event, and that single celled life form killed itself...it converted CO2 into Oxygen, which was poisonous...Not all of that life died however, that which didn't adapted to live in an Oxygen environment, though it was still only a single cell.

Fastforward to around 500,000,000 years and another extinction event caused the single celled lifeforms (yes there were several by then...all evolved from that original), what survived adapted again (i.e. rapid evolution) and became the first multi-celled life forms on Earth...over the past 500,000,000 years or so, ALL of the millions of species that have inhabited the Earth have evolved from that original "set" of complex life forms.

The problem with Darwin is his theory isn't complete, as he ignores the rapid evolutionary periods and the affects of extinction level events on biology and its evolution.

If you would like a modern example: take for instance these "super bugs" (in the medical sense) diseases that resist the traditional treatment because they have evolved a tolerance to medication.



posted on Dec, 26 2018 @ 12:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: james1947

originally posted by: Assemble

Here is an example of evolution not matching observable data (which shouldn't happen if a theory is correct) phys.org...



I think you have misunderstood the paper you linked...what it is saying is that evolution (i.e. natural selection) occured, just not quite as Darwin stated.
Na, evolution states that things evolve into new species because they change incredibly slowly over millions of years. Instead, the geologist evidence contradicts that, instead his evidence shows that changes happened pretty much instantly.

Let's look at what Darwin said,


Darwin wrote, "…Natural selection acts only by taking advantage of slight successive variations; she can never take a great and sudden leap, but must advance by short and sure, though slow steps."



"If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down."


I'm not going to continue with this conversation here, out of respect of the OP, but, whatever the answer is, it's not evolution. If you can free your mind from the false theory, you might be able to consider something else than ETH.

edit on 26-12-2018 by Assemble because: typo




top topics



 
15
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join