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.
Nope, that's not what I 'propose'... It's very annoying arguing with you because you aren't even hearing what I'm saying... I said in my last post that it's more than probable that the people spreading the story were not 'con artists'. Remember the children's game "telephone"? It would have worked much like that, as all fables do.
Person 1) "Did you hear about that guy named Jesus? I heard he might have been the Messiah."
Person 2) "I hear there's a man named Jesus who's the Messiah and was performing miracles..."
Person 3) "Jesus the Christ (the Messiah) has been performing miracles. I even hear that he turned water into wine."
Originally posted by Bombeni
But I suppose YOU have an altogether different definition.
Originally posted by noobfun
Originally posted by Bombeni
But I suppose YOU have an altogether different definition.
nope just very suprised you actually know that
Originally posted by Bombeni
Now, you are probably going to regret that in the morning. You are comparing the Bible, the Holy book of the living God, to a child's book/game. You'll try anything to see if it sticks;
Originally posted by Bombeni
but keep looking, it's good to be immersed in things of God no matter what route you take; you'll get there eventually. Your soul is seeking something that your mind may not accept right now.
Originally posted by Bombeni
In spite of your refusal to accept the truth, I believe a voice speaks to you and tells you there is something to this; in fact I am sure of it, I am sure that while a person still lives, God is trying to find a way in.
i didnt even think about it so cant answer sorry
Originally posted by Bombeni
Who did you think I would think they were?
yes an interest and lots of time spent studying NLP and behaviour psychology, its the people that intrest me
For someone who doesn't believe in something you sure spend a lot of time on it. There is more to that than meets the eye.
Originally posted by Annon Omas
Ok......Here's a different angle.
Christians believe God put us here,
lots of abiogensesis research that is building up conclusive results where they have observed many of the basic amino acids build them selves they have also formed adonine by the same method(observed proof)
Where is your evidence proving we came from mixture of chemicals millions of years ago. I'm not interested in theories, I need proof.
ummmm no its not random chance for either of them, the fact you think they are random chance tells me you havnt actually looked at it
Dawkins even admitted life may not have originated from chance chemicals and evolution.
He now thinks life may have originated from "intelligent design".
well theres no proof(remeber that stuff your insisting about) for either really, but probability is a different matter, that says theres almost certainly life out there the probabiloity of a divine being though is no where near as good odds
Rather than believeing in ET, I'll stay with Jesus
no not really there were 12 tribes that all followed the jewish abrahamic god, those tribes are now collective covered under the term jew so when the bible says he will return all the children of isreal it means in modern terms all the jews
Originally posted by toasted
You sir are confused!
do you?
Do you wish to understand?
Originally posted by noobfun
Prove it ! Prove that we came from god. You can't. and i mean real proof not theories
I asked you first
lots of abiogensesis research that is building up conclusive results where they have observed many of the basic amino acids build them selves they have also formed adonine by the same method(observed proof)
This is a theory
we aint there yet but we still have more proof then any religeon
So to believe in evolution you must have faith, because there is no absolute proof.
ummmm no its its not random chance for either of them, the fact you think they are random chance tells me you havnt actually looked at it
If its not by chance, are you suggesting someone or something guided all the random chemicals to be at specific place, time and temperature to create the primordial ooze.
Do you disagree with Dawkins about life coming from "intelligent design" ?
your refering to a quote mine, you know when you pick a few words out of a larger work and present them in a way that says the entire opposite of what was said, your refering to the we may have come from aliens quote mine arnt you? where he then said "and where did they aliens come from? well the only answer to that is evolution really isnt it"
No, actually, I got the ET thing from the Dawkins article. That is what he suggested.
No proof of aliens either, so how could they evolve
well theres no proof(remeber that stuff your insisting about) for either really, but probability is a different matter, that says theres almost certainly life out there the probabiloity of a divine being though is no where near as good odds
So we could agree, we both need faith(because there is no proof)
actually you will find i often ask for even the tiniest shred of evidence
Originally posted by Annon Omas
I asked you first
no its a hypothesis(abiogenesis) it hasnt been conclusivley proven which would make it a sceintific theory, and still more proof then you can supply for god
This is a theory
umm this isnt evolution were talking about its abiogenesis and you dont need absolute proof, faith is belief without or againt the evidence, while abiogenesis hasnt been 100% proven its still around 60-70% proven so no faith needed just acceptance of that 70%
So to believe in evolution you must have faith, because there is no absolute proof.
no not at all
If its not by chance, are you suggesting someone or something guided all the random chemicals to be at specific place, time and temperature to create the primordial ooze.
well as he doesnt say it does then i dont need to disagree with him
Do you disagree with Dawkins about life coming from "intelligent design" ?
they couldnt if they dont exist, but they are more probabile to exist then god is
No, actually, I got the ET thing from the Dawkins article. That is what he suggested.
No proof of aliens either, so how could they evolve
well theres more then enough evidence to raise evolution to scientific theory so no faith required, and as abiogenesis is the most likley casue of life arising i still dont need faith as it has a dossier of building supportive evidence
So we could agree, we both need faith(because there is no proof)
Originally posted by noobfun
Originally posted by Bombeni
But I suppose YOU have an altogether different definition.
nope just very suprised you actually know that
Originally posted by Bombeni
Noobfun do you wonder why I have inquired about your age? Your hateful attempts at embarrasing me into no longer posting is getting old.
you really should shouldnt you
This isn't the first time. People in glass houses should not throw stones, don't you know that? Before you start using lowball tactics, you should be sure you are beyond reproach.
sorry no typo or spelling mistake, i used the plural term i could have dropped the s but didnt have to so didnt
Regarding the word Pharisee, and your surprise I knew what it meant, well you aren't half as surprised as I am that you can spell it.
maybe if you cut the sly insults and numerous attempts to imply atheists are immoral and have nothing to offer the world that litter your posts maybe i might follow suit with comments in kind
shall i go find a bunch of them? wont take long
Originally posted by Bombeni
reply to post by noobfun
The above statement is untrue.
I'm not going to get into a mudsling fest with you. I merely politely asked you to stop with the childish tactics, of picking at things that have nothing whatsoever to do with the messages. I see you can dish it out but don't like to take it.
You make statements that are simply untrue, "numerous attempts" huh? You know that is a complete lie.
,multipul of these and attempts to tie it to all athiests bieng ugly
I mean, she is the only athiest I have ever seen in "real life" --- lol. Everyone else is too ashamed to show their face I guess.
another of your several atheists are scared of god
But what is in it for an athiest? I have been wondering about this for some time now, and what comes to mind is the old saying "there's safety in numbers."
like this one
What they offer is hopelessness. Who does that help?
Let me sum it up with this: you said athiests offer nothing, and I heartily agree!
please feel free to go find them, and we shall examine them
I have a good idea that is something you are not big enough to do, retract the hateful rude things you say, and they are too numerous to list.
please feel free to go find them?
The two or three things I said don't hold a candle to the incessantly rude, hateful things you say about Christians.
can you find a civil christian to replace you?
I am at the point of not wanting to debate with you anymore. Can you find another atheist who can remain civil, to take your place?p
and yet another of your many
Let me add that if you have a good knowledge of the Bible, even better than me, I think that is wonderful, seriously. At least as an atheist, you are not just laying your shovel down, you continue to explore the God issue; that's proof that you have not given up on the idea, as much as you'd like us to believe that you have.
I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.
-- Stephen F Roberts
Originally posted by toasted
reply to post by noobfun
I knew you were confused;
" those tribes are now collective covered under the term jew "
Congratulations for buying into the BIG LIE! [ the puppet media at work ]
Saying that all of israel are jews is like saying all Christians are catholics!!!!
You couldn't be more wrong if you wanted to be.
this is just them reanalysing a 50 yearold experiemnt with our better technology which show he had much better results then he thought 50 years ago
this doesnt even cover the many newer and on going research bieng undertaken
observed instances of amino acids and one of the 4 key componenets for rna and dna self assembling, other tests carried out have created other amino acids too all this from organic elements that self assemble into more complex molecules with out any help (again observed)
so wheres your evidence of god? and the bible doesnt count unless you can conclusivley prove it hasnt been messed with and altered by man and is 100% exact in every detail, and no personal experience wont do
no its a hypothesis(abiogenesis) it hasnt been conclusivley proven which would make it a sceintific theory, and still more proof then you can supply for god (do me a favour have a read of this before you say its only a theory, im talking scientific theory not the everday sense of the word wilstar.com... scinetific theory is a far different beast then the way(general usage) your using the term theory)
umm this isnt evolution were talking about its abiogenesis and you dont need absolute proof, faith is belief without or againt the evidence, while abiogenesis hasnt been 100% proven its still around 60-70% proven so no faith needed just acceptance of that 70%
evolution has been proven conclusivley enough for it to be accepted not taken on faith and as science always loves to prove things even further the evidence is still be found, maybe learn the actual theory then look at the evidence and youll see it too, no faith allowed or required just good old study understanding and acceptance of the evidence
no need for a guiding hand and no need for chance, they were all found in our atmosphere, its like theres no randomness in the creation of ozone in the atmosphere or hydrogen sulfide its a natural actions taking place, they happen not by random but becasue conditions say they should
hell they dont even need the correct temperature or atmosphere, organic compounds are found in space where they formed
well as he doesnt say it does then i dont need to disagree with him
ahh but it is its partial not conlusive but still partial and sooner or later all that partial adds up to become beyond reasonable dought and then undeniable
Originally posted by Annon Omas
I assume your talking about Stanley Miller and Harold Urey's expriments. Even Miller said "making compounds and making life are two different things."
www.evolutionnews.org...
This is not proof.
This has been CONFIRMED in Dr. Szostak's LAB!!
It's been 55 years since the Miller-Urey Experiment, and science has made enormous progress on solving the origin of life. This video summarizes one of the best leading models. Yes there are others. Science may never know exactly how life DID start, but we will know many ways how life COULD start.
but the findings of the research are proof, a little goal post moving?
Research yes, proof no
ahh but we have moved on since then and the pile of evidence is building fast
I'll use Miller's quote "making compounds and making life are two different things" - not proof of anything really
well you said i asked first
I am not trying to prove God's existence
what abiogenesis? i know its partially proven but not enough to make the transition but the evidence is there and building fast, its well on the way to theory status, and its full of proven hypothesies part proven and as yet unproven hypothesies that help push it further towards theory
You were right the first time, its a hypothesis, it hasn't been proven
they already are organic compounds
Of course its 60 -70 percent proven, they've done the easy stuff,making the monomers,making the first self-replicating polymers etc.
The next step of how to get those molecules to turn into self-replicating organic compounds is the hangup.
Remember Miller's quote "making compounds and making life are two different things."
no the conditions vary so widely theres no need for random, organic molecules form in space and in water and in test tubes and pretty much anywhere else
ok.......then the conditions were random. (infinite regress)
becasue those were the conditions found on earth at the time, were trying to understand how they formed on earth after all
So you are saying atmosphere doesn't matter ? Then why all the experiments with ammonia and methane ?
Not what this article says, here's your link townhall.com...
Yes, I do indeed have faith, and while you do not, I respect your search for the truth.
I hope you find it
from that article
The issue now is simply whether a natural intelligence (ET) or a supernatural intelligence (God) created life. Dawkins can't bear the supernatural explanation and so he opts for ET. But doesn't it take as much, or more, faith to believe in extraterrestrial biology majors depositing life on earth than it does to believe in a transcendent creator?
richarddawkins.net...
So, bending over backwards to accommodate the IDiots ("oh NOOOOO, of course we aren't talking about God, this is SCIENCE") and bending over backwards to make the best case I could for intelligent design, I constructed a science fiction scenario. Like Michael Ruse (as I surmise) I still hadn't rumbled Stein, and I was charitable enough to think he was an honestly stupid man, sincerely seeking enlightenment from a scientist. I patiently explained to him that life could conceivably have been seeded on Earth by an alien intelligence from another planet (Francis Crick and Leslie Orgel suggested something similar -- semi tongue-in-cheek). The conclusion I was heading towards was that, even in the highly unlikely event that some such 'Directed Panspermia' was responsible for designing life on this planet, the alien beings would THEMSELVES have to have evolved, if not by Darwinian selection, by some equivalent 'crane' (to quote Dan Dennett). My point here was that design can never be an ULTIMATE explanation for organized complexity. Even if life on Earth was seeded by intelligent designers on another planet, and even if the alien life form was itself seeded four billion years earlier, the regress must ultimately be terminated (and we have only some 13 billion years to play with because of the finite age of the universe). Organized complexity cannot just spontaneously happen. That, for goodness sake, is the creationists' whole point, when they bang on about eyes and bacterial flagella! Evolution by natural selection is the only known process whereby organized complexity can ultimately come into being.