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.

 

Survey Results: Origins and Evolution

page: 64
82
<< 61  62  63    65  66  67 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 5 2011 @ 06:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by MrXYZ
reply to post by KingJames1337
 





if there is no explanation available even the most outlandish explanation is better than saying it is a mystery that cannot be answered by any current scientific reasoning.



So whenever we don't know something for sure, you say it's always better to make stuff up and claim it's the truth...got it


First of all, you don't KNOW if it was an atomic bomb. There's also no reason why a meteorite's radiation would fade sooner...and of course there's the fact that due to plate tectonics, those human remains could have just ended up buried next to an uranium deposit or some other radioactive material.

The truth is, we just don't know. And drawing conclusions without having all the facts is called blind belief or "making stuff up".

What's so hard in admitting you don't know?


I was thinking about leaving that last part out because it wasn't a very good statement, for instance, I could say they all died in a plane crash that would be an outlandish statement but not backed up by evidence. An outlandish explanation backed up by evidence IS better than no explanation however. Drawing a conclusion without having all the facts isn't blind belief or making stuff up. If this was a blind belief I would say it was an act of fairies or a dragon but this is supported by some evidence not something made up. It's not like we can say a bunch of skeletons are here it must have been a nuclear explosion but if there is some evidence to support a nuclear explosion than it is at least the best or one of the best possible conclusions because what else could it be? And some experts say meteors wouldn't leave radiation.


"You're not going to see any signs of radiation with a meteorite," said meteorite expert Ron Baalke. "People think they are radioactive and they are not."

These guy's words aren't word of law but it is more than likely we wouldn't have evidence of such strong radiation over time.




posted on Sep, 5 2011 @ 06:44 PM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 


it's not like that. those are mostly strawmen you've erected. let's start with the flat earth thing:

when the hebrews said the four corners of the earth, they didn't mean the land and water, just the land. it was literally the four corners of land. this suggests real estate, which we know even the ancient sumerians had measurements for. they based their land plots off the I.Iku (great square of pegasus). remember as above so below?. explain how they could have comprehensive charts of the sky, name planets, chart the seasons, compute the equinoxes, the precession of the equinoxes, and the arrival of eclipses and not know the planets and the earth were spherical?



posted on Sep, 5 2011 @ 06:45 PM
link   
reply to post by KingJames1337
 





An outlandish explanation backed up by evidence IS better than no explanation however.


How is that any better??? There's nothing wrong with admitting to not knowing, there's TONS of stuff we don't know. Just accepting something as truth without really knowing isn't true knowledge. It's BELIEF.



posted on Sep, 5 2011 @ 06:48 PM
link   
reply to post by KingJames1337
 


not only that, the concept that everything that's in the sky that comes to earth is a rock, is completely turned on its head when the mahabharata refers to a projectile being launched into space from earth that went on to fly past saturn. lol

that would mean the ancient hindus were launching meteorites from the earth into space, doncha know .



posted on Sep, 5 2011 @ 06:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by MrXYZ
reply to post by KingJames1337
 





An outlandish explanation backed up by evidence IS better than no explanation however.


How is that any better??? There's nothing wrong with admitting to not knowing, there's TONS of stuff we don't know. Just accepting something as truth without really knowing isn't true knowledge. It's BELIEF.



But the evidence points to nuclear explosion somehow someway, you could tell me aliens did it, a prior civilization did it, because if we just leave it there than we're basically saying it is unexplainable and there has to be an explanation.



posted on Sep, 5 2011 @ 06:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by undo
reply to post by MrXYZ
 


it's not like that. those are mostly strawmen you've erected. let's start with the flat earth thing:

when the hebrews said the four corners of the earth, they didn't mean the land and water, just the land. it was literally the four corners of land. this suggests real estate, which we know even the ancient sumerians had measurements for. they based their land plots off the I.Iku (great square of pegasus). remember as above so below?. explain how they could have comprehensive charts of the sky, name planets, chart the seasons, compute the equinoxes, the precession of the equinoxes, and the arrival of eclipses and not know the planets and the earth were spherical?


And why did they have charts of the sky? Because they were pretty much one of the first cultures to have math, and they were the first able to calculate the area of a triangle amongst other basic geometry you need to create maps.

Same with the Mayans. Very advanced in some respects, but then again, they believed humans were created out of maize dough...and that the earth was really a tree, and the galaxy another tree. They even had an aligator tree.

The Hebrews got a TON of stuff wrong too, like how man evolved for example...

In short, the fact that they got a lot of things right doesn't mean they somehow got knowledge from somewhere else...especially given how much they got wrong.



posted on Sep, 5 2011 @ 06:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by KingJames1337

Originally posted by MrXYZ
reply to post by KingJames1337
 





An outlandish explanation backed up by evidence IS better than no explanation however.


How is that any better??? There's nothing wrong with admitting to not knowing, there's TONS of stuff we don't know. Just accepting something as truth without really knowing isn't true knowledge. It's BELIEF.



But the evidence points to nuclear explosion somehow someway, you could tell me aliens did it, a prior civilization did it, because if we just leave it there than we're basically saying it is unexplainable and there has to be an explanation.


But that's exactly the case...for now it's unexplainable and we just don't know. Just like we don't know a lot of other stuff


We don't know for sure what the cause of the radiation is...and that's the only FACT.


Be sceptical! Phil Plait explains why:


edit on 5-9-2011 by MrXYZ because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 5 2011 @ 07:09 PM
link   




Scientists Davneport and Vincenti put forward a theory saying the ruins were of a nuclear blast as they found big stratums of clay and green glass. High temperature melted clay and sand and they hardened immediately afterwards. Similar stratums of green glass can also found in Nevada deserts after every nuclear explosion.

Radio Active Ash
A layer of radioactive ash was found in Rajasthan, India. It covered a three-square mile area, ten miles west of Jodhpur. The research occurred after a very high rate of birth defects and cancer was discovered in the area. The levels of radiation registered so high on investigators’ gauges that the Indian government cordoned off the region. Scientists then apparently unearthed an ancient city where they found evidence of an atomic blast dating back thousands of years: from 8,000 to 12,000 years.

So what's more likely an alien war with a nucler weapon or a rare radioactive meteor hitting earth and people dying in an exact place(which would be the case in a meteor too), they are at least equally as likely.



posted on Sep, 5 2011 @ 07:10 PM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 


Who the # is Phil Platt? Any clips of Dave Chappele being skeptical.
edit on 5-9-2011 by KingJames1337 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 5 2011 @ 07:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by KingJames1337
reply to post by MrXYZ
 


Who the # is Phil Platt? Any clips of Dave Chappele being skeptical.
edit on 5-9-2011 by KingJames1337 because: (no reason given)


you will find that skeptics can be a fount of knowledge but as with everybody, myself included, they have their own opinions and even those don't all match. they need spokesmen like plaitt, to provide an united front, but even phil can be wrong.

the ones you have to watch out for are the ones who change the argument midstream. i call this the skeptical version of the kobayashi meru. the story of the kobayashi meru (a star trek story) is a test for cadets in the federation space program. it's the no win scenario. when faced with impossible odds, captain kirk as a cadet, was listed as the only person to have ever beaten the test, because he cheated. he changed the rules. this is what some skeptics will do. those are the ones you just gotta walk away from because they don't plan on losing, in the immortal words of kirk, they don't believe in no win scenarios and that's the only constant. it isn't the pursuit of the truth, it's the pursuit of being right, even when they're not
which may be useful n real battle, but is horrible in debate. it's like trying to hold onto a greased ferret in a wind storm.


edit on 5-9-2011 by undo because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 5 2011 @ 07:22 PM
link   
Dave Chappelle : "That's that whole police brutality thing. See that's common knowledge now. There used to be a time when only minorities really knew about that. Now I'm not saying white people didn't believe us, but you were a little skeptical. Then the NewsWeek printed it and you knew it was true. 'Oh my god...Honey did you see this? Aparently, the police have been beating up Negros like hot cakes!' Really though, how could you know? I mean you should have been a little suspicious. Don't you think its a little suspicious...that every dead black person the police find has crack sprinkled on him? I mean come on. Who gets shot and then sprinkles crack on themselves?"

Cracked up for days over "apparently, the police have been beating up Negros like hot cakes!"



posted on Sep, 5 2011 @ 08:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by KingJames1337
Dave Chappelle : "That's that whole police brutality thing. See that's common knowledge now. There used to be a time when only minorities really knew about that. Now I'm not saying white people didn't believe us, but you were a little skeptical. Then the NewsWeek printed it and you knew it was true. 'Oh my god...Honey did you see this? Aparently, the police have been beating up Negros like hot cakes!' Really though, how could you know? I mean you should have been a little suspicious. Don't you think its a little suspicious...that every dead black person the police find has crack sprinkled on him? I mean come on. Who gets shot and then sprinkles crack on themselves?"

Cracked up for days over "apparently, the police have been beating up Negros like hot cakes!"


i'd like to share with you a debate i had on the topic of the hindu texts, with a former (skeptic) on ats, named marduk. first let me set up the scenario:

in the thread, marduk claimed the word heaven was just a reference to a city on a mountain. and that ancient texts that refer to people or things going up to heaven, were just referring to these people/things, going up the mountain to the city of heaven.

i responded to this by quoting several passages from mahabharata, regarding celestial cars rising up and scudding thru the skies. so he changes the rules, now his response is celestial was our sky, not the heavens. so celestial was just a reference to the mountain top region. then i asked him, well if it's not the heavens, what IS the heavens? cause didn't you just say heaven was on the mountain? what? is it next door to celestial? no he said, the hindus didn't know anything about the planets or the heavens so celestial is the sky region of the mountain top. so i quote a passage from mahabharata regarding a planet that translators recognized as the word for saturn, proving they knew about planets and even had names for them, at least as far out as saturn. this is where the argument changed again. he went back to claiming that i hadn't proved they were in spaceships at all.

i ask, what do you call a city moving in the sky? his answer: a city on a mountain. so the mountain must be moving, since the city in the sky is flying around? so were they delusional about the flying city being fired upon and falling out of the sky, crashing to the ground? subject change again. lol

it went on and on like this. every time i'd find evidence to suggest he was not totally right, he'd change the subject. his fall back position was that i hadn't proved they were flying in space ships because celestial and heaven were earth related places not in outer space.



posted on Sep, 5 2011 @ 09:34 PM
link   




It must have been frustrating to deal with that, unfortunately some people don't have evidence so they do have to change the subject(politicians). An amusing example is Newt Gingrich whose emotionally backed arguments make for sometimes fun television, but obviously frustration for anyone else trying to argue against him. Unfortunately what this person above sounds like he is doing is pretty Gingrich like, refusing to even listen to the other person's points and using faulty reasoning or emotion to argue his point.



posted on Sep, 5 2011 @ 10:07 PM
link   
reply to post by undo
 


Because every king or queen from that time period claimed to be descendant of this god or that god, with this animal form or that animal form.

That's why.

Because it's a universal trait.



posted on Sep, 5 2011 @ 11:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gorman91
reply to post by undo
 


Because every king or queen from that time period claimed to be descendant of this god or that god, with this animal form or that animal form.

That's why.

Because it's a universal trait.


really ? name some.
i'm interested in this topic and would like to pick your brain for data on it.



posted on Sep, 6 2011 @ 05:38 AM
link   


So what's more likely an alien war with a nucler weapon or a rare radioactive meteor hitting earth and people dying in an exact place(which would be the case in a meteor too), they are at least equally as likely.

That's a false dichotomy. There is absolutely zero evidence for an "alien nuclear war" so it's not a choice of either/or. Just because we cannot explain something, it doesn't mean the explanation with absolutely zero supporting evidence what so ever gets put on equal footing with the ones that at least have some grounding in reality.



posted on Sep, 6 2011 @ 05:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by john_bmth



So what's more likely an alien war with a nucler weapon or a rare radioactive meteor hitting earth and people dying in an exact place(which would be the case in a meteor too), they are at least equally as likely.

That's a false dichotomy. There is absolutely zero evidence for an "alien nuclear war" so it's not a choice of either/or. Just because we cannot explain something, it doesn't mean the explanation with absolutely zero supporting evidence what so ever gets put on equal footing with the ones that at least have some grounding in reality.


My man, hear me here. There is evidence of nuclear bombing. There ain't zero evidence if you'll look at the descriptions of the site. What evidence is there of anything else of a nuclear war? And what current explanation has a grounding in reality? Was there a radioactive meteor? Was their a mass murdering at that site and than somehow radioactive material contaminated it?



posted on Sep, 6 2011 @ 05:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by john_bmth



So what's more likely an alien war with a nucler weapon or a rare radioactive meteor hitting earth and people dying in an exact place(which would be the case in a meteor too), they are at least equally as likely.

That's a false dichotomy. There is absolutely zero evidence for an "alien nuclear war" so it's not a choice of either/or. Just because we cannot explain something, it doesn't mean the explanation with absolutely zero supporting evidence what so ever gets put on equal footing with the ones that at least have some grounding in reality.


He's using the argument from ignorance to make his point...not a good approach on a website with a "deny ignorance" mantra



posted on Sep, 6 2011 @ 06:04 AM
link   
reply to post by KingJames1337
 


We have evidence for previous meteor strikes and mass murders. We have none for alien wars.



posted on Sep, 6 2011 @ 06:12 AM
link   
post removed for serious violation of ATS Terms & Conditions




top topics



 
82
<< 61  62  63    65  66  67 >>

log in

join