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.
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?
An outlandish explanation backed up by evidence IS better than no explanation however.
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.
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?
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.
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)
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!"
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.
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.
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.
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.