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.

 

Can you prove evolution wrong?*

page: 209
31
<< 206  207  208    210  211  212 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 1 2012 @ 11:48 AM
link   
reply to post by Varemia
 





I never said fairytale. My issue with using the Bible as a factual source is that there is no reason for me to consider it factual.

It's not like I give science anything different. All scientific papers must list their source materials or reference their studies from which they acquired their information. The Bible has nothing of the sort, and contradicts its own rules multiple times throughout. It is by no means a coherent work and has no solid basis for me to draw a conclusion of truthfulness.
What contradictions as an example?

And I'm curious, if you were next to me, assisting me with say a book on astrophysics, could I depend on you to accurately relay things out of this book to me?
edit on 1-2-2012 by itsthetooth because: (no reason given)




posted on Feb, 1 2012 @ 07:25 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 


www.infidels.org...

There's a link that lists a number of contradictions, which you can interpret however you wish. I just did a quick Google search.

As for helping you with an astrophysics book, if I had a copy, I could probably help you read it and/or understand it. It would help to use other books, and if you really wanted to, we could look at the bibliography of sources at the end of the book and see if there's anything troublesome in the science that you would like reviewed.

Can't do that with the Bible since it can never be improved or altered in any way (although translations have already done that).



posted on Feb, 2 2012 @ 10:59 AM
link   
reply to post by Varemia
 


I hand picked some on the list to look at.

I'm seeing a lot of personal opinion over things here.
More so I'm also seeing some things that make sense from the supernatural sense.

If you don't have that experience, then your not qualified to understand some of the things.
For example the human vs ghostly impregnation.
From what I get from the whole Jesus experience is Mary was impregnated by the Holy Ghost.
Holy Ghost was a phrase used by those that were having there mind invaded with conversation (telepathy) and had no other way to try to explain it in writing.
I always believed that Mary was a subject of artificial insemination, and oddly enough that also happens to be another favorite thing done by aliens. It's also not a miracle, we do it today.
Of course aliens have telepathy, so once again god was a space alien.

I tested this theory on someone that refuses to believe that aliens could even or ever have existed.
I asked her if she started to hear voices in her head, what would she think it is. At first the idea of a mental breakdown was offered followed by going crazy. But not everyone in the bible could be crazy so I asked her what her next guess would be. She explained probably a ghost or a spirit. What a coincidence, two most common used words proving more to my theory that god was a space alien, but a non believer.

Some of the quotes on your link are obviously suffering from parts of the bible that we still have missing. Not much we can do about that. Regardless, reading the book from a supernatural angel, puts everything into perspective, where its out of perspective with the current belief. At least they have it half right.

These ambiguous problems corrected most of the misunderstandings for me.

Without the experience of the supernatural, no one should be reading the book as it simply won't make sense. Your simply not qualified.
edit on 2-2-2012 by itsthetooth because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 2 2012 @ 12:08 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 


The problem is that you are beginning with the assumption that the Bible is correct. Why not the Quran? Or any other number of religious texts for that matter. Why does the Bible get special treatment in terms of correctness?

I am personally a very spiritual person. I have had my fair share of experiences. Not a one points to the Bible as being true.



posted on Feb, 2 2012 @ 12:18 PM
link   
reply to post by Varemia
 


Well there are some slight differences, but it was to my understanding that they are all basically the same.



posted on Feb, 2 2012 @ 12:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by Varemia
 


Well there are some slight differences, but it was to my understanding that they are all basically the same.


Yeah, sure, if you ignore 90% of the text. You clearly have no idea what you're talking about here. Why are you even arguing against evolution?



posted on Feb, 2 2012 @ 12:49 PM
link   
reply to post by Varemia
 


I was only going by what I have heard. I haven't personally hand picked through the dozens of them in different languages. I'm shocked that you have.
Why am I arguing evolution.
Not that religion disproves it, but I can't seem to get anyone to answer me on flagellum.
What is your take on it, you seem to have all the answers. How does flagellum fit in?



posted on Feb, 2 2012 @ 01:35 PM
link   
colin,
I have not forgotten our discussions and look forward in getting back to them.
It has been a rough week, took my wife to the er yesterday and my moms been in the hospital since Monday.
Keep checking back, I will respond to your last post when I can.

EDIT:
For those of you who pray I would appreciate all they could get right now.
Thanks,
Quad



posted on Feb, 2 2012 @ 02:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by Varemia
 


I was only going by what I have heard. I haven't personally hand picked through the dozens of them in different languages. I'm shocked that you have.
Why am I arguing evolution.
Not that religion disproves it, but I can't seem to get anyone to answer me on flagellum.
What is your take on it, you seem to have all the answers. How does flagellum fit in?


Not sure what you're requesting. Here's a wikipedia article on it, if that helps.

en.wikipedia.org...

Edit: Good luck, Quad. I know how it feels to have a loved one in the hospital. I hope she turns out ok.
edit on 2-2-2012 by Varemia because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 2 2012 @ 04:40 PM
link   
reply to post by Quadrivium
 
You have my best wishes and hopes. You also have more important things to do. As Dave Alan used to say. May your god go with you.



posted on Feb, 2 2012 @ 06:24 PM
link   
reply to post by Varemia
 


No I was actually referring to the disecting diagram exposing that its actually a machine.

How did this machine evolve?



posted on Feb, 2 2012 @ 10:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by Varemia
 


No I was actually referring to the disecting diagram exposing that its actually a machine.

How did this machine evolve?


By individual parts. Each part that developed, developed in a way that it would work with previous functions. That's why we have so many pointless work-arounds in our body that wouldn't make sense unless they were simply originally placed in certain ways, and then evolution put them in inefficient locations. For example, the nerve that controls your voice box and breathing goes from your brain, loops around your heart, and then goes back up the neck to the voice box. This is a stupid design because it would be far easier and make more sense to just have a one-inch nerve from the brain to the voice-box directly. It only makes sense if you consider the original nerve development for gills in fish. without necks, going around the heart was the simplest way to connect the parts. Once necks developed, the nerve simply stretched rather than repositioning itself. This supports slow development, not design.



posted on Feb, 2 2012 @ 10:33 PM
link   
reply to post by Varemia
 





By individual parts. Each part that developed, developed in a way that it would work with previous functions. That's why we have so many pointless work-arounds in our body that wouldn't make sense unless they were simply originally placed in certain ways, and then evolution put them in inefficient locations. For example, the nerve that controls your voice box and breathing goes from your brain, loops around your heart, and then goes back up the neck to the voice box. This is a stupid design because it would be far easier and make more sense to just have a one-inch nerve from the brain to the voice-box directly. It only makes sense if you consider the original nerve development for gills in fish. without necks, going around the heart was the simplest way to connect the parts. Once necks developed, the nerve simply stretched rather than repositioning itself. This supports slow development, not design.
Perhaps you didn't look up a diagram. It's a motor. So your trying to tell me that a motor evolved with windings, stator coils and connections?



posted on Feb, 2 2012 @ 11:22 PM
link   
reply to post by Varemia
 


Very good post
that clearly outlines the accidents of history IE Evolution by Natural Selection in an animals development.
Here is a perfect example of the Laryngeal nerve in a giraffe that would make zero logic if it were purposely designed by a sky daddy.



posted on Feb, 3 2012 @ 10:25 AM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 

Your credibility with regards to being able to draw accurate scientific conclusions based on pretty pictures was decimated back in the "DNA has a blue laminate" days.



posted on Feb, 3 2012 @ 10:33 AM
link   
reply to post by iterationzero
 


Now I know why you cant see past Von Danikens mistake.
You just have to profile don't you?



posted on Feb, 3 2012 @ 11:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by iterationzero
 


Now I know why you cant see past Von Danikens mistake.
You just have to profile don't you?


Von Däniken's mistake

How about complete and utter rubbish, inaccurate, false, deliberately misleading, and totally unsupported by fact.
Mistake?



posted on Feb, 3 2012 @ 11:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by iterationzero
 


Now I know why you cant see past Von Danikens mistake.
You just have to profile don't you?


Calling "labelling complete garbage and pseudo-science as truth" a mistake is the understatement of the year, don't you think?



posted on Feb, 3 2012 @ 11:15 AM
link   
reply to post by flyingfish
 





Von Däniken's mistake
How about complete and utter rubbish, inaccurate, false, deliberately misleading, and totally unsupported by fact.
Mistake?
Well that's entirely your opinion, I have yet to see anything proving what your saying.

Are you both going to run away like everyone else when I mention flagellum?
edit on 3-2-2012 by itsthetooth because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 3 2012 @ 11:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by flyingfish
 





Von Däniken's mistake
How about complete and utter rubbish, inaccurate, false, deliberately misleading, and totally unsupported by fact.
Mistake?
Well that's entirely your opinion, I have yet to see anything proving what your saying.

Are you both going to run away like everyone else when I mention flagellum?
edit on 3-2-2012 by itsthetooth because: (no reason given)


Try using your head and Google works and no it's not just an opinion.

The Skeptics SA guide to
Erich von Däniken
Link


Let uslook at some of them
1) The Step Pyramid of King Zoser in ancientEgypt was built from granite blocks (Wrong:the pyramids were built of limestone)(2) The Great Pyramid weighs 31,200,000tons (2,600,000 blocks, at around 12 tonsper stone (Wrong: the blocks in fact weighedon average 2.5 tons.)(3) Because Egypt had so few trees they couldnot have had wooden rollers (Wrong: TheEgyptians imported timber)(4) The Egyptians had no ropes (Wrong:Samples of their ropes are on display in theCairo Museum)(5) There were no huts for workers (Wrong:Sir Flinders Petrie found an entire workers’ village, and others have since been located)(6) The pyramids would have taken 664 yearsto build (Wrong: most were built within thelifetime of individual pharaohs. They usedthousands of volunteers, who were happy to work on the pyramids, believing that by this work they earned credits for the after-life)(7) The Cheops Pyramid is 490 feet high(Wrong: In fact it is 481.4 feet (146.7 m)high.)(8) The ‘classic’ proportions of the pyramidsare related to the distance to the sun, andto other abstruse mathematical concepts(Wrong: These were 19th century ideas longdiscredited. In addition, as mentioned initem 7, he used incorrect height figures, so



edit on 3-2-2012 by flyingfish because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
31
<< 206  207  208    210  211  212 >>

log in

join