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: 348
31
<< 345  346  347    349  350  351 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 4 2012 @ 11:44 AM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 





That's rich coming from the guy claiming aliens "did it all" without having any objective evidence to back up those claims.

Look, you're entitled to believe whatever you want, but so far you haven't posted any credible objective evidence that would support you claims. All you do is repost unproven claims by Pye and quotes from the bible...a book that is FULL of inconsistencies and demonstrably wrong information. And that's ok...like I said, you can believe whatever you want.

But talking down on people because you think they believe in fantasy, while you yourself are believing in stuff that has no foundation in reality...well...that's hypocritical
Well if you were right, how is it that the bible directs me to this conclusion, and without connection Lloyd Pye, and without furthur connection Von Daniken and without further connection Sitchen does as well. I understand you don't accept the bible as truth, and I have to agree there are a lot of unexplained, or non understood things in the bible. That however is not any sort of proof that they didn't happen, much less that they aren't truth.

You have a right to make your own assumptions as you have chosen to do, and not believe in things without evidence to question them, I think we all do.

I look at things from a different angle, is it possible there is a lot of proof in these books and could we stand to learn something from them. I see it as they obviously felt it was important to document all of this, probably for a very good reason, not only because of odditiy of the events, but the importance of them as well.

Basically your trying to tell me that all these authors including the plethora of people backed up in writing the bible are all wrong, and you are correct. I'm sorry but thats pretty rich coming from someone that expects me to also believe that the bible is a fairy tale, without proof of such.

I may have limited proof that aliens did it, but a little proof is better than the lack of proof you have claiming that they didn't do it.

As far as my typos you seriously need to stay focused on colin and get him in line. Not that I'm picking on him but at times he will claim to ask a question missing total punctuation and the sentence isn't even assembled in a question style.

His speech box is broken and he needs meds bad.




posted on Apr, 4 2012 @ 11:45 AM
link   
reply to post by Prezbo369
 





You're a very special individual toothy
My ex was above genius IQ, and she was left handed. Did you know that most left handed people are usually very intelligent and that they also face a higher chance of injury or even death as we have a world that is engineered for right handed people.



posted on Apr, 4 2012 @ 11:48 AM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 





Well if you were right, how is it that the bible directs me to this conclusion


I have to stop you right there...

Why are you still pretending as if the bible is proof? It's demonstrably FALSE in a lot of cases as has been shown over and over again in this thread. And Pye never backs up his claims with hard objective evidence.

So you base your entire belief on 2 sources, one being demonstrably wrong in a ton of cases, and the other not providing any objective evidence to prove your claims.

You are indeed looking at "it" from a "different angle", but that angle isn't based on any logic or rationality.



posted on Apr, 4 2012 @ 11:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by Prezbo369
 





You're a very special individual toothy
My ex was above genius IQ, and she was left handed. Did you know that most left handed people are usually very intelligent and that they also face a higher chance of injury or even death as we have a world that is engineered for right handed people.


I'm left handed...so I guess that makes me intelligent. So please, stop with the "bible is proof" nonsense



posted on Apr, 4 2012 @ 12:00 PM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 





I have to stop you right there...

Why are you still pretending as if the bible is proof? It's demonstrably FALSE in a lot of cases as has been shown over and over again in this thread. And Pye never backs up his claims with hard objective evidence.
The bible has never been proven wrong. Imagine that, somone on ATS with a high school back ground using ATS has single handedly disproved the bible. Delusions of grandure for sure. What you have thrown at me is someones excuses for not being able to recreate the events in the bible. The problem is that alien powers were not present to recreate these events in order to rule them out, so it is FALSE.

You can't rule someone out without properly doing it, and not recreating it in its original essence is not a recreation by any term.




So you base your entire belief on 2 sources, one being demonstrably wrong in a ton of cases, and the other not providing any objective evidence to prove your claims.
First of all like I have stated many times before, I don't have a belief, I have an understanding. Second, you failed to add correctly, there were four sources in that line, and that's if you only count the bible as one source.




You are indeed looking at "it" from a "different angle", but that angle isn't based on any logic or rationality.
This is where your blind. The four sources have nothing to do with each other and all have there own opinions about what they think has happened. They all have different points of view, yet are all pointing in the same direction. It's pretty hard to question this find. It would be one thing if they all got there information from the same sources but in fact they didn't. It would be something entirely different if they they all were saying the same things, which they also aren't. Some things match, and some things don't. One thing is certain, intervention rules in all of there ideas.

So this is what I meant when I keep saying everyone else cant be wrong and your right, when they all have varying things they believe in yet all believe in intervention. Now had they all of believed in the exact same things, then I would have to agree with you, but that's not the case.


edit on 4-4-2012 by itsthetooth because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 4 2012 @ 12:07 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 



No I think wild animals came pretty close to describing in the wild. Probably a better explanation would be away from modern civilization but there you go.
I did not ask for a definition of WILD ANIMALS, OR WILDLIFE OR WILD. I asked for your definition of IN THE WILD and you came up with this.


My definition of in the wild.
In the wild: To be anywhere in the outside, away from civilization, or closer to animals of the outdoors.
Thats your last tooth wiki for the month.
Did you ask a five year old to write that definition because given your success in providing a definition for the ones you use, even that tripe is above you.


The definitions were quite short, clear and concise. I think your just being incredulous again, and had not other complaint options as you obviously don't.
You did not give any definitions you plonker. It might be, could be and I think, do not belong within a definition.


When you have to lie the way you do, and claim that I have offered no definitions, thats truly sad.
Again you expend effort to lie about supplying defintions when supplying them would be easier. You must enjoy lying. You are that liar


Actually I was listed with a borderline genus IQ.

You was what?
oh please.
Borderline what?



But you on the other hand, is one that should worry. Not properly assembling questions and to top it all off not using correct punctuation, then turning around and trying to condition people to accept that as ok, tells me you seriously have something wrong with you.
I dont think you should point to anyones punctuation, genius. You have shown to have a very small grasp on the English language if you have any at all.


You are obviously the type of person that when they don't get there way, you proceed to do the same thing over and over hoping you will eventually get the green light. Very sad.
When faced with an ignorant and pathological liar you have to ask the question over and over again becuse all you reply with are lies.


If you trying to strangle me with words of creativity, you can stop.
I see you are trying to avoid the question again. I wont let you


You never answered: It does not matter if you were confused or not. YOU CLAIMED ANTS HARVESTING CHEMICALS WAS NATURAL WHEN ANTS DO NOT HARVEST CHEMICALS. AGAIN I ASK

HOW DID YOU REACH THAT CONCLUSION???????
The huge excuse for not answering this question does not cover your lie.

You dismissed ants by saying that harvesting chemicals is natural to them when they dont harvest chemicals. I have asked you to explain how you managed to conclude this was natural behaviour when it is not. The fact you have done everything but answer it tells me you lie all the time.

You being confused by something you thought I wrote does not answer how you came to the wrong answer about ants. Again genius, just in case you are confused. Explain how you came to that conclusion.



posted on Apr, 4 2012 @ 12:08 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 





The bible has never been proven wrong.


Tooth, you're getting silly. There is TONS of stuff in the bible that is demonstrably wrong, stuff that has been posted here numerous times. Every single time you simply ignore it and pretend it doesn't exist, it's really quite laughable.

Here are over 430 things that are PROVEN to be wrong in the bible: LINK

Those are FACTS. I know your belief probably prevents you from admitting it, but FACTUALLY, the bible isn't correct. You might not like it, you might ignore it, you might pretend that's not the case...but it doesn't change the FACT that the bible is demonstrably wrong in many cases


What amazes me is that you keep on repeating that claim even after being proven 100% wrong. It's not even up for debate, you are simply wrong. People have posted tons of links that clearly show that the bible doesn't match history, biology, and physics in a TON of cases. You simply chose to close your eyes to protect that fantasy world you're living in. And you have all the right to doing so, you just look silly pretending it's the "truth" or "factual".
edit on 4-4-2012 by MrXYZ because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 4 2012 @ 12:25 PM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 





Tooth, you're getting silly. There is TONS of stuff in the bible that is demonstrably wrong, stuff that has been posted here numerous times. Every single time you simply ignore it and pretend it doesn't exist, it's really quite laughable.
I don't think your understanding me, I'm not ignoring anything. What your telling me is that there are many things in the bible that have been proven to be wrong, and I'm telling you without the supernatural elements involved in trying to recreate them, you can't make a fair assessment. People on earth do not have supernatural ability's so how are they going to disprove anything?

Living inside a whale does sound lubricious but with the aid of supernatural intervention it might have been possible. This is why I keep saying your not going to be able to disprove anything without that needed element.




Here are over 430 things that are PROVEN to be wrong in the bible: LINK
Again I fail to see how they are going to prove anything wrong missing the needed element.




Those are FACTS. I know your belief probably prevents you from admitting it, but FACTUALLY, the bible isn't correct. You might not like it, you might ignore it, you might pretend that's not the case...but it doesn't change the FACT that the bible is demonstrably wrong in many cases
Again I don't have a belief, I have an understanding. I also understand that supernatural powers were at work in the bible, which is also why they felt it was so important to document.




What amazes me is that you keep on repeating that claim even after being proven 100% wrong. It's not even up for debate, you are simply wrong. People have posted tons of links that clearly show that the bible doesn't match history, biology, and physics in a TON of cases. You simply chose to close your eyes to protect that fantasy world you're living in. And you have all the right to doing so, you just look silly pretending it's the "truth" or "factual"
Well your going under that notion that we know all, and understand all. and thats just wrong. We don't know everything about science and we no almost nothing about the supernatural. I think its honestly something pretty hard to argue when we know nothing about theses things.

It would be like be getting on here and arguing about evolution while I know nothing about evolution. I wouldn't get anywhere. But for some reason it appears that some people are happy with the assumption that we know all, and that we understand all and that we don't need to consider supernatural elements in the bible. I'll let you in on a little secrete. My son has a pocket bible that makes a comment in the preface that the bible contains supernatural elements.

If you never read the preface you would miss the understanding of the rest of the book, and thats a fact. In case your unsure what supernatural means, it means aliens.



posted on Apr, 4 2012 @ 12:29 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 



I think your discomboobalated and thinking that your being incredulous makes me out to be ignorant and dishonest.
Not making you out to be incredulous, ignorant and dishonest. 300 pages of proof means you are and I am telling you that. Should be clear to a genius.


I'm sorry you feel this way, but its obvious you have issues with honesty and ignorance.
Yes I have issues with anyone that is as dishonest and ignorant as you.


These are things you will have to once again address with your counselor. I'm sure it was something that happened to you as a child.
I am afraid you are the only one here that needs to seek out a counselor.


That depends, if you want to consider domesticated animals as part of the wild life, then that was the incorrect one. On the other hand if you want to consider domesticated animals as not part of wild life then I would have been correct in saying some animals have target food.
Another beaming example of your dishonest approach to this thread and disrespect you have given to those on it.


Well I never said that all or even most others have target food, especially since it even tells us in the bible that a lot of species were brought here, means they probably won't have target food.
OR


Aside from humans, most things here have target food.
Which one is the lie?


Well there is another condition you need to address with your counselor, you have a propensity to assume things. I'm curious to know since it was my fault, at first which I'm admitting to not bringing up domesticated animals. Where did you classify them to start with. Did you assume they are also wild animals?
I gave you plenty of chances to list what you wanted to be contained in your non existant 'target food'. I even gave you a choice. It is your construct, you had your chance and you failed. A genius should know better.

If you now want to change your definition of target food then provide it.


Your also making another assumption of not understanding unnatural food that its rejected.
I am making no assumptions. I asked many times for a definition of unnatural food. You failed to provide one so as far as I am concerned it does not exist. Provide a definition and I will change my mind.


remember simply because you can't understand something does not mean it doesn't exist
YOU need to read this. Clown


Again I'm sure that med management will get you off this stuck train your on.
You do know that continuous referances to someone taking drugs is a T&C violation dont you.

The rest of your post is just an attack. A poor one at that. Just provide the definitions and answer the chemical harvesting ant issue if you want this thread to move on.



posted on Apr, 4 2012 @ 12:34 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 





I don't think your understanding me, I'm not ignoring anything. What your telling me is that there are many things in the bible that have been proven to be wrong, and I'm telling you without the supernatural elements involved in trying to recreate them, you can't make a fair assessment. People on earth do not have supernatural ability's so how are they going to disprove anything?


What's your evidence that this "supernatural" even exists? Objective evidence??

So basically what you're saying is: I understand that the objective historic, biological, and physical evidence is totally against the claims in the bible, but don't worry, magic makes everything possible!!

ARE YOU SERIOUS???




Again I don't have a belief, I have an understanding. I also understand that supernatural powers were at work in the bible, which is also why they felt it was so important to document.


Well then, your understanding is simply wrong then, and not based on any rationality and logic...and it IS a belief since you believe in it


Again, prove the supernatural! Because if you can't, you must also believe in Harry Potter, because after all, everything's possible due to the power of magic. You also believe in the Hindu elephant-head god, right? Because you know, magic makes EVERYTHING possible, even if there's zero evidence, or evidence against it





My son has a pocket bible that makes a comment in the preface that the bible contains supernatural elements.


And that proves it how exactly??

You can't prove the bible by using the bible





In case your unsure what supernatural means, it means aliens.


And here you're stating a BELIEF because you believe in it and haven't presented the slightest bit of credible objective evidence to prove your claim.



posted on Apr, 4 2012 @ 12:39 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 



It would be like be getting on here and arguing about evolution while I know nothing about evolution. I wouldn't get anywhere.
Are you for real genius?



posted on Apr, 4 2012 @ 12:42 PM
link   
reply to post by colin42
 





Not making you out to be incredulous, ignorant and dishonest. 300 pages of proof means you are and I am telling you that. Should be clear to a genius.
The only thing we have established in 300 pages is that your ignorant to the fact that evolution has never been witnessed in humans, that it's only been seen in some aquatic life, some bacteria and viruses and some insects. You have been ignorant to the fact that after 150 years of searching and finding 2.5 million bones and fossils we have never been able to confirm an ancestor through evolution.

I have posted the links that prove all this and you run and hide each time I do, you totally ignore the English language in a multitude of way then expect me to buy into your delusion.




Yes I have issues with anyone that is as dishonest and ignorant as you.
And thats easy to say, but what exactly have I been dishonest about, how about some details.




I am afraid you are the only one here that needs to seek out a counselor.
I have already seen a counselor and they dismissed me as nothing was needed.




Another beaming example of your dishonest approach to this thread and disrespect you have given to those on it.
I'm not sure if your just outright lying or hiding here, by not answering.




Which one is the lie?
It's neither you moron, the word most doesn't mean all, OMG your dense.




I gave you plenty of chances to list what you wanted to be contained in your non existant 'target food'. I even gave you a choice. It is your construct, you had your chance and you failed. A genius should know better.
I didn't fail, you simply ignored me, which is not the same thing, and you need to address this with a counselor.




If you now want to change your definition of target food then provide it.
Why would I want to change it?




I am making no assumptions. I asked many times for a definition of unnatural food. You failed to provide one so as far as I am concerned it does not exist. Provide a definition and I will change my mind.
I explained it many different ways for you colin, if your having a problem retaining it, then you need to also let your counselor know your have memory issues, as I have repeated it a multitude of times.




YOU need to read this. Clown
If your referring to me not understanding evolution, I understand it perfectly. As listed its a hypothetical theory, and the link has been provided to me explaining this. If your having comprehansion issues, maybe that is another issue you need to address with your counselor.

Better yet, let your counselor read the link and share her idea of what it means, so you can hash it out. You can apologize to me later.




You do know that continuous referances to someone taking drugs is a T&C violation dont you.

The rest of your post is just an attack. A poor one at that. Just provide the definitions and answer the chemical harvesting ant issue if you want this thread to move on.
Which is exactly why I didn't say anything about drugs you moron. Did you make another assumption?



posted on Apr, 4 2012 @ 01:04 PM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 





What's your evidence that this "supernatural" even exists? Objective evidence??

So basically what you're saying is: I understand that the objective historic, biological, and physical evidence is totally against the claims in the bible, but don't worry, magic makes everything possible!!

ARE YOU SERIOUS???
I have studied the supernatural or at least the reports of such for over 30 years of my life. At times I can understand things in the reports that others including those involved often miss. I'm proud of my success in understanding these things. Does that mean I'm an eye witness, yes and no. I have only ever seen one thing in my life that was unexplained, and surly supernatural. On the other hand I don't accept that as proof. The stories I have reviewed are different. They speak for them self and are pretty hard to ignore.

I don't however feel that all of them are real, I know that people can lie, but at the same time I also know that a lot of people are embarrassed to report things. I feel that there are probably as many people that would lie about such accounts as there are that would embarrassed to report them. Because of this we are left with a figure of 4 million reports people have claimed to have had some form of contact with other life. The bottom line is that even if only one of those reports was true, its proof that other life exists. Not that I have doubts, but we all want proof.

Why wouldn't I be serious, there is no reason to be making this up.




Well then, your understanding is simply wrong then, and not based on any rationality and logic...and it IS a belief since you believe in it
Again I don't have a single shred of evidence that indicates so. Evolution certainly doesn't disprove intervention seeing how its a hypothetical theory.




Again, prove the supernatural! Because if you can't, you must also believe in Harry Potter, because after all, everything's possible due to the power of magic. You also believe in the Hindu elephant-head god, right? Because you know, magic makes EVERYTHING possible, even if there's zero evidence, or evidence against it
In case you missed the understanding, we were intentionally left without the presence of these powers as part of our punishment. Just because we don't have them doesn't mean they don't exist. After all they are documented. Now hairy Potter is intentionally listed as a sci fi book, the bible is not.




And that proves it how exactly??

You can't prove the bible by using the bible
Like I keep explaining, its impossible to prove without the supernatural intervention that existed back in that time. The bible claims to be a book about truth. I understand this might be hard for some to accept but hairy potter doesn't claim to be truth, so there is a big difference.




And here you're stating a BELIEF because you believe in it and haven't presented the slightest bit of credible objective evidence to prove your claim.
Well here is where things get interesting. If I'm understanding that my view on this is not only correct and original, and meant to be, then even if you want to claim it to be a belief, you can't say I'm starting it when we have been misunderstanding it all this time to begin with.



posted on Apr, 4 2012 @ 01:10 PM
link   
reply to post by colin42
 





Are you for real genius?
The fact that you didn't ask me to repeat this proves to me that your just being incredulous though this thread.

You could learn a lot from others on here, but I can see that's going to be a challenge for you as you seem to think that everything I say is a lie. You haven't produced anything that gives reason for anyone to believe that, you just make that assumption.



posted on Apr, 4 2012 @ 01:24 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 





Again I don't have a single shred of evidence that indicates so. Evolution certainly doesn't disprove intervention seeing how its a hypothetical theory.


You're trolling, right? Because you know just well that a "hypothetical theory" doesn't exist, you are inventing words again


And no, intervention doesn't disprove intervention...life could have originally started out by aliens (or meteorites) dumping life on earth before evolution took over.




In case you missed the understanding, we were intentionally left without the presence of these powers as part of our punishment. Just because we don't have them doesn't mean they don't exist. After all they are documented. Now hairy Potter is intentionally listed as a sci fi book, the bible is not.


And your objective evidence for all those claims are??? What's your proof that we had "powers" taken from us as a punishment? Don't say "because it says so in the bible"...because the bible isn't objective evidence.

And since you don't consider the bible scifi, I take it you also believe scriptures of all the other religions are factual, right?


Because those folks have just as "much" proof as you, none.




Like I keep explaining, its impossible to prove without the supernatural intervention that existed back in that time. The bible claims to be a book about truth. I understand this might be hard for some to accept but hairy potter doesn't claim to be truth, so there is a big difference.


Look:

Either you provide OBJECTIVE EVIDENCE for the supernatural (and no, eyewitness accounts aren't objective) or you have to live with the FACT that you are stating a belief...you are speculating


You make a ton of claims you aren't even able to back up with objective evidence.



posted on Apr, 4 2012 @ 01:43 PM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 





You're trolling, right? Because you know just well that a "hypothetical theory" doesn't exist, you are inventing words again

And no, intervention doesn't disprove intervention...life could have originally started out by aliens (or meteorites) dumping life on earth before evolution took over.
No your correct, its a hypothesis. It's a bad habit I have as I was taught wrong about this title many years ago.




And your objective evidence for all those claims are??? What's your proof that we had "powers" taken from us as a punishment? Don't say "because it says so in the bible"...because the bible isn't objective evidence.
The evidence is here, we have vestigial organs, the bible does indicate we have ability's pulled, and just as an example look at how DR Michael Persinger just came out with Telepathy is a fact article.




And since you don't consider the bible scifi, I take it you also believe scriptures of all the other religions are factual, right?
Aside from your own definition, or I should say from others definitions about the bible, did you ever find anything that clearly states it to be sci fi?




Because those folks have just as "much" proof as you, none.
You might want to go back many pages and see the plethora of reasons the provide support for us having disabled ability's.




Either you provide OBJECTIVE EVIDENCE for the supernatural (and no, eyewitness accounts aren't objective) or you have to live with the FACT that you are stating a belief...you are speculating

Well based on the fact that Sitchen, Pye, Von daniken and The bible all include these, I would hardly say that I created a belief. There is a difference between people being blind or freshly new to the idea.




You make a ton of claims you aren't even able to back up with objective evidence.
Well I'm not making the claims, I'm simply revealing them.



posted on Apr, 4 2012 @ 02:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by MrXYZ
 





If you never read the preface you would miss the understanding of the rest of the book, and thats a fact. In case your unsure what supernatural means, it means aliens.


No it doesnt.

In fact, if aliens exist in this uneverse (and they probably do) they will be purely within nature, i.e. natural.

For want of a better definition, supernatural means "magic".



posted on Apr, 4 2012 @ 02:22 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 





No your correct, its a hypothesis. It's a bad habit I have as I was taught wrong about this title many years ago.


It's a scientific theory...which is why it's called THEORY of evolution, and not "hypothesis of evolution". For someone claiming to be a genius you seem to know very little about the thing you criticize





Well I'm not making the claims, I'm simply revealing them.


Oh, you sure reveal those claim...you simply don't back them up with any hard objective evidence

edit on 4-4-2012 by MrXYZ because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 4 2012 @ 02:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by MrXYZ
 





You're trolling, right? Because you know just well that a "hypothetical theory" doesn't exist, you are inventing words again

And no, intervention doesn't disprove intervention...life could have originally started out by aliens (or meteorites) dumping life on earth before evolution took over.
No your correct, its a hypothesis. It's a bad habit I have as I was taught wrong about this title many years ago.


Wrong, its a Theory, and you still havnt quite got to grips with the definition of a scientifiv theory.




And your objective evidence for all those claims are??? What's your proof that we had "powers" taken from us as a punishment? Don't say "because it says so in the bible"...because the bible isn't objective evidence.

The evidence is here, we have vestigial organs, the bible does indicate we have ability's pulled, and just as an example look at how DR Michael Persinger just came out with Telepathy is a fact article.


You should probably read his artical before stating it as proof.



And since you don't consider the bible scifi, I take it you also believe scriptures of all the other religions are factual, right?

Aside from your own definition, or I should say from others definitions about the bible, did you ever find anything that clearly states it to be sci fi?


Hmm, answering a question with an unrelated question without actualy answering the question that was asked...An interesting strategy. So, do you consider all religious texts to be equally valid as they all offer the same "at the time" witness accounts and all claim to be the self prophesed truth?




Because those folks have just as "much" proof as you, none.

You might want to go back many pages and see the plethora of reasons the provide support for us having disabled ability's.DR Michael


I can save you the trouble...there werent any.




Either you provide OBJECTIVE EVIDENCE for the supernatural (and no, eyewitness accounts aren't objective) or you have to live with the FACT that you are stating a belief...you are speculating


Well based on the fact that Sitchen, Pye, Von daniken and The bible all include these, I would hardly say that I created a belief. There is a difference between people being blind or freshly new to the idea.


I dont believe there was an accusation that you created it, just that you hold it...belief, faith.




You make a ton of claims you aren't even able to back up with objective evidence.

Well I'm not making the claims, I'm simply revealing them.


You are making claims, the most obviously wrong one is that we are not from here. I have already shown you proof in your own ravings why it is the rest of the animal knigdom and not us who arent indigenous.



posted on Apr, 4 2012 @ 02:35 PM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 





It's a scientific theory...which is why it's called THEORY of evolution, and not "hypothesis of evolution". For someone claiming to be a genius you seem to know very little about the thing you criticize



I must take exception, at no point did tooth claim to be a genius, he merely claimed to be a genus, and a borderline one at that, so strictly speaking....accurate.


edit on 4-4-2012 by idmonster because: (no reason given)

edit on 4-4-2012 by idmonster because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
31
<< 345  346  347    349  350  351 >>

log in

join