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: 429
31
<< 426  427  428    430  431  432 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 29 2012 @ 12:54 PM
link   
reply to post by colin42
 





Your acting as though I made all this up, but like I have explained before, I'm not making anything up, I just read a few books, there is a difference.

Not acting at all. You made it all up. The two books you read are the 'bible' and 'Noddy goes to Toy Town'.
Just because I get a different meaning from the book doesn't mean I'm the one who is wrong.




No its not, its a process that ultimately has the random option of rendering new species. Now if I'm wrong on this or you totally disagree, then evolution is false and cannont explain diversity.

'You have not provided any supporting evidence for your claims. No comment until you do'
Your the one claiming that evolution is responsable for diversity.




Yes this is just me embellishing the understanding of it.

That equates directly with misleading dishonesty. Changing the evidence to siut your argument. You are a very big embellisher and that is nothing to feel pride in.
Only thing is that I was doing it with the intention of it being obvious.




No, your fully intended to be dishonest. Expecting others to see through it is not entering honest debate. We have all been aware of your dishonesty for a very long time. Only you with your deluded self grandeur thought you had not been found out despite us telling you many times.

So what do you think you achieved by your dishonest approach?
I wasn't trying to achieve anything because I wasn't being dishonest.




After your confession above on your dishonesty you have the cheek to write that. You have had this expalined many times. Guess what your turn.

'You have not provided any supporting evidence for your claims. No comment until you do'
I'm not supporting evidence for evolution.




So you did not read what I wrote. This is another example of you being dishonest. You are just a boring, untalented troll. Go back and read what I wrote and reply to that.

'You have not provided any supporting evidence for your claims. No comment until you do'
Either way, the end result is a new species, therefore evolution is creating.

I don't need your comment, it appears to be a fact at this point, providing evolution is real anyhow.




posted on Jun, 29 2012 @ 01:01 PM
link   
reply to post by colin42
 





So you still cannot work out how to defend your claim that the bible is a 'clear historical document'. Pathetic but 100% you.
I have many times allready, here it is again.


the Bible is a historical document containing first-hand information on the Hellenistic and Roman eras, and there is universal scholarly consensus that the events of the Babylonian captivity of the 6th century BC have a basis in history
en.wikipedia.org...




I see nothing but a poor childish (10 - 12 year old) attempts to troll and no on topic points at all. Given your admission of guilt in regards of your dishonesty you need to provide a subject on topic, supported by reasoned argument, links and quotes from those links.
I never admitted being dishonest, your assuming again, you always have to pull out your assumingology degree.




'You have not provided any reasoned argument and/or no supporting evidence for your claims. No comment until you do'
You haven't been able to answer any of the testing questions that test the theory of evolution so I have no further comment on that.




BTW where is the retraction of the blatent lie you wrote about me
No lie, you do have an assumptionology degree.



posted on Jun, 29 2012 @ 01:07 PM
link   
reply to post by colin42
 





If you believe telling you that your terms were meaningless nonsense was acceptance then you are helplessly deluded. Anyhow. You lost the debate then by refusal to debate and have for a second time for the very same reason. There will not be a third.

You retain the reward of: Your 'term/claim' is not valid on this thread. No further comment. well done
No its just that you have nothing to back it up, therefore its not valid or accepted.



posted on Jun, 29 2012 @ 01:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by colin42
 





If you believe telling you that your terms were meaningless nonsense was acceptance then you are helplessly deluded. Anyhow. You lost the debate then by refusal to debate and have for a second time for the very same reason. There will not be a third.

You retain the reward of: Your 'term/claim' is not valid on this thread. No further comment. well done
No its just that you have nothing to back it up, therefore its not valid or accepted.


The irony is strong in this post


Hilarious how you're still ignoring that the bible has been PROVEN to be 100% wrong in hundreds of cases when it comes to history...but who cares about facts, right?

edit on 29-6-2012 by MrXYZ because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 29 2012 @ 01:20 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 



Your the one claiming that evolution is responsable for diversity.
I am the one that asked for those that say evolution is wrong to provide an explanation of diversity without referring to evolution. You have yet to provide that explanation.

'You have not provided any reasoned argument and/or no supporting evidence for your claims. No comment until you do'



Only thing is that I was doing it with the intention of it being obvious.
Nope. You were and still are being dishonest. Plain and simple. What is it ten year olds say. 'I had my fingers crossed'. That excuse does not hold up in a conversation between adults.



I wasn't trying to achieve anything because I wasn't being dishonest.
After your confession of behaving dishonestly your answer is again dishonest.



I'm not supporting evidence for evolution.
I see your not supplying a reasoned argument, supported by evidence, links and quotes from those links.

'You have not provided any supporting evidence for your claims. No comment until you do'



Either way, the end result is a new species, therefore evolution is creating.

I don't need your comment, it appears to be a fact at this point, providing evolution is real anyhow.
Again nothing more supplied than your opinion. Uneducated opinion at that.

'You have not provided any supporting evidence for your claims. No comment until you do'



posted on Jun, 29 2012 @ 01:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
Well you say "if" as though your assuming. Are you assuming? There is nothing wrong with that if you are providing you have a decent reason for doing so, so I would like to know what your reason is.

Random chapters, where did you get this from? Why random, again do you have a basis for assuming this? Do you have something that tells us that its not a true story? Or are you once again assuming? And yes aliens are supernatural.


I'm talking about the future. Of course I'm assuming. I'm not saying that Harry Potter was ever found in ruins and taken as literal truth. I'm saying that a similar thing could have easily happened with the bible. You are assuming the bible is true but have no basis to do that, while I have good reasons to be doubtful about it's accuracy, mostly due to the unreliability of humans to tell the truth about anything unless it helps them gain power or money. Again, you need to prove that it's a reliable source of information if you want to use it in an argument. I don't have to prove anything as I'm not the one claiming it's true.


Supernatural means that it's set in our world, about unexplained and paranormal things (ie, ghosts, aliens, vampires,demons,ESP).Fantasy means it's set in another universe, where magic and stuff is a everyday part of it,
www.free-press-release.com...

su·per·nat·u·ral/ˌso͞opərˈnaCH(ə)rəl/
Adjective:
(of a manifestation or event) Attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature.

You didn't even quote a definition, some silly article from free press release. Aliens are not beyond scientific understanding. They are beings from other planets in the galaxy. Nothing supernatural is necessary for the existence of aliens.



I'm telling you that your making a preconcivied decision that the bible is false because its listed in the supernatural catagory. I'm telling you its real because it's listed in the supernatural section. So I guess what this comes down to is who can prove or disprove supernatural books as either. I would like to first ask you what you experience is reading books from this section.


Wrong again. YOU claimed the bible was clear documentation that proves your idea. YOU need to back that up. I didn't say the bible was false. Supernatural does not mean real, are you kidding me? Do you even understand what that means? Harry Potter is supernatural as well because it invokes magic. That doesn't mean it's true. Please stop wasting my time with silly semantic arguments using words you don't even understand. Present your objective evidence or you have nothing.
edit on 29-6-2012 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 29 2012 @ 01:35 PM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 





The irony is strong in this post

Hilarious how you're still ignoring that the bible has been PROVEN to be 100% wrong in hundreds of cases when it comes to history...but who cares about facts, right?
Just because you found a website that CLAIMS its impossible to live in a whale doesn't mean its proven false. There isn't any test that has proven it wrong. Even assuming that science claims it's impossible, science would have to recreate the situation before making a fair decision. In addition to that they would have to recreate the supernatural elements that probably made it work on top of that.

So your wrong, it was proven false, and if you believe it was, then its only a skewed opinion.



posted on Jun, 29 2012 @ 01:42 PM
link   
reply to post by colin42
 





I am the one that asked for those that say evolution is wrong to provide an explanation of diversity without referring to evolution. You have yet to provide that explanation.

'You have not provided any reasoned argument and/or no supporting evidence for your claims. No comment until you do'
I never claimed to have all the answers, but did offer that a creator could have done it just as well. Evolution only claims to provide an excuse for diversity, its not proof.




Only thing is that I was doing it with the intention of it being obvious.

Nope. You were and still are being dishonest. Plain and simple. What is it ten year olds say. 'I had my fingers crossed'. That excuse does not hold up in a conversation between adults.
Well one thing is for sure, you must be under aged if your unable to detect the difference.




I wasn't trying to achieve anything because I wasn't being dishonest.

After your confession of behaving dishonestly your answer is again dishonest.
obviously exegarrating is not being dishonest. Had I of been doing it in an unobvious way, you might be right.




I'm not supporting evidence for evolution.

I see your not supplying a reasoned argument, supported by evidence, links and quotes from those links.

'You have not provided any supporting evidence for your claims. No comment until you do'
Well I'm glad your learning, because it's not comments I'm here for, its facts.




Either way, the end result is a new species, therefore evolution is creating.

I don't need your comment, it appears to be a fact at this point, providing evolution is real anyhow.

Again nothing more supplied than your opinion. Uneducated opinion at that.

'You have not provided any supporting evidence for your claims. No comment until you do'
Thats your opinion which I have no comment about. The bottom line is that you can't possibly have a comment because your wrong.



posted on Jun, 29 2012 @ 01:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by MrXYZ
 





The irony is strong in this post

Hilarious how you're still ignoring that the bible has been PROVEN to be 100% wrong in hundreds of cases when it comes to history...but who cares about facts, right?
Just because you found a website that CLAIMS its impossible to live in a whale doesn't mean its proven false. There isn't any test that has proven it wrong. Even assuming that science claims it's impossible, science would have to recreate the situation before making a fair decision. In addition to that they would have to recreate the supernatural elements that probably made it work on top of that.

So your wrong, it was proven false, and if you believe it was, then its only a skewed opinion.



You'd have to be retarded to believe humans could live inside whales!!! It's physically impossible as you can't fit through his food tract, couldn't survive his stomach (acid and pressure would kill you), and would get killed by pressure in his lungs.

Those are FACTS...you know, the thing you really don't care about


And the website isn't claiming the bible is wrong, they are actually showing how...and they're correct, the bible is demonstrably wrong in hundreds of cases.
edit on 29-6-2012 by MrXYZ because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 29 2012 @ 01:45 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 



I have many times allready, here it is again.


the Bible is a historical document containing first-hand information on the Hellenistic and Roman eras, and there is universal scholarly consensus that the events of the Babylonian captivity of the 6th century BC have a basis in history
Where is the above quote above in the link supplied?

The rest was just you displaying your dishonesty.


No lie, you do have an assumptionology degree.
You wrote:


But you admitted yourself that through a process evolution is able to create new species.
I asked: Please quote where I wrote that and if you cannot please write a retraction of your dishonest statement. You cannot change my words to suit your argument.


You have failed to show where the quote because you were once again being dishonest. Now retract your statement above.



posted on Jun, 29 2012 @ 01:58 PM
link   
reply to post by Barcs
 





I'm talking about the future. Of course I'm assuming. I'm not saying that Harry Potter was ever found in ruins and taken as literal truth. I'm saying that a similar thing could have easily happened with the bible. You are assuming the bible is true but have no basis to do that, while I have good reasons to be doubtful about it's accuracy, mostly due to the unreliability of humans to tell the truth about anything unless it helps them gain power or money. Again, you need to prove that it's a reliable source of information if you want to use it in an argument. I don't have to prove anything as I'm not the one claiming it's true.
But you would still have to have a basis for why you think its untrue. And your not giving me anything concrete aside from assuming.

So your basing your disbelief on an assumption which has no merrit.




su·per·nat·u·ral/ˌso͞opərˈnaCH(ə)rəl/
Adjective:
(of a manifestation or event) Attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature.

You didn't even quote a definition, some silly article from free press release. Aliens are not beyond scientific understanding. They are beings from other planets in the galaxy. Nothing supernatural is necessary for the existence of aliens.
Only that it could pertain to aliens, and I'll even go out on a limb and agree more with your found definition. Notice how it says forces beyond scientific understanding. I want to know how you can claim that its obviously false when its obviously out of reach of our understanding.

How are you going to recreate the events to determine that living in a whale is false, when its obviously out of our scientific understanding. You cant and thats the bottom line.

The reason why I know they are referring to aliens specifically is because first of all there is obvious mention of space crafts in the bible, and they actually use the reference of other planets and the word aliens along with it.

Now religions have taken it out of context and I'm not able to figure out how, much less why, but they have. Basically anytime there is mention of alien activity, an alternative understanding is introduced as though there had never been an awarness of other life to begin with.




Wrong again. YOU claimed the bible was clear documentation that proves your idea. YOU need to back that up. I didn't say the bible was false. Supernatural does not mean real, are you kidding me? Do you even understand what that means? Harry Potter is supernatural as well because it invokes magic. That doesn't mean it's true. Please stop wasting my time with silly semantic arguments using words you don't even understand. Present your objective evidence or you have nothing.
Semantics don't apply here because the word natural wont be used to explain something not real. Natural things are real. Thus, supernatural.

Here is some more proof to the overall understanding of aliens being over written in the bible.

www.mt.net...

www.thewatcherfiles.com...

www.theforbiddenknowledge.com...

christiananswers.net...

gspcsermons.blogspot.com...



posted on Jun, 29 2012 @ 02:00 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 



I never claimed to have all the answers, but did offer that a creator could have done it just as well. Evolution only claims to provide an excuse for diversity, its not proof.
Looks to see if the reply contains any reasoned argument, supported by evidence, links and quotes from those links .....
..... See's nothing close.

'You have not provided any supporting evidence for your claims. No comment until you do'


Well one thing is for sure, you must be under aged if your unable to detect the difference.
Nope. Just observant. You are clearly dishonest.


obviously exegarrating is not being dishonest. Had I of been doing it in an unobvious way, you might be right.
Nope. You were and are being dishonest. Plain and simple.


Well I'm glad your learning, because it's not comments I'm here for, its facts.
In that case:

'You have not provided any FACTS, supporting evidence for your claims. No comment until you do'



Thats your opinion which I have no comment about. The bottom line is that you can't possibly have a comment because your wrong.
'You have not provided any FACTS, supporting evidence for your claims. No comment until you do'



posted on Jun, 29 2012 @ 03:05 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 



I have many times allready, here it is again.
Wiki Bilble

the Bible is a historical document containing first-hand information on the Hellenistic and Roman eras, and there is universal scholarly consensus that the events of the Babylonian captivity of the 6th century BC have a basis in history
No wonder I had trouble locating your quote. First let us put your quote into context.

Cherry Picking (fallacy)

Cherry picking, suppressing evidence, or the fallacy of incomplete evidence is the act of pointing to individual cases or data that seem to confirm a particular position, while ignoring a significant portion of related cases or data that may contradict that position. It is a kind of fallacy of selective attention, the most common example of which is the confirmation bias. Cherry picking may be committed unintentionally.[1]
Now let us look at the source of your quote in its entirerity

Biblical archaeology is the archaeology that relates to and sheds light upon the Hebrew Scriptures and the New Testament. It is used to help determine the lifestyle and practices of people living in biblical times. There are a wide range of interpretations in the field of biblical archaeology. One broad division includes biblical maximalism which generally takes the view that most of the Old Testament or Hebrew Bible is based on history although it is presented through the religious viewpoint of its time. It is considered the opposite of biblical minimalism which considers the Bible a purely post-exilic (5th century BC and later) composition. Even among those scholars who adhere to biblical minimalism, the Bible is a historical document containing first-hand information on the Hellenistic and Roman eras, and there is universal scholarly consensus that the events of the Babylonian captivity of the 6th century BC have a basis in history.
I emboldened your quote.

Reading the whole paragraph again shows the bible is far from a clear historical document by any stretch of the imagination. Even yours.

Let us look at a few more omissions you make from that very link.

There is no common version of the Bible, as the contents and the order of the individual books (Biblical canon) vary among denominations.
So which version do you use?


The oldest surviving Christian Bibles are Greek manuscripts from the 4th century;

The oldest complete manuscripts of the Hebrew Bible (the Masoretic text) date from the Middle Ages
Which bible is your one based on? How do they differ?


Much of the material, including many genealogies, poems and narratives, is thought to have been handed down by word of mouth for many generations. Very few manuscripts are said to have survived the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70.[26
So thought to be word of mouth not written documents for at least 300 years and no proof it was handed down via word of mouth. So your favourite, AN ASSUMPTION?


the Greek manuscripts written by the original authors, have not survived. Scholars surmise the original Greek text from the versions that do survive.
So assumptions were made AGAIN. I see.


For many Christians the Bible is also infallible, in that it is incapable of error within matters of faith and practice. For example, that the Bible is free from error in spiritual but not necessarily in historic or scientific matters
Oh dear. This knocks your claim of its pedestal wouldn’t you say?

So given all the information you ignored you have yet again been caught out cherry picking evidence, rejecting all that does not support your claim. Changing things to suit your argument.

What is your opposing argument in defence?



edit on 29-6-2012 by colin42 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 29 2012 @ 03:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
But you would still have to have a basis for why you think its untrue. And your not giving me anything concrete aside from assuming.

So your basing your disbelief on an assumption which has no merrit.

Paying attention isn't your strong suit. Please thoroughly read my posts before responding because I already explained exactly why you have to prove the bible accurate and I do not have to prove it false. I'm not using the bible to prove or disprove anything with evolution or ancient astronaut theory. You are. You can't use it as a source of documentation if you can't verify it. Simple. I'm not using the bible to prove anything. I don't know if the stories are based on reality or not. Nobody knows that, including you. I say most likely not because nobody has ever provided evidence to suggest its right and it's based on pure hearsay from dozens of authors that were hand picked by humans to include in the book.


Only that it could pertain to aliens, and I'll even go out on a limb and agree more with your found definition. Notice how it says forces beyond scientific understanding. I want to know how you can claim that its obviously false when its obviously out of reach of our understanding.

It could only pertain to aliens if they were inter-dimensional beings, which would make them deities rather than aliens, although both terms could probably apply in that case. How is life on other planets beyond our understanding? Thanks to the science of evolution we know how intelligent life could evolve on other planets.


How are you going to recreate the events to determine that living in a whale is false, when its obviously out of our scientific understanding. You cant and thats the bottom line.

No animal has ever survived being eaten by a whale. If you could find the exception, you might have a case. If you want to recreate the events, go let a whale swallow you and see how long you survive in its stomach. I'll even send you in with a video camera so we can all watch you decompose.



Semantics don't apply here because the word natural wont be used to explain something not real. Natural things are real. Thus, supernatural.


Okay, so because supernatural has the word "natural" in it that means its real? Come on dude. Stop grasping for straws.

Supernatural

dictionary.reference.com...

Super means above and beyond as a prefix. Above and beyond the natural = supernatural. It doesn't mean its really cool & natural or a lot & natural, or even big & natural. That's like saying unintelligent means the same thing as intelligent because it has the word in it. C'mon man!

Besides, I already said that I agreed that the stories seemed more like alien stories, but again there's still the fact that no supernatural events in the bible can be verified. That's the issue. I know what the bible says.
edit on 29-6-2012 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 29 2012 @ 04:53 PM
link   
reply to post by Barcs
 


I wish I could give you five stars for this reply




Wrong again. YOU claimed the bible was clear documentation that proves your idea. YOU need to back that up. I didn't say the bible was false. Supernatural does not mean real, are you kidding me? Do you even understand what that means? Harry Potter is supernatural as well because it invokes magic. That doesn't mean it's true. Please stop wasting my time with silly semantic arguments using words you don't even understand. Present your objective evidence or you have nothing.


Then he responds with MORE semantics... LOL!



Semantics don't apply here because the word natural wont be used to explain something not real. Natural things are real. Thus, supernatural.

You can't make this stuff up folks.
Thanks tooth I haven't laughed this hard in long time



posted on Jun, 29 2012 @ 06:23 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 


Christiananswers.com...wow, sounds like a great unbiased source


Have you ever heard about this little word called "objectivity"?



posted on Jun, 29 2012 @ 07:29 PM
link   
reply to post by colin42
 





Looks to see if the reply contains any reasoned argument, supported by evidence, links and quotes from those links ..... ..... See's nothing close.

'You have not provided any supporting evidence for your claims. No comment until you do'
I can't disprove something thats never been proven to begin with.




Nope. Just observant. You are clearly dishonest.
If you try to find dishonesty in me the same way that you try to find evolution when its not there, I can see why you keep finding what your looking for.




Nope. You were and are being dishonest. Plain and simple.
If you don't understand the difference then all I can say is you must have a lot of dishonesty in your life.




Well I'm glad your learning, because it's not comments I'm here for, its facts.

In that case:

'You have not provided any FACTS, supporting evidence for your claims. No comment until you do'
Without any facts I'm have no comment either.




'You have not provided any FACTS, supporting evidence for your claims. No comment until you do'
It is best that you use that excuse when your wrong and you know it.



posted on Jun, 29 2012 @ 07:41 PM
link   
reply to post by colin42
 





the Bible is a historical document containing first-hand information on the Hellenistic and Roman eras, and there is universal scholarly consensus that the events of the Babylonian captivity of the 6th century BC have a basis in history
No wonder I had trouble locating your quote. First let us put your quote into context.
Thats what you get for not paying attention as I even pin pointed the reference a few times.




I emboldened your quote.

Reading the whole paragraph again shows the bible is far from a clear historical document by any stretch of the imagination. Even yours.
So what are you saying, they lied? It was quoted as a historical document.




So which version do you use?
They ALL prove that we aren't from here except that some are just easier to understand.




Which bible is your one based on? How do they differ?
The NIV and ESD are both good and I'm not sure of the origin.




So thought to be word of mouth not written documents for at least 300 years and no proof it was handed down via word of mouth. So your favourite, AN ASSUMPTION?
It's thought to have been, YOUR assuming.




So assumptions were made AGAIN. I see.
Looks like more of a reconstruction or a repair than anything else.




Oh dear. This knocks your claim of its pedestal wouldn’t you say?
Regarding the events that took place I'll agree that its probably as accurate as we are going to get.



So given all the information you ignored you have yet again been caught out cherry picking evidence, rejecting all that does not support your claim. Changing things to suit your argument.

What is your opposing argument in defence?
I don't see anything that rejects my claim.



posted on Jun, 29 2012 @ 07:53 PM
link   
reply to post by Barcs
 





Paying attention isn't your strong suit. Please thoroughly read my posts before responding because I already explained exactly why you have to prove the bible accurate and I do not have to prove it false.
Well that isn't fair, no tit for tat here thats for sure. So I have to prove it, but you don't have to disprove it. Why is that? It's a historical document, it's allready accepted as such, I think anyone would know since its allready been accepted, that its up to YOU to disprove it.




I'm not using the bible to prove or disprove anything with evolution or ancient astronaut theory. You are. You can't use it as a source of documentation if you can't verify it. Simple. I'm not using the bible to prove anything. I don't know if the stories are based on reality or not. Nobody knows that, including you. I say most likely not because nobody has ever provided evidence to suggest its right and it's based on pure hearsay from dozens of authors that were hand picked by humans to include in the book.
So in other words you question the validity. Sorry thats not acceptable as its allready been accepted as a historical document. Now had they of said we partially accept it, or are considering accepting it, then the understanding would be on the fence but thats not the case.

Don't blame me, I'm not the one that made the decision.




It could only pertain to aliens if they were inter-dimensional beings, which would make them deities rather than aliens, although both terms could probably apply in that case. How is life on other planets beyond our understanding? Thanks to the science of evolution we know how intelligent life could evolve on other planets.
Well we think we know anyhow.




No animal has ever survived being eaten by a whale. If you could find the exception, you might have a case. If you want to recreate the events, go let a whale swallow you and see how long you survive in its stomach. I'll even send you in with a video camera so we can all watch you decompose
The problem is you just keep omitting the supternatural factor in this. How are you going to recreate the whale issue minus the supernatural elements? Your not being a straight scientist here. You do understand that you have to recreate something in its exact form otherwise your not being honest.




Okay, so because supernatural has the word "natural" in it that means its real? Come on dude. Stop grasping for straws.

Supernatura
No, all natural things are real.




Super means above and beyond as a prefix. Above and beyond the natural = supernatural. It doesn't mean its really cool & natural or a lot & natural, or even big & natural. That's like saying unintelligent means the same thing as intelligent because it has the word in it. C'mon man!

Besides, I already said that I agreed that the stories seemed more like alien stories, but again there's still the fact that no supernatural events in the bible can be verified. That's the issue. I know what the bible says
Oh I see, so because they can't be verified its an automatic admission of fault right, they couldn't have happened.



posted on Jun, 29 2012 @ 07:56 PM
link   
reply to post by flyingfish
 





I wish I could give you five stars for this reply



Wrong again. YOU claimed the bible was clear documentation that proves your idea. YOU need to back that up. I didn't say the bible was false. Supernatural does not mean real, are you kidding me? Do you even understand what that means? Harry Potter is supernatural as well because it invokes magic. That doesn't mean it's true. Please stop wasting my time with silly semantic arguments using words you don't even understand. Present your objective evidence or you have nothing.



Then he responds with MORE semantics... LOL!
Harry Potter is NOT supernatural, and if you honestly believe that, I can see why you would shy away from a bible. All I'm trying to say is that something is not going to have the word natural in it if it is fake. For example go by some natural butter and prove it fake. Go buy some natural yogurt and prove it fake, go buy anything natural and prove it fake.




top topics



 
31
<< 426  427  428    430  431  432 >>

log in

join