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: 432
31
<< 429  430  431    433  434  435 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 30 2012 @ 02:35 PM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 





Oh shove an apple down that throat of yours
I'm suppose to take this from a guy that believes that DNA can change on its own.

How foolish is that?

Apples are NOT a target food for humans, but its probably the best you could do.




posted on Jun, 30 2012 @ 02:37 PM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 





Yes...and maybe at one point pigs had rainbow colors and were soaring through the air like eagles :@@;

Just add the supernatural...easy
Or you could just take the supernatural out of the book, as that is what your doing, and see how that might make it not make sense as to add more strenght to your evolution belief.

I guess thats one way to win an argument, read only what you want, and only accept what you want. Ya thats fair.



posted on Jun, 30 2012 @ 02:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by colin42
 





What historical documentation is that?

While your all happy and laughing. Where is the retraction you owe me Or are you so dishonest that you cannot bring yourself to admit your error?
The bible and what error are you talking about?

If your referring to the bible not being clear, that depends on what sections your talking about. If your making an assumption that its all bad (which I'm sure you do) based on that, you are wrong.


Left out vital link somehow. Anger at the display of dishonesty from tooth I expect see. ammended below
edit on 30-6-2012 by colin42 because: error



posted on Jun, 30 2012 @ 02:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by Barcs
 





Tooth, you really believe that the earth was created in 6 days, and that man was punished for eating a forbidden fruit after being convinced by a talking snake?
I never said I agree to those. Your just stereotyping me like the others are doing.

Profiling makes us all look bad.

I believe as a control measure we could have been punished for not obeying what was told.
I think Pye's video proves there were punishements as well.
As far as a talking snake, I don't know if anyone else ever realized but the bible is full of advanced technology. They had radio communications, atomic bombs, and the burning bush was probably just a radio device. The talking snake could have been many things, and it may not have actually of been a snake.

On the flip side it may also be possible that with supernatural intervention, or control that a snake could be made to appear to be able to talk.


People have and are still gullable to a fault, this has and will continue to be taken advantage of by fundamentalism.
If you dig deep into our past and stick to the facts, you will begin to see a pattern emerge. People make stuff up to explain away the unknown, and exploit the lie to manipulate the masses into their religion.
In our time "The God of Gapes" has been filled with our knowledge and understanding of nature.
No longer do we need preachers to tell us stories that give them power over our reality.



posted on Jun, 30 2012 @ 02:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by MrXYZ
 





Yes...and maybe at one point pigs had rainbow colors and were soaring through the air like eagles :@@;

Just add the supernatural...easy
Or you could just take the supernatural out of the book, as that is what your doing, and see how that might make it not make sense as to add more strenght to your evolution belief.

I guess thats one way to win an argument, read only what you want, and only accept what you want. Ya thats fair.


There's a difference between keeping an open mind and simply claiming "magic did it" every time something makes NO SENSE WHATSOEVER.

So in your fantasy world, basically....everything's possible, right?



posted on Jun, 30 2012 @ 02:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by MrXYZ
 





Oh shove an apple down that throat of yours
I'm suppose to take this from a guy that believes that DNA can change on its own.

How foolish is that?

Apples are NOT a target food for humans, but its probably the best you could do.


We have seen DNA change both in the lab and nature


Also, how on earth can you say an apple isn't target food? All you have to do is bite into it and it provides you with important vitamins and nutrients. But let's just ignore that FACT, right?

Sooooooo soooooo silly



posted on Jun, 30 2012 @ 02:51 PM
link   
reply to post by colin42
 





A blatant lie from you.

For the third time: 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.
Ok then you should have no problem explaining why the sections I chose are not in order.




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

There is no excuse for the level of dishonesty you have sunk too and you entered into this thread at a very low level of honesty to begin with.

Still I take it you are do not have the morals or self respect to retract your blatent lie. A very poor picture you paint of yourself that is displayed for all to see.
There is nothing to retract, I never claimed the entire bible was clear. What I said was there is clear documentation that we are not from here. But there you go again assuming, and assuming I'm lying.



posted on Jun, 30 2012 @ 02:52 PM
link   
reply to post by flyingfish
 





People have and are still gullable to a fault, this has and will continue to be taken advantage of by fundamentalism.
If you dig deep into our past and stick to the facts, you will begin to see a pattern emerge. People make stuff up to explain away the unknown, and exploit the lie to manipulate the masses into their religion.
In our time "The God of Gapes" has been filled with our knowledge and understanding of nature.
No longer do we need preachers to tell us stories that give them power over our reality.
Basically what your saying is where there is uncertainty, people will use the god factor to fix it.

With intervention I don't get that at all.



posted on Jun, 30 2012 @ 03:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by flyingfish
 





People have and are still gullable to a fault, this has and will continue to be taken advantage of by fundamentalism.
If you dig deep into our past and stick to the facts, you will begin to see a pattern emerge. People make stuff up to explain away the unknown, and exploit the lie to manipulate the masses into their religion.
In our time "The God of Gapes" has been filled with our knowledge and understanding of nature.
No longer do we need preachers to tell us stories that give them power over our reality.
Basically what your saying is where there is uncertainty, people will use the god factor to fix it.

With intervention I don't get that at all.


No.. go back read what I wrote. Not what you basically "think" I wrote.
They will use the god factor to take advantage of. There does not even need to be uncertainty, not even a question, they will tell you anything that gives them special knowledge.



posted on Jun, 30 2012 @ 03:06 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 


Who says I'm in denial? I'm in total agreeance with everything I have been directed to that offered proof. Now what I got from the links and what you make out of them are different, but that's not to say I deny them.

WE ALL SAY YOU ARE IN DENIAL.



Your responses to the argument I made from your link on the bible illustrates that very thing. You only see what supports your fantasy. Ignore all that would threaten it or make you work to find the answers too. You lie to yourself and everyone else to maintain that fantasy. That is called Denial


If we were created by another being, I think that says it all about diversity. It is possible that everything was created.
'You have not provided any supporting evidence for your claims. No comment until you do'


As an example, I have a friend who married into a family that owns rights to a man made potato.
There is no such thing as a man made potato


They crossed a russet with a ruby red and ended up with large ruby reds. Now if you checked the DNA on this new potatoe it might show to be millions of years old but the fact is its new.
What utter unintelligent garbage you spout. Show the science behind your idiotic claim



posted on Jun, 30 2012 @ 03:07 PM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 





There's a difference between keeping an open mind and simply claiming "magic did it" every time something makes NO SENSE WHATSOEVER.

So in your fantasy world, basically....everything's possible, right?


Here is what I would say, like I just did a moment ago. Just because there is something not understood, is not an excuse that supernatural abilitys were the reason why. But I must also point out that I have found hidden supernatural things in the bible that others have missed, not knowing.

You have to have an open mind yes, but not open enough to the point your brain falls out. You have to keep in mind that the book was written for a reason, it was because of all the weird crap that was going on that wouldnt' have otherwise have been believed or understood, not that we even understand today.

They wanted to document these events because they knew what was happening was shocking.

Pretty much anytime god is dealt with directly or indirectly, you need to keep an open eye for supernatural activity.

Here is a better example. I quizzed a family member that refuses to believe in aliens, much less acknowledge the fact that they are in the bible. So this test I made up went like this..... I asked her if she was sitting down one day minding her own business, and started to hear voices in her head, where would she think they are coming from. Her fist answer was that she might think she is having a breakdown or there is something wrong with her. However its pretty hard to imagin that everyone that helped work on the bible is crazy, so what would your second guess be. She claims that it could be a spirit or a ghost.

Now whats shocking is that spirit and ghost are very common in the bible, and after looking it over very closely it coud be that people would hear voices in there head, and not know where they are coming from so just referred to them as the holy spirit and the holy ghost. It's possible either way that it was there only way to identify them, or that they in fact gave those names. Either way, it confirms that if one were to hear voices, they would most likely referr to them as ghost or spirit.

The is all in perspective as god never showed his face. Whats also in order is that he wasn't working alone, its a conspiracy.



posted on Jun, 30 2012 @ 03:08 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 



Apples are NOT a target food for humans, but its probably the best you could do.
You are a three time looser on 'target food'

Your term/claim is not valid on this thread



posted on Jun, 30 2012 @ 03:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by colin42
 





What historical documentation is that?

While your all happy and laughing. Where is the retraction you owe me Or are you so dishonest that you cannot bring yourself to admit your error?
The bible and what error are you talking about?

If your referring to the bible not being clear, that depends on what sections your talking about. If your making an assumption that its all bad (which I'm sure you do) based on that, you are wrong.
A blatant lie again from you.

You wrote:


But you admitted yourself that through a process evolution is able to create new species

For the third time: 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 the quote because you were once again being dishonest. Now retract your statement above.

There is no excuse for the level of dishonesty you have sunk too and you entered into this thread at a very low level of honesty to begin with.

Still I take it you are do not have the morals or self respect to retract your blatent lie. A very poor picture you paint of yourself that is displayed for all to see.







edit on 30-6-2012 by colin42 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 30 2012 @ 03:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by MrXYZ
 





Oh shove an apple down that throat of yours
I'm suppose to take this from a guy that believes that DNA can change on its own.

How foolish is that?

Apples are NOT a target food for humans, but its probably the best you could do.


According to the definition of your made up term "target food'. You stated that target food was not natural.
Yet just three pages ago you write:



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.

Post

So... who's fake?
WILL THE REAL TOOTH PLEASE STAND UP



posted on Jun, 30 2012 @ 03:28 PM
link   
reply to post by colin42
 





You are a three time looser on 'target food'

Your term/claim is not valid on this thread
What you mean to say is that you have your own reasons for not accepting them, which doesn't fit in with the criteria of why your not accepting them. You had allready slipped up and accepted them before, and were trying to come up with target food for humans, it was only after you had given it much thought and were unable after several failed attempts, that you decided to no longer accept the term. It's a dishonest approach to not being able to win a debate.



posted on Jun, 30 2012 @ 03:33 PM
link   
reply to post by colin42
 





What historical documentation is that?

While your all happy and laughing. Where is the retraction you owe me Or are you so dishonest that you cannot bring yourself to admit your error?
The bible and what error are you talking about?

If your referring to the bible not being clear, that depends on what sections your talking about. If your making an assumption that its all bad (which I'm sure you do) based on that, you are wrong.
A blatant lie again from you.

You wrote:


But you admitted yourself that through a process evolution is able to create new species


For the third time: 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.





Not anywhere good enough. You have your bible that you maintain is a clear historical document. So explain how the whale came to be. Why it stores energy in fat. Why it breathes air. Why it is warm blooded. Why it has a big brain which you maintain needs intervention and why it shares a distinct property with the ancient whale fossils that show the path it took. Your explanation of 'there was magic then' explains nothing at all.
Above is where you are mocking the clairity.




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

There is no excuse for the level of dishonesty you have sunk too and you entered into this thread at a very low level of honesty to begin with.

Still I take it you are do not have the morals or self respect to retract your blatent lie. A very poor picture you paint of yourself that is displayed for all to see.
Quote shown above, now look at whos dishonest.



posted on Jun, 30 2012 @ 03:33 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 
I will post this again as your either missed it or decided not to see it.

reply to post by itsthetooth
 



Well thats why it was chopped, so you would have no problem finding it, otherwise you may have scanned over it and missed it. Originally I just posted the link and you didn't find it that way either. Probably because you didn't see the need to read the whole page.
Nope. Its called Quote Mining

The practice of quoting out of context, sometimes referred to as "contextomy" or "quote mining", is a logical fallacy and a type of false attribution in which a passage is removed from its surrounding matter in such a way as to distort its intended meaning.[
You cut it that way because you only looked at what supported your claim. You ignored all that did not even within the same paragraph and you are doing it still. Shockingly dishonest.


Granted it wasn't a headline, but they still quoted it, therefore its not a lie.
Nope quoting out of context the way you did is lying by omission.



Well I gave bible info allready, never gave Pye, sitchen, or von daniken, however all you would do once I did, was cherry pick informaton to try to discredit each of them, so why bother. You have allready done this and totally dismissed the rest of their work as invalid. You were apparently cherry picking long before I was.
The above does not constitute a logical argument with supporting evidence as is required.

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



As if only certain ones are going to be clear. They are all published under the title of the bible, thats good enough. You can only nit pic so much.
First you admit you do not know the origins and now you say in your opinion its good enough. News for you: 'Don’t know' and 'looks good enough to me' does not qualify your use of the bible as 'a clear historical document'. End of.


Actually your the one being dishonest, they made it clear they are assuming.
Agreed they made it clear. You on the other hand denied it. Now you changed your mind and claim it was me. Dishonesty of a child. (10 - 12 at best).


I wasn't trying to pass that off as straight findings, I was trying to tell you the same thing.
You know your dishonesty is the only tool you seem to have left. You replied to my argument, supported by a quote from YOUR link:


Looks like more of a reconstruction or a repair than anything else.
your link says 'Scholars surmise the original Greek text from the versions that do survive.' so you again was not trying to tell me the same thing. You were maintaining your dishonesty.

Word of mouth does not constitute a clear historical document.
Might have been passed down for 300 years by word of mouth does not constitute a firsthand witness or a reliable source for the bible we see today. Which alone makes it NOT a clear historical document which is why the religious scholars debate the meanings to this very day.


So if your trying to say that the bible is not 100% in order, I agree, I never claimed otherwise
Claiming the bible to be 'a clear historical document' is you claiming otherwise.

Also why did you ignore this point from your link that I asked you to comment on?

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
Cherry picking what you will answer now are you? Please address this point as you should have.


Your making assumptions that the cherry picked sections are not in order. The fact is you don't know. So you cant win based on an assumption.
Do you have something that proves those sections to not be in order?
Explain. Your cherry picked sections? If you mean the bibles cherry picked sections then you are in even bigger trouble with your claim.



posted on Jun, 30 2012 @ 03:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by colin42
 





You are a three time looser on 'target food'

Your term/claim is not valid on this thread
What you mean to say is that you have your own reasons for not accepting them, which doesn't fit in with the criteria of why your not accepting them. You had allready slipped up and accepted them before, and were trying to come up with target food for humans, it was only after you had given it much thought and were unable after several failed attempts, that you decided to no longer accept the term. It's a dishonest approach to not being able to win a debate.

Please link colins post were he accepted target food.
I'll wait



posted on Jun, 30 2012 @ 03:36 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 
Jumped the gun sonny. I already ammended the post you are replying too but you are to blind to read anything posted.

Answer the ammended post not the one with the quote from you missing.

That was my mistake. Now let us see you correct yours



posted on Jun, 30 2012 @ 03:40 PM
link   
reply to post by flyingfish
 





According to the definition of your made up term "target food'. You stated that target food was not natural.
Yet just three pages ago you write
You obviously haven't been paying attention. Target food must be natural to qualify.



new topics

top topics



 
31
<< 429  430  431    433  434  435 >>

log in

join