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: 476
31
<< 473  474  475    477  478  479 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 25 2012 @ 01:47 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 





I didn't see you stepping up to offer any target food so I can only assume you too realize you were allready lost.


because it doesn't exist in reality, only in your own mind.....




posted on Jul, 25 2012 @ 02:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by Connector
reply to post by itsthetooth
 





I didn't see you stepping up to offer any target food so I can only assume you too realize you were allready lost.


because it doesn't exist in reality, only in your own mind.....




No need to reply tooth, I did it for you



posted on Jul, 25 2012 @ 03:34 PM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 





Trust me...you clearly ARE the donkey in that clip

Mostly because just like that donkey, you simply ignore all evidence that doesn't "fit" your bat# crazy mini-religion...
You have never produced anything that disproves it.



posted on Jul, 25 2012 @ 03:35 PM
link   
reply to post by Connector
 





because it doesn't exist in reality, only in your own mind.....
Because we have clear historical documentation that proves it, your obviously wrong.



posted on Jul, 25 2012 @ 03:37 PM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 





No need to reply tooth, I did it for you
What do you want me to say, we have documentation that proves it happened to us, historical documentation.

Why are there no theories that PROVE things aren't supposed to be in a balance?
Why are there no theories that PROVE we are actually from here?
Why are there no theories that PROVE species are just supposed to eat what ever they can find?
Why are there no theories that PROVE we actually did evolve?
Whe are there no theories that explain why humans have no natural relationship with anything on this planet?

Simple, they don't exist.
edit on 25-7-2012 by itsthetooth because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 25 2012 @ 03:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by MrXYZ
 





No need to reply tooth, I did it for you
What do you want me to say, we have documentation that proves it happened to us, historical documentation.


Where's the objective evidence? What documentation??

If you say the "bible" you obviously don't know what objective evidence is...or "proof"



posted on Jul, 25 2012 @ 04:14 PM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 





Where's the objective evidence? What documentation??

If you say the "bible" you obviously don't know what objective evidence is...or "proof"
What you mean to say is that you have personally taken a blind eye to this documentation, therefore it can't be the truth.

Now we all have our own stingy reasons why we believe the things we do, but at least I have documentation to back mine up. Apparently humans don't before that period, so there is this odd gap of evolution that explains nothing about how we all of a sudden bursted into maturity and brilliance.

I'm sorry to be the one to have to break this to you, but we WERE NOT hanging in trees and throwing poo at each other just before this period. We also didn't start out by a common ancestor living in caves either. There is simply a lack of evidence that we evolved from here. And I like to go by scientific facts, unlike a lot of others on here. According to findings in our mtDNA our species never dipped below tens of thousands, so based on this, there is no way we could have evolved without leaving trace evidence of it.

Your have to suck up to the truth, and bow your head to science, the truth is the truth and both religion and evolution can't ignore that. Pye was the one who explains all this the best, but you also choose to mock hims.

I'm begining to see a pattern here, everyone else is wrong and your right. How can that be? How long can you live in your deluded world of make believe fantasy? We have never associated with any common ancestor to apes, and if we did, where is the documentation? Why are there not even any folklore stories about those times? Simple, because they don't exist. Why is it we are such a creative and inventive people and yet we bring nothing to the table with us from those common ancestor days, how is that possible? It never happened.

How is it that we are still yet such a creative people that our planet is home to roughly more than 6500 languages, and not a single one of them connects us to apes or a common ancestor of apes? It's because we never had any connection with them.



posted on Jul, 25 2012 @ 04:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by MrXYZ
 





Where's the objective evidence? What documentation??

If you say the "bible" you obviously don't know what objective evidence is...or "proof"
What you mean to say is that you have personally taken a blind eye to this documentation, therefore it can't be the truth.

Now we all have our own stingy reasons why we believe the things we do, but at least I have documentation to back mine up. Apparently humans don't before that period, so there is this odd gap of evolution that explains nothing about how we all of a sudden bursted into maturity and brilliance.

I'm sorry to be the one to have to break this to you, but we WERE NOT hanging in trees and throwing poo at each other just before this period. We also didn't start out by a common ancestor living in caves either. There is simply a lack of evidence that we evolved from here. And I like to go by scientific facts, unlike a lot of others on here. According to findings in our mtDNA our species never dipped below tens of thousands, so based on this, there is no way we could have evolved without leaving trace evidence of it.

Your have to suck up to the truth, and bow your head to science, the truth is the truth and both religion and evolution can't ignore that. Pye was the one who explains all this the best, but you also choose to mock hims.

I'm begining to see a pattern here, everyone else is wrong and your right. How can that be? How long can you live in your deluded world of make believe fantasy? We have never associated with any common ancestor to apes, and if we did, where is the documentation? Why are there not even any folklore stories about those times? Simple, because they don't exist. Why is it we are such a creative and inventive people and yet we bring nothing to the table with us from those common ancestor days, how is that possible? It never happened.

How is it that we are still yet such a creative people that our planet is home to roughly more than 6500 languages, and not a single one of them connects us to apes or a common ancestor of apes? It's because we never had any connection with them.



Every single statement above is factually wrong...well done tooth


You are a bit like the Stephen Colbert of the Origins forum

edit on 25-7-2012 by MrXYZ because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 25 2012 @ 05:08 PM
link   


I'm sorry to be the one to have to break this to you, but we WERE NOT hanging in trees and throwing poo at each other just before this period.


If you bothered to read anything in my posts, you would have shut up a long time ago.. Learn something about how even a 1% difference in a genome can have immense and profound differences.. The fusion of Chromosome 2 is more than enough to account for it, and I even linked to it. And kids still throw stuff at each other, climb trees ect. We still do it as adults. Yep, such behaviors are still there. And before recorded history, man wasn't smart enough to have a complex enough written language to record history.. Yep, the further back you go, the less and less intelligent they get. They weren't sending probes to mars, building nuclear power plants, or typing on the damn internet either.... Funny part is, this is a perfect example of "evolution" slapping you directly in the face. :/


edit on 25-7-2012 by TheJackelantern because: (no reason given)




According to findings in our mtDNA our species never dipped below tens of thousands, so based on this, there is no way we could have evolved without leaving trace evidence of it.


This is so laughably wrong.. In fact, our species almost went extinct. :



In an on online report in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS), “Mobile elements reveal small population size in the ancient ancestors of Homo sapiens,” researchers found that the ancient human effective population size 1.2 million years ago was about 18,500, and couldn't have been larger than 26,000. This means that the population of Homo erectus, an ancestor of modern humans, was small even at a time that the species was spreading around the world.


And our species is traced back genetically to a low of 1,200 individuals. Yep Genetic analysis allows us to trace modern human origins to the migration of a small population (1000–2000 individuals) from northeast Africa.



It has been estimated that from a population of 2,000 to 5,000 individuals in Africa,[53] only a small group, as few as 150 to 1,000 individuals, crossed the Red Sea.[54] Of all the lineages present in Africa only the female descendants of one lineage, mtDNA haplogroup L3, are found outside Africa.


  1. ^ Zhivotovsky, et al; Rosenberg, NA; Feldman, MW (2003). "Features of Evolution and Expansion of Modern Humans, Inferred from Genomewide Microsatellite Markers". American Journal of Human Genetics 72 (5): 1171–86. DOI:10.1086/375120. PMC 1180270. PMID 12690579.


But hey, since you believe in the bible, perhaps you can give us a DNA trace to Adam and Eve.. What? can't do that, and that current DNA analysis is entirely contradictory to that? Damn! ... Maybe you can self invent it with more pseudoscience!

edit on 25-7-2012 by TheJackelantern because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 25 2012 @ 05:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by colin42
 





That is how it is exactly. Well done.
I must not be the donkey then.

Even I know kevin bacon was the star.
I believe it is a jackass. The fact you don't know which one you are represented by just adds to the comedy



posted on Jul, 25 2012 @ 06:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by Connector
 





because it doesn't exist in reality, only in your own mind.....
Because we have clear historical documentation that proves it, your obviously wrong.
Just to remind you that you failed to respond to my argument when I challenged your claim. This means you had no defence and lost the argument. The fact you continue to claim the bible is a clear historical document after that shows how dishonest you are.

Any how going back to black people coming from a different planet than white people.

The Bible was written by people that were not white. About a slave race. Their messiah was also not white and so if they came from a different planet than whites the bible must have been written for them and not for whites as it does not state a black eden and a separate white eden.

If there is no mention of white Europeans then matey you have another problem. How do you know whites were not already here and native to earth?

Surely the bible was written by non whites for non whites and man was made in gods image so he too was not white. Charlton Heston was not a look alike for mosses who was also not white.

You have said there was already people here so explain if you can. Try to be honest.
what am I saying



posted on Jul, 25 2012 @ 06:16 PM
link   

You do understand that if that were true, everything that we rely on DNA for, including forensics and paternity, are completly useless?


Laughably wrong! And this tells me you are completely illiterate when it comes to Genetics, or the subject. You're embarrassing yourself at this point now.



The fact is, there is NOTHING that ties us to this planet.


Gravity, electromagnetism, Periodic table, water, carbon, literally everything here ties us to this planet.. You're so intentionally ignorant that it's actually amusing now. And this is fun:

most of a human body's mass is oxygen and Carbon. The carbon atoms to which are the basic unit for organic molecules, comes in second. 99% of the mass of the human body is made up of just six elements: oxygen, carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen, calcium, and phosphorus.

Oxygen (65%)
Carbon (18%)
Hydrogen (10%)
Nitrogen (3%)
Calcium (1.5%)
Phosphorus (1.0%)
Potassium (0.35%)
Sulfur (0.25%)
Sodium (0.15%)
Magnesium (0.05%)
Copper, Zinc, Selenium, Molybdenum, Fluorine, Chlorine, Iodine, Manganese, Cobalt, Iron (0.70%)
Lithium, Strontium, Aluminum, Silicon, Lead, Vanadium, Arsenic, Bromine (trace amounts)

Reference: H. A. Harper, V. W. Rodwell, P. A. Mayes, Review of Physiological Chemistry, 16th ed., Lange Medical Publications, Los Altos, California 1977.

Suggested Reading

Chemistry 101 Index
How Things Work
Periodic Table of the Elements

Related Articles

Chemical Composition of the Human Body




I don't change the subject, they are involved. It just tells me you have ignorance in understanding what has happened to us. It's ok, it is complicated and judging from your previous posts I woudn't expect you to posses the mentality to comprehend it.


You changed the subject from evolution to abiogenesis. Clearly one lies intentionally here. And telling me I have ignorance of this subject is rather laughable considering I am the only one between the two of us actually contributing academic information, evidence, and actual intellectually honest arguments. And it's obvious you didn't read my previous posts since it would require more than a single week to actually fully review them.. And from what I get out of your posts, you are intellectually over your head here.
edit on 25-7-2012 by TheJackelantern because: (no reason given)

edit on 25-7-2012 by TheJackelantern because: minor typo's



posted on Jul, 26 2012 @ 03:32 PM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 





Every single statement above is factually wrong...well done tooth

You are a bit like the Stephen Colbert of the Origins forum
No I think its more like you can't explain these things so you are wrong. I noticed how you offered no proof or evidence to prove them wrong.



posted on Jul, 26 2012 @ 03:52 PM
link   
reply to post by TheJackelantern
 






If you bothered to read anything in my posts, you would have shut up a long time ago.. Learn something about how even a 1% difference in a genome can have immense and profound differences.. The fusion of Chromosome 2 is more than enough to account for it, and I even linked to it. And kids still throw stuff at each other, climb trees ect. We still do it as adults. Yep, such behaviors are still there. And before recorded history, man wasn't smart enough to have a complex enough written language to record history.. Yep, the further back you go, the less and less intelligent they get. They weren't sending probes to mars, building nuclear power plants, or typing on the damn internet either.... Funny part is, this is a perfect example of "evolution" slapping you directly in the face. :/
I got slapped in the face by evolution a long time ago, and it told me that its not real. As per the site that I keep quoting that plainly states it to not be real.




This is so laughably wrong.. In fact, our species almost went extinct. :
Well then you better let all the scientists know that conducted all the work on the mtDNA article, that they are all wrong and YOU have it right.




In an on online report in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS), “Mobile elements reveal small population size in the ancient ancestors of Homo sapiens,” researchers found that the ancient human effective population size 1.2 million years ago was about 18,500, and couldn't have been larger than 26,000. This means that the population of Homo erectus, an ancestor of modern humans, was small even at a time that the species was spreading around the world.


And our species is traced back genetically to a low of 1,200 individuals. Yep Genetic analysis allows us to trace modern human origins to the migration of a small population (1000–2000 individuals) from northeast Africa
It's not even possible, the genetics can't lie. I guess you will have to contact those involved to let them know that what was found in the mtDNA is inaccurate.




It has been estimated that from a population of 2,000 to 5,000 individuals in Africa,[53] only a small group, as few as 150 to 1,000 individuals, crossed the Red Sea.[54] Of all the lineages present in Africa only the female descendants of one lineage, mtDNA haplogroup L3, are found outside Africa.




1.^ Zhivotovsky, et al; Rosenberg, NA; Feldman, MW (2003). "Features of Evolution and Expansion of Modern Humans, Inferred from Genomewide Microsatellite Markers". American Journal of Human Genetics 72 (5): 1171–86. DOI:10.1086/375120. PMC 1180270. PMID 12690579.



But hey, since you believe in the bible, perhaps you can give us a DNA trace to Adam and Eve.. What? can't do that, and that current DNA analysis is entirely contradictory to that? Damn! ... Maybe you can self invent it with more pseudoscience!
Adam and Eve were actually traced, in the same article, but found to not be living in the same period. This also depends on what you think Eve is suppose to be. The article accidently referenced Eve as the first common ancestor when most people assume she is our first mother. While missleading, it was cleared up in the article.

If you asking if there was a time period where the first Eve was identified, the answer is yes and no. They indicate they have mapped out the entire genome but are refraining on giving us an approximate time of our existence, and there is good reason for this as well.

You see I believe that we were placed here from another planet, and the bible concurs. The problem is that if our mtDNA is telling scientsts that our existence is 200 Billion years old, how are they suppose to announce this? People will surely believe that the findings are wrong as earth is only 4 billion years old. In addition to this, it would make them look like fools as people are not ready for the truth.

If you disagree, just look back some pages and see the resistance I'm up against, people just refuse to believe it.



posted on Jul, 26 2012 @ 04:06 PM
link   
reply to post by colin42
 





Just to remind you that you failed to respond to my argument when I challenged your claim. This means you had no defence and lost the argument. The fact you continue to claim the bible is a clear historical document after that shows how dishonest you are.
Well I allready proved to you that wiki is calling it a historical document, and the parts that I'm referencing are clear, at least to me anyhow.

So your wrong.




Any how going back to black people coming from a different planet than white people.

The Bible was written by people that were not white. About a slave race. Their messiah was also not white and so if they came from a different planet than whites the bible must have been written for them and not for whites as it does not state a black eden and a separate white eden.
True except that your trying to identify slaves by race and I'm not aware that possible as we were all placed here and I don't know of anything in the bible that eludes to that.




If there is no mention of white Europeans then matey you have another problem. How do you know whites were not already here and native to earth?
This was a question that was addressed by someone else months ago, and its a good question. The problem is compounded by several things. First you have to remember that we were NOT the first inhabitants on this planet and it even appears that has changed a few times. Even the bible makes reference to people just all of a sudden being in a city right after Adam and Eve. So who was here first, what color and nationality were they, who knows? The problem that your faced with is that its also possible that other humanoids were brought here as well and also don't belong, It's a big mess.




Surely the bible was written by non whites for non whites and man was made in gods image so he too was not white. Charlton Heston was not a look alike for mosses who was also not white.
That really depend on the context of that saying. From what it looks like, we were an engineered species, which is where I keep saying that we were frankenstiened. This could also explain why our mtDNA is saying that we are a lot older than we probably are, at least as hybrids.




You have said there was already people here so explain if you can. Try to be honest. what am I saying
Youll have to read genesis, your starting out with Adam and Eve and Cane and Able then all of a sudden there is a city with people.
No remarks on how they got there. From me or the author.



posted on Jul, 26 2012 @ 04:12 PM
link   
reply to post by TheJackelantern
 





You do understand that if that were true, everything that we rely on DNA for, including forensics and paternity, are completly useless?


Laughably wrong! And this tells me you are completely illiterate when it comes to Genetics, or the subject. You're embarrassing yourself at this point now.
There isn't anything embarrassing on my end, you stated that you believe that DNA can just magically change on its own with no reason behind it that we are able to see. Therefore our use of genetics is completly useless, as it can change on its own at anytime.




Gravity, electromagnetism, Periodic table, water, carbon, literally everything here ties us to this planet.. You're so intentionally ignorant that it's actually amusing now. And this is fun:

most of a human body's mass is oxygen and Carbon. The carbon atoms to which are the basic unit for organic molecules, comes in second. 99% of the mass of the human body is made up of just six elements: oxygen, carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen, calcium, and phosphorus.

Oxygen (65%)
Carbon (18%)
Hydrogen (10%)
Nitrogen (3%)
Calcium (1.5%)
Phosphorus (1.0%)
Potassium (0.35%)
Sulfur (0.25%)
Sodium (0.15%)
Magnesium (0.05%)
Copper, Zinc, Selenium, Molybdenum, Fluorine, Chlorine, Iodine, Manganese, Cobalt, Iron (0.70%)
Lithium, Strontium, Aluminum, Silicon, Lead, Vanadium, Arsenic, Bromine (trace amounts)

Reference: H. A. Harper, V. W. Rodwell, P. A. Mayes, Review of Physiological Chemistry, 16th ed., Lange Medical Publications, Los Altos, California 1977.

Suggested Reading

Chemistry 101 Index
How Things Work
Periodic Table of the Elements

Related Articles

Chemical Composition of the Human Body
I wasn't aware that all these things were exclusive to earth only. I guess your missing the point.




I don't change the subject, they are involved. It just tells me you have ignorance in understanding what has happened to us. It's ok, it is complicated and judging from your previous posts I woudn't expect you to posses the mentality to comprehend it.


You changed the subject from evolution to abiogenesis. Clearly one lies intentionally here. And telling me I have ignorance of this subject is rather laughable considering I am the only one between the two of us actually contributing academic information, evidence, and actual intellectually honest arguments. And it's obvious you didn't read my previous posts since it would require more than a single week to actually fully review them.. And from what I get out of your posts, you are intellectually over your head here.
I guess that was my whole point, you don't have to be a genius to see we aren't from here.



posted on Jul, 26 2012 @ 04:20 PM
link   

There isn't anything embarrassing on my end, you stated that you believe that DNA can just magically change on its own with no reason behind it that we are able to see. Therefore our use of genetics is completly useless, as it can change on its own at anytime.


Now you are quote mining.. What part do you not get that life is an electromagnetic phenomenon? Yeah you clearly didn't read anything or understand the basics of chemistry.. Yeah, you are embarrassing yourself as there is no doubt about that.



I wasn't aware that all these things were exclusive to earth only. I guess your missing the point.


Now you are changing your argument from having "nothing" to tie us to Earth, to this.. You have no regard for intellectual integrity do you? Or honesty... I guess you fail utterly at making your point or proving your statement on an academic level.. So here's the thing, try actually providing us something other than "I believe".. Because thus far, your debating skills in terms of academia are horrible. :/
edit on 26-7-2012 by TheJackelantern because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 26 2012 @ 05:38 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 



Well I allready proved to you that wiki is calling it a historical document, and the parts that I'm referencing are clear, at least to me anyhow.
Nope. As usual you recall what fits your delusion. I provided an argument based on the information in your link and you gave your usual dismissive answer and addressed none of the points I raised.

You were also shown to again be cherry picking the parts that suit you and ignored all else. You did not only lose you was slaughtered and publically slaughtered at that.



True except that your trying to identify slaves by race and I'm not aware that possible as we were all placed here and I don't know of anything in the bible that eludes to that.
Can you never answer all the points? Try again
1. The Bible was written by people that were not white.
2. it is about a slave race. What you claim the people who are punished were.
3. Their messiah was also not white
4. If they came from a different planet than whites the bible must have been written for them and not for whites as it does not state a black eden and a separate white eden
Please address each point.


This was a question that was addressed by someone else months ago, and its a good question.
I have already told you I don’t care if you think my question is good. I do however expect you to answer it.


The problem is compounded by several things.
Yes, like evidence and honesty


First you have to remember that we were NOT the first inhabitants on this planet and it even appears that has changed a few times.
Where is your evidence for this?


Even the bible makes reference to people just all of a sudden being in a city right after Adam and Eve.
All I see here is more of your opinion and no evidence. I have told you that your opinion carries no weight.


So who was here first, what color and nationality were they, who knows?
So you cannot answer the question. All you can do is weave an even bigger, even more silly reply with absolutely no evidence at all.


The problem that your faced with is that its also possible that other humanoids were brought here as well and also don't belong, It's a big mess.
Nope. Again you have got that very wrong. This is the problem YOU are faced with and have failed epically to address.


That really depend on the context of that saying. From what it looks like, we were an engineered species, which is where I keep saying that we were frankenstiened. This could also explain why our mtDNA is saying that we are a lot older than we probably are, at least as hybrids.
And that has what to do with a non white god?


Youll have to read genesis, your starting out with Adam and Eve and Cane and Able then all of a sudden there is a city with people.
Nope and nope again. This is your ridiculous claim it is up to you to provide the evidence. I care very little for your preaching reply that requires a lobotomy to accept.


No remarks on how they got there. From me or the author.
No answers from you either just another sermon on your home spun religion which is why you continue to post here.

So to sum up your reply. You have not addressed any of the points I made. That if your fantasy was correct it would mean the bible is for non whites and does not include whites.

You have made it clear that your religion was explaining whites who are not mentioned in the bible. So explain where the white people came from when you have no so called 'historical documents' to refer to.



posted on Jul, 26 2012 @ 10:40 PM
link   
reply to post by TheJackelantern
 





There isn't anything embarrassing on my end, you stated that you believe that DNA can just magically change on its own with no reason behind it that we are able to see. Therefore our use of genetics is completly useless, as it can change on its own at anytime.


Now you are quote mining.. What part do you not get that life is an electromagnetic phenomenon? Yeah you clearly didn't read anything or understand the basics of chemistry.. Yeah, you are embarrassing yourself as there is no doubt about that.
Lets look at this a little closer. First of all I'm not sure if your writting your own version of evolution, like everyone else is on here, or if your going by somone elses work. I don't remember seeing any quotes from you regarding electromagnetic phenomenon.

Life is a phenomenon, evolution is not a phenomenon. I'll give you the scoop on how it works, keep in mind its a crash course. Usually 2 differenct sexes come together in a temporary ritual to concieve. This isn't the norm for all species but at usually with mammals. There are always rare exceptions from species to species but the basic idea is the same. There isn't anything that has ever proven that a species changes it's molecular propertys with no reason behind it. Evolution claims to be such a process, but that process has never been witnessed, traced, and documented in terms of a new species being created. On very rare conditions there have been sub species observed, but anything more than that and the species dies quick.




I wasn't aware that all these things were exclusive to earth only. I guess your missing the point.


Now you are changing your argument from having "nothing" to tie us to Earth, to this.. You have no regard for intellectual integrity do you? Or honesty... I guess you fail utterly at making your point or proving your statement on an academic level.. So here's the thing, try actually providing us something other than "I believe".. Because thus far, your debating skills in terms of academia are horrible. :/
That would be because you totally missed the fact that my presentation about this thread is based on the fact that we are not from this planet, and the plethora of evidence that concurs. Again you can't claim I'm moving the goal posts when you fail to wear a uniform.



posted on Jul, 26 2012 @ 10:53 PM
link   
reply to post by colin42
 





Well I allready proved to you that wiki is calling it a historical document, and the parts that I'm referencing are clear, at least to me anyhow.

Nope. As usual you recall what fits your delusion. I provided an argument based on the information in your link and you gave your usual dismissive answer and addressed none of the points I raised
I guess all that matters at this point is that we are both agreeing on the facts. The fact that it fits. So I'm going to take your positive side in this and agree with that much. Your agreeing tells me that you too, can see that it does indeed fit. Based on that I think I have done a pretty good job in everything that I have preseneted to prove that point. There is in fact just a tad to much that does fit, and I'm glad to see that your at least agreeing with that especially in the bible which you originally didn't want to acknowledge.

As far as it being a historical document...


Archaeological and historical researchMain articles: Biblical archaeology school and The Bible and history
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.

The historicity of the biblical account of the history of ancient Israel and Judah of the 10th to 7th centuries BC is disputed in scholarship. The biblical account of the 8th to 7th centuries BC is widely, but not universally, accepted as historical, while the verdict on the earliest period of the United Monarchy (10th century BC) and the historicity of David is unclear. Archaeological evidence providing information on this period, such as the Tel Dan Stele, can potentially be decisive. The biblical account of events of the Exodus from Egypt in the Torah, and the migration to the Promised Land and the period of Judges are not considered historical in scholarship.[45][46] Regarding the New Testament, the setting being the Roman Empire in the 1st century AD, the historical context is well established. There has been some debate on the historicity of Jesus, but the mainstream opinion is that Jesus was one of several known historical itinerant preachers in 1st-century Roman Judea, teaching in the context of the religious upheavals and sectarianism of Second Temple Judaism

Bible wiki




You were also shown to again be cherry picking the parts that suit you and ignored all else. You did not only lose you was slaughtered and publically slaughtered at that.
The remainder of the book still explains how earth is not our home. Just because I chose a few examples doesn't mean the rest of the book makes no sense in that same direction. Then again you assumed so.




True except that your trying to identify slaves by race and I'm not aware that possible as we were all placed here and I don't know of anything in the bible that eludes to that.

Can you never answer all the points? Try again
1. The Bible was written by people that were not white.
2. it is about a slave race. What you claim the people who are punished were.
3. Their messiah was also not white
4. If they came from a different planet than whites the bible must have been written for them and not for whites as it does not state a black eden and a separate white eden
Please address each point.
1. we dont know that answer, your assuming. 2. It's actually about a lot more than just that but there is some of that in there yes.
3. This too is unproven, your assuming. 4. Again your assuming a lot again. I think the key here is your obviously an assumer.




This was a question that was addressed by someone else months ago, and its a good question.

I have already told you I don’t care if you think my question is good. I do however expect you to answer it.
That was my way of saying it has to remain an unanswerable question.



The problem is compounded by several things.

Yes, like evidence and honesty
Well on your




top topics



 
31
<< 473  474  475    477  478  479 >>

log in

join