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.

 

Pell says Adam and Eve didn't exist

page: 29
21
<< 26  27  28    30  31  32 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 18 2012 @ 06:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by Garfee
reply to post by addygrace
 


It doesn't take much to unravel christianity when all I have to do is ask for proof.


The resurrection is the most indisputable fact in human history, and the most documented.




posted on Apr, 18 2012 @ 06:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by MrXYZ

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by MrXYZ
 



How is it the "nail in Darwin's coffin" if his theory makes no claims regarding how life started


Well why did the guy write a book titled "Origin of Species..."



Because it's catchy??? Technically the origin goes back to before the big bang, doesn't mean he has to include that too


The theory never makes a single statement regarding how life started...and I have to admit I'm a bit baffled you didn't know that.


That's quite understandable, I'm baffled you know how to tie your own shoes. You're defending a theory that is impossible mathematically. But maybe you just aren't so good with math, it's possible.



posted on Apr, 18 2012 @ 06:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by NOTurTypical

Originally posted by Garfee
reply to post by addygrace
 


It doesn't take much to unravel christianity when all I have to do is ask for proof.


The resurrection is the most indisputable fact in human history, and the most documented.


Oh is it now?


Well then, kindly present your OBJECTIVE evidence that prove beyond a doubt it happened. And no, the bible isn't objective evidence



posted on Apr, 18 2012 @ 06:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by NOTurTypical

Originally posted by MrXYZ

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by MrXYZ
 



How is it the "nail in Darwin's coffin" if his theory makes no claims regarding how life started


Well why did the guy write a book titled "Origin of Species..."



Because it's catchy??? Technically the origin goes back to before the big bang, doesn't mean he has to include that too


The theory never makes a single statement regarding how life started...and I have to admit I'm a bit baffled you didn't know that.


That's quite understandable, I'm baffled you know how to tie your own shoes. You're defending a theory that is impossible mathematically. But maybe you just aren't so good with math, it's possible.


How exactly is it mathematically impossible? For crying out loud, scientists apply evolutionary mathematical models EVERY SINGLE DAY in modern medicine. If the theory were wrong, the couldn't accurately predict future outcomes in medicine.

And everything we found so far (fossils, DNA, migratory trends, etc.) fully back up the theory.

By the way, love how you completely ignore that you just showed everyone that you didn't even know the difference between abiogenesis and evolution



posted on Apr, 18 2012 @ 07:11 AM
link   
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 





God said "Let there be...".


That is your reply to me saying you don't know how it all started, really? That's you're "proof"?

Well, I guess you're really here to preach and portray your blind belief instead of actually providing real objective evidence to prove you are really talking about knowledge instead of blind belief





I've never adhered to "blind belief" nor suggested it to anyone. I've only been a Christian for a short part of my adult life. You don't know crap about where I came from, which is obvious.


You never provide any evidence to back up your claims...so yeah, every single one of your post is a great example of "blind belief"





Try telling that to those who formerly worshiped demons. They will look a you like you're a complete moron, then may ask you if you wish to see the bite and scratch scars. Then ask them what Name makes the demons shudder in terror.


Again...zero proof or objective evidence


I don't think you even know the difference between objective and subjective...




WRONG! Evolutionary Biologists don't have a clue. Molecular Biologists know unless they are morons that it's an impossibility by chance of random processes. They are jumping the Darwinian Evolution ship in DROVES.
I suppose you go to your oil change mechanic for back surgery?



Find me a scientific study that shows anyone knows what came first, RNA or proteins


And once again, scientists aren't saying it all happened because of "chance" or "random processes", that's only something creationists repeat over and over and over and over again. But guess what, you can say the sky is green all you want...it simply isn't


And once again, you are confusing abiogenesis with evolution. The funny thing is, you continue doing so even though you were told that's nonsense. Ignorance at its best





Straw man. I've already gave you numerous breadcrumbs.


You haven't provided a shred of evidence...not even a "breadcrumb"





You just used a straw man, and you're arguing for a theory that was proved impossible with the discovery of DNA and RNA, by way of a process that has factors of probability greater then 10^5000th power.

Don't dare talk to me about "logical". Scientists will tell you anything with a probability of 10^50th is "impossible". You're arguing for something that's = impossible X 1,000.


Clearly you don't have a clue about what scientists believe...probably because you get your "scientific" information from priests and nutjob websites like ICR


Fyi, DNA fully confirms evolution. Every single sample they took from ancient remains backs it up. But let's just ignore that FACT, right?





Your bubble was burst long ago. Any experiment envisioned and designed by human thought and activated by human engineering is an experiment proving INTELLIGENT DESIGN. It's by definition NOT RANDOM.


Yes, and scientists aren't claiming abiogenesis or evolution is random....so there's no problem





That's a lie or you're still standing on the well worn path of complete ignorance with your eyes gouged out and fingers in your ears shouting "Na, na, na, na, na, I CANT hear yooooooooooooou!!!!" and I'm saying: "Come on little fella, science is over here, leave the Evolutionary Biologists on that path leading over a the cliff of absurdity, this way bro, this way."


You haven't provided any evidence...you're only here to preach (or troll).


Prove me wrong! What's your OBJECTIVE evidence to back up your claims??




Why try and entertain your red herring Mr. Logic? Explain why I should do so, this will be interesting. FOCUS. I don't need the Bible to prove Evolution is absurd. 101 level Molecular Biologists are doing that for me!!! And when the subject is the accuracy of the Bible then we can discuss that, until then throw your herring back into the pond of irrational thought and argumentation, let the little guy grow some more, he's just a guppy.


So you won't even provide evidence...got it. I guess it's easier to stay blissfully ignorant that way.



posted on Apr, 18 2012 @ 09:37 AM
link   
reply to post by addygrace
 




If you don't believe in the bible's god, would you so kindly tell me your thoughts on the following:

1.Where in the Bible does it give the age of the Universe?

2.If God was involved in the flood, what exactly would God be limited to in regards to how many numbers of animals could be saved? Are we limiting God with our tiny speck of knowledge? Seriously??????? No really, seriously???


1) If you follow the timeline of the bible, it clearly puts the earth at roughly 6000 years old. You can twist it like the typical "fingers in ears" religious folks, by saying "days may have meant thousands of years" .. I laugh at the notion, that to explain the discrepancy in age of earth, religious people jump to that one..

2) Have you even read the bible? Or better yet, did you read it to simply accomplish doing so, or to actually learn something?



Genesis 7

The LORD then said to Noah, “Go into the ark, you and your whole family, because I have found you righteous in this generation. 2 Take with you seven pairs of every kind of clean animal, a male and its mate, and one pair of every kind of unclean animal, a male and its mate, 3 and also seven pairs of every kind of bird, male and female, to keep their various kinds alive throughout the earth. 4 Seven days from now I will send rain on the earth for forty days and forty nights, and I will wipe from the face of the earth every living creature I have made.


Look, jesus was just a man, born to a woman that was obviously a GREAT liar... Imagine your wife came home and told you she was pregnant, though you knew it couldn't be yours. Then she tells you "don't worry dear, it is god's baby" lmmfao... Joseph was either gullible or a fool. The man known as jesus was probably fathered by a roman soldier.



posted on Apr, 18 2012 @ 10:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by MrXYZ
 



How is it the "nail in Darwin's coffin" if his theory makes no claims regarding how life started


Well why did the guy write a book titled "Origin of Species..."



I literally just spat my tea out. HAHAHAHA



posted on Apr, 18 2012 @ 12:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by CaptainNemo

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by MrXYZ
 



How is it the "nail in Darwin's coffin" if his theory makes no claims regarding how life started


Well why did the guy write a book titled "Origin of Species..."



I literally just spat my tea out. HAHAHAHA


At how ridiculous this question is?



posted on Apr, 18 2012 @ 12:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by Deetermined
 



Despite the similarities in human and chimp genomes


We actually share more similarities with sunflower plants than chimps, guess we had a common ancestor with them too.



It was the sponge,
digitaljournal.com...

But maybe this is just how the creator planned it



The creature, Otavia antiqua, was found in 760-million-year-old rock in Namibia and was as tiny as it may be important.

"The fossils are small, about the size of a grain of sand, and we have found many hundreds of them," said study leader Anthony Prave, a geologist at the University of St. Andrews in the U.K.


news.nationalgeographic.com...

To see a world in a grain of sand,
And a heaven in a wild flower,
Hold infinity in the palm of your hand,
And eternity in an hour.
edit on 123030p://bWednesday2012 by Stormdancer777 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 18 2012 @ 12:39 PM
link   
By the way, if we want to talk about the pinacle of "creation" (no pun intended), ferns win against humans. They remain almost unchanged after millions of years...they were around when the dinosaurs roamed the earth, and even before that.

Even more interesting...they have more base pairs in their DNA than humans...A LOT more. So if the argument is "complex DNA proves humans are special", well...then ferns are "super special"



posted on Apr, 18 2012 @ 08:48 PM
link   
Peopling of the Earth - Adam
50. Did the human race begin with one man only?

"No; he whom you call Adam was neither the first nor the only man who peopled the earth."

51. Is it possible to know at what period Adam lived?

"About the period which you assign to him, that is to say, about 4000 years before Christ."

The man of whom, under the name of Adam, tradition has preserved the memory, was one of those who, in some one of the countries of the globe, survived one of the great cataclysms which at various epochs have changed its surface, and who became the founder of one of the races that people the earth at the present day. The laws of nature render it impossible that the amount of progress which we know to have been accomplished by the human race of our planet long before the time of Christ could have been accomplished so rapidly as must have been the case if it had only been in existence upon the globe since the period assigned as the date of Adam. The opinion most consonant with reason is that which regards the story of Adam as a myth, or as an allegory personifying the earliest ages of the world Diversity of Human Races.
Diversity of human races
52. What is the cause of the physical and moral differences that distinguish the various races of men upon the earth?

"Climate, modes of life, and social habits. The same differences would be produced in the case of two children of the same mother, if brought up far from one another, and surrounded by different influences and conditions; for the children thus diversely brought up would present no moral resemblance to each other."

53. Did the human race come into existence on various points of the globe?

"Yes, and at various epochs; and this is one of the causes of the diversity of human races. The people of the primitive periods, being dispersed abroad in different climates, and forming alliances with those of other countries than their own, gave rise perpetually to new types of humanity."

-- Do these differences constitute distinct species?

"Certainly not. All of them constitute but a single family. Do the differences between the varieties of the same fruit prevent their all belonging to the same species."

54. If the human species do not all proceed from the same progenitor, should they, on that account, cease to regard one another as brothers?

"All men are brothers in virtue of their common relation to the Creator, because they are animated by the same spirit, and tend towards the same goal. The human mind is always prone to attach too literal a meaning to statements which are necessarily imperfect and incomplete."http://www.spiritwritings.com/kardecspiritsbook1.html



posted on Apr, 18 2012 @ 08:56 PM
link   
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 

Actually we do share a common ancestor with all Plant Life. Split Infinity



posted on Apr, 18 2012 @ 08:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by MrXYZ

Originally posted by NOTurTypical

Originally posted by Garfee
reply to post by addygrace
 


It doesn't take much to unravel christianity when all I have to do is ask for proof.


The resurrection is the most indisputable fact in human history, and the most documented.


Oh is it now?


Well then, kindly present your OBJECTIVE evidence that prove beyond a doubt it happened. And no, the bible isn't objective evidence


By "objective" do you mean the evidence approved by those who deny it?



posted on Apr, 18 2012 @ 09:03 PM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 



By the way, love how you completely ignore that you just showed everyone that you didn't even know the difference between abiogenesis and evolution.


Why? Because I refuse to acknowledge the Evolutionist's equivocation fallacy? Gotcha. Any other nuggets of wisdom to share with the class?

You still haven't answered my 1 question and "we don't know yet", isn't a valid response.



posted on Apr, 18 2012 @ 09:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by NOTurTypical

Originally posted by MrXYZ

Originally posted by NOTurTypical

Originally posted by Garfee
reply to post by addygrace
 


It doesn't take much to unravel christianity when all I have to do is ask for proof.


The resurrection is the most indisputable fact in human history, and the most documented.


Oh is it now?


Well then, kindly present your OBJECTIVE evidence that prove beyond a doubt it happened. And no, the bible isn't objective evidence


By "objective" do you mean the evidence approved by those who deny it?


No...that's not what objective evidence is!

Objective evidence is information that can be proven true, based on facts obtained through observation, measurement and tests. Some source simply stating something isn't enough, it has to be fully backed up by data that isn't subjective. "I believe 444 stands for Jesus and is somehow related to that gemstone" is NOT objective evidence, it's your personal opinion...it's SUBJECTIVE.

Easy example:

We're in the kitchen and I tell you "this boiling water is super hot"...and you go "prove it!!". Me sticking a thermometer into that water and showing you it's at boiling temperature proves my claim with objective data.

An example of subjective evidence:

"People can live inside whales!"
"Prove it!"
"It says so in the bible!"

I hope that makes it clear why nothing you posted is objective evidence, and it has nothing to do whether I want or don't want to agree with you...the evidence isn't backing up your claims, and that's a FACT.



posted on Apr, 18 2012 @ 09:05 PM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 



You never provide any evidence to back up your claims...so yeah, every single one of your post is a great example of "blind belief"


But you have no problem answering my ONE question with 'we don't know yet'.



And quit saying "we", you haven't touched a test tube since h.s. chemistry class.



posted on Apr, 18 2012 @ 09:06 PM
link   
reply to post by addygrace
 

The story of Adam and Eve is a STORY! That's it! If you choose to believe it then more power to you but if you wish to debate it with others...you have to have a better explaination that it is true than...It say's so in the Bible!

That won't cut it. Not for proof. Maybe Faith...but not Fact. Split Infinity



posted on Apr, 18 2012 @ 09:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by MrXYZ
 



By the way, love how you completely ignore that you just showed everyone that you didn't even know the difference between abiogenesis and evolution.


Why? Because I refuse to acknowledge the Evolutionist's equivocation fallacy? Gotcha. Any other nuggets of wisdom to share with the class?

You still haven't answered my 1 question and "we don't know yet", isn't a valid response.


How come "we don't know yet" isn't a valid answer...there is TOOOONS we don't know yet. And filling those gaps of knowledge with magic (aka gods) isn't a solution that has worked very well in the past if you think about comets, plagues, floods...all stuff that was at one point attributed to god because people filled a gap in knowledge with magic.



posted on Apr, 18 2012 @ 09:08 PM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 



No...that's not what objective evidence is!


You didn't even know earlier that "experiment" and "repeatable" observations are interchangeable terms in the definition of the scientific method.



posted on Apr, 18 2012 @ 09:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by MrXYZ
 



No...that's not what objective evidence is!


You didn't even know earlier that "experiment" and "repeatable" observations are interchangeable terms in the definition of the scientific method.


The actual event being studied through an experiment doesn't have to be repeatable


And I wouldn't open my mouth if like you I didn't even know the difference between "objective" and "subjective". That's one of the very basic concepts of science



new topics

top topics



 
21
<< 26  27  28    30  31  32 >>

log in

join