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: 32
21
<< 29  30  31    33  34  35 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 19 2012 @ 07:19 AM
link   
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 





I'm talking about his GRT. IT (the GRT) has been confirmed since he made it (1916) by others 14 different methods down to 19 decimal places. Basically GRT = indisputable FACT.


You do realize that the theory of evolution has even more evidence behind it than the GRT because GRT is part of theoretical physics, right? If you call GRT a fact, you also have to call evolution a fact, because they are both SCIENTIFIC THEORIES, which means they require the same amount of objective evidence and proof to be called that.

Thank you for finally admitting evolution is a fact




posted on Apr, 19 2012 @ 08:04 AM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 



I can't find any examples...but since you said there's tons of examples, I'm sure you can list at least 1...just one.


Even better. Word of mouth is the most compelling evidence on the planet, watch "Expelled" by Ben Stein, there are several of the thousands of examples and you can listen to those professors and scientists themselves tell you what happened in their lives when they decided they wanted to challenge the golden calf of Secular Humanism.

Let them few guys tell you what happened to them. Most of them aren't Christians, they just made the career suicidal error of finding issues with Darwin and being stupid enough to bring them up for rational discussion.

Listen to their stories firsthand.


edit on 19-4-2012 by NOTurTypical because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 19 2012 @ 08:07 AM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 



GRT is part of theoretical physics, right?


Who are you trying to school on Physics?


To date no Physicist has won the Nobel Prize for refuting GRT. In fact, fellow Physicists have proven GRT by 14 different methodologies down to 19 decimal places.

It's just as much "FACT" as your existence is.



posted on Apr, 19 2012 @ 08:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by MrXYZ
 



I can't find any examples...but since you said there's tons of examples, I'm sure you can list at least 1...just one.


Even better. Word of mouth is the most compelling evidence on the planet, watch "Expelled" by Ben Stein, there are several of the thousands of examples and you can listen to those professors and scientists themselves tell you what happened in their lives when they decided they wanted to challenge the golden calf of Secular Humanism.

Let them few guys tell you what happened to them. Most of them aren't Christians, they just made the career suicidal error of finding issues with Darwin and being stupid enough to bring them up for rational discussion.

Listen to their stories firsthand.


edit on 19-4-2012 by NOTurTypical because: (no reason given)


Word of mouth the most compelling evidence? You're kidding, right???

I saw a 10m tall pink unicorn walk through town yesterday...that's word of mouth, according to you the "most compelling evidence". I wish you luck hunting that giant unicorn


Fyi, the most compelling evidence in this order is:

1) Scientific law
2) Scientific theory
3) Scientific hypothesis
4) Random word of mouth not backed up by evidence...

Subjective evidence is USELESS in science!



posted on Apr, 19 2012 @ 08:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by MrXYZ
 



GRT is part of theoretical physics, right?


Who are you trying to school on Physics?


To date no Physicist has won the Nobel Prize for refuting GRT. In fact, fellow Physicists have proven GRT by 14 different methodologies down to 19 decimal places.

It's just as much "FACT" as your existence is.


Yes...and in over 150 years no one has been able to refute the theory of evolution, It has been proven over and over again by different scientists and is ACTIVELY APPLIED in modern medicine.

In short, if you call GRT a fact, then you are also calling the theory of evolution a fact. Thank you for finally admitting it's the sound theory it is



posted on Apr, 19 2012 @ 08:19 AM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 



In short, if you call GRT a fact, then you are also calling the theory of evolution a fact. Thank you for finally admitting it's the sound theory it is


You're still making the equivocation fallacy. You won't find a Creationist on the planet that denies variations within the species, we do deny "goo-to-you" Evolution though, which has NEVER been proven by any method of science despite desperate attempts for over 150 years of trying.

(Sorry for the cliche)

You need to get something through your head. Science calls anything with a probability greater than 10^50th as "impossible/absurd". When we say GRT has been "proven by 14 different methodologies down to 19 decimal places" that's in effect saying it's been proven 10^18th.

There are an estimated 10^19th atoms in the galaxy. (That's an unfathomable number)



posted on Apr, 19 2012 @ 08:22 AM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 



Word of mouth the most compelling evidence? You're kidding, right???

I saw a 10m tall pink unicorn walk through town yesterday...that's word of mouth, according to you the "most compelling evidence". I wish you luck hunting that giant unicorn


LOL, I'm not talking about evidence for or against Evolution. Personal testimony from these professors and scientists for SPEAKING OUT against it and what happened to their careers as a result of their speaking out.


Fyi, the most compelling evidence in this order is:

1) Scientific law
2) Scientific theory
3) Scientific hypothesis
4) Random word of mouth not backed up by evidence...

Subjective evidence is USELESS in science!


I'm not referring to that, you asked for "examples" of these things happening to scientists and professors who dared to challenge Darwin. We're not even talking about proving the theory true or untrue with his particular point. It's not "random" when these men and women are telling you their PERSONAL testimonies of THEIR experiences in their careers.

Focus dude, this particular discussion isn't about proving the theory true or false, just with what happens when people speak out against it.






edit on 19-4-2012 by NOTurTypical because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 19 2012 @ 08:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by MrXYZ
 



In short, if you call GRT a fact, then you are also calling the theory of evolution a fact. Thank you for finally admitting it's the sound theory it is


You're still making the equivocation fallacy. You won't find a Creationist on the planet that denies variations within the species, we do deny "goo-to-you" Evolution though, which has NEVER been proven by any method of science despite desperate attempts for over 150 years of trying.

(Sorry for the cliche)

You need to get something through your head. Science calls anything with a probability greater than 10^50th as "impossible/absurd". When we say GRT has been "proven by 14 different methodologies down to 19 decimal places" that's in effect saying it's been proven 10^18th.

There are an estimated 10^19th atoms in the galaxy. (That's an unfathomable number)



The theory of evolution has just as much OBJECTIVE evidence behind it as the GRT...that's why they're both classified as SCIENTIFIC THEORIES


Just because you don't like one of the theories doesn't mean all the objective evidence is suddenly worthless. You also don't seem to understand probability calculations that don't even prove your claim. The chances of getting hit by lightning are incredibly small, yet it happens every single day! Learn about quantitative methods before making claims that make you look silly in that respect



posted on Apr, 19 2012 @ 08:31 AM
link   
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 





LOL, I'm not talking about evidence for or against Evolution. Personal testimony from these professors and scientists for SPEAKING OUT against it and what happened to their careers as a result of their speaking out.



Not if they provide OBJECTIVE EVIDENCE to back up their claims. If they don't, of course the scientific community will make fun of them...after all, they don't back up their claims with evidence





I'm not referring to that, you asked for "examples" of these things happening to scientists and professors who dared to challenge Darwin. We're not even talking about proving the theory true or untrue with his particular point. It's not "random" when these men and women are telling you their PERSONAL testimonies of THEIR experiences in their careers.



You do realize that PERSONAL testimonies and THEIR experiences are SUBJECTIVE (!!!) evidence and NOT OBJECTIVE evidence. I can't believe that after all these posts you STILL refuse to acknowledge the difference between objective and subjective. That's an impressive display of ignorance...and all because you refuse to acknowledge any evidence that proves your claims to be wrong. You essentially made up your mind, decided on a conclusion, and then ignore everything that debunks that conclusion...that's a really sad way of learning.

If people tried to learn your way, we'd still believe the earth is flat, people can live inside whales, or that silly global flood really happened. In the 21st century, that is kinda sad





Focus dude, this particular discussion isn't about proving the theory true or false, just with what happens when people speak out against it.


No it isn't


It doesn't matter if people speak out against it or not as long as they are UNABLE to provide objective evidence to back up their claims. If they can't back up their claims, you can't blame others for not taking them seriously.



posted on Apr, 19 2012 @ 09:10 AM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 



Not if they provide OBJECTIVE EVIDENCE to back up their claims. If they don't, of course the scientific community will make fun of them...after all, they don't back up their claims with evidence.


That's absurd.

Me: "I got fired from my job 3 months ago for poor performance according to my supervisors."

You: "Objective evidence or it didn't happen!!!"

Me: "Can't I just tell you I got fired and what I did to get fired?"

You: "Objective evidence only!"

Me: "Huh, what the..?!



posted on Apr, 19 2012 @ 09:13 AM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 



You do realize that PERSONAL testimonies and THEIR experiences are SUBJECTIVE (!!!) evidence and NOT OBJECTIVE evidence. I can't believe that after all these posts you STILL refuse to acknowledge the difference between objective and subjective.


I don't have to in this particular point.

Please explain how one gives a personal testimony of a past experience without using subjective evidence. I'm telling you to listen to folks tell you what happened to them in their life.

It's a personal testimony. Hello McFly!



posted on Apr, 19 2012 @ 09:17 AM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 



No it isn't

It doesn't matter if people speak out against it or not as long as they are UNABLE to provide objective evidence to back up their claims. If they can't back up their claims, you can't blame others for not taking them seriously.


You don't have to present an alternate general theory to challenge one singular aspect of someone else's previously presented general theory. It's helpful, but is by no means mandatory. The chips can fall where they need to fall.






edit on 19-4-2012 by NOTurTypical because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 19 2012 @ 09:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by MrXYZ
 



Not if they provide OBJECTIVE EVIDENCE to back up their claims. If they don't, of course the scientific community will make fun of them...after all, they don't back up their claims with evidence.


That's absurd.

Me: "I got fired from my job 3 months ago for poor performance according to my supervisors."

You: "Objective evidence or it didn't happen!!!"

Me: "Can't I just tell you I got fired and what I did to get fired?"

You: "Objective evidence only!"

Me: "Huh, what the..?!



Of course you need objective evidence...and they need that too to fire people in the first place. It's required by LAW



posted on Apr, 19 2012 @ 09:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by MrXYZ
 



You do realize that PERSONAL testimonies and THEIR experiences are SUBJECTIVE (!!!) evidence and NOT OBJECTIVE evidence. I can't believe that after all these posts you STILL refuse to acknowledge the difference between objective and subjective.


I don't have to in this particular point.

Please explain how one gives a personal testimony of a past experience without using subjective evidence. I'm telling you to listen to folks tell you what happened to them in their life.

It's a personal testimony. Hello McFly!


They need to provide OBJECTIVE evidence to back up their SUBJECTIVE claims. For example, if someone comes to you and says "I just saw an alien spacecraft", you don't just believe him. You need objective evidence, a photograph, piece of the craft, and alien hair...anything. But his "word" isn't good enough.



posted on Apr, 19 2012 @ 09:24 AM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 


Here's the equivocation fallacy:



The theory of evolution has just as much OBJECTIVE evidence behind it as the GRT...that's why they're both classified as SCIENTIFIC THEORIES.


Sure it does when were talking about variations within the species themselves, and no Creationists deny that, never have. We know that dogs, wolves et cetra came from a common ancestor, a DOG-LIKE ancestor!!! No one denies that, there is a mountain of evidence no one can deny. Even a kid knows there are different kinds of dogs walking around.

The fallacy is in stating there is also a mountain of evidence to prove 1 species evolved from a totally different species not related in kind, or partially related. (I.E. men and chimps had a common ancestor, or birds came from dinosaurs)

That's completely bogus. And you commit the equivocation fallacy for claiming the evidential support for one extends to the other by using ambiguous terminology hoping the average reader is ignorant to the enormous difference. You bring up viruses and bacteria as an example, yet at the end of the day after billions of generations viruses are still viruses and bacteria are still bacteria.

EQUIVOCATION FALLACY. Deny Ignorance.



edit on 19-4-2012 by NOTurTypical because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 19 2012 @ 09:27 AM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 



Of course you need objective evidence...and they need that too to fire people in the first place. It's required by LAW.


That's a lie. Look up the "right to work" law. I can fire someone because I don't like their haircut. I'd be a huge duchebag, but I can do it.



posted on Apr, 19 2012 @ 09:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by MrXYZ

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by MrXYZ
 



You do realize that PERSONAL testimonies and THEIR experiences are SUBJECTIVE (!!!) evidence and NOT OBJECTIVE evidence. I can't believe that after all these posts you STILL refuse to acknowledge the difference between objective and subjective.


I don't have to in this particular point.

Please explain how one gives a personal testimony of a past experience without using subjective evidence. I'm telling you to listen to folks tell you what happened to them in their life.

It's a personal testimony. Hello McFly!


They need to provide OBJECTIVE evidence to back up their SUBJECTIVE claims. For example, if someone comes to you and says "I just saw an alien spacecraft", you don't just believe him. You need objective evidence, a photograph, piece of the craft, and alien hair...anything. But his "word" isn't good enough.



Then throw out everything we know from recorded written history correct?



And eye-witness testimony in court is invalid correct?





edit on 19-4-2012 by NOTurTypical because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 19 2012 @ 09:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by MrXYZ
 


Here's the equivocation fallacy:



The theory of evolution has just as much OBJECTIVE evidence behind it as the GRT...that's why they're both classified as SCIENTIFIC THEORIES.


Sure it does when were talking about variations within the species themselves, and no Creationists deny that, never have. We know that dogs, wolves et cetra came from a common ancestor, a DOG-LIKE ancestor!!! No one denies that, there is a mountain of evidence no one can deny. Even a kid knows there are different kinds of dogs walking around.


The fallacy is in stating there is also a mountain of evidence to prove 1 species evolved from a totally different species not related in kind, or partially related. (I.E. men and chimps had a common ancestor, or birds came from dinosaurs)

That's completely bogus. And you commit the equivocation fallacy for claiming the evidential support for one extends to the other by using ambiguous terminology hoping the average reader is ignorant to the enormous difference. You bring up viruses and bacteria as an example, yet at the end of the day after billions of generations viruses are still viruses and bacteria are still bacteria.

EQUIVOCATION FALLACY. Deny Ignorance.



edit on 19-4-2012 by NOTurTypical because: (no reason given)


No, not just micro evolution...speciation is just as much a part of the theory and fully backed up by objective evidence as well.

Maybe you should reread at least the Wiki page about evolution, because you don't seem to understand the theory in the first place


One example of you showing how little you understand: Bacteria and viruses won't turn into giraffes because their ENVIRONMENT didn't change to the point where they would have to change so drastically. They are perfectly suited for their environment, so why would they change drastically? The same goes for the crocodile who changed very little over millions of years...the actual environment of crocodiles didn't really change.

So please, at least bother reading the theory before you criticize something you so demonstrably don't understand...






The fallacy is in stating there is also a mountain of evidence to prove 1 species evolved from a totally different species not related in kind, or partially related.




There IS a mountain of objective evidence...you simply ignore it

edit on 19-4-2012 by MrXYZ because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 19 2012 @ 09:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by NOTurTypical

Originally posted by MrXYZ

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by MrXYZ
 



You do realize that PERSONAL testimonies and THEIR experiences are SUBJECTIVE (!!!) evidence and NOT OBJECTIVE evidence. I can't believe that after all these posts you STILL refuse to acknowledge the difference between objective and subjective.


I don't have to in this particular point.

Please explain how one gives a personal testimony of a past experience without using subjective evidence. I'm telling you to listen to folks tell you what happened to them in their life.

It's a personal testimony. Hello McFly!


They need to provide OBJECTIVE evidence to back up their SUBJECTIVE claims. For example, if someone comes to you and says "I just saw an alien spacecraft", you don't just believe him. You need objective evidence, a photograph, piece of the craft, and alien hair...anything. But his "word" isn't good enough.



Then throw out everything we know from recorded written history correct?



And eye-witness testimony in court is invalid correct?





edit on 19-4-2012 by NOTurTypical because: (no reason given)


A court works differently than science...which explains why so many innocent people end up in jail based on "witness accounts"


And no, you don't have to throw everything out...if it's backed up by objective evidence it's fine. Someone claiming dragons exit in some old book isn't proof until you find dragon remains. That's the difference between objective and subjective evidence...a difference you STILL don't understand after all these explanations. Ignorance really must be bliss



posted on Apr, 19 2012 @ 09:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by MrXYZ

Originally posted by CaptainNemo
What came first, the man or the bacteria? I believe advances in the field of microscopy will provide the proverbial nail in the coffin for evolution. The Luciferian elites alter history to control mans knowledge of the god of the Bible. They switch the real Mccoy's with doppelgangers like Edison and Pasteur. Both of which were thieves and liars. Science isn't the enemy, it's just being manipulated.!

We live in the present age, which means you can know more about God than ever before. Know your creator before time runs out.!

YAHUOWAH OUR ELOHIM

Water is the only element to exist in all 3 states naturally on earth. It is the symbol for transformation and God's blessing

yaHuOwaH = H2O

Anywhere you look you see the holy name, he is self-evident.!


edit on 18-4-2012 by CaptainNemo because: (no reason given)


So once again you provide a ton of preaching and zero objective evidence


Claiming water is a symbol for good isn't objective evidence btw...




What kind of life skills do you have? Do you ask your boss for objective evidence when he gives you an assignment? You just keep incessantly repeating this like a mantra. You're taking your fandom too far, any wannabe scientist can sit behind a computer and ask for objective evidence. A REAL scientist would hear the opposing argument and form a proper rebuttal, because they know evolution isn't known with absolute certainty. Often, the creationism vs evolution argument falls through the ground because one side promulgates "God did it.!" or somebody like you cries about objective evidence.

“Do so because my people have committed a double wrong: they have rejected me, the fountain of life-giving water, and they have dug cisterns for themselves, cracked cisterns which cannot even hold water.” - Jer. 2:13

This is a statement from the Bible, among others, that prove water is a symbol or mechanism of God. An any language I can get a Bible, look at the verse and it will read the same. You don't even know what objective evidence mean. It doesn't mean repeatable or quantifiable, it means can I look at something impartially. But I'm sure you wouldn't have asked for objective evidence if Peter Pan was the book in question.



new topics

top topics



 
21
<< 29  30  31    33  34  35 >>

log in

join