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: 33
21
<< 30  31  32    34  35  36 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 19 2012 @ 10:05 AM
link   
reply to post by CaptainNemo
 





A REAL scientist would hear the opposing argument and form a proper rebuttal, because they know evolution isn't known with absolute certainty.


Yes it is...and when you say "rebuttal", do you mean like pointing out that your evidence is completely devoid of facts, that it isn't OBJECTIVE evidence.

Of course I will keep on repeating that objective evidence is crucial in science, you flat out refuse to present 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



= preaching (aka ZERO facts)




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.


And once again you pretend the bible is objective evidence


Well, I guess you also believe in Ganesh then, because after all, it's mentioned in scriptures




posted on Apr, 19 2012 @ 10:24 AM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 




Yes it is...


Wow, thanks for exposing yourself as a hypocrite with that strikingly UNscientific statement. Should I just end this argument because of that? I mean, that's what YOU do when someone says "God, did it".



Of course I will keep on repeating that objective evidence is crucial in science, you flat out refuse to present objective evidence.


A STATEMENT IS A FACT/EVIDENCE YOU MORON. It's verifiable in and out of the text. And before you default to your favorite phrase, take the time to LOOK UP the actual definition of objective evidence.




And once again you pretend the bible is objective evidence


The Bible is part history book, it's objective evidence and historically verifiable.
edit on 19-4-2012 by CaptainNemo because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 19 2012 @ 10:35 AM
link   
reply to post by CaptainNemo
 





A STATEMENT IS A FACT/EVIDENCE YOU MORON. It's verifiable in and out of the text. And before you default to your favorite phrase, take the time to LOOK UP the actual definition of objective evidence.


Oh, a statement is a fact now. Well then, here's my statement that is also a fact: "Unicorns feed on elve brains!"





Wow, thanks for exposing yourself as a hypocrite with that strikingly UNscientific statement. Should I just end this argument because of that? I mean, that's what YOU do when someone says "God, did it".


I base my claim on OBJECTIVE evidence and science...two concepts you simply can't seem to grasp.


So no, I'm not a hypocrite...mostly because my claims are backed up and yours are mere blind belief





The Bible is part history book, it's objective evidence and historically verifiable.


Yes, it's verifiable...and that's how we know it's in many cases HISTORICALLY WRONG.


That's why it isn't objective evidence...

By the way, nice "moron" ad hominem attack...you can add that to your long list of argumentative fallacies...just like "god of the gaps" and "argument from ignorance"

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



posted on Apr, 19 2012 @ 11:09 AM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 


You sound like this guy:

“Based on evidence, what we do have is, unequivocally, the conditions for the emergence of life were present on Mars — period, end of story,” - Michael Mumma NASA official

Absolute certainty is a fallacy.




I base my claim on OBJECTIVE evidence and science...two concepts you simply can't seem to grasp.


Says the guy who doesn't even know what objective evidence means...




Yes, it's verifiable...and that's how we know it's in many cases HISTORICALLY WRONG.


Therefore it's objective evidence, now shut up.




That's why it isn't objective evidence...


...You're an awesome scientist...




By the way, nice "moron" ad hominem attack...you can add that to your long list of argumentative fallacies...just like "god of the gaps" and "argument from ignorance"


Thanks, I'll be straight forward with it unlike you. You're posts are chock full of condescending smilies and I can imagine you behind your computer pantomiming like a little school girl. I wouldn't be surprised if you had a plaque for "pretending to know what you're talking about" next to your computer, but it's cool everybody does now and then... I stand behind my belief that you're a moron and a hypocrite.



posted on Apr, 19 2012 @ 11:54 AM
link   
reply to post by CaptainNemo
 





“Based on evidence, what we do have is, unequivocally, the conditions for the emergence of life were present on Mars — period, end of story,” - Michael Mumma NASA official


His statement is in fact correct. Based on all the evidence we have (thanks to all those probes), the conditions for life were met on Mars at one point in the past.




Absolute certainty is a fallacy.


...especially when not providing any objective evidence as backup...kinda like you do when claiming "god did it"





Says the guy who doesn't even know what objective evidence means...



I do...I explained it to you numerous times


You on the other hand amuse the rest of us by claiming the bible is objective evidence





Therefore it's objective evidence, now shut up.


Objective evidence of what people WRONGFULLY believed back then...yes.




...You're an awesome scientist...


All this has nothing to do with me being or not being a scientist. It has EVERYTHING to do with scientific method which requires OBJECTIVE EVIDENCE as backup...something you are completely unable to provide!




Thanks, I'll be straight forward with it unlike you. You're posts are chock full of condescending smilies and I can imagine you behind your computer pantomiming like a little school girl. I wouldn't be surprised if you had a plaque for "pretending to know what you're talking about" next to your computer, but it's cool everybody does now and then... I stand behind my belief that you're a moron and a hypocrite.


And just like with all the rest of your posts, your belief isn't based on facts or objective evidence...instead, you simply come here preaching your BELIEF while pretending it's a fact. That's kinda sad, don't you think?



posted on Apr, 19 2012 @ 02:16 PM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 



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


Again, we are on a side issue. Not the Evolution VS Creationism debate, try and separate the two discussions. This particular one is about the personal testimony of professors and scientists who have been removed from their careers and black-listed NOT for presenting Creationism, but FOR challenging Darwin. Only a small fraction of Intelligent Design proponents are Biblical Creationists. Most are non-Christians and just see Darwin as wrong, they just don't have idea who or what the intelligent designer is, they just know Darwin was wrong. You asked for examples, there are no better examples than for the people themselves to tell you their stories.

That's what eye-witness testimony is, someone telling you their story/experience. Mostly today the only folks still clinging to Dariwn are Evolutionary Biologists and HS Biology teachers that's pretty much it. and you expect everyone to believe all scientists believe Darwin, that's absurd. Read some books by Microbiologists, they left Darwin LONG ago, about the time we discovered DNA.






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



posted on Apr, 19 2012 @ 02:36 PM
link   
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 





This particular one is about the personal testimony of professors and scientists who have been removed from their careers and black-listed NOT for presenting Creationism, but FOR challenging Darwin.


They hurt their careers because they didn't back up their attacks with objective evidence





Only a small fraction of Intelligent Design proponents are Biblical Creationists. Most are non-Christians and just see Darwin as wrong, they just don't have idea who or what the intelligent designer is, they just know Darwin was wrong.


You meant to say "believe Darwin was wrong" because for it to be true knowledge they would have to back up their claims with objective evidence...they didn't.




You asked for examples, there are no better examples than for the people themselves to tell you their stories.


You still haven't listed a single name as an example





That's what eye-witness testimony is, someone telling you their story/experience. Mostly today the only folks still clinging to Dariwn are Evolutionary Biologists and HS Biology teachers that's pretty much it. and you expect everyone to believe all scientists believe Darwin, that's absurd. Read some books by Microbiologists, they left Darwin LONG ago, about the time we discovered DNA.


99.9% of scientists believe in the theory according to latest polls, and public opinion in the Western world is also agreeing with it. Hell, we ACTIVELY APPLY IT IN MODERN MEDICINE (which you conveniently still continue to ignore, lol). The only place where the public (aka not scientists who know better) support isn't the majority is in fundamentalist Muslim countries...oh, and the US



posted on Apr, 19 2012 @ 03:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by MrXYZ
 


The only objective answer is: We don't know (yet).

Every other answer is guessing...it's basically filling a gap in knowledge with magic. Just like ancient people have done with plagues and floods they attributed to god instead of admitting they simply didn't understand what caused them.

I'd think we in the 21st century don't have to think like cavemen and people from the Middle Ages.
Thank you for explaining to people why Adam and Eve isn't settled scientifically, yet. This is exactly what I've been saying all along. Yet, people keep pretending Adam and Eve weren't real, as if it's a scientific fact.



posted on Apr, 19 2012 @ 03:23 PM
link   
The athesit always concerned about our orgin fail to see the complete understanding of a simple notion, where are we going. This is what concerns the theist rather than the atheist.

But what atheist claim as proof, which is evidance enough for me is simply that evolution has occured in the past, this notion does not dismiss God nor the idea of Paradise, or adam and eve, which is an element of magic, that the theist believes viable and factual as faith.

Science has failed to answer where do we go when we die, this is why science is not considered too fruitful. No salvation in science. The question for the theist, where do I go when I die, the question of the atheist where did i come from. The two commonalities of both is "where am I" and where am I now? But its like two arguing travelers going left and the other right
edit on 19-4-2012 by Jordan River because: (no reason given)

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

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

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



posted on Apr, 19 2012 @ 03:44 PM
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.


The fact that it is the exact opposite shakes my confidence in the validity of every one on your posts - ever.



posted on Apr, 19 2012 @ 04:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jordan River
The athesit always concerned about our orgin fail to see the complete understanding of a simple notion, where are we going. This is what concerns the theist rather than the atheist.

But what atheist claim as proof, which is evidance enough for me is simply that evolution has occured in the past, this notion does not dismiss God nor the idea of Paradise, or adam and eve, which is an element of magic, that the theist believes viable and factual as faith.

Science has failed to answer where do we go when we die, this is why science is not considered too fruitful. No salvation in science. The question for the theist, where do I go when I die, the question of the atheist where did i come from. The two commonalities of both is "where am I" and where am I now? But its like two arguing travelers going left and the other right
edit on 19-4-2012 by Jordan River because: (no reason given)

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

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

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


The difference is, scientists can not only draw conclusions on the past, but also predict the future. Modern medicine is a great example of that. And they base it on objective evidence.

I disagree that religions are mostly concerned with the "where do we go" as they make a ton of claims regarding where came from for that to be true. Also, the claims they make about "where we go" aren't based on fact or objective evidence....so they're not comparable to science. It's faith...



posted on Apr, 19 2012 @ 04:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by addygrace

Originally posted by MrXYZ
 


The only objective answer is: We don't know (yet).

Every other answer is guessing...it's basically filling a gap in knowledge with magic. Just like ancient people have done with plagues and floods they attributed to god instead of admitting they simply didn't understand what caused them.

I'd think we in the 21st century don't have to think like cavemen and people from the Middle Ages.
Thank you for explaining to people why Adam and Eve isn't settled scientifically, yet. This is exactly what I've been saying all along. Yet, people keep pretending Adam and Eve weren't real, as if it's a scientific fact.


Well..it IS a fact as the human population never dropped to only 2 species, and because it's genetically impossible for clones to create successful offspring without genetic defects. Since Eve was apparently made out of Adam, they are clones...or at least brother and sister. Not a great start if procreation is the goal


So it IS settled scientifically...not sure what your point is



posted on Apr, 19 2012 @ 04:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by MrXYZ


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

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

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



How did y ou change a compromise, (that i was trying to give) into an arguement?

The fact is, science does not know what happens when you die, I keep saying that over and over and over. I like to see objective evidence science gives to death. As far as where we came from, thats all evolution and such
edit on 19-4-2012 by Jordan River because: (no reason given)

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



posted on Apr, 19 2012 @ 04:23 PM
link   
reply to post by Jordan River
 



Oh, I agree with you...there's tons of stuff science doesn't answer (yet). But science is at least humble enough to admit to "we don't know".

Religion on the other hand has always been prone to filling gaps in knowledge with magic (aka god). Tell me, how is someone saying "god created everything" different from someone who lived 2000 years ago claiming a comet is a sign of god...or plagues the result of god being angry. Those people back then simply didn't have the capabilities and scientific knowledge to understand what caused plagues and comets. So they filled this gap in knowledge with magic...which is pretty much the same thing people do when they say "god created everything".

The comet guys didn't have any objective evidence to back up their "god did it" claim, and neither do creationists. Is it a possibility? Sure? Well...at least the "god created first life" part...after that we know evolution took over. But until someone provides OBJECTIVE evidence to prove that god "did it", I won't believe in it. The "god did it" track record is pretty abysmal. I play a lot of poker, and betting on 72o is stupid...even on the off chance that 72o actually might win. Unless I know three 7s or something like that will come until the river (which I can't know), I won't bet on a losing hand that has horrible odds.
edit on 19-4-2012 by MrXYZ because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 19 2012 @ 05:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jordan River

The fact is, science does not know what happens when you die, I keep saying that over and over and over.


You don't need to keep saying it because nobody knows what happens when we die. If anyone claims they do then they should be medicated and locked up for their own and everyone elses safety.



posted on Apr, 19 2012 @ 05:47 PM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 



They hurt their careers because they didn't back up their attacks with objective evidence.


Didn't watch it did ya?



posted on Apr, 19 2012 @ 05:48 PM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 



99.9% of scientists believe in the theory according to latest polls.


Source this please, I think you're lying.



posted on Apr, 19 2012 @ 05:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by Garfee

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.


The fact that it is the exact opposite shakes my confidence in the validity of every one on your posts - ever.


Not sure what I'll do with that piece of information, you're in a LONG line of folks who scoff at me, better pack several lunches and a sleeping bag, I can't even see the end of the line.



posted on Apr, 19 2012 @ 05:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by NOTurTypical

Originally posted by Garfee

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.


The fact that it is the exact opposite shakes my confidence in the validity of every one on your posts - ever.


Not sure what I'll do with that piece of information, you're in a LONG line of folks who scoff at me, better pack several lunches and a sleeping bag, I can't even see the end of the line.



Why do you think those that do scoff at you, do so?

Could it be that you have displayed a complete lack of common sense?

Edit: It seems such behavior is acceptable in adults, only in the religious and in climate change science.







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



posted on Apr, 19 2012 @ 06:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by MrXYZ
reply to post by Jordan River
 



Oh, I agree with you...there's tons of stuff science doesn't answer (yet). But science is at least humble enough to admit to "we don't know".

Religion on the other hand has always been prone to filling gaps in knowledge with magic (aka god). Tell me, how is someone saying "god created everything" different from someone who lived 2000 years ago claiming a comet is a sign of god...or plagues the result of god being angry. Those people back then simply didn't have the capabilities and scientific knowledge to understand what caused plagues and comets. So they filled this gap in knowledge with magic...which is pretty much the same thing people do when they say "god created everything".

The comet guys didn't have any objective evidence to back up their "god did it" claim, and neither do creationists. Is it a possibility? Sure? Well...at least the "god created first life" part...after that we know evolution took over. But until someone provides OBJECTIVE evidence to prove that god "did it", I won't believe in it. The "god did it" track record is pretty abysmal. I play a lot of poker, and betting on 72o is stupid...even on the off chance that 72o actually might win. Unless I know three 7s or something like that will come until the river (which I can't know), I won't bet on a losing hand that has horrible odds.
edit on 19-4-2012 by MrXYZ because: (no reason given)


Because in the same context as evolution equals nature. Nature equals God. The same reason as flesh birth flesh, and consciousness births consciousness At the same breath we can either agree or disagree that their are paralleled universes and extra dimensions. Possibly millions of diferent universes. Science thought that our galaxy was the universe, that expanded some odd years ago. Now we try to question what is beyond the beyond
edit on 19-4-2012 by Jordan River because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics


active topics

 
21
<< 30  31  32    34  35  36 >>

log in

join