Getting to the Bottom of Evolution

reply to post by Barcs

No, Tooth. The fact that a flood happened in the past (and thousands of them have at one point or another) does not prove that Noah's ark existed or that Noah's story actually happened. Once again you are attempting to backpedal and change the intent of what you posted. You posted a blatant lie. There is no evidence whatsoever that suggests Noah's ark is real. Not one single piece. Learn some reading comprehension skills and stop being so blatantly dishonest all of the time. I'm surprised you haven't been banned from here yet, consider all the false nonsense you have posted.

Oh silly me, I guess they just named noahs ark in the article for no specific reason at all.

reply to post by Barcs

No, Tooth. The fact that a flood happened in the past (and thousands of them have at one point or another) does not prove that Noah's ark existed or that Noah's story actually happened. Once again you are attempting to backpedal and change the intent of what you posted. You posted a blatant lie. There is no evidence whatsoever that suggests Noah's ark is real. Not one single piece. Learn some reading comprehension skills and stop being so blatantly dishonest all of the time. I'm surprised you haven't been banned from here yet, consider all the false nonsense you have posted.

I never said that it did, all I'm saying is that they are obviously titeling it as such because they have reason to believe it is tied to noahs ark in some way.

Now you can argue they are just assuming, just like evolution assumes that all changes are evolution without any proof.

reply to post by Barcs


Oh and I'm supposed to believe this from someone that actually believes that cows milk was made for human consumption. LOL, right dude.

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by Connector

 

and the article you linked to was talking about a flood....not Noah's Ark. Ergo, you screwed up again, posting links to backup your claim that don't. AKA not reading, not properly comprehending what you did read or simply being dishonest

And you would be wrong again, as I already reposted the title to show that it is in fact speaking about noahs arks flood. Either way, which flood are we talking about here? They are specifically identifying it to noahs ark, but the flood is the main subject.

lulz.....you don't even realize I now have you debating your own posts, links and claims without even posting my own opinion, ideas or research......you are basically arguing with yourself, trying to keep up with your BS, lies and lack of independently corroborated ( not collaborated, like you've mis-used several times before) evidence.

You are done like....





Why oh why ATS?????? This is worse then a bad acid trip....

Originally posted by itsthetooth
Oh silly me, I guess they just named noahs ark in the article for no specific reason at all.

They referenced it to give the flood a timeline, not to say it exists. It also contradicts the bible because Noah's flood was allegedly a world wide flood, not a local flood. They are just saying that a flood happened around the time it was believed to be written about in the story. It's funny how you'll take a loose title reference as literal truth but instantly dismiss any evolution evidence as assumptions and refuse to even address when it mentions facts and actual data. It's a double standard, bro.

reply to post by Connector


I don't know what to tell you, quit taking acid, LOL.

reply to post by Barcs

They referenced it to give the flood a timeline, not to say it exists. It also contradicts the bible because Noah's flood was allegedly a world wide flood, not a local flood. They are just saying that a flood happened around the time it was believed to be written about in the story. It's funny how you'll take a loose title reference as literal truth but instantly dismiss any evolution evidence as assumptions and refuse to even address when it mentions facts and actual data. It's a double standard, bro.

What are you talking about? There is no evidence of evolution, and I have provided this over and over, there is only conjecture and speculation.
Noah's ark only has a time line because of the time when it occured, not when it was written, it was written much later, so your wrong. And you can ask itero about that one, he knows.
Anyhow its only phrased in the title because it obviously existed.

So why is it you believe in specualtion with biology books but you don't believe in books of historical documentation?

No one has ever witnessed anything evolving, there is no proof, only speculation.

reply to post by itsthetooth

There is a difference between the bible being scientifically accurate and historically accurate.

Even if some parts of it are historically accurate, that doesn't mean the entire book is. Claims need to be examined on a case by case basis i.e. just because Mt. Zion is a "real place still today” doesn't mean that Sodom and Gomorrah were. Even if you can show that Sodom and Gomorrah were, then you still need to provide actual objective evidence, outside of the "documentation" of the Bible, that it was "bombed" by aliens. Then again, you're still insisting that if one is close enough to ground zero of a nuclear explosion, they would be turned into a "pillar of salt" without providing any kind of evidence for it.

I think it can, you have brought many things to light that will remain in question but haven't proven anything to be wrong.

No, I've actually given you several instances where the Bible is demonstrably wrong.

Even if the bible makes claims that represent a geocentric view, you are making an assumption that we know better at this time. None of which is a fact or proven.

Are you claiming that we have no evidence that we live in a heliocentric solar system and not a geocentric universe?

Besides, you never answered my question, did the bible tell you it believes in a geocentric line up, or did it explain that all planets rotate around earth. Because if it did, then I was right, it was explaining an astronimical understanding.

I answered your question several times. The Bible explicitly states that we live in a geocentric universe. As far as I'm aware, the Bible never mentions other planets at all -- that was your claim, not mine. So whether the Bible defines a geocentric universe or "that all planets rotate around earth", it's wrong. The "astronimical understanding" it was explaining is demonstrably incorrect.

I would believe more that you either didn't research very well, or gave up easily with half hearted attempts. I found this site that basically tells you where each city is, and with pin point accuracy. If they had wanted to, it looks like they could have also of given Longituide and Latituide as well. I was only able to find a couple that it looks like they were unsure of, but then I didn't look at each and every one of them.

Lots of claims of cities "being identified with" or "possible being near to" at the site you linked. Zero evidence provided for those things. Again, you fail to bring objective evidence for your claims that “all of the citys mentioned in the bible are real places still today”.

You assumed that meant BC/ AD period and its just a general statement.

You specifically stated in this post:

Well first off I'm living in 2012. And my calendar is based off those events. Which means that the people back in that time, started to keep a calendar track based on this event.

If by "back in that time" you did not mean people in the time of the supposed birth of Jesus Christ, what did you mean? It doesn't sound very much like a general statement designed to cover a period of several centuries. You said "that time" in the context of the supposed birth of Jesus Christ. That would indicate right around the supposed birth of Jesus Christ to most people who speak English.

You can argue that basis all you want, but the fact of the matter is, we use the AD time line as a reference to keep track, and the majority of the planet still to this day abides by the ten commandments.

Yes, we use that system to keep track of time right now. It doesn't mean the event that it's based on is factual, popular does not mean right; it was a popular notion in the time that the Bible was written that the Earth was flat, but it's not. It's not the first calendar in common usage, it won't be the last.

If you want to get technical, which I know you don't, the Code of Hammurabi preceded the Biblical "Ten Commandments" aka the Decalogue. The majority of the planet adheres more closely to Hammurabi than the Decalogue. Especially when you start getting into commandments like the 2nd:

You shall not make for yourself a graven image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is on the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth; you shall not bow down to them or serve them; for I the LORD your God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me, but showing steadfast love to thousands of those who love me and keep my commandments.

Guess you haven't been to many churches. The majority of Abrahamic faiths allow religious iconography that is in direct contradiction to this law.

Not in its entirety, no.

This single statement speaks volumes about your mindset when it comes to evaluating evidence. You haven't even read the entirety of your key source of "documentation".

reply to post by itsthetooth

I never admitted that the blue laminate was falsly collaborated, you must be suffering from selective amnesia. Your welcome to call the Mission in Spokane WA and ask them if they ever held chappel about blue laminate. I was there.

I feel the need to address your "blue laminate" claims in a separate post because ATS has been waiting for upwards of 18 months for you to provide some kind of explicit objective evidence for the "blue laminate" you keep claiming is evidence for your interventionist hypothesis. You have never provided any objective evidence to support your "blue laminate" delusion. Ever. When pressed, you retreated to saying that you couldn't find the information on the internet any longer. The closest you've ever come was showing a computer animation where the backbone of the DNA was given a blue color to differentiate it from the hydrogen bonding sites of the base pairs, which were given a red color.

I could probably start an entire thread on how misguided and delusional your "blue laminate" concept is, but instead I'll provide some highlights from the last year and a half of you providing zero evidence for your claim.

First you said that Lloyd Pye made explicit claims about the "blue laminate":

Watch Lloyd Pye's video on DNA. He says it best.

I pointed out that Pye never even comes close to talking about a "blue laminate" in any of his videos or books. You replied that:

He did not specify using the word laminate, I learned the definition from another source. There is information avialable on google about any of this.

You then provided a link to a Wikipedia entry describing the backbone of DNA, which also made no mention of "blue laminate". When pressed further you said:

Was directed to google research it, and I did too, but for some reason I'm not finding what I found weeks ago.

And in another post you claimed:

I know for a fact I googled it weeks ago and there was a plethora of things about it, including the microscope image of it. I am however no longer on my computer or my internet service so perhaps thats why.

And in another post you claimed:

Yep like I said, it was googled weeks ago, and I went over it in great length but now I can't find it.

When pressed about why the information couldn't be found, you suggested that:

Well like I said I'm on new internet now, and it might be filterd or controled.

And then, finally, after pressing you on the subject every time you made a claim about "blue laminate", you finally confessed:

I allready told you it was a mistake. You must live a flawless life and never make mistakes.

So now you're claiming that it wasn't a mistake, so you must have some explicit objective evidence of the "blue laminate" that you can provide?

Originally posted by itsthetooth
What are you talking about? There is no evidence of evolution, and I have provided this over and over, there is only conjecture and speculation.
Noah's ark only has a time line because of the time when it occured, not when it was written, it was written much later, so your wrong. And you can ask itero about that one, he knows.
Anyhow its only phrased in the title because it obviously existed.

So why is it you believe in specualtion with biology books but you don't believe in books of historical documentation?

No one has ever witnessed anything evolving, there is no proof, only speculation.

My point still stands. Unless you can prove Noah's Ark actually existed, you are proving yourself incapable of reading articles. I'm not sure if that's intentional or not, but it seems like it is. Evidence of evolution has been posted and you have ignored it. That's not my fault.

reply to post by Barcs

My point still stands. Unless you can prove Noah's Ark actually existed, you are proving yourself incapable of reading articles. I'm not sure if that's intentional or not, but it seems like it is. Evidence of evolution has been posted and you have ignored it. That's not my fault.

Evolution has never been proven, no one has ever witnessed a species evolving into another species.

Now sure there is lots of assumptions that things happen this way, and in fact every site that I have been directed to says they are GUESSING. I have even pointed this out a plethora of times but you decide to ignore the facts.

Do you have some proof that Noah's ark didn't exist?

reply to post by iterationzero

Even if some parts of it are historically accurate, that doesn't mean the entire book is.

Thats just a lame way of saying you don't have to believe in any of it, even though parts of it have honestly been proven.

Claims need to be examined on a case by case basis i.e. just because Mt. Zion is a "real place still today” doesn't mean that Sodom and Gomorrah were. Even if you can show that Sodom and Gomorrah were, then you still need to provide actual objective evidence, outside of the "documentation" of the Bible, that it was "bombed" by aliens. Then again, you're still insisting that if one is close enough to ground zero of a nuclear explosion, they would be turned into a "pillar of salt" without providing any kind of evidence for it.

I think it was just there terminology for what happened.

No, I've actually given you several instances where the Bible is demonstrably wrong.

Just becasue OUR scientists believe a geocentric aspect to be wrong doesn't mean it is, furthermore, like I allready said it could have just been a way to describe things from OUR view. You have to keep in mind that when your bound to this earth with little to no chance of space travel, a geocentric point of view is all that needs to be understood.

Are you claiming that we have no evidence that we live in a heliocentric solar system and not a geocentric universe?

You totally missed the point. God did not want us to understand these things, so all we know is what we have learned. Your going by the assumption that god taught us the idea that geocentric is correct. He in fact would have not taught us anything in that nature as he wanted us to be stuck here, dont you know anything about the tower of babble?

I answered your question several times. The Bible explicitly states that we live in a geocentric universe. As far as I'm aware, the Bible never mentions other planets at all -- that was your claim, not mine. So whether the Bible defines a geocentric universe or "that all planets rotate around earth", it's wrong. The "astronimical understanding" it was explaining is demonstrably incorrect.

If the bible claims that all planets are totating around the earth, they in fact did not use the word geocentric, so again I was right. From our perspective, it would appear as though all planets rotate around the earth. With modern science and our understanding today that is probabaly wrong, but due to the fact that we were self taught I can see why it is what it is. I doubt very seriously if this find is the golden goose that proves the entire bible to be false.

Lots of claims of cities "being identified with" or "possible being near to" at the site you linked. Zero evidence provided for those things. Again, you fail to bring objective evidence for your claims that “all of the citys mentioned in the bible are real places still today”.

If most are found, aren't you able to extrapolate and identify with the fact that they probably were real citys at one time.

If by "back in that time" you did not mean people in the time of the supposed birth of Jesus Christ, what did you mean? It doesn't sound very much like a general statement designed to cover a period of several centuries. You said "that time" in the context of the supposed birth of Jesus Christ. That would indicate right around the supposed birth of Jesus Christ to most people who speak English.

Of course I'm speaking of that event.

Yes, we use that system to keep track of time right now. It doesn't mean the event that it's based on is factual, popular does not mean right; it was a popular notion in the time that the Bible was written that the Earth was flat, but it's not. It's not the first calendar in common usage, it won't be the last.

If you want to get technical, which I know you don't, the Code of Hammurabi preceded the Biblical "Ten Commandments" aka the Decalogue. The majority of the planet adheres more closely to Hammurabi than the Decalogue. Especially when you start getting into commandments like the 2nd:

So what your saying is that you have reason to believe that its all based on a fantasy. Do you have something that gives you reason to believe this?

Guess you haven't been to many churches. The majority of Abrahamic faiths allow religious iconography that is in direct contradiction to this law.

It's not an issue of agreeing with me, it was a guote from out of a bible.

This single statement speaks volumes about your mindset when it comes to evaluating evidence. You haven't even read the entirety of your key source of "documentation".

I have read enough, and anytime I do choose to read more, it supports intervention.

reply to post by iterationzero

I feel the need to address your "blue laminate" claims in a separate post because ATS has been waiting for upwards of 18 months for you to provide some kind of explicit objective evidence for the "blue laminate" you keep claiming is evidence for your interventionist hypothesis. You have never provided any objective evidence to support your "blue laminate" delusion. Ever. When pressed, you retreated to saying that you couldn't find the information on the internet any longer. The closest you've ever come was showing a computer animation where the backbone of the DNA was given a blue color to differentiate it from the hydrogen bonding sites of the base pairs, which were given a red color.

I could probably start an entire thread on how misguided and delusional your "blue laminate" concept is, but instead I'll provide some highlights from the last year and a half of you providing zero evidence for your claim.

First you said that Lloyd Pye made explicit claims about the "blue laminate":

I just gave up on it because you claimed that it was a mistake on my part about using the color coding of the illustration, when it was only drawn up that way for illustration purposes.

The blue laminate is not false.

To answer the plethora of copy and pastes you gave, the only thing that I did fail to share with you about blue laminate is that when viewed closely under microscope it actually has the appearance of the holy cross.

reply to post by itsthetooth

Thats just a lame way of saying you don't have to believe in any of it, even though parts of it have honestly been proven.

Which parts that support your interventionism hypothesis have "been proven"?

I think it was just there terminology for what happened.

Do you have any evidence to support your claim that someone close to ground zero of a nuclear explosion would turn into a "pillar of salt"?

Just becasue OUR scientists believe a geocentric aspect to be wrong doesn't mean it is,

Geocentricity is demonstrably wrong. Feel free to argue against a heliocentric solar system, but all of the evidence points says that heliocentricity is the correct model.

furthermore, like I allready said it could have just been a way to describe things from OUR view. You have to keep in mind that when your bound to this earth with little to no chance of space travel, a geocentric point of view is all that needs to be understood.

None of that changes the fact that your inerrant piece of "documentation" is incorrect on a pretty fundamental feature of our plant. Yet you insist that the rest of it should be taken at face value and assumed to be correct.

dont you know anything about the tower of babble?

More than you, given that I've actually read the Bible.

If the bible claims that all planets are totating around the earth, they in fact did not use the word geocentric, so again I was right.

The Bible makes no mention of other planets. That is your claim and yours alone. Do you have some kind of evidence that the Bible mentions other planets? Or is that in another one of the parts that you've never read?

From our perspective, it would appear as though all planets rotate around the earth. With modern science and our understanding today that is probabaly wrong, but due to the fact that we were self taught I can see why it is what it is. I doubt very seriously if this find is the golden goose that proves the entire bible to be false.

I think you're finally on the right track. The Bible is a chronicle of what people believed several thousand years ago, an attempt to explain their existence and what little they knew of the world around them, not a historical chronicle of actual events. On one level, it's a cultural epic similar to the Babylonian Epic of Gilgamesh or the Iliad of Homer. On another level, it's a series of allegorical stories. Either way, nothing in it is meant to be taken literally.

If most are found, aren't you able to extrapolate and identify with the fact that they probably were real citys at one time.

Do you have corroborating evidence that the events which you claim support your hypothesis of interventionism actually took place in the locations claimed?

Of course I'm speaking of that event.

Then why did it take over five hundred years for someone to even conceive of a calendar based on that event and another three hundred after that to come into common usage in Christian regions and another several hundred after that to become the common calendar on our planet? If this event actually happened and was as monumental as you claim, why didn't the new calendar begin almost immediately? Or at least soon after the supposed death of Jesus Christ?

So what your saying is that you have reason to believe that its all based on a fantasy. Do you have something that gives you reason to believe this?

No, I'm saying there's no evidence to support it and, therefore, no reason to believe it is anything but a grand work of fiction. You are, as always, approaching the question from the exact opposite direction you should be -- you should be looking for the explicit, objective, corroborating evidence that lends credence to the Bible's accuracy, not assuming that it's true until provided with evidence otherwise.

It's not an issue of agreeing with me, it was a guote from out of a bible.

You claimed that a majority of the world follows the Decalogue. I have given you an example of one Commandment that even a majority of Christians don't follow. Your claim was incorrect.

I have read enough, and anytime I do choose to read more, it supports intervention.

Confirmation bias at its finest.

The blue laminate is not false.

Then present your evidence to support it. ATS has been waiting for you to do so for over eighteen months now.

To answer the plethora of copy and pastes you gave, the only thing that I did fail to share with you about blue laminate is that when viewed closely under microscope it actually has the appearance of the holy cross.

No, you mentioned that as well and then went on to say:

Anyhow, the microscope view of the actuall laminate believe it or not, is somewhat in the shape of a cross. Now I'm not making any claims here, it's BS as far as I'm concearned and just an attempt of making something out of a coincidence.

Originally posted by itsthetooth
Evolution has never been proven, no one has ever witnessed a species evolving into another species.

Are you SURE that's the statement you're rolling with here?

evolution.berkeley.edu...

Read the first line. It clearly says "Evidence of speciation" as its title. If it says it in the title, that's usually good enough evidence for you to believe, so why the double standard? Please explain it. The fruit fly experiment clearly forms a NEW SPECIES of fly, hence:

witnessed a species evolving into another species.

Do you have some proof that Noah's ark didn't exist?

It's never been found and there is no evidence whatsoever to suggest a worldwide flood ever happened. I don't have to prove it doesn't exist. If you claim it does, you need to prove it.

reply to post by iterationzero

Which parts that support your interventionism hypothesis have "been proven"?

You were talking about the bible not that ALL parts are about internention.

Do you have any evidence to support your claim that someone close to ground zero of a nuclear explosion would turn into a "pillar of salt"?

A nuclear bomb might have been to specific as we have no proof that it was precisly that, however, others believe that it was at least an atomic blast. Lewis believes so.

Pillar of salt

Geocentricity is demonstrably wrong. Feel free to argue against a heliocentric solar system, but all of the evidence points says that heliocentricity is the correct model.

And I'm not disagreeing with you, what I'm saying is we have been wrong before, and we don't always know everything, and its just possible that it was written for the perspective of being on earth.

None of that changes the fact that your inerrant piece of "documentation" is incorrect on a pretty fundamental feature of our plant. Yet you insist that the rest of it should be taken at face value and assumed to be correct.

Your basing a few flawed points on credibility and your wrong for doing so. Even Einstein didn't know everything.

More than you, given that I've actually read the Bible.

Then it goes without saying.

The Bible makes no mention of other planets. That is your claim and yours alone. Do you have some kind of evidence that the Bible mentions other planets? Or is that in another one of the parts that you've never read?

In order for the bible to have described a geocentirc view like you have allready explained, they would have had to of included other planets. Can you please explain to me how you keep claiming that the bible mentions geocentric beliefs with no mention of other planets? Everything I read says thats exactly what its about.

I think you're finally on the right track. The Bible is a chronicle of what people believed several thousand years ago, an attempt to explain their existence and what little they knew of the world around them, not a historical chronicle of actual events. On one level, it's a cultural epic similar to the Babylonian Epic of Gilgamesh or the Iliad of Homer. On another level, it's a series of allegorical stories. Either way, nothing in it is meant to be taken literally.

If that were true there wouldn't be so many things in the bible that were real and that could be proven. It's just your way of trying to dismiss the book for not wanting to believe it. There is nothing within it that purposly leads anyone to believe that its contents are false or made up, that is just a role your deciding to take with no merit.

Do you have corroborating evidence that the events which you claim support your hypothesis of interventionism actually took place in the locations claimed?

Of course, we are here, its obvious from the mountains of pages I have participated in that we share nothing in common with this planet. Our DNA has obviously been tampered with, with no one else to point the finger at. We don't even have our proper food to eat here, which is also proven from the lack of target food.

We have our selves and our enviroment as proof that we don't belong here.

Then why did it take over five hundred years for someone to even conceive of a calendar based on that event and another three hundred after that to come into common usage in Christian regions and another several hundred after that to become the common calendar on our planet? If this event actually happened and was as monumental as you claim, why didn't the new calendar begin almost immediately? Or at least soon after the supposed death of Jesus Christ?

Well there could be many reasons why, practicing and learning the ten commandments could be one of them. Honestly I think the real question here is if keeping track didn't actually come until hundreds of years after the event, then how were they able to included that event? There is only one logical answer, because they were keeping track back in that time.

No, I'm saying there's no evidence to support it and, therefore, no reason to believe it is anything but a grand work of fiction. You are, as always, approaching the question from the exact opposite direction you should be -- you should be looking for the explicit, objective, corroborating evidence that lends credence to the Bible's accuracy, not assuming that it's true until provided with evidence otherwise.

And like I keep explaining not everything that deals with the supernatural is going to be able to be proven by standard scie

reply to post by iterationzero

No, I'm saying there's no evidence to support it and, therefore, no reason to believe it is anything but a grand work of fiction. You are, as always, approaching the question from the exact opposite direction you should be -- you should be looking for the explicit, objective, corroborating evidence that lends credence to the Bible's accuracy, not assuming that it's true until provided with evidence otherwise.

By standard scientific methods. Again are you sure you understand the difference between something that is scientific and something that is supernatural? Because we keep having to revisit this and I'm seeing that your not getting it.

You claimed that a majority of the world follows the Decalogue. I have given you an example of one Commandment that even a majority of Christians don't follow. Your claim was incorrect.

The fact still remains, that the majority of the commandments are still followed even today.

Confirmation bias at its finest.

Which is funny because the first time I even heard of intervention, I didn't believe it was possible untill I opened up the bible.

Then present your evidence to support it. ATS has been waiting for you to do so for over eighteen months now.

There was a website, back around the same time that I was in that meeting. That was complete with picutures of even what the laminate looked like under a microscope. It's in the lay out of the cross.

Anyhow, the microscope view of the actuall laminate believe it or not, is somewhat in the shape of a cross. Now I'm not making any claims here, it's BS as far as I'm concearned and just an attempt of making something out of a coincidence.

In other words I don't believe it to be symbolic.

reply to post by Barcs

Are you SURE that's the statement you're rolling with here?

evolution.berkeley.edu...

Read the first line. It clearly says "Evidence of speciation" as its title. If it says it in the title, that's usually good enough evidence for you to believe, so why the double standard? Please explain it. The fruit fly experiment clearly forms a NEW SPECIES of fly, hence:

Why do we have to keep rehasing this Barc??????? How many times do I have to tell you? You started with Iguana's, you ended up with iguana's. You started with owles, you ended up with owles. The only thing that proves that I share a common ancestor with apes, is your imagination.

It's never been found and there is no evidence whatsoever to suggest a worldwide flood ever happened. I don't have to prove it doesn't exist. If you claim it does, you need to prove it

Then I guess you totally missed the link I posted about the non existant Noah's ark.

started with Iguana's, you ended up with iguana's. You started with owles, you ended up with owles. The only thing that proves that I share a common ancestor with apes, is your imagination.

Blatant Creationist propaganda... You have been well informed about evolution to know better.
All your doing now is proving your a dis-info agent trying to dumb down people in these forums.

I call on the ban hammer! what more do you mods need?
DENY IGNORANCE!

reply to post by itsthetooth

You were talking about the bible not that ALL parts are about intervention.

Incorrect. Once again, you seem to have difficulty following simple concepts in English. To simplify it even further for you, let's say we have a source that makes three claims -- claims A, B, and C. For the purpose of our exercise, claim C is the one that, if evidence were provided for it, would support your hypothesis of interventionism. Claims A and B are, respectively, a scientific claim which can be tested and a claim of a specific historical event, including date, location, etc.

Your stance is that because the location of claim B exists, even though there is no independent corroborating source of evidence showing that the event claimed in B ever occurred, we should automatically assume that claims A and C are true. When shown that claim A is demonstrably incorrect, you still retreat to the opposite of science -- that claim C should be considered true simply because it has not been proven false.

My stance is that if claim A is demonstrably incorrect and the event described in claim B can't be corroborated by another source, then why should I believe that claim C is correct with no evidence?

A nuclear bomb might have been to specific as we have no proof that it was precisly that, however, others believe that it was at least an atomic blast. Lewis believes so.

Read the link. It's speculation sans evidence of the same kind that Von Daniken has been peddling for years. From your own source:

Perhaps her body was even atomically changed.

No evidence that this phenomena has been witnessed, or a mechanism for how it occurred, just that claim that perhaps it could happened by some unknown mechanism.

In order for the bible to have described a geocentirc view like you have allready explained, they would have had to of included other planets. Can you please explain to me how you keep claiming that the bible mentions geocentric beliefs with no mention of other planets? Everything I read says thats exactly what its about.

Since you don't seem to know what geocentric means, here's a brief explanation -- a geocentric universe means that the Earth is at the center of the universe. Today, we know there are other planets. The people who wrote the books of the Bible either did not, or simply didn't see fit to mention them. Which, given their fascination with cataloguing things and their repeated mentions of the starry firmament which surrounded our planet, seems a little far-fetched.

Of course, we are here, its obvious from the mountains of pages I have participated in that we share nothing in common with this planet. Our DNA has obviously been tampered with, with no one else to point the finger at. We don't even have our proper food to eat here, which is also proven from the lack of target food. We have our selves and our enviroment as proof that we don't belong here.

So, in short, your answer is no -- you have no corroborating evidence to show that the parts of the Bible which you claim as evidence for your interventionist hypothesis are correct.

And like I keep explaining not everything that deals with the supernatural is going to be able to be proven by standard scientific methods. Again are you sure you understand the difference between something that is scientific and something that is supernatural? Because we keep having to revisit this and I'm seeing that your not getting it.

I get it. I'm just pushing the issue to make it clear how you're defining your interventionist hypothesis -- in the same way a religion is defined. You have created your own offshoot of fundamentalist Christianity, nothing else.

There was a website, back around the same time that I was in that meeting. That was complete with picutures of even what the laminate looked like under a microscope. It's in the lay out of the cross.

So you have no evidence to support your notion of a "blue laminate" or that DNA is "in the lay out of the cross"?