It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Getting to the Bottom of Evolution

page: 19
<< 16  17  18   >>

log in


posted on Dec, 27 2012 @ 11:41 PM
reply to post by Confusion42

I don't want to derail the other debate here with others :-)

If you put your stamina towards good things, they shall come

*Why try proving fiction with fiction when their is so many interesting facts w/ evidence?
So in other words if it isn't good, it can't be true?

posted on Dec, 28 2012 @ 12:23 PM
reply to post by iterationzero

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?

By the way itereo, the only thing I'm admitting to be a mistake was trying to use subject matter that I had no references for, not for the choice of the subject matter.
edit on 28-12-2012 by itsthetooth because: (no reason given)

posted on Jan, 11 2013 @ 08:06 AM

Originally posted by iterationzero
reply to post by itsthetooth

I looked at each of them, they all had information about the where abouts of the tablets.

So the tablets were found in Egypt, England, and the Southwestern US. Yes, all of those are absolutely reliable sources. You just don't seem to understand that claiming to have information about the location of the original tablets inscribed with the ten commandments isn't the same as actually having information about the location.

Either that or you still haven't actually read them, except to do a quick search for the word "tablet" and hope that no one else would read them. And one of the sites you keep linking to is a humor site and makes a point of stating that the article is a spoof. You're actually pushing into the territory of having negative credibility -- that someone is more likely to believe the exact opposite of what you claim, just because it's you that claimed it.

Believe me, he passed the mark of negative credibility many many moons ago.


posted on Jan, 13 2013 @ 01:26 PM
reply to post by idmonster

Hey its the evolutionists that are fronting theorys that aren't backed up.
All I have ever seen clearly states that evolution is not a proven theory. That is how you develope negative credibility.

Mine on the other hand is back up by a historical document, and proof of our surroundings, and the theory of target food. Seriously, I developed an awsome theory that not only disproves evolution but also proves we aren't from here, or at least backs up the bible. It's all positive on my end. All you evolutionists are doing is rehasing an old theory that was so poorly developed that the goal posts had to be moved so that it could maintain a position in theory.

I have maintained all of the same evidence from day one that I started with ATS. The only difference is it didn't take me 150 years to perfect my theory, and mine is easily proven by anyone that is willing to research ANY number of diets.

<< 16  17  18   >>

log in