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.

 

Science against evolution

page: 44
12
<< 41  42  43    45  46  47 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 10 2013 @ 05:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by colin42
 


We don't need any more proof, Target Food proves our food isn't here and that we aren't from here and we have a history book telling us this as well. What more do you need. Just remember before you pick up that biology book which doesn't prove anything, that the history book known as the bible was written long before it.



And as this:




An interesting treatment for headache was that recommended by the 10th century astronomer and physician Ali ibn Isa (ca. 940–1010 CE), who recommended binding a dead mole to the head.

Source

Was written long before this:



Plop, plop, fizz, fizz, oh what a relief it is. 'Plink, plink, fizz, fizz.

Source

In your mind the Mole binding must be an effective headache cure.




posted on Feb, 10 2013 @ 05:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by colin42
reply to post by idmonster
 
Well it is Sunday. The tooth group have met, had a stirring bible meeting and he is all fired up cant wait to see which one of us he picks as surely he wont run again ...... will he?



Reminds me of a song, but the words dont seem quite right!




posted on Feb, 10 2013 @ 05:29 PM
link   
reply to post by idmonster
 
They did another, here are the lyrics

Nice people, with nice manners,
But got no money at all.
They've got such nice habits;
They keep cabbits,
But got no money at all.

Their father keeps their mother,
Their mother keeps their brother,
And when they're running short of cash
They borrow from each other
'Cause they're nice people,
With nice manners,
But got no money at all.

Here's the link: Nice people with nice manners





edit on 10-2-2013 by colin42 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 10 2013 @ 05:48 PM
link   
reply to post by DrunkYogi
 

You'll have to excuse colin42 (and the rest of us) -- trying to have a constructive thread with itsthetooth around is enough to get on anyone's last nerve.



posted on Feb, 10 2013 @ 05:50 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 


The bible is a good documented book that contains important history.

Which events in the Bible are independently corroborated in such a way that would make it a "good documented book"?



posted on Feb, 10 2013 @ 05:53 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 


There is no proof that a great flood was never here. Most of the things from exodus could have happened, leaving little to no evidence left for today.

You approach science from the most backwards direction possible. You are the one claiming that that the Biblical flood and the events of Exodus actually happened. It is up to you to provide evidence that they did.



posted on Feb, 10 2013 @ 07:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by iterationzero
reply to post by itsthetooth
 


The bible is a good documented book that contains important history.

Which events in the Bible are independently corroborated in such a way that would make it a "good documented book"?
What do you think is more plausible? That the bible is a book of texts that were made up by ancient people, or that these ancient people wrote down what they believed to be true?



posted on Feb, 10 2013 @ 07:55 PM
link   
reply to post by vasaga
 


Seeing how there are verifiable parts of the bible, its obviously not fantasy.



posted on Feb, 10 2013 @ 07:57 PM
link   
reply to post by iterationzero
 


A great flood was obviously here, you can see it almost anywhere you go. The grand canyon is an excellent example. Where did the water come from and where did it go doesn't mean it didn't happen.



posted on Feb, 10 2013 @ 07:58 PM
link   
reply to post by iterationzero
 


The fact that intervention is so obvious in genesis, and how we got here. We have no instinctive ties to this planet, its seriously a no brainer.



posted on Feb, 10 2013 @ 08:01 PM
link   
reply to post by idmonster
 


Enterng a debate form is not that all in one master decision of determining if something is correct or not. I know for a fact that certain people on this thread, I'm not saying any names, have their hands in a few of the mods pockets so I'm not going to fall for the silly game of power.



posted on Feb, 10 2013 @ 08:01 PM
link   
reply to post by colin42
 


An observed event is not a fantasy.



posted on Feb, 10 2013 @ 10:53 PM
link   
reply to post by vasaga
 



What do you think is more plausible? That the bible is a book of texts that were made up by ancient people, or that these ancient people wrote down what they believed to be true?

We do know that the bible does not match reality.

We know that the world is much older than the bible suggests.
We know that the myths of genesis do not reflect the order that life appeared on Earth
We also know that the events of the bible are not reflected in the archaeological record



posted on Feb, 10 2013 @ 11:13 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 



Seeing how there are verifiable parts of the bible, its obviously not fantasy.

Straw man argument.



posted on Feb, 10 2013 @ 11:14 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 



A great flood was obviously here, you can see it almost anywhere you go. The grand canyon is an excellent example. Where did the water come from and where did it go doesn't mean it didn't happen.

Evidence of local floods and normal erosion as in the case of the Grand Canyon do not in any suggest a global flood. Just because a global flood is a total failure and has no supporting evidence tells us it did not happen.



posted on Feb, 10 2013 @ 11:16 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 



The fact that intervention is so obvious in genesis, and how we got here. We have no instinctive ties to this planet, its seriously a no brainer.

When asked before for the source of this ludicrous claim you failed. That claim is even lamer than the claim of cabbits.



posted on Feb, 11 2013 @ 02:41 AM
link   
reply to post by vasaga
 



What do you think is more plausible? That the bible is a book of texts that were made up by ancient people, or that these ancient people wrote down what they believed to be true?
Well neither.

It was a book based on stories of that time that were meant to teach an uneducated audience that if they did not pay the church and do as it told them to do they would not go to heaven.

These stories are told in a way that a mother or father can repeat them to their children without being able to read and that the child will also not go to heaven if it does not obey.

It was written in a language few could read to keep its secrets to the clergy, exactly how the Egyptian priest kept their secrets and common to all religions. Even today this bible is made up of cherry picked parts translated to suit the times and the church keeps its secrets. Example Vatigan

Notice I didn’t say they go to hell as it seems hell was made up a lot later. Another made up story but accepted as real by the faithful

But worse than that. Have you seen tooths version of the bible. That the one true god it is based on is nothing more than an imposter and that god did not create Adam and Eve

So not only can the bible not be classed as a 'clear historical document' but tooth's version of it is more like an entry test to an asylum. He passed



posted on Feb, 11 2013 @ 02:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by vasaga
 


Seeing how there are verifiable parts of the bible, its obviously not fantasy.
Your version of it is nothing more than fantasy and a childish fantasy at that.

Put it to the test. You base target food on what you claim it says. You should walk a one to one debate. When? Time? We know the place.



posted on Feb, 11 2013 @ 04:28 AM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by idmonster
 


Enterng a debate form is not that all in one master decision of determining if something is correct or not.
Ah I see the coward still lives. If you truly believed that you had evidence and that your target food fantasy was real you would jump at the chance to prove everyone wrong.

If you believed in your rubbish and truly believe everyone else is dishonest then you should jump at the chance to have your story judged on logic and presentation.

But you show you do not believe the crap you’re shovelling. That all you have is lies, fantasy and denial. A dishonest coward unwilling to make a stand.


I know for a fact that certain people on this thread, I'm not saying any names, have their hands in a few of the mods pockets so I'm not going to fall for the silly game of power.
Again you show the reaction of a true coward. You not only discredit those that post here with no evidence to back your accusations yet again. You also discredit members of this site that are chosen precisely because they have shown they are fair and able to judge the debate on the presentation and logic only

Your accusation is disgusting. Stop blaming others and just admit you know you have nothing but a weak childish fantasy and that is the real reason you refuse to take this to the debate forum.

Just for once be honest



posted on Feb, 11 2013 @ 05:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by colin42
 


An observed event is not a fantasy.
It is if the observer is a fantasist and you are the only one claiming to have observed this fantasy. A proven fantasist.

The debate forum awaits you and target food any time you choose. Till then keep your silly disproved fantasy to yourself.



new topics

top topics



 
12
<< 41  42  43    45  46  47 >>

log in

join