Getting to the Bottom of Evolution

reply to post by flyingfish

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?

I call for it too, at what point did all of this assuming become a reality?

reply to post by iterationzero

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?

I have no reason to believe that anything in the bible is intentionally made up. But apparently you know otherwise, but are failing to provide why you know this. So are you basing your theory on some sort of guess?

There is more evident things that are tide to the bible than not. Just because you managed to find a few things that are questionable doesn't disprove the rest of the bible. All it shows, as in one case, is that science has changed its mind, which happens.

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

I wasn't aware Von Daniken was mentioned in this.

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.

I believe the orders, the threat and the result were all listed in the bible.

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.

Two commonly made observations supported the idea that the Earth was the center of the Universe. The first observation was that the stars, the sun, and planets appear to revolve around the Earth each day, making the Earth the center of that system.

geocentric model wiki
I apologize but everything I'm reading actually includes the 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.

Again that would all depend on if they mentioned other stars and failed to mention other planets or directly used the word geocentric.
Either way, everything I'm reading claims that the geocentric view includes other planets as I copy and pasted.

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.

There are mountains. I don't see you giving a rational explanation of how it is that are DNA is obviously tampered with. This sure does explain 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.

You make it sound like a whimsicle idea, but there are too many things that also point in the same direction, including direct comments left in the bible.

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

No and I didn't work on it any further.

You would be best to push the issue about me not being able to issue any convincing infomation about this matter as it seems to be the only thing your claiming that's even slightly believable.

reply to post by itsthetooth

I have no reason to believe that anything in the bible is intentionally made up. But apparently you know otherwise, but are failing to provide why you know this. So are you basing your theory on some sort of guess?

I guess I didn't simplify it enough for you, my apologies, but I'm not sure how much more I can distill it down. In science, you do not assume something to be true because it hasn't been shown to be wrong. You actually have to provide evidence that supports your claims. Not only have you failed to do so, but you have actively stated that your claims are outside the realm of science, and therefore objectively unsupportable. In effect, your claims are religion.

I wasn't aware Von Daniken was mentioned in this.

He didn't. Again, I apologize for not stating it in simplistic enough terms for you, but if you read Von Daniken's work objectively, he uses the same types of words -- "perhaps", "possibly", "may have" -- to avoid presenting actual evidence to support his claims. In science, one doesn't simply say "perhaps" or "possibly" or "may have" without presenting some kind of evidence for why they are claiming those things.

I believe the orders, the threat and the result were all listed in the bible.

Unless you have some kind of proposed mechanism for how a human being was turned into a pillar of salt within range of a nuclear explosion, you have nothing else to say. You haven't provided one, your source didn't provide one, no one has ever observed such a thing.

I apologize but everything I'm reading actually includes the other planets.

Feel free to present the passages in the Bible that explicitly refer to other planets any time now. I feel you'll have a hard time doing this because you haven't actually read the Bible, but maybe you'll surprise me.

Again that would all depend on if they mentioned other stars and failed to mention other planets or directly used the word geocentric. Either way, everything I'm reading claims that the geocentric view includes other planets as I copy and pasted.

Feel free to present the passages in the Bible that explicitly refer to other planets any time now. I feel you'll have a hard time doing this because you haven't actually read the Bible, but maybe you'll surprise me.

There are mountains. I don't see you giving a rational explanation of how it is that are DNA is obviously tampered with. This sure does explain it.

You have yet to present any objective evidence that "DNA is obviously tampered with". Your only "evidence" that supports this so far is the "blue laminate" that you can't provide any kind of reference to.

No and I didn't work on it any further.

Just to be clear, you have now stated that you have no objective evidence for the concept of a "blue laminate" to provide in this conversation. Can you please explain how, in the absence of any objective evidence, anyone should take your claims regarding a "blue laminate" seriously.

You would be best to push the issue about me not being able to issue any convincing infomation about this matter as it seems to be the only thing your claiming that's even slightly believable.

Again, you have your concept of science precisely backwards. It's not up to me to even provide a competing theory to your hypothesis. It's up to you to provide evidence for your claims. Evidence which you now freely admit doesn't even exist.

Do you even have a point at this stage in the discussion, or are you just preaching your neo-Christian fundamentalism based on a completely unsupported and unsupportable hypothesis of alien interventionism?

Originally posted by itsthetooth
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 clearly states in the title "evidence of speciation". Why would they say that if it wasn't true? Iguanas don't just morph into dogs. They change into another SPECIES, similar to the one it came from. Over millions of years, a species of fly could change into another into another into another into another, and that little bit of change adds up and eventually you have a wasp. Evolution doesn't work the way you think it does.

reply to post by iterationzero

I guess I didn't simplify it enough for you, my apologies, but I'm not sure how much more I can distill it down. In science, you do not assume something to be true because it hasn't been shown to be wrong.

You do when there is documented corroborated testimony.

You actually have to provide evidence that supports your claims. Not only have you failed to do so, but you have actively stated that your claims are outside the realm of science, and therefore objectively unsupportable. In effect, your claims are religion.

First of all not all of them, as an example, most of the citys mentioned in the bible are found. Some things in the bible are not testable to science. Once again I'm questioning whether or not your understanding the difference between scientific elements and things that are supernatural.

He didn't. Again, I apologize for not stating it in simplistic enough terms for you, but if you read Von Daniken's work objectively, he uses the same types of words -- "perhaps", "possibly", "may have" -- to avoid presenting actual evidence to support his claims. In science, one doesn't simply say "perhaps" or "possibly" or "may have" without presenting some kind of evidence for why they are claiming those things.

I see, so what your really saying is that you noticed it to be almost identicle to Von danikens work, and just decided to connect some dots and assume that is where this guy got the idea from. Do you have reason to believe this guy is not capeable of finding the same conclusions on his own? Or are you being led by some type of faith?

Unless you have some kind of proposed mechanism for how a human being was turned into a pillar of salt within range of a nuclear explosion, you have nothing else to say. You haven't provided one, your source didn't provide one, no one has ever observed such a thing.

There are no scientific claims made in the bible as to the source of the event, just that it happened. Honestly the poor people back in that time wouldn't have had a clue. I've seen magicians walk on water and I can't explain how they did it, it doesn't mean it's impossible. You have to remember that if the technology was there to alter our DNA, which it's showing to be the case. Them also having the ability to turn people into a pillar of salt is probably not far fetched. There was obviously an advancement of technology back then that wasn't shared with our people.

Feel free to present the passages in the Bible that explicitly refer to other planets any time now. I feel you'll have a hard time doing this because you haven't actually read the Bible, but maybe you'll surprise me.

Like I have indicated, several times, if they mentioned the word geocentric in the bible, they are still referring to the astronomical line up, like I have pasted in the last post, if they didn't, the only other way they could have brought the subject up was in mention about spirits surrounding the planet, but even then that doesn't dismiss all planets, so I have no idea where your getting this from.

Feel free to present the passages in the Bible that explicitly refer to other planets any time now. I feel you'll have a hard time doing this because you haven't actually read the Bible, but maybe you'll surprise me.

I'm going by your quote, which is impossible to referr to a geocentric view without mentioning other planets, or possibly the word geocentric.

You have yet to present any objective evidence that "DNA is obviously tampered with". Your only "evidence" that supports this so far is the "blue laminate" that you can't provide any kind of reference to.

That would be false, the evidence I have is the human genome, which is public information. But if you need a crash course in the details its best explained in video by Lloyd Pye in his human genetics video. There are over 4000 defects in our genes that are not possible by anything other than intervention. There are six sections that have been removed and inverted and reinserted, there is also a section that is fused. Some of which is only possible in a lab. People are assuming the only logicle excuse at this point is that aliens tampered with our DNA.

reply to post by iterationzero

Just to be clear, you have now stated that you have no objective evidence for the concept of a "blue laminate" to provide in this conversation. Can you please explain how, in the absence of any objective evidence, anyone should take your claims regarding a "blue laminate" seriously.

I don't, and I could care less and wonder what your fascination is with blue laminate. I don't think I have brought it up for over 18 months.

Again, you have your concept of science precisely backwards. It's not up to me to even provide a competing theory to your hypothesis.

Thank you for admitting that you are unable to prove it wrong.

It's up to you to provide evidence for your claims. Evidence which you now freely admit doesn't even exist.

Do you even have a point at this stage in the discussion, or are you just preaching your neo-Christian fundamentalism based on a completely unsupported and unsupportable hypothesis of alien interventionism?

The claims are supported and proven by the lack of any ones ability to prove it wrong. There is historical documentation that says its right, something that evolution lacks. There is current scientific data in our very own human genome that also proves intervention has happend, and again no one has attempted to prove this wrong. There is also my thoery of target food, which also stands proven and observed, and again no one has been able to prove it wrong either.

reply to post by Barcs

It clearly states in the title "evidence of speciation". Why would they say that if it wasn't true? Iguanas don't just morph into dogs. They change into another SPECIES, similar to the one it came from. Over millions of years, a species of fly could change into another into another into another into another, and that little bit of change adds up and eventually you have a wasp. Evolution doesn't work the way you think it does.

But your making that assumption. There is no proof that a species will morph into another species over time, there is no proof, there is only speculation, sadly something that evolution appears to be based on.

Intervention does not stand on such weak points. We have obvious tampering with our own DNA, along with over 4000 defects and changes that can only occur in a lab. What a coincidence, the bible tells us of punishments that will be genetically carried on to our offspring.

You can't say intervention is wrong when everything that its structured on is in hindsight. There is no hindsight in evolution.

reply to post by itsthetooth

You do when there is documented corroborated testimony.

You keep claiming the Bible is "documentation", but you have yet to provide any objective corroborating evidence for the events described in it that support your hypothesis of interventionism.

First of all not all of them, as an example, most of the citys mentioned in the bible are found.

Just because some of the locations exist doesn't mean that the events described in the Bible occurred or that they fit your interventionist interpretation. You need to provide objective evidence that they did and that they mean what you claim they mean.

Some things in the bible are not testable to science.

Which is exactly why your hypothesis of interventionism falls squarely under the category of a religion.

I see, so what your really saying is that you noticed it to be almost identicle to Von danikens work, and just decided to connect some dots and assume that is where this guy got the idea from. Do you have reason to believe this guy is not capeable of finding the same conclusions on his own? Or are you being led by some type of faith?

Again, I apologize for not being simplistic enough for you, maybe someone else can step in and phrase it better than I have. I'm not saying that he stole ideas from Von Daniken or is even aware of Von Daniken's work. Just that his repeated use of weasel words to get out of presenting evidence is remarkably similar to Von Daniken's. It's a common feature of the writing of pseudo-scientists or those looking to exploit the gullible.

There are no scientific claims made in the bible as to the source of the event, just that it happened.

Another uncorroborated claim.

I'm going by your quote, which is impossible to referr to a geocentric view without mentioning other planets, or possibly the word geocentric.

You're assuming that they didn't think the other visible to the naked eye planets were stars and therefore part of the fixed firmament that surrounded our flat planet, according to Biblical cosmology. I'm still waiting for you to present the passages of the Bible that explicitly refer to other planets.

There are over 4000 defects in our genes that are not possible by anything other than intervention. There are six sections that have been removed and inverted and reinserted, there is also a section that is fused. Some of which is only possible in a lab. People are assuming the only logicle excuse at this point is that aliens tampered with our DNA.

You have been presented with evidence in other threads that shows inversions occur in nature and that none of the things that Pye claims are "only possible in a lab" are only possible in a lab.

I don't, and I could care less and wonder what your fascination is with blue laminate. I don't think I have brought it up for over 18 months.

It's sad that you can't even be honest when I've provided links to your own words. The "blue laminate" was your smoking gun for your hypothesis of interventionism for months. Every time someone provided you with evidence that some other part of your hypothesis was wrong, you'd retreat to your claims regarding "blue laminate". Even now, you immediately defend the concept in the self-admitted absence of any evidence for it whenever it's brought up. Please, provide your explicit objective evidence for the "blue laminate".

The claims are supported and proven by the lack of any ones ability to prove it wrong. There is historical documentation that says its right, something that evolution lacks. There is current scientific data in our very own human genome that also proves intervention has happend, and again no one has attempted to prove this wrong. There is also my thoery of target food, which also stands proven and observed, and again no one has been able to prove it wrong either.

You still haven't provided any evidence to support your hypothesis of interventionism. Claims made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. You provide no corroborating evidence that the events in the Bible which you claim support your hypothesis actually occurred or occurred in a way consistent with your interpretation of the book you've never read. All of the "evidence" you've gotten from Pye regarding the "tampering" that occurred has been refuted with objective scientific data. Your "target food" hypothesis is hardly proven or observed. Let me know when someone with an science background publishes some peer-reviewed experimental results involving "target food".

Are you unwilling to provide explicit evidence to support your claims or are you unable to do so? Or do you just like writing Gish Gallops?

reply to post by iterationzero

You keep claiming the Bible is "documentation", but you have yet to provide any objective corroborating evidence for the events described in it that support your hypothesis of interventionism.

I have pointed out the facts many times, its just YOUR belief that they arent credible.

There is the bible telling us in quote that earth is not our home.
The bible has many instances of space crafts, as was noted in the ezekiel chapter that I shared in about 27 different links.
The genesis chapter is clearly an abduction scenerio. The only way that Adam and Eve could have been embarrased is if they had a prior experience in life, which doesn't fit with the story since they were just created.
It's apparent that they had a prior life history, it seems as though they were abducted and their memories suppressed.
Being abducted and having your memory supressed by an alien encounter is just a little to common to not recognize.

Just because some of the locations exist doesn't mean that the events described in the Bible occurred or that they fit your interventionist interpretation. You need to provide objective evidence that they did and that they mean what you claim they mean.

And what proof are YOU basing this on?

Which is exactly why your hypothesis of interventionism falls squarely under the category of a religion.

Oh dear, now it appears you have confused the term of religion with supernatural. Are you sure you understand the term?

su·per·nat·u·ral
/ˌso͞opərˈnaCH(ə)rəl/Adjective
(of a manifestation or event) Attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature.


Noun
Manifestations or events considered to be of supernatural origin.


Synonyms
preternatural - unearthly - weird - miraculous

supernatural
I'm sorry but I was unable to find where religion is tied in with the supernatural in the definition.

Again, I apologize for not being simplistic enough for you, maybe someone else can step in and phrase it better than I have. I'm not saying that he stole ideas from Von Daniken or is even aware of Von Daniken's work. Just that his repeated use of weasel words to get out of presenting evidence is remarkably similar to Von Daniken's. It's a common feature of the writing of pseudo-scientists or those looking to exploit the gullible.

And never mind that your now hearing it from 2 people right?

Another uncorroborated claim.

It was witnessed and documented, thats good enough for that period.

You're assuming that they didn't think the other visible to the naked eye planets were stars and therefore part of the fixed firmament that surrounded our flat planet, according to Biblical cosmology. I'm still waiting for you to present the passages of the Bible that explicitly refer to other planets.

I never claimed that it did. Your the one trying to back out of the fact that the mention of a geocentric lay out doesn't include planets.

You have been presented with evidence in other threads that shows inversions occur in nature and that none of the things that Pye claims are "only possible in a lab" are only possible in a lab.

If that was true, Pyes claims would be professionally challenged, and they are still not.

It's sad that you can't even be honest when I've provided links to your own words. The "blue laminate" was your smoking gun for your hypothesis of interventionism for months. Every time someone provided you with evidence that some other part of your hypothesis was wrong, you'd retreat to your claims regarding "blue laminate". Even now, you immediately defend the concept in the self-admitted absence of any evidence for it whenever it's brought up. Please, provide your explicit objective evidence for the "blue laminate".

Since I'm unable to, are you able to provide your evidence that its incorrect?

You still haven't provided any evidence to support your hypothesis of interventionism. Claims made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

In other words, you don't accept the bible as evidence, nor do you accept the claims made by Pye about alterations in our DNA. You claim they are all natural but you can't explain why we have more than our fair share of defects.

You provide no corroborating evidence that the events in the Bible which you claim support your hypothesis actually occurred or occurred in a way consistent with your interpretation of the book you've never read. All of the "evidenc

reply to post by iterationzero

You provide no corroborating evidence that the events in the Bible which you claim support your hypothesis actually occurred or occurred in a way consistent with your interpretation of the book you've never read. All of the "evidence" you've gotten from Pye regarding the "tampering" that occurred has been refuted with objective scientific data. Your "target food" hypothesis is hardly proven or observed. Let me know when someone with an science background publishes some peer-reviewed experimental results involving "target food".

I have over explained everything to the point that I can only tell you that I'm not going to play the repeat game with you.

If there is some reason you have that proves the bible to not be accepted as evidence, your more than welcome to share that, as I haven't seen anything.

The claimed objective evidence you shared about changes in DNA was not convincing. Just because changes have been observed, is not proof thats how we got an unfair amount of changes in our DNA.

Are you unwilling to provide explicit evidence to support your claims or are you unable to do so? Or do you just like writing Gish Gallops?

Your the only one that hasn't come up with any proof, in addition you have failed in proving any of my claims to be wrong.

Tooth just because you say the bible is true doesnt make it so,just because you observe a natural phenomena like how animals feed and prevert it to fit your beliefs and call it target foods doesnt make it true.

just because you can't understand the science,i.e 20 pages here where you clearly demonstrate not even an elementary grasp of evolution or genetics so you close your eyes,put your hands over your ears ana scream it prooves nothing and keep on and n repeating pye DOESN'T MAKE IT TRUE !!

You theorys and ideas are almost childlike in their simplistic,niave assertions that because you say IT MUST BE TRUE !!!

Evidence tooth ~ presente le corps !!!

reply to post by fastbob72

Tooth just because you say the bible is true doesnt make it so,just because you observe a natural phenomena like how animals feed and prevert it to fit your beliefs and call it target foods doesnt make it true

Just because someone claims the bible is fantasy doesn't prove it to be so either. There are far to many things that have occured in the bible that have been witnessed and documented for it to be false.

Testimony alone is not all, some of the things in the bible have been proven to be. The ten commandments written on tablets. The dead sea, the red sea, most of the towns listed.

just because you can't understand the science,i.e 20 pages here where you clearly demonstrate not even an elementary grasp of evolution or genetics so you close your eyes,put your hands over your ears ana scream it prooves nothing and keep on and n repeating pye DOESN'T MAKE IT TRUE !!

I could say the same. Just because you claim pye's work doesn't make it true, doesn't make that a fact.
The bible is a book about supernatural events, which are not bound to scientific understanding. Because of this reason, there are things about the bible that will never be able to be proven as well us unproven.

You theorys and ideas are almost childlike in their simplistic,niave assertions that because you say IT MUST BE TRUE !!!

Evidence tooth ~ presente le corps !!!

If they are childlike, why would evolutionists have such a problem in understanding them? Is it perhaps because their mind is elsewhere with evolution? None of my claims are from faith, they are all backed up by something. Oddly enough most evolutionists don't want to agree with that either.

Tooth,tooth,tooth,son,m8,how does the bible mentioning the red sea and the dead sea count as proof,because it happens to speak of real places ??
Count Dracula mentioned Transylvania and Frankenstein is partly set against Lake Geneva but I wouldnt claim that to make them true !!!

You're just throwing my points back at me so what do we do then,play metaphorical tennis ???

How can the bible be proved,enlighten me.Who alive today was around during it's writing,who can corroborate ???

Moses you say,who went up the mountain alone and came down with the ten commandments given by god !!!

Oh yeah,who's word do we have on that ??
Mm,just Moses it seems.Who was having a crisis of leadership,his followers not listening to him until.Lo an Behold,the old coot takes a solo trip up the mountain and comes down with the word of god !!!

Miracle ?? Divine ?? Or an inspired bit of leadership,man management skills !!

That'll be Moses the Jew.Name sounds rather reminiscant of Tutmoses,Ramases.Was he really the unwanted baby set afloat on the Nile or j rebellious minor son of the Pharoh ??

Ah the bible,so true,so unambiguous,prooves nothing !!!

Btw,I fully understand your theories,I read Van Daniken and the rest of them back in 1995.I just don't buy into.

The Pyramids of Giza line up with Orion's belt therefore our ancestors came from the sky ??

if you can't see what is a teniuos connenction if not purely coincidental is just too far a leap of logic and reason to go espousing as fact,particularly to go turning over 150 years of scientific evidence.Biology,paleontology,chemistry,geology,genetics all overlap layers and layers of evidence that support evolution.

It's all there for you to find if you look but just because you don't understand it and refuse to believe it doesn't make it any less compelling !!!

reply to post by fastbob72

Tooth,tooth,tooth,son,m8,how does the bible mentioning the red sea and the dead sea count as proof,because it happens to speak of real places ??
Count Dracula mentioned Transylvania and Frankenstein is partly set against Lake Geneva but I wouldnt claim that to make them true !!!

Seriously, you don't know the difference between Count Dracula and the bible? First off the bible was never labled to be a fantasy book, nor is there reason to believe that it is such.

You're just throwing my points back at me so what do we do then,play metaphorical tennis ???

How can the bible be proved,enlighten me.Who alive today was around during it's writing,who can corroborate ???

The supernatural things can't be proven/ disproven but some of the other things can. Overall its going to be just as hard to prove things in the bible, just as much as you being able to prove that speciation proves I share a common ancestor with apes.

Moses you say,who went up the mountain alone and came down with the ten commandments given by god !!!

Yes those are found.

tablets of the 10 commanments

Oh yeah,who's word do we have on that ??
Mm,just Moses it seems.Who was having a crisis of leadership,his followers not listening to him until.Lo an Behold,the old coot takes a solo trip up the mountain and comes down with the word of god !!!

If not, where did the tablets come from?

Miracle ?? Divine ?? Or an inspired bit of leadership,man management skills !!

That'll be Moses the Jew.Name sounds rather reminiscant of Tutmoses,Ramases.Was he really the unwanted baby set afloat on the Nile or j rebellious minor son of the Pharoh ??

Ah the bible,so true,so unambiguous,prooves nothing !!!

As time goes on, they are able to prove more and more of it. I just recently posted an article where they have found the flood of Noah's ark.

Btw,I fully understand your theories,I read Van Daniken and the rest of them back in 1995.I just don't buy into.

And I didn't either until I picked up a bible.

The Pyramids of Giza line up with Orion's belt therefore our ancestors came from the sky ??

I never heard that one, but then I don't follow much on the pryamids.

if you can't see what is a teniuos connenction if not purely coincidental is just too far a leap of logic and reason to go espousing as fact,particularly to go turning over 150 years of scientific evidence.Biology,paleontology,chemistry,geology,genetics all overlap layers and layers of evidence that support evolution.

Of course, there are some things about evolution that is real. Like speciation, but that doesn't prove that I share a common ancestor with apes. The fact that there are changes, are not proof that its all a small part of a larger process known as evolution. Besides, anything that claims to be responsible for making over a billion species is a creator by all definitions.

It's all there for you to find if you look but just because you don't understand it and refuse to believe it doesn't make it any less compelling !!!

Sure if you think that connecting a bunch of dots that don't belong together to form a theory is correct. Intervention is backed up by multiple things, no to mention the bible directly tells us earth is not our home. Evolution is nothing more than a series of assumptions that have never been proven.
No one has ever witnessed a species changing into another species, be that through offspring or any other way.
No one has ever proven that we share a common ancestor with apes, but there is a lot of speculation based on the fact that we have a lot in common with them. The fact is we have a lot in common with everything, that isn't proof we are all related, it's conjecture.

If the bible says earth is not our home, there is no conjecture in understanding this, its plain as day.

I checked out your site,interesting but I couldnt find one other bit of corroborating evidence to back ug the tablets being found.

Now I'm not saying that it's untrue just I can't find any proof to back it up.If they had been found 20 years ago I should imagine everyone would have heard about it.And it would be in the hands of Israel,afterall it's part of their direct cultural heritage.

My mind wil have to remain undecided on this one for now.For one that article mentions no evidence that it's the original,in fact the condition would suggest a modern facsimilie.Even if from Pharonic times it doesnt mean it came from god.All that can be said at best is Moses is said to say it came from god but how much later,maybe 2-300 years later was the story of Moses written down.

The part about the parting of the Red Sea has been shown to be a translation error and it should be Reed Sea which makes that bit a smart tactical move but absolutely nothing miraculous.Even the Vatican accepts that.Besides I am certain I read the Ark of the Covenant with tablets is guarded/housed in a church in Etheopia.

You missed my point about the bible.By saying that it's true because it mentions the Dead Sea and Red Se means nothing thats why I said Dracula and Frankenstein mention real places does that make them true.Of course not their gothic horrors but by cmparing I was saying mention real places in a book isnt proof it's true

You didnt understand Van Danikan until you read the bible.

Have you read any Graham Hancock ??

Am not being a smart arse I think you would get into.I read all those nearly 18 year ago and lapped it up at the time but in the end reason and logic take over.

If you can explain it with reason and logic then there's the answer.When you read into all that ancient civilisation/alien intervention stuff it all sounds so obvious but when you step back and apply real critical thinking to it,it doesn't hang together that well.

I can't believe you've not looked into the Egyptians and the Pyramids their connections with the constellation Orion.

Oh well,back here again.Evolution has the weight of scientific evidence behind it.

en.wikipedia.org...

You keep offering the fact that the bible says this isnt our home.

Where does it say that.Adam and Eve and Eden ??

I checked out your site,interesting but I couldnt find one other bit of corroborating evidence to back ug the tablets being found.

Now I'm not saying that it's untrue just I can't find any proof to back it up.If they had been found 20 years ago I should imagine everyone would have heard about it.And it would be in the hands of Israel,afterall it's part of their direct cultural heritage.

My mind wil have to remain undecided on this one for now.For one that article mentions no evidence that it's the original,in fact the condition would suggest a modern facsimilie.Even if from Pharonic times it doesnt mean it came from god.All that can be said at best is Moses is said to say it came from god but how much later,maybe 2-300 years later was the story of Moses written down.

The part about the parting of the Red Sea has been shown to be a translation error and it should be Reed Sea which makes that bit a smart tactical move but absolutely nothing miraculous.Even the Vatican accepts that.Besides I am certain I read the Ark of the Covenant with tablets is guarded/housed in a church in Etheopia.

You missed my point about the bible.By saying that it's true because it mentions the Dead Sea and Red Se means nothing thats why I said Dracula and Frankenstein mention real places does that make them true.Of course not their gothic horrors but by cmparing I was saying mention real places in a book isnt proof it's true

You didnt understand Van Danikan until you read the bible.

Have you read any Graham Hancock ??

Am not being a smart arse I think you would get into.I read all those nearly 18 year ago and lapped it up at the time but in the end reason and logic take over.

If you can explain it with reason and logic then there's the answer.When you read into all that ancient civilisation/alien intervention stuff it all sounds so obvious but when you step back and apply real critical thinking to it,it doesn't hang together that well.

I can't believe you've not looked into the Egyptians and the Pyramids their connections with the constellation Orion.

Oh well,back here again.Evolution has the weight of scientific evidence behind it.

en.wikipedia.org...

You keep offering the fact that the bible says this isnt our home.

Where does it say that.Adam and Eve and Eden ??

reply to post by fastbob72

I checked out your site,interesting but I couldnt find one other bit of corroborating evidence to back ug the tablets being found.

Try this one...
tablet found

Here is another one...
musium tablets

A new mexico find...
new mexico

An England find...
England

Here is possibly the real one, as it was located in Mount Sinai...
Mount sinai

Now I'm not saying that it's untrue just I can't find any proof to back it up.If they had been found 20 years ago I should imagine everyone would have heard about it.And it would be in the hands of Israel,afterall it's part of their direct cultural heritage.

That depends on where they were found, which as you can see from the links I have provided, they can't all be correct. I think there is more credibility to the one in Mount Sinai being thats where we last knew them to be.

My mind wil have to remain undecided on this one for now.For one that article mentions no evidence that it's the original,in fact the condition would suggest a modern facsimilie.Even if from Pharonic times it doesnt mean it came from god.All that can be said at best is Moses is said to say it came from god but how much later,maybe 2-300 years later was the story of Moses written down.

Depending on what they were made of, might make it hard to assume they are not original.

The part about the parting of the Red Sea has been shown to be a translation error and it should be Reed Sea which makes that bit a smart tactical move but absolutely nothing miraculous.Even the Vatican accepts that.Besides I am certain I read the Ark of the Covenant with tablets is guarded/housed in a church in Etheopia.

Possibly, but we have no story line that tells us how they got their. I can't remember if his brother took of with them, and where he went to. Only that gilgamesh was involved and he was just south of babylon.

You missed my point about the bible.By saying that it's true because it mentions the Dead Sea and Red Se means nothing thats why I said Dracula and Frankenstein mention real places does that make them true.Of course not their gothic horrors but by cmparing I was saying mention real places in a book isnt proof it's true

True but what I was saying is that just because today we happen to have fantasy story lines that include real citys, that is also not proof of it being fake.

You didnt understand Van Danikan until you read the bible.

No I didn't believe Von Daniken untill I picked up a bible. The bible seems to be full of occurances that do more than just suggest alien intervention.

Have you read any Graham Hancock ??

No but the name strikes me as a fantasy writer.

Am not being a smart arse I think you would get into.I read all those nearly 18 year ago and lapped it up at the time but in the end reason and logic take over.

If you can explain it with reason and logic then there's the answer.When you read into all that ancient civilisation/alien intervention stuff it all sounds so obvious but when you step back and apply real critical thinking to it,it doesn't hang together that well.

I'm waiting to find a single thing that proves the theory false.

I can't believe you've not looked into the Egyptians and the Pyramids their connections with the constellation Orion.

I do believe in anchient aliens and civilizations. I'm just not sure that they were the same aliens explained in the bible.

Oh well,back here again.Evolution has the weight of scientific evidence behind it.

en.wikipedia.org...

You keep offering the fact that the bible says this isnt our home.

Where does it say that.Adam and Eve and Eden ??

That would be found in the beginning pages in genesis.

Earth is not our home is quoted from the hebrews section...


Earth is not our home

In this same section you will also read talk about having supernatural abilitys, and how those things belong to God. With a slight translation error, it could be saying that we have had abilitys removed from us as a form of punishment. There is another section that concurrs...

Isaih 6

8 Also I heard

reply to post by fastbob72

Oh well,back here again.Evolution has the weight of scientific evidence behind it.

en.wikipedia.org...

You keep offering the fact that the bible says this isnt our home.

Where does it say that.Adam and Eve and Eden ??

As pointed out by another ATS member, it looks all to clear that god has punished us by removing abilitys and powers.

8 Also I heard the voice of the Lord, saying, Whom shall I asend, and who will go for us? Then said I, Here am I; bsend me.

9 ¶And he said, Go, and tell this people, aHear ye indeed, but bunderstand not; and see ye indeed, but cperceive not.

10 Make the aheart of this people fat, and make their ears heavy, and bshut their eyes; lest they see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their heart, and convert, and be healed.

If you have done any research on the possibility of us having super abilitys, you would be shocked at what you can find.
Recently a well known doctor announced that telepathy is a fact with the human brain. Dr Michael Persinger was doing a test on two subjects, and got a sympathetic response from someone in a remote location, from something that he was doing to the other subject.

We honeslty know squat about the brain. My favorite is the wiki on the 10% brain myth. They are strongly advising people that the 10% brain myth is totally debunked and they are sure of this, but turn around and claim that we actually know very little about the brain.

This agreed with my find about the Pineal Gland, it appears that it has actually been credited for many different roles, and frequently changes from time to time.

The bottom line is that there is no such test we could ever give ourself to determine if our brains are opperating at maximum capacity or production. We only believe we are all working fine from assumption.

We do have reason to believe that our brains are in fact being suppressed. As is in the example of the Savant. A Savant is an autistic person that has the ability to do things that are well out of the range of ordinary, even extreme by comparison to somone that is familiar with the talent. There is usually a disability that goes along with this, but on rare occasion there is no disability, just the gift. This is proof positive that our brains are capeable of much more than they normally do.

reply to post by itsthetooth

I have pointed out the facts many times, its just YOUR belief that they arent credible.

You have made unsubstantiated claims. That is not the same thing as presenting facts:

There is the bible telling us in quote that earth is not our home.

I have provided you with another far more understandable interpretation based on the translations of people who actually speak, read, and understand Hebrew.

The bible has many instances of space crafts, as was noted in the ezekiel chapter that I shared in about 27 different links.

The Bible has many instances of what you interpret to be spacecraft. There is nothing corroborated, substantiated, or unequivocal in any of your claims.

The genesis chapter is clearly an abduction scenerio. The only way that Adam and Eve could have been embarrased is if they had a prior experience in life, which doesn't fit with the story since they were just created. It's apparent that they had a prior life history, it seems as though they were abducted and their memories suppressed.

Your interpretation and your interpretation alone. Again, nothing corroborated or unequivocal.

And what proof are YOU basing this on?

I'm asking you for some kind of explicit objective evidence to corroborate the version of events you are claiming. You are the one making the claims, you need to provide evidence.

Oh dear, now it appears you have confused the term of religion with supernatural. Are you sure you understand the term?

Religion: "a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs."

You have created a neo-Fundamentalist Christian religion for yourself.

And never mind that your now hearing it from 2 people right?

I'm not sure how much more I can distill this down to make it understandable to you. Neither Von Daniken or Lewis present any objective evidence for their claims and pointedly avoid having to by using words like "perhaps", "may have", and other weasel words.

It was witnessed and documented, thats good enough for that period.

We don't live in "that period". If we can find the supposed locations of the events which you claim support your interventionism hypothesis, why can't we find any objective corroborating evidence to support your version of those events?

I never claimed that it did. Your the one trying to back out of the fact that the mention of a geocentric lay out doesn't include planets.

The Bible claims that the flat Earth is the center of the universe and surrounded by a fixed firmament -- no mention of other planets. As other planets were discovered hundreds of years later, the model proposed in the Bible was amended to include those planets. The Bible makes no mention of planets because the people who wrote it didn't know that some of the lights in the sky at night were planets.

Flat Earth, geocentric universe, no other planets… yeah, the Bible is totally something you should take at face value for providing factual information.

If that was true, Pyes claims would be professionally challenged, and they are still not.

People, including scientists, have been debunking Pye since he started making his claims.

Since I'm unable to, are you able to provide your evidence that its incorrect?

You continue to miss the point that I don't have to -- what is claimed without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. As soon as you can bring some objective evidence to the discussion about the "blue laminate" that "in the shape of the holy cross", I'll be more than happy to take a look at it.

In other words, you don't accept the bible as evidence,

Correct, because you have presented no corroborating evidence to support your interpretation of the Bible.

nor do you accept the claims made by Pye about alterations in our DNA. You claim they are all natural but you can't explain why we have more than our fair share of defects.

What is Pye's criteria for claiming that we have "more than our fair share of defects"?

I have over explained everything to the point that I can only tell you that I'm not going to play the repeat game with you.

I'm not asking you to repeat yourself, I'm asking you to provide objective evidence to support your claims. You either can not or will not present that evidence.

If there is some reason you have that proves the bible to not be accepted as evidence, your more than welcome to share that, as I haven't seen anything.

For someone who claims to have studied science and even discovered an "arcane virus", you are woefully ignorant of how science works.

I am not making the claim, you are. You have to provide evidence to support that claim. You still have not done so.

The claimed objective evidence you shared about changes in DNA was not convincing. Just because changes have been observed, is not proof thats how we got an unfair amount of changes in our DNA.

It's only not convincing to you.

Your the only one that hasn't come up with any proof, in addition you have failed in proving any of my claims to be wrong.

I'm not the one making claims, therefore I don't have to provide evidence. You are making the claims, therefor you have to provide the evidence. You have provided no evidence. What is claimed without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

reply to post by iterationzero

You have made unsubstantiated claims. That is not the same thing as presenting facts:

Unsubstantiated in your opinion.

I have provided you with another far more understandable interpretation based on the translations of people who actually speak, read, and understand Hebrew.

There are to many other things that agree with this understanding for it to be wrong. Besides, your idea of it referring to ownership of the planet makes no sense. Your at least agreeing and admitting that this is not our planet in doing so, so I'm glad I have made progress. The problem is that there is nothing in the bible that referrs to owning the planet, or purchasing the planet, or any agreements about it being made.

The Bible has many instances of what you interpret to be spacecraft. There is nothing corroborated, substantiated, or unequivocal in any of your claims.

The bible is littered with clues about alien life, space travel and our preparedness of surviving on this planet, including the ten commandments.

The Bible has many instances of what you interpret to be spacecraft. There is nothing corroborated, substantiated, or unequivocal in any of your claims.

Now you admitt there are many instances of spacecrafts. Are you confused? I'm not hearing any other interpretation, in fact even people that don't believe in aliens have all indicated to me that it's obviously a space craft. So what is your interpretation of what it's describing.

Your interpretation and your interpretation alone. Again, nothing corroborated or unequivocal.

I don't understand. Do you disagree that Adam and Eve having an obvious prior life experience is incorrect? If so, what is your explanation.

I'm asking you for some kind of explicit objective evidence to corroborate the version of events you are claiming. You are the one making the claims, you need to provide evidence.

The evidence is obvious, and non of it came from Von daniken or Sitchen so you can't blame them either.

Religion: "a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs."

You have created a neo-Fundamentalist Christian religion for yourself

How is that suppose to work when I don't believe in religion, christianity, or faith?

I'm not sure how much more I can distill this down to make it understandable to you. Neither Von Daniken or Lewis present any objective evidence for their claims and pointedly avoid having to by using words like "perhaps", "may have", and other weasel words.

Just like I'm always finding in evolution work. Well you have to consider the fact that a lot of supernatural events aren't going to be objective evidence and this is certainly why these are used. Are you sure your understanding the term supernatural? We seem to keep having to revisit this.

We don't live in "that period". If we can find the supposed locations of the events which you claim support your interventionism hypothesis, why can't we find any objective corroborating evidence to support your version of those events?

Because of the very same reason that we are unable to prove that aliens and space travel exist, they don't leave anything behind to allow this.

The Bible claims that the flat Earth is the center of the universe and surrounded by a fixed firmament -- no mention of other planets. As other planets were discovered hundreds of years later, the model proposed in the Bible was amended to include those planets. The Bible makes no mention of planets because the people who wrote it didn't know that some of the lights in the sky at night were planets.

Flat Earth, geocentric universe, no other planets… yeah, the Bible is totally something you should take at face value for providing factual information.

Your also making the false assumption that those planets have always been there. It is possible that they were placed there later. Either way you have no proof.

People, including scientists, have been debunking Pye since he started making his claims.

I have never seen much less heard of any such people, where are they?