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.

 

Scientific Evidence For Creation!!! Wow!

page: 3
0
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 5 2006 @ 01:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nygdan

Originally posted by the_sentinal
if the flood was a localized event then how did noah's ark get on the top of mount ararat in turkey??

There is no ark on ararat. People say that there is, but no one has ever been able to find it. You linked to an article from 2004 that has some guy who's a 'christian activist' who says he has a sat photo that has something that looks like an ark. There is no photo supplied. The guy in the article didn't go to the supposed ark, nor get any photos of it up close, nor even bring any of it back, or, really, do anything.


here's one that's up to date .

abcnews.go.com...



[edit on 5-4-2006 by the_sentinal]




posted on Apr, 5 2006 @ 01:22 PM
link   
It still says "MAY have found". Geeez.



posted on Apr, 5 2006 @ 01:22 PM
link   
"...[T]he lack of transitional series..."

How about a Dinosaur fossil with feathers???????????''
if that's not a transitional fossil, then nothing will be



posted on Apr, 5 2006 @ 01:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by SpeakerofTruth
Well, it comes back to what one wishes to believe. If one wishes to take a literal stance on Genesis rather than a symbolic one, then,yeah, the theory of evolution presents a problem for cretionism. Otherwise, I don't see a reason for the hoopla.



So are you a spiritualist, Speakeroftruth? Not to be nosey, i'm just trying to figure out what you believe in....which I respect by the way.



posted on Apr, 5 2006 @ 01:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by zenlover28
It still says "MAY have found". Geeez.


Something you need to understand is that the mainstream news media is never going to give a direct answer as far as life's mysteries are concerned. Thet are paid laffy's. It is always going to be there may be ghosts;may be ufos, may be a God, according to the mainstream. There will never be a definitive answer to these questions as far as the mainstream media is concerned.



posted on Apr, 5 2006 @ 01:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by the_sentinal
if this man is misrepresenting scientific evidence then prove it ...just you telling me that he is.... isnt good enough i have an open mind...

Did you bother reading the link to TO that I provided?

I'll stick only to subjects I am familiar with:

A living cell is so awesomely complex that its interdependent components stagger the imagination and defy evolutionary explanations.

Which evolutionary explanations are 'defied.' I can think of lots of evolutionary explanations that make complete sense. This is a generalization, and does nothing to elucidate his position. IOW this is mispresentation of scientific evidence via hasty sweeping generalization.


A minimal cell contains over 60,000 proteins of 100 different configurations.16 The chance of this assemblage occurring by chance is 1 in 10 4,478,296 .

This isn't really a relevant issue. Most origin of life theories reject the idea of 'protein-first' OOL. There are several problems with this scenario, and I don't think scientists generally consider the one you mentioned to be one of them.
Furthermore, this isn't even a Design argument. IDists don't use this argument, and classifying it as a design argument is disingenuous, ie: it misrepresents Design.


excuse me if i don't fit into your movement!!!
Well, it's not my movement per se, and I don't think I said you don't fit in. I said misrepresenting information is bad for the movement.



posted on Apr, 5 2006 @ 01:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by the_sentinal
yes but why can't science prove there is god

Science doesn't prove anything. Science is a system wherein people come up with explanations of things they have observed, and then test those explanations by trying to refute them. You can not refute the existence of the supernatural, therefore science can not prove that there is a god.

... my faith is not weak and i'm not using science to back up my belief..

Faith the requires outside support is weak. Looking for scientific support for a particular faith, or only having faith in something because it is scientifically 'shown' to happen, is a weak faith. Its like looking for a legal decision that supports your faith before beleiving it.


i just think that this makes alot of sense alot more than evolution does

If what you have faith in makes more sense than the scientific theory of evolution as an explanation of natural things, then why do you look for scientific support? You, irrationally, accept a particualr faith based system, so why look for rational support of it?




Stopping his inspection, the visitor turned and said: ‘Evidently you did not understand my question. I asked who made this. Newton, enjoying himself immensely no doubt, replied in a still more serious tone. ‘Nobody. What you see just happened to assume the form it now has.’

This is a bs story and lends no support to your ideas.

Newton's theories of gravity were an "atheistic" theory, at least as atheistic as evolution, that explained why the planets move as they do, without reference to god or angels pushing them around. If newton also beleived in any particular god, what does that matter?


if this man is misrepresenting scientific evidence then prove it

Considering that a number of people have already gone through that page and dealt with the claims there, how about you go back and explain what you feel needs to be backed up more strongly.


here's one that's up to date

What does it matter how up to date it is? This guy still hasn't gone to the site and examined the object. Thats was the issue with the date before.

Tell me, why does this:

Mean that there was a global flood?????

[edit on 5-4-2006 by Nygdan]



posted on Apr, 5 2006 @ 01:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by SpeakerofTruth
Something you need to understand is that the mainstream news media is never going to give a direct answer as far as life's mysteries are concerned.


I sincerely doubt that if there was proof that Noah's Ark was sitting on top of a mountain that it would not be reported by the mainstream media. Sorry, not buying that.



posted on Apr, 5 2006 @ 01:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by zenlover28

Originally posted by SpeakerofTruth
Something you need to understand is that the mainstream news media is never going to give a direct answer as far as life's mysteries are concerned.


I sincerely doubt that if there was proof that Noah's Ark was sitting on top of a mountain that it would not be reported by the mainstream media. Sorry, not buying that.


Well,you can "buy" whatever you wish,even the drivel that the mainstream news media force feeds us day in and day out. However, what I stated is very truthful. The mainstream news media will never have a definitive answer,even if something is proven, about life's mysteries. I can guarantee you that science could establish that there was an ark on the mount and it was X amount of years old and the news media would still just label it a "possibility". I guarantee it.

[edit on 5-4-2006 by SpeakerofTruth]

[edit on 5-4-2006 by SpeakerofTruth]



posted on Apr, 5 2006 @ 01:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by zenlover28

Originally posted by SpeakerofTruth
Well, it comes back to what one wishes to believe. If one wishes to take a literal stance on Genesis rather than a symbolic one, then,yeah, the theory of evolution presents a problem for cretionism. Otherwise, I don't see a reason for the hoopla.



So are you a spiritualist, Speakeroftruth? Not to be nosey, i'm just trying to figure out what you believe in....which I respect by the way.



Zen,in a sense,yes.
By the way,I wasn't trying to be rude or condescending in my last post.I'm just trying to get a point across.

[edit on 5-4-2006 by SpeakerofTruth]



posted on Apr, 5 2006 @ 01:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
It looks almost like they pick and choose things that fit, and put it forward as their "proof"

That is an unfortunate tendency of these fanatics. There are no contradictions as far as they are concerned. The evidence that supports their wacky notions is correct, the other stuff is either a misinterpretation or a lie. Oh, these people are so tedious.



posted on Apr, 5 2006 @ 01:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by SpeakerofTruth

I can guarantee you that science could establish that there was an ark on the mount and it was X amount of years old and the news media would still just label it a "possibility". I guarantee it.

[edit on 5-4-2006 by SpeakerofTruth]

[edit on 5-4-2006 by SpeakerofTruth]


I'm not that stupid to believe that though. First off if it could be proven that it was Noah's Ark and it was X amount of years old then i'm sure the mainstream media would report it. Anyhow, why would finding Noah's Ark solve any of life's mysteried anyway? It still doesn't prove that there is a creator even though all creationists would swear up and down that it does.



posted on Apr, 5 2006 @ 02:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by V Kaminski
This argument will never end and is without any potential resolution prospects.

I'm perfectly willing to go along with an intelligent design theory as soon as somebody comes up with a good definition of what they're calling an "intelligence," along with some good, well-defined, testable hypotheses we can gather some reasonable data on.

Any day. Still waiting. Let's go. Hup hup!



posted on Apr, 5 2006 @ 02:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by zenlover28

Originally posted by SpeakerofTruth

I can guarantee you that science could establish that there was an ark on the mount and it was X amount of years old and the news media would still just label it a "possibility". I guarantee it.

[edit on 5-4-2006 by SpeakerofTruth]

[edit on 5-4-2006 by SpeakerofTruth]


I'm not that stupid to believe that though. First off if it could be proven that it was Noah's Ark and it was X amount of years old then i'm sure the mainstream media would report it. Anyhow, why would finding Noah's Ark solve any of life's mysteried anyway? It still doesn't prove that there is a creator even though all creationists would swear up and down that it does.



Well,much like one poster stated, God can neither be proven nor disproven. Spirits,God,other dimensional existence,et cetera, is pretty much out of the realm of scientific investigation. Although quantum physics has came along way in working toward explaining some of the mysteries.

As far as whether man will ever know anything beyond a shadow of a doubt,I seriously doubt it. Most philosophies,sciences,religions,et cetera, are highly speculative and prove little beyond resonable doubt.

[edit on 5-4-2006 by SpeakerofTruth]



posted on Apr, 5 2006 @ 02:03 PM
link   
ok i'm willing to consider the fact that dr. baugh's credintials may be less than your willing to accept but how can you explain all these speaking engagment's

Texas A & M University
Texas A & M University, Galveston Campus
University of Texas at Arlington
Western Illinois University
Tarleton University
Texas Christian University
Southern Methodist University
Texas Tech University
Baptist University of America
Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge Campus
University of Kentucky
Queens Hall, Trinidad
Appeared on CBS TV Network Special: “The Incredible Discovery of Noah’s Ark”
Appeared on CBS TV Network Special: “Ancient Secrets in the Bible”
Appeared on NBC TV Network Special: “Mysterious Origins of Man”
Appeared on two national Japanese TV Networks on Dinosaurs and Man
Interviews on ABC and CBS Radio Networks on Glen Rose excavations
Granted over 500 news interviews on Glen Rose excavations

if this guy is a fraud then these forums were grossly misled i'm have trouble now believing that he would'nt have had his pants sued off.... any ideas

[edit on 5-4-2006 by the_sentinal]

[edit on 5-4-2006 by the_sentinal]



posted on Apr, 5 2006 @ 02:06 PM
link   
Very true, God cannot be proven or disproven and it is not my wish to disprove that there is a God...even though I don't like that word. I just sincerely doubt that the God portrayed in the Bible is our creator. Anyhow, it's been nice chatting with you. I've got to do some work now.



posted on Apr, 5 2006 @ 02:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by the_sentinal
ok i'm willing to consider the fact that dr. baugh's credintials may be less than your willing to accept but how can you explain all these speaking engagment's


University of Kentucky

[edit on 5-4-2006 by the_sentinal]

[edit on 5-4-2006 by the_sentinal]


Ummm hate to break it to you, but I am a University of Kentucky alum. Dr. Baugh did not speak at any forum directly affiliated with the University of Kentucky, I can promise you that and I am working on getting the proof on that. Just give me a few moments.



posted on Apr, 5 2006 @ 02:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by zenlover28
Very true, God cannot be proven or disproven and it is not my wish to disprove that there is a God...even though I don't like that word. I just sincerely doubt that the God portrayed in the Bible is our creator. Anyhow, it's been nice chatting with you. I've got to do some work now.


Zen,well,that's resonable. By the way,when you have more time we may discuss the difference between the god of the Old Testament and the TRUE God Christ spoke of. Maybe the word God is the wrong terminology,but there are various other words that can be associated...divine intelligence, the ONE, Creator,Creative force, et cetera.By the way,it was good chatting with you as well.


[edit on 5-4-2006 by SpeakerofTruth]



posted on Apr, 5 2006 @ 02:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by the_sentinal
ok i'm willing to consider the fact that dr. baugh's credintials may be less than your willing to accept but how can you explain all these speaking engagment's

I'm sorry. I fail to see the relevance of this. What do you mean how do I explain them. It would appear that 'Dr.' Baugh was invited to speak and or participate in some type of academic exercise. What he was speaking about and to whom he was addressing this speech, is unclear from the information provided. In any case, there is no reason to assume that 'Dr.' Baugh was invited to speak in the science dept, at any of the universities. Hell, I met Walt Brown at Arizona State when he did a presentation there. But this doesn't mean that Arizona State endorses the opinions and interpretations of Walt Brown. Quite simply, campus clubs, organizations are perfectly capable of inviting guest speakers to their campus. I would say given the lack of information provided here, it's more likely that Baugh was speaking some Creation Science Club, then he was actually making a formal academic presentation.

Duane Gish... oh, excuse me 'Dr.' Gish, probably has more speaking engagements then Baugh, and is likely even less legitimate.


if this guy is a fraud then these forums were grossly misled i'm have trouble now believing that he would'nt have had his pants sued off.... any ideas
In what way were they misled? Baugh's opinions are no secret, you found out about them on the internet. There's no reason to assume these 'forums' were misled. What would he have been sued for? You can't sue someone for misrepresenting data... if you could every scientist would be a millionaire, and the evo-biologists would be the worlds richest group of people.


[edit on 5-4-2006 by mattison0922]



posted on Apr, 5 2006 @ 02:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by the_sentinal
ok i'm willing to consider the fact that dr. baugh's credintials may be less than your willing to accept but how can you explain all these speaking engagment's

Why are you only interested in arguements from authority? The guy has 'impressive degrees', a 'long video', and talked at some colleges, therefore, he's right? Why dodge the substance so much?

Anyway, as far as 'speaking dates' at these universities, first off, which of them are real, considering that he's made up degrees from some schools, and who invited him? I mean, I could invite people to speak at a university.


now believing that he would'nt have had his pants sued off.... any ideas

ya can't sue people for presenting incorrect information in a talk that you invited them to.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join