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.
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.
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.
Originally posted by zenlover28
It still says "MAY have found". Geeez.
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...
A living cell is so awesomely complex that its interdependent components stagger the imagination and defy evolutionary explanations.
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 .
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.
excuse me if i don't fit into your movement!!!
Originally posted by the_sentinal
yes but why can't science prove there is god
... my faith is not weak and i'm not using science to back up my belief..
i just think that this makes alot of sense alot more than evolution does
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.’
if this man is misrepresenting scientific evidence then prove it
here's one that's up to date
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.
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.
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.
Originally posted by Zaphod58
It looks almost like they pick and choose things that fit, and put it forward as their "proof"
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]
Originally posted by V Kaminski
This argument will never end and is without any potential resolution prospects.
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.
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]
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.
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
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.
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
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
now believing that he would'nt have had his pants sued off.... any ideas