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.

 

A question to those who believe in the ark and flood story

page: 2
0
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 28 2009 @ 12:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gawdzilla
reply to post by ChemBreather
 


Many areas in the world where salt water doesn't mix with fresh water? Excuse the heck out of me, but where would that be? You're not channeling Hovind by any chance?


From here. But I think it makes some sense.
AnsweringGenesis




posted on Apr, 28 2009 @ 12:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by ChemBreatherFrom here. But I think it makes some sense.
AnsweringGenesis


You need to turn your BS detector WHY UP when reading that site. It's propaganda, not science. (Okay, it's outright lies.)



posted on Apr, 28 2009 @ 12:58 PM
link   
reply to post by Gawdzilla
 


Why is it propeganda ? you dont know how much is correct here or there for that matter. I truly belive this hole bible thing is not so 'devine' as it is witten to indicate..

I think of it in a plausable scientific manner..
I dont belive all I read neither here nor there...

But the millions of years theory I dont buy,they are both theories where the one theory is backed up by governments maybe to keep people on ice.. people would freak out if they knew The 7th day of the Creation is yet to come. 7000 years = 7 days ..



posted on Apr, 28 2009 @ 01:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by ChemBreather
reply to post by Gawdzilla
 


Why is it propeganda ? you dont know how much is correct here or there for that matter. I truly belive this hole bible thing is not so 'devine' as it is witten to indicate..

I think of it in a plausable scientific manner..
I dont belive all I read neither here nor there...

But the millions of years theory I dont buy,they are both theories where the one theory is backed up by governments maybe to keep people on ice.. people would freak out if they knew The 7th day of the Creation is yet to come. 7000 years = 7 days ..


The propaganda in answersingenesis have been debunked routinely. They're garbage is simply laughable. Even if it wasn't religious based it would still the be the laughing stock of the world.



posted on Apr, 28 2009 @ 01:07 PM
link   
reply to post by Gawdzilla
 


evolution theory has been debunked too, so whats up ?
Worlds oldest tree is 9.700 years , thats wierd since there have been life here for billions of years, wouldnt you say , sir !?



posted on Apr, 28 2009 @ 01:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by ChemBreather
reply to post by Gawdzilla
 


evolution theory has been debunked too, so whats up ?
Worlds oldest tree is 9.700 years , thats wierd since there have been life here for billions of years, wouldnt you say , sir !?


Evolution has not been debunked. Religious nutters would have you believe it was debunked, but it is the very foundation of the biological sciences.

So, tell me, do you expect a tree to live billions of years? You might also look up the date life moved out of the sea and onto land, it wasn't "billions of years" ago.



posted on Apr, 28 2009 @ 01:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by rhinoceros

Originally posted by DarkElvis

Originally posted by rhinoceros
reply to post by pieman
 


Okay I see. It was Moses that built the ark and Noah who sailed it. Now let's get back to the question. What do you think of Octotom's answer? I don't see it as a very plausible one as there are like a billion trillion million fish in the sea. Surely some of them should have managed to not end up on dry land?

[edit on 28-4-2009 by rhinoceros]


You have a bit of a mix up. Noah built the ark (the "big boat") to survive the flood and Noah "sailed it". Moses built the Ark of the Covenant (the artifact Indiana Jones searches on Raiders of The Lost Ark), which is NOT related to the flood. It's a different artifact and different story.


Are you sure? I think Jesus had to be there. After all he didn't drown, right? He died on that mountain in Israel or Vatican or something. Is it the same mountain that the other ark was built at? Either way this has really nothing to do with my question: what happened to the fish?

[edit on 28-4-2009 by rhinoceros]


Unless you're baiting, my recommendation to you is: Read the Bible and get the facts straight.

What happened to the fish? They swam and swam and multiplied and did all the things fish do.



posted on Apr, 28 2009 @ 01:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by DarkElvisWhat happened to the fish? They swam and swam and multiplied and did all the things fish do.


The salt water fish? The rain water was salty? Then what happened to the fresh water fish?

Also, how did the herbivores multiply fast enough to keep the carnivores alive? And what did Noah and his family live on until the crops came in and the livestock had reproduced enough to allow for slaughtering some of them for food?

The Flood never happened. The events are ludicrous when you look at them with an open mind.



posted on Apr, 28 2009 @ 04:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by pieman
it might be a good idea to get a basic understanding of a belief system before you try to tear it to pieces. just a thought.


Oh the irony. You know what I was doing here? I was demonstrating how well Joe Creationist knows the theory of evolution. I can tell you. It's even worse than my biblical story. Just look what ChemBreather wrote.



posted on Apr, 29 2009 @ 02:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by Gawdzilla

Originally posted by ChemBreather
reply to post by Gawdzilla
 


evolution theory has been debunked too, so whats up ?
Worlds oldest tree is 9.700 years , thats wierd since there have been life here for billions of years, wouldnt you say , sir !?


Evolution has not been debunked. Religious nutters would have you believe it was debunked, but it is the very foundation of the biological sciences.

So, tell me, do you expect a tree to live billions of years? You might also look up the date life moved out of the sea and onto land, it wasn't "billions of years" ago.


Evo is just a theory dude, just like any other, but there are profe in the other theory, and No I'dont expect trees to be billions of years,I just sayd why that is the oldest found. What nut believe we are result of billions of years of EvoCrap ? come on now...Adam was the First, so the ones doing the stuff before that, wasnt us, and Dinos lived not so long ago, there are footprints of Dinos and Humans together, so some one's lying.
And I think that would be the school system teaching kids the wrong and long theory of Evo, wich is wrong ofcours.
You know Carbon-Dating dosnt even work, so they discard theyr findings, how nuts is that. You see, every peice of evidence that contradicts the Evo theory, is hushed and not accepted into current history.

And I think it is because of the fact that if humans new that 'life on EArth' is a cycle of only a few 1000 years, We would PANIC !!!



posted on Apr, 29 2009 @ 06:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by rhinoceros
Oh the irony. You know what I was doing here? I was demonstrating how well Joe Creationist knows the theory of evolution. I can tell you. It's even worse than my biblical story. Just look what ChemBreather wrote.


eh, that's not irony!!
so you were just looking for an argument, nice. good on you for admitting it.

there are lot's and lots of evolutionists that don't really understand the theory of evolution, they just think it's the smart thing to believe. there's lots of creationists that never read the bible, they just know it's the religious thing to believe. critising the opposition for not knowing when your allies aren't all that clear is a bit hypocritical.

what doesn't really compute to me is why either side cares so much what anyone else believes. if it makes them happy to believe what they believe then let them at it, it won't do you any harm. by all means tell someone your opinion but to go around yammering your point of view like a two year old with a dirty backside just makes you look like a jerk.

so stop being a jerk.



posted on Apr, 29 2009 @ 06:52 AM
link   
reply to post by pieman
 


"what doesn't really compute to me is why either side cares so much what anyone else believes."

Again, if creationists were trying to shove their BuyBull down America's throat sideways you'd never hear from me on the subject of religion. It just doesn't factor into my life. I don't care what anyone else believes, I can about anyone else trying to tell me what I must believe.



posted on Apr, 29 2009 @ 07:01 AM
link   
reply to post by Gawdzilla
 


starting a thread like this pretty much amounts to attempting to shove your views sideways down somebodies throat. the OP attempted to draw creationists to his thread so he could argue with them.

this isn't a thread about creationists doing anything, it's a thread trying to troll a certain group, it's bad behavior and "they did it first" doesn't excuse bad behavior.



posted on Apr, 29 2009 @ 07:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by pieman
reply to post by Gawdzilla
 


starting a thread like this pretty much amounts to attempting to shove your views sideways down somebodies throat. the OP attempted to draw creationists to his thread so he could argue with them.

this isn't a thread about creationists doing anything, it's a thread trying to troll a certain group, it's bad behavior and "they did it first" doesn't excuse bad behavior.


I wasn't aware that participation was mandatory. I will be U2Uing the management immediately on that.

A debate on the subject, however, is healthy. Nobody has responded to my post about how the animals were fed during the "cruise" and afterwards when there were only 2 (no, 7!) of every kind of creature while the plants and prey animals reproduced to sufficient levels. Why is that? Because it's patently absurd. "Well, it's a miracle", to quote George Carlin.



posted on Apr, 29 2009 @ 07:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by pieman
so you were just looking for an argument, nice. good on you for admitting it.


I wasn't looking for an argument. This thread was my attempt to demonstrate what lack of knowledge leads to. Had I been looking for an argument I would have done the following:

A question to those who believe in the ark and flood story
Are you retarded?



there are lot's and lots of evolutionists that don't really understand the theory of evolution, they just think it's the smart thing to believe.


That is true. More time should be spent on teaching it at schools. Most people get the general idea "all life on Earth shares a common ancestor" but they have no idea of the processes that are at play.

[edit on 29-4-2009 by rhinoceros]



posted on Apr, 29 2009 @ 07:14 AM
link   
reply to post by ChemBreather
 


"Evo is just a theory dude, just like any other, but there are profe in the other theory, and No I'dont expect trees to be billions of years,I just sayd why that is the oldest found. What nut believe we are result of billions of years of EvoCrap ? come on now...Adam was the First, so the ones doing the stuff before that, wasnt us, and Dinos lived not so long ago, there are footprints of Dinos and Humans together, so some one's lying."

Evolution is a fact. It is the foundation of all biological sciences. But if you buy the nonsense in the BuyBull then you wouldn't be interested in science, would you?

What nut, btw, believes that Bronze Age goat-herders were the chosen of ANY god?



posted on Apr, 29 2009 @ 07:22 AM
link   
making threads with statements you know are incorrect to point out someone elses ignorance is a terrible debating tactic.

it's the difference between saying (a)"i'm going to win this debate because my theory is the best" and saying (b)"i'm going to win because your theory is the worst".

(a) means you believe you've found the best explanation
(b) means you believe you're belief is marginally better than your opponents

if creationism is soooo absurd, do you want to portray your beliefs as marginally better? do you believe evolution to be marginally more believable than creationism? do you believe that your views are only believable if creationism can be shown to be completely false?

no? then shut up and stop being jerks.

EDIT:and gawdzilla, show me one, just one, reputable scientific journal or society that would call evolution a "fact".

[edit on 29/4/09 by pieman]



posted on Apr, 29 2009 @ 07:25 AM
link   
reply to post by pieman
 


This was not about evolution vs. creationism. This was a demonstration of what lack of knowledge leads to.



posted on Apr, 29 2009 @ 07:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by pieman

EDIT:and gawdzilla, show me one, just one, reputable scientific journal or society that would call evolution a "fact".

[edit on 29/4/09 by pieman]


There are no facts in science. However perhaps you can point me to even one scientific article that has reported evidence (like 500 million year old fossilized bulldogs) that go against our modern theory of evolution. Perhaps these so called dinosaur and human prints that are supposed to be of same age? Linkz plz.

[edit on 29-4-2009 by rhinoceros]



posted on Apr, 29 2009 @ 07:28 AM
link   
reply to post by pieman
 


"if creationism is soooo absurd, do you want to portray your beliefs as marginally better? do you believe evolution to be marginally more believable than creationism? do you believe that your views are only believable if creationism can be shown to be completely false?"

Science or woo? Which is more believable? Let me think on that. Evolution is solidly grounded in fact. Religion is solidly grounded in the great sky fairy. When you realize that you'll be on your way to a realistic mind.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join