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: 3
0
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 29 2009 @ 07:31 AM
link   
reply to post by pieman
 


Every reputable scientific journal? You know a journal is a collection of articles written by different authors? So speaking of them collectively is nonsense. However, 97%+ of the members of the American Academy of Scientist, to name just one, believe evolution is a fact. HOW evolution works is a theory at this time, but it's repeatable, predictable and testable.




posted on Apr, 29 2009 @ 07:35 AM
link   
reply to post by rhinoceros
 


You may also note that Noah having landed after the waters subsided received an olive leaf from a dove. Yes indeed the entire earth had been under water for over a year and the dove manages to find an olive leaf !!!!!!!?????

Noah then proceeds to sacrifice the "Clean animals" obviously making them extinct as there were only 2 (possibly 7 depending on which verese of this fairy tail you read) of each kind.

So this begs the question what did Noah choose to sacrifice and why bother saving it to begin with ?

After this God "said in his heart" that he'd never do it again because "man's heart is evil from his youth." [God killed all living things (6:5) because humans are evil, and then promised not to do it again (8:21) because humans are evil.

But there again god didn't actually kill "all" the living things as Noah was killing them as well.

So god had told noah to save some animals in order for noah to kill them in order to show his gratitude to god ?

The mind of God is a frightening thing, but the mind of anyone who believes this drivel is far more scary



posted on Apr, 29 2009 @ 07:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by Gawdzilla
97%+ of the members of the American Academy of Scientist, to name just one, believe evolution is a fact. HOW evolution works is a theory at this time, but it's repeatable, predictable and testable.


you mean the american academy of sciences i assume.

yeah, have you got a source for either of those ludicrous statements?



posted on Apr, 29 2009 @ 07:37 AM
link   
reply to post by pieman
 


For your level? Check out "Religulous". Or you can do some research on your own. Why believe me?



posted on Apr, 29 2009 @ 07:43 AM
link   
reply to post by Gawdzilla
 


point me to a documentary made by a comedian or tell me to reasearch it myself? is that what passes for sources in your mind?

yeah, you're beliefs are not based on blind faith, eh?



posted on Apr, 29 2009 @ 07:44 AM
link   
reply to post by Gawdzilla
 





HOW evolution works is a theory at this time, but it's repeatable, predictable and testable.


Something the god of the bible is clearly not -

"Thou shalt not test the lord"

"the lord moves in mysterious ways "


Amazing ! the alleged creator of science is unscientific and cannot prove its' own reality.



posted on Apr, 29 2009 @ 07:45 AM
link   
reply to post by pieman
 


I have a stack of books about 3 feet high on the other side of the room, but that's too far to walk to provide you with information you'll just diss anyway, so why bother?



posted on Apr, 29 2009 @ 07:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by moocowmanSomething the god of the bible is clearly not -

"Thou shalt not test the lord"

"the lord moves in mysterious ways "


Amazing ! the alleged creator of science is unscientific and cannot prove its' own reality.


Very true. Are you seeing the light now? Or just trying to defend "Well, it's a miracle" in lieu of reality?

Alleged creator of science?



posted on Apr, 29 2009 @ 07:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by Gawdzilla
I have a stack of books about 3 feet high on the other side of the room,


my first thought was perhaps you should read them then.

my second thought is that the bible is the world's best selling book, was the first printed and hasn't gone out of print since, so a stack of books three feet high doesn't mean a whole lot in response. if the size of your stack is an indication of authority, "on the origin of species" has quite a way's to go to compete with the bible.

if your view is why bother, i agree, it's fairly close to the question i asked in the first place.






[edit on 29/4/09 by pieman]



posted on Apr, 29 2009 @ 07:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by piemanmy first thought was perhaps you should read them then.

my second thought is that the bible is the world's best selling book, was the first printed and hasn't gone out of print since, so a stack of books three feet high doesn't mean a whole lot in response. if the size of your stack is an indication of authority, "on the origin of species" has quite a way's to go to compete with the bible.



I read them. Have you read the BuyBull cover-to-cover? I have.

So what if the BuyBull is the best selling book in the world. The Collection Thoughts of Chairman Mao is second, and Valley of the Dolls is in the top ten. Do you consider those holy as well?



posted on Apr, 29 2009 @ 08:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by Gawdzilla
So what if the BuyBull is the best selling book in the world. The Collection Thoughts of Chairman Mao is second, and Valley of the Dolls is in the top ten. Do you consider those holy as well?


not at all, i consider telling me you have a 3ft stack of books as a response to a request for a source for spurious claims as idiotic. i was pointing out that a three foot stack of books is no indication of authority on the subject.

clearly your reading comprehension isn't great, if you can't understand what i have written then i imagine your grasp of evolutionary theory is fairly shaky, especially if it's based solely on your 3ft stack of books.

this goes a long way to explaining the reason why you thought evolution was a fact, a concept that cannot exist in science, or that it was repeatable, a ludicrous suggestion for a theory based entirely on the observation of results because it is impossible to observe as a process in a clinical situation, by it's very nature.

you ready to stop being a jerk yet or should i just continue to help you look dumber than a box of frogs? i say help you because, to be fair, you're doing at least half the work.



posted on Apr, 29 2009 @ 08:18 AM
link   
reply to post by pieman
 


Keep kidding yourself. Evolution is a fact. Serious scientists have no problem with it, it explains so many things without the need of "Well, it's a miracle." An education would really help in understanding this. Independent reading is a good way to learn if you don't have the funds to go to formal schooling. The reader can start with the Complete Idiot's Guide to Evolution or Evolution for Dummies. I have both in my stack. Coyne and Prothero also important new releases that are very interesting and readable.



posted on Apr, 29 2009 @ 08:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by pieman
a theory based entirely on the observation of results because it is impossible to observe as a process in a clinical situation, by it's very nature.


It has been observed in laboratory studies. Of course now you'll tell me "yeah that's microevolution" but then again you aren't going to tell me how exactly micro and macroevolution differ and what prevents a lot of micro from being macro.

Then there are the predictive qualities of the theory..

[edit on 29-4-2009 by rhinoceros]



posted on Apr, 29 2009 @ 08:25 AM
link   
reply to post by Gawdzilla
 



you have no idea as to my level of education or how widely read i am, don't bother recommending books to me, i'll take my recommendations from someone who knows what they are talking about, thanks anyway.

you poor deluded man, evolution isn't a fact, a good scientist will never claim it is. it's a theory, that's all it is or ever will be. to say that it is a fact is to say that nothing else can be said on the subject, they know everything about it and it has all been said and done. no scientist worth his salt will say this. if you cared about science, as anything more than a podium to make yourself feel superior, you wouldn't claim it as fact either



posted on Apr, 29 2009 @ 08:27 AM
link   
reply to post by pieman
 


Evolution is accepted as a fact by scientist, there's no dispute about that. If you had a good education you'd know that. Exactly how evolution works is still a theory, but they're working on it. Which is how science differs from religion.



posted on Apr, 29 2009 @ 08:30 AM
link   
reply to post by rhinoceros
 


don't tell me how i'll respond to you.

mutation is observable but that isn't evolution. evolution involves the modification of a species over generations to adapt to a changing natural environment, to change the environment in a clinical study destroys the experiment and either way, if the same adaption happens each time the environment changed that would indicate a mechanism which is not strictly allowed accommodated in evolutionary theory as it stands. the same is true of prediction.

therefore it is neither observable, repeatable or predictive, by it's nature.



posted on Apr, 29 2009 @ 08:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by Gawdzilla
Evolution is accepted as a fact by scientist, there's no dispute about that.


i'm disputing it, name one, just one. quote that scientist and provide a link. if they all say it it shouldn't be a difficult task. come on, proove me wrong, do it.



posted on Apr, 29 2009 @ 08:34 AM
link   
reply to post by Gawdzilla
 



Evolution is a fact.


In science, when something is known to be a fact, it is called a law, such as the Law of Gravity or the Laws of Thermodynamics. A theory receives the Law status when it can be demonstrated as being true in a lab.

This is something that evolution doesn't, and cannot, have. Since evolution can't be proven true, one has to accept that it's true by faith, just as one has to do with Christianity, Islam, Judaism, New Ageism, and the like. So, when 97%, as you put it, of scientists say that evolution is a fact, they say so in faith, believing that one day they'll be proven true, since evolution can't be definitively proven to be true in a lab.

There are plenty of "serious scientists" that are moving into the realm of theism, mainly from physics and astronomy, because of the results that they're getting from experiments don't quite jive with the accepted scientific theories.

Also, simply because you don't agree with someone's viewpoint, doesn't mean that what they teach is propaganda. If that were the case, every person on Earth, in one way, shape, matter, or form, would be a propagandist, because not everyone agrees with another 100% of the time.



posted on Apr, 29 2009 @ 08:47 AM
link   
reply to post by octotom
 


"In science, when something is known to be a fact, it is called a law, such as the Law of Gravity or the Laws of Thermodynamics. A theory receives the Law status when it can be demonstrated as being true in a lab."

You're going to have to look up the difference between "fact" and "law". I'll be here when you get back.



posted on Apr, 29 2009 @ 08:50 AM
link   
reply to post by Gawdzilla
 



Exactly how evolution works is still a theory, but they're working on it.


That's cute.

Religion is, and always has been and will be, in a "we're working on it mode". People's views on God change, new religions spring up, traditions die, people are trying to figure out how getting to God truly works. Religion, of all types, is constantly changing, evolving we'll say.

Working on something to see how it works doesn't make it fact. It may be science, but it sounds more like religion.

[edit on 4/29/2009 by octotom]




top topics



 
0
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join