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: 4
0
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 29 2009 @ 08:52 AM
link   
reply to post by octotom
 


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

Religion doesn't grow, it recycles all the old tripe from the Bronze Age.

You may not understand what I'm saying, but that's okay. Working on how something happens is called research.




posted on Apr, 29 2009 @ 09:12 AM
link   
reply to post by Gawdzilla
 


Definition of fact:


1. something that actually exists; reality; truth
2. something known to exist or to have happened
3. a truth known by actual experience or observation; something known to be true
4. something said to be true or supposed to have happened


Based on the definition of fact, I don't even feel the need to look at law because, evolution doesn't meet the criteria to be a fact, and we know that it's not a scientific law, only a theory.

1. It's not known if evolution actually exists. It can't be tested for and there is no evidence left behind to show that it's true. Or have they found the missing link?

2. Again, it's not known if evolution has actually happened. We can look at fossils and see that some are similar, but that doesn't mean evolution took place. A human baby looks like a fish baby in the womb for a little bit, but that doesn't mean that one came from the other. In the fossil record, there are gaps and the intermediate forms have to be assumed. [By the way, no place on earth has the complete fossil record. Even it has gaps! And it is assumed, and guessed upon, by paleotologists what layers go where.]

3. Evolution can't be known by experience or observation. It takes too long to occur, so no one has ever seen it or experienced themselves changing.

4. This is the only part of the definition of fact that could make evolution a "fact", but this is also the weakest. Evolution fits in here because it's said to be true. I can tell my kid that I saw a giant purple unicorn that had six tails and a giant foot coming out of it's side, and it's a fact because it's said to be true. How absurd is that?



posted on Apr, 29 2009 @ 09:16 AM
link   
reply to post by Gawdzilla
 


Religion most certainly does grow. People's ideas and experiences with their God change and modify the belief system.

Is Scientology a rehashing of Bronze Age ideas?



posted on Apr, 29 2009 @ 09:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by pieman
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.


You should check the results of Escherichia coli long-term evolution experiment. How many of the original 12 populations evolved the ability to utilize citrate as a source of energy? Was it all of them? Hint: it was not.

observable - check



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


I here make 2 predictions based on the theory of evolution.

1. We will never find 500 million year old fossilized rabbits.
2. We will never find human(ish) remains older than 7 million years that have 23 pairs of chromosomes (well it's possible, but very unlikely).

predictive - check



posted on Apr, 29 2009 @ 09:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by octotom
Based on the definition of fact, I don't even feel the need to look at law because, evolution doesn't meet the criteria to be a fact, and we know that it's not a scientific law, only a theory.


Only a theory based on hard facts.



posted on Apr, 29 2009 @ 10:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by octotom
reply to post by Gawdzilla
 


Religion most certainly does grow. People's ideas and experiences with their God change and modify the belief system.


Religion is a dead end. You take it or leave it. It is, after "God's Word", isn't it? Or is it?


Is Scientology a rehashing of Bronze Age ideas?



Yeah, it's based on the belief that there are godlike beings in the Universe. See, that wasn't hard.



posted on Apr, 29 2009 @ 12:49 PM
link   

A question to those who believe in the ark and flood story When Jesus built his massive wooden ark and took a pair (or something like that) of all animals aboard he didn't take any fish inside, right? I mean he didn't take any of them inside cos he knew they'd survive in the water too, right? So my question is. How come we've found lots of fish fossils representing species that clearly do no exist today? What happened to them? Also why didn't Jesus allow any dinosaurs aboard? Or did he? If so, are you telling me that we killed the dinosaurs?


Its not Jesus built boat. Its Noah, and God. They built ark boat. God told Noah that there will be rain. All people are warned by Noah.

I dont understand why u have question about fish. They are fine nothing happened to them because they got water to breath. U mention about fish fossil that dont exist no more. whole over Oceans are not all explored. Scientist found many new creatures fish and never seen before fish that they are live in very deep bottom. There are many strange sighting sea monsters in past history and present still.

The Reason God flood the world is people and giants people are sin very bad. It is very bad enough for God to decide to destory world with flood. Yes there are dinosaur. I believe that is reason Noah and God built big Ark like 6 football fields come together. and 2 or 3 stories high. I believe that they did bring dinosaurs and animals into the boat. there a evidence and proof it did happened. one from bible, one from sumerians history. , and finally ark boat did existed on Mount Ararat. But they are not allow to take photo or videotape. only you can is go visit there to see with your eyes. I dont need to go there. I have faith. I know it is existed.


I think the EArth may have had some ice sphere around it back then, not sure ofcourse, but how else can there be any Waters Above ?? I think 'they' moved EArth closer to the sun to get the right temperature here, it was Heaven here in those days, but the Sun melted the ice, and it came raining down causing the global flood of Noah...


It dont make sense about melt the ice then bring rain. but how else can there be any Waters Above answer is in the bible.

Genesis 1:7 American King James Version
And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so.

if you want to know more. just go research history, bible, and science. it will come together like puzzle.



posted on Apr, 29 2009 @ 12:57 PM
link   
reply to post by DeafRaz
 


"if you want to know more. just go research history, bible, and science. it will come together like puzzle."

Science says five miles of water would be needed to cover the surface of the Earth. Can you tell me what part of science would explain where that came from and where it went?

Still haven't heard from the people who believe about where the food for the animals came from. 190 days in the boat, then time needed for the land to recover and greenery to sprout to feed the herbivores. Time needed for the herbivores to repopulate enough for the carnivores to survive. And, of course, the humans needed to eat.



posted on Apr, 29 2009 @ 01:04 PM
link   
reply to post by Gawdzilla
 





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?


Just making observations if we are to accept that that the psychotic Yahweh is a real entity, you know the the beard in the sky and that he created everything. Then we have to accept that there's nothing he did not create, as there is nothing he did not create, then he obviously created the scientific method which so far has failed to prove his existence.

Kinda mad thinking I know but there again not much madder than believing that a man could live inside the belly of a whale or that 2 (maybe 7 lol) of every species of animal on earth could be loaded onto a wooden boat.



posted on Apr, 29 2009 @ 01:24 PM
link   
reply to post by moocowman
 


reply to post by moocowman
 


"Just making observations if we are to accept that that the psychotic Yahweh is a real entity, you know the the beard in the sky and that he created everything."

I couldn't get past this point, because I DON'T accept that Yahweh is a real entity. I once got into this with a person. He said, "We can argue about whether God is real or not, but you have to at least allow me the fact that hes exists." [forehead smote smiley here]



posted on Apr, 29 2009 @ 01:32 PM
link   

You should check the results of Escherichia coli long-term evolution experiment. How many of the original 12 populations evolved the ability to utilize citrate as a source of energy? Was it all of them? Hint: it was not.


i've heard of that experiment, it's interesting and it certainly shows mutation but the question is, can those e-coli be described as anything other than e-coli? are they a different species or just a mutated line? i'm not sure these e-coli can be classed as evolved, as such.

it is an interesting experiment, i'll give you that, but it doesn't move evolution out of the realms of theory just yet.

observable-not really, kinda, it might be evolution, perhaps, not as darwin described but sort of.


I here make 2 predictions based on the theory of evolution.

1. We will never find 500 million year old fossilized rabbits.
2. We will never find human(ish) remains older than 7 million years that have 23 pairs of chromosomes (well it's possible, but very unlikely).

predictive - check


those are not predictions as i would describe them, 1 is an observation, 2 is an educated guess. if evolution is chaotic it isn't really predictable, by it's nature.

i'm not saying evolution is wrong, it probably is the way life works, i'm just pointing out that it is theory and not fact, as octotom rightly points out, if it was a fact it would be called the "law of evolution", not the "theory of evolution". the hint that it's still a theory is in the name.



posted on Apr, 29 2009 @ 01:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by GawdzillaStill haven't heard from the people who believe about where the food for the animals came from.


i'll answer that little riddle if you answer this one,

how did all the matter and energy in the universe fit into a singularity right before the big bang given we know the mass of everything in the universe cooled to absolute zero would take up a lot more space than a singularity?

or how about this, if matter and anti-matter are produced and annihilate in a balanced fashion, where did all the anti-matter go?

how does an atom know it's being observed before it is observed?

if you believe god is all powerful the food question isn't an issue but if you believe the laws of physics are fairly stable then my questions are big massive issues.

truth is, if god created the universe he clearly created it as a dynamic system, man choose to attempt to restrict the universe with laws and dogmas, the fact that these laws and dogmas never, ever seem to hold together more than a few years says more about the futility of attempting to constrain the universe than anything else.

claiming any belief as fact is just futile, the universe doesn't care about your facts so it's all just a working hypothesis. the idea that there is a creator is always going to be a factor because it is always a possibility and man's imagination is capable of embracing every possibility. i like that aspect of human nature.

the truth is just another concept, and you can argue it out from now 'till eternity and the universe still won't give a damn. the question should not be weather or not god is real, it doesn't matter one way or the other, it should be weather your belief one way or the other blinkers you in your pursuit of understanding.

to say there is no god blinkers you as much as saying that only the bible has any answers.



posted on Apr, 29 2009 @ 01:54 PM
link   
reply to post by pieman
 


"i'll answer that little riddle if you answer this one, "

So why didn't you cut to the chase and say you can't answer that one. It would have saved most of a screen of typing. Don't feel bad, however, the whole story is about as likely as a talking snake causing the fall of mankind.



posted on Apr, 29 2009 @ 02:10 PM
link   
reply to post by Gawdzilla
 


read the whole post, i do answer it. what is with you?

[edit on 29/4/09 by pieman]



posted on Apr, 29 2009 @ 02:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by pieman
reply to post by Gawdzilla
 


read the whole post, i do answer it. what is with you?

[edit on 29/4/09 by pieman]


Ad homs aside, relying on mythical beings isn't an answer. Face the fact that it simply isn't possible.

[edit on 29-4-2009 by Gawdzilla]



posted on Apr, 29 2009 @ 02:13 PM
link   
define possible. if god is al powerful it is possible.



posted on Apr, 29 2009 @ 02:16 PM
link   
reply to post by pieman
 


Define god. In any terms other than a mythical being.



posted on Apr, 29 2009 @ 02:49 PM
link   
reply to post by Gawdzilla
 


god reveals himself in the lawful harmony of all that exists.



posted on Apr, 29 2009 @ 03:20 PM
link   
reply to post by pieman
 


Fail. You haven't proved god, just a very human desire to see some sort of order. Doesn't prove anything, doesn't define anything, doesn't clarify anything.



posted on Apr, 29 2009 @ 03:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by pieman
reply to post by Gawdzilla
 


god reveals himself in the lawful harmony of all that exists.


You mean like Tao? If you want to call that God then okay. I personally just refer to it as Nature or The Universe




top topics



 
0
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join