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 InfaRedMan
[TD... you should know by now that many of these people need to refer to something else to tell you how they think or feel. Remember these people need a guide book to life otherwise they're lost little sheep!
IRM :shk:
Originally posted by MrXYZ
Originally posted by OldThinker
reply to post by MrXYZ
electricity huh, that kinda neat. plane coming in now, gotta go. do you have a link, study i can view?
Someone already posted the Wired article regarding lightning and the creation of life right after your request. Either way, I'm pretty sure I've already posted that link in one of your other threads, but I might be mixing you up with Randy
Scientists Create First Self-Replicating Synthetic Life
Originally posted by Romekje
Originally posted by OldThinker
reply to post by Indellkoffer
Voyager is waaaaaayyy out there....
what has it seen?
Not much....
related to intelligent life....
Voyager hasn't even left our solar system
Originally posted by OldThinker
Originally posted by Romekje
Originally posted by OldThinker
reply to post by Indellkoffer
Voyager is waaaaaayyy out there....
what has it seen?
Not much....
related to intelligent life....
But how would we know if we haven't even looked at 10% of the sky????
Voyager hasn't even left our solar system
Well of course, I know that...
You are dodging the point...we should see more earth 90% in OUR universe...please take another gander at the OP
Originally posted by traditionaldrummer
Assuming that creationism is a mathematical likelihood, how then do you jump to the assumption that the bible is the accurate truth and not, say, any of the other scores of creation accounts from around the world?
TD, I believe the Bible to be reliable, therefore the biblical account of creation to be reliable…not overly concerned with the age per se’, really could care less. I echo former President Ronald Reagan sentiment when he said, “Of the many influences that have shaped the United States into a distinctive nation and people, none may be said to be more fundamental and enduring than the Bible.”
In a nutshell the Bible (therefore the creation account) is trustworthy because of the textual tradition from the original document to the copies, the Internal evidence (what it claimed for itself) and the External evidence (how the document aligned itself with facts, dates, etc.) Rememeber the Scribes were about perfection in copying, it was their solemn duty. Did you see the Book of Eli? Also the reliability of The Massoretic Text, have you seen their painstaking process? The Dead Sea Scrolls accuracy impressed me. Also, the Greek translation of the Old Testament, called the Septuagint, also confirms the accuracy of the copyists who ultimately gave us the Massoretic text. The fulfilled prophesies of Christ, his resurrection and the subsequent way many of his followers allowed themselves to be killed….all for a lie? No way. And the fact that it is logical a God could preserve his message.
But most-importantly I know him, probably longer than most ATS posters have existed. He’s my best friend and he doesn’t lie.
I found this quote that sorta sums up my take quite well, “In most cases, those who reject the reliability of the Bible do so because of false impressions they have gained from sources other than the Bible. Most people’s knowledge about the Bible is derived almost completely from second-, third-, and fourth-hand sources. It is not surprising, then, that so many people think that the Bible says, “God helps those who help themselves,” or, “Cleanliness is next to godliness.” Many are also convinced that the Scriptures teach that the earth is flat or that it is the center of the universe. Another common misconception is that the books of the New Testament were written centuries after the events they describe or that our earliest New Testament manuscripts go back only to the fourth or fifth centuries A.D. Also, most people have somehow been given the impression that the English Bible is a translation of a translation of a translation (etc.) of the original, and that fresh errors were introduced in each stage of the process. College courses often undermine the authority of the Bible by falsely claiming that the Old Testament is merely a derivative of earlier Babylonian and Assyrian myths and law codes. People frequently say that the Bible is loaded with contradictions, but very few can think of any when asked. The few who can will usually mention the stock objections they were taught, like the two “contradictory” creation accounts in Genesis 1 and 2. It is a rare person who has personally examined the text to see if the alleged contradiction is really there.” –bible.org website
Originally posted by MrXYZ
reply to post by OldThinker
Well, in the lab they engineered it of course...HOWEVER, they REPLICATED the same surroundings and characteristics we had on earth 4bil years ago. It's been proven, nature could have developed on its own according to that lab test and then develop further through evolution which has been proven a long time ago.
Originally posted by OldThinker
reply to post by jimmyx
Hey tell Don Geronimo I said hi!
OT
Originally posted by wantsome
...
Hell the catholics wanted to exicute Galileo for sugesting the earth revolved around the sun and that was only 400 years ago...
People frequently say that the Bible is loaded with contradictions, but very few can think of any when asked.
TD... you should know by now that many of these people need to refer to something else to tell you how they think or feel. Remember these people need a guide book to life otherwise they're lost little sheep!
Why do retards like you come on here, you are a complete waste of oxygen, so retarded and deluded and yet as you read this you sit there thinking that you're still right. Please please please get cancer just as you are a cancer to ATS and anyone of logic or reasoning ability.
Originally posted by OldThinker
Originally posted by MrXYZ
reply to post by OldThinker
Well, in the lab they engineered it of course...HOWEVER, they REPLICATED the same surroundings and characteristics we had on earth 4bil years ago. It's been proven, nature could have developed on its own according to that lab test and then develop further through evolution which has been proven a long time ago.
So they engineered it and replicated mother nature from 4 billion yrs ago? Which proved evolution a long time ago?
I'm sorry but that is the funniest set of words I've read in a while...come on now?
Originally posted by MrXYZ
OT, I'm sorry to say this, but I'm a bit disappointed that you seem to question science a lot, but don't apply the same scrutiny to the bible and your beliefs. You can't seriously claim the bible is accurate and only filled with facts!! That would make you a BLIND believer. Apply the same scrutiny you apply to science when it comes to religion and see the light!
Originally posted by randyvs
reply to post by InfaRedMan
TD... you should know by now that many of these people need to refer to something else to tell you how they think or feel. Remember these people need a guide book to life otherwise they're lost little sheep!
So this is a bad thing? Huh!
Originally posted by OldThinker
I didn't see one contradiction of substance...of intent/of message.
I'm ready to bet the farm, you?
Originally posted by Indellkoffer
The universe has been around for 14 billion years. We have only seen our planetary neighborhood.
How do you know there's not other life forms and civilizations out there? Most scientists think there were (and some say that many millions of them could be alive and thriving right now.