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: Cogito, Ergo Sum
originally posted by: john666
All this studies are false because the scientists involved assume from the beginning that evolution is fact.
Hmm, wonder why that would be...
So as to geographic distribution, the fossil record etc......was that god seeing if faith can override reality/ common sense? He only likes gullible followers? Or was it the devil?
But is not a fact, but only a very stupid theory.
It has never been observed that species change from one into another, because it never happened like that.
All the species were created in an instant.
It says so in that well known peer reviewed science journal "the bible"?
originally posted by: john666
THE MOST IMPORTANT EVENT OF HUMAN HISTORY, IS THE CREATION OF MANKIND!
Possible occasions for the partial or complete destruction of the Library of Alexandria include a fire set by Julius Caesar in 48 BC, an attack by Aurelian in the 270s AD, the decree of Coptic Pope Theophilus in 391 AD, and the decree of the second caliph Omar ibn Al-khattāb in 640 AD.
originally posted by: john666
a reply to: ManFromEurope
www.trueorigin.org...
www.creationresearch.org...
www.increasinglearning.com...
The uniformitarian stratigraphic column encapsulates the modern geologic interpretation of the earth’s crust. Unfortunately, that interpretation includes the rejection of the Christian worldview in favor of Naturalism—a worldview that replaces a reality founded on God’s Creation and governance of the universe with an impersonal, uncaring mechanism. It also substitutes Christianity’s confidence in a truth granted by God’s revelation with an unstable positivism that succeeds only when it pilfers Christian doctrine. Finally, it sterilizes a meaningful and rich history, substituting a timeframe designed to dismiss the immanent presence of the Creator, and fills its endless ages with pseudo-scientific “just-so” stories. When we consider the vast chasm that lies between Naturalism and Christianity, we do not see how creationists can escape the necessity of razing that worldview until no two stones are left standing, and then rebuilding natural history and its derivative stratigraphy from the ground up.
originally posted by: BO XIAN
a reply to: john666
He by whom ALL things were created is no myth.
Knowing HIM is THE crucial reality, honor, priority.
Given that, it's impossible, for me, to give the notions you proffer . . . any affirmation at all.
originally posted by: BO XIAN
a reply to: john666
He by whom ALL things were created is no myth.
Knowing HIM is THE crucial reality, honor, priority.
Given that, it's impossible, for me, to give the notions you proffer . . . any affirmation at all.
originally posted by: john666
I believe in Young Earth, and I also think that majority of people on this subforum do so as well
I am therefore convinced, that the myth of Jesus Christ was telepathically implanted in the minds of the people, some time in the past,
originally posted by: john666
originally posted by: scojak
originally posted by: john666
All this studies are false because the scientists involved assume from the beginning that evolution is fact.
But is not a fact, but only a very stupid theory.
It has never been observed that species change from one into another, because it never happened like that.
All the species were created in an instant.
Evolution is not when one species changes into another. It's when life forms change out of necessity to adapt to their environment. Survival of the fittest. Evolution is a proven concept and only the ignorant continue to ignore it.
Evolution states that at one time in the past, a living being creates through the means of reproduction, another living being that is genetically incompatible with the parent.
Something like that has never been proven.
I myself am not a Christian. I don't believe in any of the biblical dogmas, but still I have to recognize that creationist biologists and geologists, are much more logical in their scientific conclusions, then their evolutionist counterparts.
Still they are not without flaws. And their biggest flaw is that they cling to the Bible, which is nothing more than a book of lies.This book is what is limiting them, just like evolutionist books, that you have read, is what is limiting you, and those like you.
Craig Venter wants to program life the way we program computers, and today he announced a momentous win: the first synthetic self-replicating bacterium. The J. Craig Venter Institute (JCVI) used the four types of chemicals that make up DNA, and complex assembly methods utilizing yeast cells, to ‘program’ the 1.08 million base pairs that make up the genome for the bacteria cell. As described in the journal Science, the result was a synthetic copy of the Mycoplasma mycoides, dubbed M. mycoides JCVI-syn1.0, that can grow and divide like normal. The little “1.0″ highlights the vast potential of Venter’s project, as JCVI will be able to update and improve their synthetic organism base pair by base pair, gene by gene. Computers can now program sustainable synthetic life – welcome to the future.
originally posted by: AngryCymraeg
a reply to: john666
But you're claiming that our entire past is one giant forgery. Well, unfortunately for this fascinating theory we have archaeology, anthropology, history, etc, which show that your theory is 100% wrong.
originally posted by: john666
originally posted by: AngryCymraeg
a reply to: john666
But you're claiming that our entire past is one giant forgery. Well, unfortunately for this fascinating theory we have archaeology, anthropology, history, etc, which show that your theory is 100% wrong.
You falsely claimed that the damage done to the Sphinx was not done by water.
That means that as far archaeology is concerned, you have no idea what you are talking about.
originally posted by: AngryCymraeg
originally posted by: john666
originally posted by: AngryCymraeg
a reply to: john666
But you're claiming that our entire past is one giant forgery. Well, unfortunately for this fascinating theory we have archaeology, anthropology, history, etc, which show that your theory is 100% wrong.
You falsely claimed that the damage done to the Sphinx was not done by water.
That means that as far archaeology is concerned, you have no idea what you are talking about.
The alleged water damage to the Sphinx is a highly contentious issue. The upper part of the statue has been damaged by the wind - that part is uncontested, as wind erosion is highly distinctive - the horizontal bands that can be seen quite clearly. Water erosion is vertical. It has been argued that the Sphinx now is an altered version of an older statue that predates the Pyramids and which was built 5,000 years ago, when the climate in the Giza Plateau was slightly wetter. This is, as I said, a contentious theory.
I seem to have a rather better grasp of archaeology than you do by the way.
originally posted by: john666
originally posted by: AngryCymraeg
originally posted by: john666
originally posted by: AngryCymraeg
a reply to: john666
But you're claiming that our entire past is one giant forgery. Well, unfortunately for this fascinating theory we have archaeology, anthropology, history, etc, which show that your theory is 100% wrong.
You falsely claimed that the damage done to the Sphinx was not done by water.
That means that as far archaeology is concerned, you have no idea what you are talking about.
The alleged water damage to the Sphinx is a highly contentious issue. The upper part of the statue has been damaged by the wind - that part is uncontested, as wind erosion is highly distinctive - the horizontal bands that can be seen quite clearly. Water erosion is vertical. It has been argued that the Sphinx now is an altered version of an older statue that predates the Pyramids and which was built 5,000 years ago, when the climate in the Giza Plateau was slightly wetter. This is, as I said, a contentious theory.
I seem to have a rather better grasp of archaeology than you do by the way.
By the way, you do not.
But who knows, maybe I am subjective, and you indeed may have a much better grasp of archaeology than I do.
And that is why I would like to ask you a question about the Sphinx.
What do you think, what force caused the damage to the lower part of the statue?
upload.wikimedia.org...
originally posted by: AngryCymraeg
originally posted by: john666
originally posted by: AngryCymraeg
originally posted by: john666
originally posted by: AngryCymraeg
a reply to: john666
But you're claiming that our entire past is one giant forgery. Well, unfortunately for this fascinating theory we have archaeology, anthropology, history, etc, which show that your theory is 100% wrong.
You falsely claimed that the damage done to the Sphinx was not done by water.
That means that as far archaeology is concerned, you have no idea what you are talking about.
The alleged water damage to the Sphinx is a highly contentious issue. The upper part of the statue has been damaged by the wind - that part is uncontested, as wind erosion is highly distinctive - the horizontal bands that can be seen quite clearly. Water erosion is vertical. It has been argued that the Sphinx now is an altered version of an older statue that predates the Pyramids and which was built 5,000 years ago, when the climate in the Giza Plateau was slightly wetter. This is, as I said, a contentious theory.
I seem to have a rather better grasp of archaeology than you do by the way.
By the way, you do not.
But who knows, maybe I am subjective, and you indeed may have a much better grasp of archaeology than I do.
And that is why I would like to ask you a question about the Sphinx.
What do you think, what force caused the damage to the lower part of the statue?
upload.wikimedia.org...
I can re-post my earlier post if you like. It can be argued that the lower part of the Sphinx suffered from water erosion because it was built hundreds of years earlier than some people think. But this is a highly contentious theory. The upper part of the Sphinx has still suffered from wind erosion however. That fact is uncontested.
originally posted by: john666
originally posted by: AngryCymraeg
originally posted by: john666
originally posted by: AngryCymraeg
originally posted by: john666
originally posted by: AngryCymraeg
a reply to: john666
But you're claiming that our entire past is one giant forgery. Well, unfortunately for this fascinating theory we have archaeology, anthropology, history, etc, which show that your theory is 100% wrong.
You falsely claimed that the damage done to the Sphinx was not done by water.
That means that as far archaeology is concerned, you have no idea what you are talking about.
The alleged water damage to the Sphinx is a highly contentious issue. The upper part of the statue has been damaged by the wind - that part is uncontested, as wind erosion is highly distinctive - the horizontal bands that can be seen quite clearly. Water erosion is vertical. It has been argued that the Sphinx now is an altered version of an older statue that predates the Pyramids and which was built 5,000 years ago, when the climate in the Giza Plateau was slightly wetter. This is, as I said, a contentious theory.
I seem to have a rather better grasp of archaeology than you do by the way.
By the way, you do not.
But who knows, maybe I am subjective, and you indeed may have a much better grasp of archaeology than I do.
And that is why I would like to ask you a question about the Sphinx.
What do you think, what force caused the damage to the lower part of the statue?
upload.wikimedia.org...
I can re-post my earlier post if you like. It can be argued that the lower part of the Sphinx suffered from water erosion because it was built hundreds of years earlier than some people think. But this is a highly contentious theory. The upper part of the Sphinx has still suffered from wind erosion however. That fact is uncontested.
Do you remember why the two of us began to debate about the Sphinx?