Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Your claim that there is no Ark is your opinion. Yet, can produce evidence that would confirm that opinion?
Theory- An unproven assumption. And that is what evolution is sanspeur. And that is what your mountains of irrefutable evedince adds up to. An unproven assumption.
And David Barak, who was a digital-imaging expert who worked as a military-photo and submarine target-recognition interpreter for the U.S. navy stated the anomaly on Ararat doesn't appear to be part of the natural terrain. And now states, that he is leaning toward the object in question being manmade. And at least four of seven experts that have looked at the pictures of Ararat believe the anomaly could be manmade. And another expert who believed it was a rock formation, now states it most likely manmade. Clifford Paiva, a retired senior physicist and satellite imagery analyst of the U.S. Navy's Naval Surface Warefare Center, Countermeasures Technologies Applications Branch states. There is an anomaly up on Ararat.. Praiva who has access to other images on Ararat, cannot speak about them because they are classified. Praiva said, I am not saying it is the Ark, but I am saying there is something up there.
So sanspeur, as you can see, I am not alone in my belief that there is something up on Ararat. And I have the backing of experts in the field.
Do they think we are dumb? "There surely is an ark but for whatever poorly conceived reason, we have never been able to produce any reasonable evidence for it and never will lest we find it's not really there."
Theory- An unproven assumption. And that is what evolution is sanspeur.
Uhhm, no. That's the creationists/layman's definition of theory.
In science, a theory is not a guess, not a hunch and certainly NOT an unproven assumption. It's a well-substantiated, well-supported, well-documented explanation for our observations.
Quote:
And that is what your mountains of irrefutable evedince adds up to. An unproven assumption.
Your claim that there is no Ark is your opinion. Yet, can produce evidence that would confirm that opinion?
Theory- An unproven assumption. And that is what evolution is sanspeur. And that is what your mountains of irrefutable evedince adds up to. An unproven assumption.
And David Barak, who was a digital-imaging expert who worked as a military-photo and submarine target-recognition interpreter for the U.S. navy stated the anomaly on Ararat doesn't appear to be part of the natural terrain. And now states, that he is leaning toward the object in question being manmade. And at least four of seven experts that have looked at the pictures of Ararat believe the anomaly could be manmade. And another expert who believed it was a rock formation, now states it most likely manmade. Clifford Paiva, a retired senior physicist and satellite imagery analyst of the U.S. Navy's Naval Surface Warefare Center, Countermeasures Technologies Applications Branch states. There is an anomaly up on Ararat.. Praiva who has access to other images on Ararat, cannot speak about them because they are classified. Praiva said, I am not saying it is the Ark, but I am saying there is something up there.
So sanspeur, as you can see, I am not alone in my belief that there is something up on Ararat. And I have the backing of experts in the field.
Yeah right....Here is a quote from him.... "God said it, I believe it...and this is good enough for me...Clifford Paiva
How much weight do you think this guy carries with me?
Uhhm, no. That's the creationists/layman's definition of theory.
In science, a theory is not a guess, not a hunch and certainly NOT an unproven assumption. It's a well-substantiated, well-supported, well-documented explanation for our observations.
No, more like a proven fact of nature.
The definition of theory has been explained to C34 numerous times, but it doesn't seem to stick. He is blind to anything that is not "proven" by the bible.
Uhhm, no. That's the creationists/layman's definition of theory.
In science, a theory is not a guess, not a hunch and certainly NOT an unproven assumption. It's a well-substantiated, well-supported, well-documented explanation for our observations.
No, more like a proven fact of nature.
Actually that came right out of Webster's Collegiate Dictionary. And it appears in the English langauge ,theory can have a number meanings.
Yet nothing like you suggest.
1. A hypothesis assumed for the sake of arguent or investigation.
2. An unproven assumption.
3. Conjecture
4. a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena.
5. Speculation
6. an idea or hypothetical set of facts, principles. or circumstances often used in the phrase in theory.
You see, no matter how much you want to believe things evolove, you still can't get the meaning of (theory), to evolve into a fact of nature. LOL
The definition of theory has been explained to C34 numerous times, but it doesn't seem to stick. He is blind to anything that is not "proven" by the bible.
I'm sorry sanspeur. I was just looking at what the English Websters Collegiate Dictionary said it ment. I guess in science you guys must speak another language. Kind of like up is down, and black is white. LOL
Do they think we are dumb? "There surely is an ark but for whatever poorly conceived reason, we have never been able to produce any reasonable evidence for it and never will lest we find it's not really there."
Well, the Bible tells us where the Ark landed, and most of the eyewitiness accounts, and photos from space are from the same location spoken of in the Bible.
Yeah right....Here is a quote from him.... "God said it, I believe it...and this is good enough for me...Clifford Paiva
How much weight do you think this guy carries with me?
Well remember, Paiva has seen the real photos of the Ark. The one's none of us are allowed to see. And perhaps, if you saw those photo's. Maybe you would be saying the samething.
Well, the Bible tells us where the Ark landed, and most of the eyewitiness accounts, and photos from space are from the same location spoken of in the Bible.
Which would make it easy to verify but no. One has to fabricate a fully blown conspiracy theory to keep the myth going.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
