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 the_sentinal
Religious people could call that a miracle if they wish to do so, an event with zero probability. The difference between these two concepts is itself near zero. To argue over this difference is foolish.
Originally posted by zenlover28
the_sentinal, I think the appropriate thing to do before you post any further would be to go back to the post that you clearly did not link to any external source and edit it by linking it to the source or citing it somehow. Plagiarism is stealing. We all make mistakes, but you have been made aware of it and therefore you should correct it, IMO.
Originally posted by the_sentinal
you would be suprised what can take place in a day or two...... reelfoot lake in tennessee was formed in a matter of days....not years
Originally posted by the_sentinal
For all we know, kangaroos might have been feeding within a stone's throw of Noah while he was building the ark.
Originally posted by the_sentinal
we can argue into eternity over the differences of these two concepts but it really comes down to where your faith is
faith is the evidence of things not seen!!!
seem to piont to a creator rather than evolution the ecosystems of the earth are just too complex to have evolved in my opinion
........and you know what opinions are like____everybody has one!!!!
that it was an honest mistake
mytym
as I was attempting to demonstrate the bias and lack of objectivity contained within.
Originally posted by Nygdan
Originally posted by mytym
It would be really something if a site such as this presented a convincing argument opposing their view.
What did you find unconvincing about the arguements presented by multiple posters here so far??
Originally posted by LadyPropag8rProbability Estimate for Attaining the Necessary Characteristics for a Life Support Body
Notes: Estimate of dependency and longevity factors are accounted for at the end of the list. References to relevant science research papers and books also follow the list. The definition used here for a planet is broad enough to include a large satellite orbiting another planet. For reasons why satellites in general and starless planets are not suitable candidates for a life-support body see Lights in the Sky and Little Green Men by Hugh Ross, Kenneth Samples, and Mark Clark (Colorado Springs, CO: NavPress, 2002), pp. 39-41. reasons.org... for list entirety.
Be encouraged Sentinel, because when we are weak, HE is strong..heheh
Faith requires the things not seen. Keep the faith sentinel, hebrews11:-13:-) As far as research, I agree with alot of Dr Ross' findings. I wish I had time to post more.
[edit on 29-4-2006 by LadyPropag8r]