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 Matter of Faith: New movie by Answers in Genesis

page: 4
12
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 6 2014 @ 12:57 PM
link   
Any man claiming to understand fully and empirically what happened in the beginning is a foolish one.

As is stated in the wise Book of Job, when G-d confronted Job for making baseless accusations, and speaking of just this fact:

"Surely you know, for you were already born!
You have lived so many years!"

I do not know, as I was never born then. It is wise to acknowledge this fact. And any wise person would understand this to be true. We can only see what we see, and try to make sense of it. The Bible has been my guide. Let Darwin be yours. But neither of us were there to see it. So neither of us can present proof of what actually happened. I cannot present G-d to you for testing. You cannot show me a billion year old DVD of evolution taking place over the years. Therefore, they both require faith. This was my initial argument.




posted on May, 6 2014 @ 12:59 PM
link   
a reply to: Phantom423

You obviously haven't read what I wrote. And you clearly don't understand Darwin's "On the Origin of Species".



posted on May, 6 2014 @ 01:02 PM
link   
I did read what you wrote. But you offered no evidence. Whatever Darwin said or was interpreted to say has little relevance to hard evidence. Darwin didn't have molecular genetics, instrumentation and laboratory equipment to carry out good experiments.



posted on May, 6 2014 @ 01:05 PM
link   
@pleasethink

Any man claiming to understand fully and empirically what happened in the beginning is a foolish one.


As I said, evolution has nothing to do with origins or initial states. You're changing the definition to suit your position.



posted on May, 6 2014 @ 01:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phantom423
As I have stated, it hasn't been proven, nor will it be proven. Everything around you reeks of design. The more you learn, the more you see it could be no other way. It is actually more believable than what you propose. But both require faith to understand.


When you say it "hasn't been proven", what do you think those experiments show?? Why do you think they do them?? If it's not proof, why isn't it? Those questions must be answered. Otherwise, it's a default in favor of proof of evolution.


The reason it doesn't prove evolution, is because the bacteria being produced is still E. Coli. It isn't Clostridium Botulinum or any other type of bacteria, it is E. Coli. It has always been E. Coli. And I did predict you would toss this out a few comments ago, did I not? Turn a E. Coli into a bird without manipulating it at all, and then I will default in favor of evolution.



posted on May, 6 2014 @ 01:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phantom423
@pleasethink

Any man claiming to understand fully and empirically what happened in the beginning is a foolish one.


As I said, evolution has nothing to do with origins or initial states. You're changing the definition to suit your position.

It literally has everything to do with the change from a "universal common ancestor" (initial state) to the varied life forms the world now possesses.

It seems to be you changing Darwin's theory to support your purposes.
edit on 6-5-2014 by pleasethink because: (no reason given)

edit on 6-5-2014 by pleasethink because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 6 2014 @ 01:10 PM
link   
a reply to: pleasethink

Then you are constructing your own definition of evolution and not the one that scientists use.



posted on May, 6 2014 @ 01:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: pleasethink

originally posted by: Phantom423
@pleasethink

Any man claiming to understand fully and empirically what happened in the beginning is a foolish one.


As I said, evolution has nothing to do with origins or initial states. You're changing the definition to suit your position.

It literally has everything to do with the change from a "universal common ancestor" (initial state) to the varied life forms the world now possesses.

It seems to be you changing Darwin's theory to support your purposes.


Darwin also made assumptions that he couldn't prove. He wasn't right on everything. We know that. Forget Darwin. He's old news. The new news is that experimental data demonstrate that evolution is a physiological process that's an intrinsic factor in the development of all organisms on this planet.



posted on May, 6 2014 @ 01:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phantom423
@pleasethink

Any man claiming to understand fully and empirically what happened in the beginning is a foolish one.


As I said, evolution has nothing to do with origins or initial states. You're changing the definition to suit your position.


Darwin's Theory of Evolution - The Premise
Darwin's Theory of Evolution is the widely held notion that all life is related and has descended from a common ancestor: the birds and the bananas, the fishes and the flowers -- all related. Darwin's general theory presumes the development of life from non-life and stresses a purely naturalistic (undirected) "descent with modification". That is, complex creatures evolve from more simplistic ancestors naturally over time. In a nutshell, as random genetic mutations occur within an organism's genetic code, the beneficial mutations are preserved because they aid survival -- a process known as "natural selection." These beneficial mutations are passed on to the next generation. Over time, beneficial mutations accumulate and the result is an entirely different organism (not just a variation of the original, but an entirely different creature).

www.darwins-theory-of-evolution.com...



posted on May, 6 2014 @ 01:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: pleasethink

Then you are constructing your own definition of evolution and not the one that scientists use.



I am utilizing the actual definition of the theory from the One Who Proposed It.



posted on May, 6 2014 @ 01:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: pleasethink

originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: pleasethink

Then you are constructing your own definition of evolution and not the one that scientists use.



I am utilizing the actual definition of the theory from the One Who Proposed It.


And you're still denying the evidence. And Darwin wasn't the first to propose evolution. He's just happened to be the one who has been quoted more often.

Read this - it's more explicit about the misconceptions:

evolution.berkeley.edu...



posted on May, 6 2014 @ 01:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phantom423

originally posted by: pleasethink

originally posted by: Phantom423
@pleasethink

Any man claiming to understand fully and empirically what happened in the beginning is a foolish one.


As I said, evolution has nothing to do with origins or initial states. You're changing the definition to suit your position.

It literally has everything to do with the change from a "universal common ancestor" (initial state) to the varied life forms the world now possesses.

It seems to be you changing Darwin's theory to support your purposes.


Darwin also made assumptions that he couldn't prove. He wasn't right on everything. We know that. Forget Darwin. He's old news. The new news is that experimental data demonstrate that evolution is a physiological process that's an intrinsic factor in the development of all organisms on this planet.


This is interesting and ironic, considering that you just claimed I had changed the definition of evolution. So now you would change the definition, and the origin of the theory entirely to support your argument. Hmmmm...

Will you now tell me a new definition of gravity and tell me to forget Sir Isaac Newton? How about a new understanding of Alternating Current and the striking of the name of Nicola Tesla from the history books? Would you also erase all of the scientific understanding brought forth from religious men and create new theories of everything?

Your staunch professing of your faith in direct opposition to reason is admirable. But do you perhaps perceive that maybe foolishness is starting to seep forth from your maw?



posted on May, 6 2014 @ 01:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: pleasethink

originally posted by: Phantom423
@pleasethink

Any man claiming to understand fully and empirically what happened in the beginning is a foolish one.


As I said, evolution has nothing to do with origins or initial states. You're changing the definition to suit your position.


Darwin's Theory of Evolution - The Premise
Darwin's Theory of Evolution is the widely held notion that all life is related and has descended from a common ancestor: the birds and the bananas, the fishes and the flowers -- all related. Darwin's general theory presumes the development of life from non-life and stresses a purely naturalistic (undirected) "descent with modification". That is, complex creatures evolve from more simplistic ancestors naturally over time. In a nutshell, as random genetic mutations occur within an organism's genetic code, the beneficial mutations are preserved because they aid survival -- a process known as "natural selection." These beneficial mutations are passed on to the next generation. Over time, beneficial mutations accumulate and the result is an entirely different organism (not just a variation of the original, but an entirely different creature).

www.darwins-theory-of-evolution.com...


Darwin knew nothing about molecular genetics. The article is extremely misleading.



posted on May, 6 2014 @ 01:24 PM
link   
a reply to: Phantom423

So now you segue a conversation about evolution into a conversation about molecular genetics, as it is evident that you are not the most equipped to defend your position.



posted on May, 6 2014 @ 01:24 PM
link   
a reply to: Grimpachi

Actually the first humans in Norse myth were made from trees, an ash and an elm, brought to life by Odin

It was the gods and giants that were born of ice melting



posted on May, 6 2014 @ 01:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: pleasethink
a reply to: Phantom423

So now you segue a conversation about evolution into a conversation about molecular genetics, as it is evident that you are not the most equipped to defend your position.


Molecular genetics provides the experimental data that prove the original theory to be fact. If you want to go into depth about the actual experiments, I would be happy to do that.



posted on May, 6 2014 @ 01:27 PM
link   
@pleasethink

•Evidence from genetics. The genomes of all organisms contain overwhelming evidence for evolution. All living species share the same basic mechanism of heredity using DNA (or RNA in some viruses) to encode genes that are passed from parent to offspring, and which are transcribed and translated into proteins during each organism’s life. Using DNA sequences, biologists quantify the genetic similarities and differences among species, in order to determine which species are more closely related to one another and which are more distantly related. In doing so, biologists use essentially the same evidence and logic used to determine paternity in lawsuits. The pattern of genetic relatedness between all species indicates a branching tree that implies divergence from a common ancestor. Within this tree of life, there are also occasional reticulations where two branches fuse, rather than separate. (For example, mitochondria are organelles found in the cells of plants and animals. Mitochondria have their own genes, which are more similar to genes in bacteria than to genes on the chromosomes in the cell nucleus. Thus, one of our distant ancestors arose from a symbiosis of two different cell types.) The genetic similarity between species, which exists by virtue of evolution from the same ancestral form, is an essential fact that underlies biomedical research. This similarity allows us to begin to understand the effects of our own genes by conducting research on genes from other species. For example, genes that control the process of DNA repair in bacteria, flies, and mice have been discovered to influence certain cancers in humans. These findings also suggest strategies for intervention that can be explored in other species before testing on humans.

www.actionbioscience.org...



posted on May, 6 2014 @ 01:31 PM
link   
a reply to: pleasethink


It is shameful on both sides. If coming to believe in G-d is not in someones path, do not force the path onto them. It is for the elect, as it says in the Bible. Science is not against Biblical understanding, it is a small contingent of politically minded individuals. And the Bible doesn't go against science, as seeking out wisdom and understanding is commanded by G-d.

First of all - why do you write "G-d" rather than God or god? Isn't that a Jewish thing? I honestly don't know.

Second of all:

Your prejudice walks before you, mocking you to all with the ability to perceive. But yet you cannot perceive it. But we should listen to you, right? You are the last hope for humanity? Doesn't sound like denying ignorance. Sounds like spreading it like a virus.


The God Virus: How Religion Infects Our Lives and Culture


Dr. Darrel Ray, psychologist and lifelong student of religion, discusses religious infection from the inside out.

How does guilt play into religious infection? Why is sexual control so important to so many religions? What causes the anxiety and neuroticism around death and dying?

How does religion inject itself into so many areas of life, culture, and politics?

The author explores this and much more in his book The God Virus: How Religion Infects Our Lives and Culture.This second-generation book takes the reader several steps beyond previous offerings and into the realm of the personal and emotional mechanisms that affect anyone who lives in a culture steeped in religion. Examples are used that anyone can relate to and the author gives real-world guidance in how to deal with and respond to people who are religious in our families, and among our friends and coworkers.


Read it. Learn. Here is a free pdf file for you: www.thegodvirus.net...
It's an infection....a virus.



posted on May, 6 2014 @ 01:32 PM
link   
a reply to: Phantom423

I'm sure you would, as your understanding of evolution appears to be limited. I don't want you to insult yourself further. Please go read about this subject in depth. Cliff note the "Origin of Species". Come to a fuller understanding. Don't just push Berkeley at me. Where you have gone with this is starting to make you appear foolish. And that is not where I wish to go. I honestly would like you to think for yourself, as my name indicates. But I will return later, if you wish. As for now, have a good day and I hope you will be well.



posted on May, 6 2014 @ 01:33 PM
link   
a reply to: pleasethink


Almost as amusing as the fact you think Noah was made by Answers in Genesis.

Erm, I don't think that.
I never said that, and obviously it was not.
I know that they are trying to get an 'amusement park' going about it.

Reading comprehension. Try it.




top topics



 
12
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join