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.

 

4 in 10 Americans Believe God Created Earth 10,000 Years Ago

page: 16
19
<< 13  14  15    17 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 22 2014 @ 07:09 AM
link   

originally posted by: TheChrome
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Do you even research any of this crap to see if it's true? I looked at the bible contradiction chart, and the first scripture I read was out of context. That chart claims the bible says the sun revolves around the earth citing Psalms 19:4-6. The actual verse says "It rises at one end of the heavens and makes it's circuit to the other." It is describing sunrise and sunset, not the sun revolving around the earth! The bible does not contradict itself, people do. I bet I could debunk every stupid so called "contradiction" on that chart if I had nothing better to do.


Contradictions are contradictions buddy. They exist. Here's a good one considering that many Christians like to chuck out the OT since they say that it was written in a different time.
Are the laws of the Old Testament still binding?


There are quite a few verses in which the bible is scientifically accurate thousands of years before man reached the same conclusion.


No there aren't. They might be kind of accurate, but they are FAR from scientifically accurate. Scientifically accurate means that they are testable and the idea holds true today. Here I'll pick apart each of these verses one by one to show you (since I've done it before for each of these verses).


For example, in the middle ages people still thought the earth was flat, and yet the bible says at Isaiah 40:22 "he sits enthroned above the circle of the earth" (The scriptures told man the earth was round.)


A circle is a 2-dimensional object. The earth is an orb or sphere, which is 3-dimensional. Not scientifically accurate.


"He suspends the earth over nothing" Job 26:7 (Meanwhile mystical religion had Atlas, tortoises etc. supporting the earth)


The earth isn't suspended in nothing. It is hurtling through space at millions of miles per hour and there is all sorts of space debris surrounding it including matter, radiation, solar wind, etc. This statement is completely wrong and not even close to scientifically accurate.


"All streams flow into the sea, yet the sea is never full. To the place the streams come from, there they return again." Ecclesiastes 1:7 (The water cycle)


This isn't a scientific statement. It makes no mention of how the water gets back to the origins of the streams. But then again this is a pretty obvious observation. You don't exactly need high tech gadgets to determine that water flows down hill to the seas then rains back down. Of course your passage skips condensation and rain. Condensation I can forgive, but rain I cannot.


Jeremiah 33:25 refers to "The fixed laws of the heavens and earth." (we are only starting to understand them)


First off, for one talking to me about taking passages out of context what excuses you from doing the same?. Here is the full passage:
Thus saith the LORD; If my covenant be not with day and night, and if I have not appointed the ordinances of heaven and earth

In full context it can be seen that this is not a scientific statement either. First off, heaven hasn't been proven to exist. Second off there is no proven pact with god and orbits of the earth to keep day and night coming. Third, again these are easy observations to make.


As far as medical and sanitary issues it was way ahead of it's time. Why? Could it have been God? Even with the education in our society, a good portion of the planet today does not even abide by the sanitary instructions of a silly old book thousands of years old.

Disposal of sewage: to be "buried outside the camp" Deuteronomy 23:12,13 (excrement within a certain radius can seep into the ground and cause sickness)


Full passage:
12 Designate a place outside the camp where you can go to relieve yourself. 13 As part of your equipment have something to dig with, and when you relieve yourself, dig a hole and cover up your excrement. 14 For the Lord your God moves about in your camp to protect you and to deliver your enemies to you. Your camp must be holy, so that he will not see among you anything indecent and turn away from you.

I see nothing about sickness, only that you should crap outside your camp because poop is unholy. That isn't anything close to a scientific statement. Sure it can be interpreted that the passage is talking about sickness, but that is an interpretation. Scientific statements don't deal with interpretations. You can only interpret scientific statements one way.


Touching dead animals and humans: Leviticus 11:27-38 talks about washing cloths, jars and so forth with water that come in contact with dead carcasses. (Protecting from bacteria)


…26Concerning all the animals which divide the hoof but do not make a split hoof, or which do not chew cud, they are unclean to you: whoever touches them becomes unclean. 27Also whatever walks on its paws, among all the creatures that walk on all fours, are unclean to you; whoever touches their carcasses becomes unclean until evening, 28and the one who picks up their carcasses shall wash his clothes and be unclean until evening; they are unclean to you.…

Hey look at that, when you look at it in context, the passage means something different. Four legged animals in general are just dirty and it says nothing about washing yourself with water or anything. In fact the passage explicitly states that you are unclean until evening. So you touch the dead animal in the morning then magically all the germs disappear come evening?


Leviticus 13:1-8 set guidelines for identifying leprosy, and quarantine.


1The LORD said to Moses and Aaron, 2"When anyone has a swelling or a rash or a shiny spot on their skin that may be a defiling skin disease, they must be brought to Aaron the priest or to one of his sons who is a priest. 3The priest is to examine the sore on the skin, and if the hair in the sore has turned white and the sore appears to be more than skin deep, it is a defiling skin disease. When the priest examines that person, he shall pronounce them ceremonially unclean. 4If the shiny spot on the skin is white but does not appear to be more than skin deep and the hair in it has not turned white, the priest is to isolate the affected person for seven days. 5On the seventh day the priest is to examine them, and if he sees that the sore is unchanged and has not spread in the skin, he is to isolate them for another seven days. 6On the seventh day the priest is to examine them again, and if the sore has faded and has not spread in the skin, the priest shall pronounce them clean; it is only a rash. They must wash their clothes, and they will be clean. 7But if the rash does spread in their skin after they have shown themselves to the priest to be pronounced clean, they must appear before the priest again. 8The priest is to examine that person, and if the rash has spread in the skin, he shall pronounce them unclean; it is a defiling skin disease.

This is probably the most scientific passage you have provided. Instructions on how to determine if someone has leprosy. In other words it's a scientific experiment. However it certainly isn't a scientific statement about the realities of the world.




posted on Jul, 22 2014 @ 07:14 AM
link   
a reply to: TheChrome

I find it highly hypocritical of you that you just got done telling me that my link to contradictions in the bible has passages taken out of context, then you do the EXACT same thing with your "scientifically accurate" bible passages. Almost all of your passages were taken out of context. Heck you didn't even provide the passages in some examples taking them further out of context. So is it only ok to take bible passages out of context when it supports YOUR account of things? Ugh... This is why I hate using the bible as a source of information because of crap like this.



posted on Jul, 22 2014 @ 10:26 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

How are my comments and references hypocritical? They are not false statements. The references you provide are. If you reason that a reference to "the circle of the earth" is bogus because it doesn't say "sphere" specifically and so forth, that's just horse hockey. The bible is not the latest edition of ASME/ANSI engineering standards. It focuses on the big picture of God's plan.

Speaking of the the big picture, the second link you provided about covenants, shows a lack of understanding of the bible. There are no contradictions there. The bible uses foreshadowing extensively. The laws in the OT, foreshadowed greater events. The everlasting covenant with Isaac, that your link calls a contradiction, is actually representative of the covenant with Christ. So while some are busy with mental masturbation, thinking this is a contradiction, the covenant with Christ lasts forever.



posted on Jul, 22 2014 @ 10:48 AM
link   

originally posted by: TheChrome
a reply to: Krazysh0t

How are my comments and references hypocritical? They are not false statements. The references you provide are. If you reason that a reference to "the circle of the earth" is bogus because it doesn't say "sphere" specifically and so forth, that's just horse hockey. The bible is not the latest edition of ASME/ANSI engineering standards. It focuses on the big picture of God's plan.


NO WRONG! You used the phrase "scientifically accurate" that infers that what is being said is true and testable. Neither of those things are the case in ANY of your passages. The earth isn't a circle and if you test that claim you will discover that it is a sphere. Heck any 3-dimensional term would have been better than circle: orb, ball, sphere, etc.

I called you a hypocrite because you took passages out of context and tried to make them say what they weren't saying which you accused me of doing. At least I provided the actual passages in question. You literally paraphrased certain passages and when I went and looked at the actual text (which I also posted for all to read) it mostly didn't line up with what you were saying. Like I said, is it only ok to take bible passages out of context when it favors you?


Speaking of the the big picture, the second link you provided about covenants, shows a lack of understanding of the bible. There are no contradictions there. The bible uses foreshadowing extensively. The laws in the OT, foreshadowed greater events. The everlasting covenant with Isaac, that your link calls a contradiction, is actually representative of the covenant with Christ. So while some are busy with mental masturbation, thinking this is a contradiction, the covenant with Christ lasts forever.


So we should or shouldn't we obey these laws from the OT?

Deuteronomy 21:18-21

18 If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, which will not obey the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother, and that, when they have chastened him, will not hearken unto them:
19 Then shall his father and his mother lay hold on him, and bring him out unto the elders of his city, and unto the gate of his place;
20 And they shall say unto the elders of his city, This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton, and a drunkard.
21 And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die: so shalt thou put evil away from among you; and all Israel shall hear, and fear.

Leviticus 24:16

He who blasphemes the name of the Lord shall be put to death; all the congregation shall stone him; the sojourner as well as the native, when he blasphemes the Name, shall be put to death.

Leviticus 25:44-46

As for your male and female slaves whom you may have: you may buy male and female slaves from among the nations that are round about you. You may also buy from among the strangers who sojourn with you and their families that are with you, who have been born in your land; and they may be your property. You may bequeath them to your sons after you, to inherit as a Possession for ever.

I'd really like to know because I'm not sure how long God's anger lasts
How long does God's anger last?

Though I'm not sure if he'll forgive my sins anyways.
Does God forgive sins?
edit on 22-7-2014 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 22 2014 @ 10:53 AM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
The simple fact is that you can put all the information and facts in front of people that you want, but you can't make them learn if they don't want to. As a result, these idiots teach their children their ignorance and the cycle of stupid continues on. This wouldn't be such a bad thing, but the dumb people are always the loudest complainers...


"the cycle of stupid"...should be a movie title...the added benefit is that you would have plenty of unpaid extras.



posted on Jul, 22 2014 @ 11:00 AM
link   
a reply to: SonoftheSun

4/10 Americans are blithering idiots.



posted on Jul, 22 2014 @ 12:38 PM
link   
a reply to: Cogito, Ergo Sum




Luckily for Mary (if she existed),


Ah call it ingenuity, me gullible and God loving or a popular pastime.
Todays medicality, proves it just plain possible. And at some point
Cog, existence demands miracles.



posted on Jul, 22 2014 @ 12:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: randyvs
a reply to: Cogito, Ergo Sum




Luckily for Mary (if she existed),


Ah call it ingenuity, me gullible and God loving or a popular pastime.
Todays medicality, proves it just plain possible. And at some point
Cog, existence demands miracles.


Are you referring to intra utero and possibly suggesting that a highly advanced medical procedure (for the time) was carried out on Mary? Because I'm pretty sure that is part of the Ancient Alien theory (hypothesis) and not Christianity.

Why does existence demand miracles? What if miracles were either just someone's overactive imagination or just unexplained natural events?



posted on Jul, 22 2014 @ 12:54 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Howdy,

I do believe he is referring to this phenomenon, but although it's often been claimed by humans, it has never been scientifically verified.

en.wikipedia.org...

All things are possible, but what is probable is more often than not the truth.

Regards,
Hydeman



posted on Jul, 22 2014 @ 12:58 PM
link   
a reply to: hydeman11

But that's not possible for humans naturally... In order to make another human you need DNA material from two hosts of differing sexes and a womb to carry the baby. This can be done artificially in a lab (the womb part can't be done, yet) but you still need those requirements before making a new human.

There is THIS from the wiki article:


On June 26, 2007, International Stem Cell Corporation (ISCC), a California-based stem cell research company, announced that their lead scientist, Dr. Elena Revazova, and her research team were the first to intentionally create human stem cells from unfertilized human eggs using parthenogenesis. The process may offer a way for creating stem cells that are genetically matched to a particular woman for the treatment of degenerative diseases that might affect her. In December 2007, Dr. Revazova and ISCC published an article[73] illustrating a breakthrough in the use of parthenogenesis to produce human stem cells that are homozygous in the HLA region of DNA. These stem cells are called HLA homozygous parthenogenetic human stem cells (hpSC-Hhom) and have unique characteristics that would allow derivatives of these cells to be implanted into millions of people without immune rejection.[74] With proper selection of oocyte donors according to HLA haplotype, it is possible to generate a bank of cell lines whose tissue derivatives, collectively, could be MHC-matched with a significant number of individuals within the human population.


But that is for stem cells and to apply that research to humans requires even MORE science and technology than intra utero does, we haven't even reached that scientific level yet. Besides, I'm pretty sure that would be cloning and even your wiki article says that the child is the same sex as the mother. In other words, if this were true in relation to the bible then Jesus would be a woman.
edit on 22-7-2014 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 22 2014 @ 01:03 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t




someone's overactive imagination or just unexplained natural events?



Seems like semantics to me.



posted on Jul, 22 2014 @ 01:06 PM
link   
a reply to: randyvs

Semantics? I'm pretty sure that a talking burning bush isn't a natural event in the universe. At least on this planet. Though I can give you a BIT of credit, maybe it wasn't a result of an overactive imagination. Maybe he was just tripping. From what I understand there is a pretty hallucinogenic mushroom in that area that was taken for "spiritual reasons" back in those days. So there is that.



posted on Jul, 22 2014 @ 01:10 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Are you saying Mary was just tripping?



posted on Jul, 22 2014 @ 01:15 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Howdy,

Don't get me wrong. I agree with you. I think it is ridiculous that I have to defend the age of the Earth in pretty much all parts of my life... (My life is geology...)

Good call on the "Jesus would have to be a woman thing." Absolutely right. Self fertilization can only use the genetics of the mother, so of course you'd end up with only X chromosomes. Don't mistake my defense of hypothetical situations for belief in supernatural events...

Again, the simplest interpretation is often the best one.

Regards,
Hydeman



posted on Jul, 22 2014 @ 01:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: jimmyx

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
The simple fact is that you can put all the information and facts in front of people that you want, but you can't make them learn if they don't want to. As a result, these idiots teach their children their ignorance and the cycle of stupid continues on. This wouldn't be such a bad thing, but the dumb people are always the loudest complainers...


"the cycle of stupid"...should be a movie title...the added benefit is that you would have plenty of unpaid extras.


Borrowed from another ATS thread.

www.examiner.com...

Perhaps Atheists, and Christians alike should ask Sir Isaac Newton for the answers, because his conclusions (except prophecy, since prophecy could not be understood until the end times) were correct.
edit on 22-7-2014 by TheChrome because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 22 2014 @ 01:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: randyvs
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Are you saying Mary was just tripping?




No I think Mary was just lying to keep her twice her age husband (she was 15, he was 30+) from finding out that she was a slut and slept around on him. Not that I can blame her, what motivation is there to stay faithful in an arranged marriage? Oh yeah, that account would be filed under "over active imagination."
edit on 22-7-2014 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 22 2014 @ 01:22 PM
link   
a reply to: hydeman11

I didn't make any assumptions about your beliefs. I was just picking apart that possibility that you suggested.

By the way, Occam's razor is that the theory with the fewest assumptions is often the best one. Using the word simplest can lend credence to some wild ideas that are wrong. For example: Why is this here? God. Simple, but has an assumption. Whereas the answer: I don't know is equally as simple and makes 0 assumptions. Sorry to be nit-picky but just trying to educate

Cheers.

edit on 22-7-2014 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 22 2014 @ 01:34 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

And where would your account be filed under?
Other than absolutely faithless on all accounts.
And isn't it existence that I brought under the microscope?



posted on Jul, 22 2014 @ 01:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: randyvs
a reply to: Krazysh0t

And where would your account be filed under?
Other than absolutely faithless on all accounts.



I'd file my account under occam's razor since it is the most probable, requires fewer assumptions, and makes sense.


And isn't it existence that I brought under the microscope?


The Mary account (as well as the Moses account that I highlighted) are part of existence. What kind of scope on existence are you implying if we cannot talk about local miracles? Do we have to only talk about universal miracles? I didn't see you specify.



posted on Jul, 22 2014 @ 01:44 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Howdy,

No, don't be sorry about that, you're absolutely correct. That's semantics, but meaningful semantics. I just assume (see, that's the problem...) that most people equate simplicity to least number of assumptions. Bad assumption on my part, so I will be more careful with that in the future.

How is a god a simple solution, though? Anything that can do anything is more complex than nothing... God is simple to say, and that makes it easy, but I do disagree to it being a simple answer, all considered.

As for the possibility, I want to make it clear that I did not suggest it. I was suggesting that perhaps it was the process to which Randyvs was referring, as he said that "science proves it is medically possible." I took that a bit broadly I suppose and included a natural process by which females could birth females without being first impregnated. You were right to point out that males are not, and cannot be, born from this method... at least not what we would consider males/humans.

If an organism had more than 2 sex chromosomes, perhaps it would be possible? But I don't know the genetics behind that... I must admit that my studies of the biological (non-mineralized) world have been and passed for some time, so forgive me if I am mistaken in anything.


Regards,
Hydeman



new topics

top topics



 
19
<< 13  14  15    17 >>

log in

join