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 question from a Christian

page: 8
10
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 16 2014 @ 10:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: BasementWarriorKryptonite
a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

May I ask what a christian's concern with facts is?


Well for the majority of my life I had no idea who god was . I always said I believed in him, but to be quite honest I never really gave any of it.much thought. However close to three years ago I got this intense feeling, I can't quite explain it, but I felt something big was coming. Not sure why but that feeling made me decide that I needed to figure out if I really believed in God and my first thought was if God is real and the actual creator surely Science and reality should show some sign of Him. I also decided that there were way to many religions to choose from in the world, but if one was true it would be coherent with Science and logic. So began my study into both religion and science. I set out attempting to disprove the Bible. If it was true, I wouldn't be able to refute it. As I searched to disprove the Bible I searched other religions and did exactly the same thing to them. I set out using logic and science to narrow my choices. I havent searched them all, but gods blessed me with enough information and insight to see his fingerprints on the creation. Facts are not what I am interested in. I am interested in truth. Should we discuss the difference?
edit on 16-6-2014 by ServantOfTheLamb because: (no reason given)




posted on Jun, 17 2014 @ 03:21 AM
link   
a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb


Lol I said refute because I've listened to enough of dawkings lectures and debates to know that I can show anything he says about macro evolution is not conclusive fact.

Yet you can't even spell his name.


Then you proceed to act as though I am some ignorant fool without knowing anything about me.

'As though'?

Your behaviour on ATS tells the sad story all too clearly, I'm afraid.



posted on Jun, 17 2014 @ 09:04 AM
link   
originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
a reply to: AfterInfinity


Lol yes and there isn't one known, and therefore macro-evolution is not fact. Thats my point. I asked people who think macroevolution is cold hard fact could find out for themselves that its lacking loads of evidence. It is missing more evidence than it has.

Again... "Science" does not distinguish between macro and micro evolution. (You completely ignored my original post).

Evolution is a fact. You admitted yourself that micro-evolution happens in your OP and "Macro-evolution" is just a colloquial way of explaining the cumulative effect of evolution across generations.

There is mountains of evidence, you just choose to ignore it.

There is no better explanation for all of the evidence we have gathered over hundreds of years, through multiple existing and constantly developing fields of research and new technologies and approaches. I have even been in other threads with you and similarly minded people as you on this site where I have posted clear, concise and peer reviewed examples (go through my post history if you want to find them).

We have seen multiple organisms show what you call "micro-evolution", and now quite a few and ever increasingly complex examples of bacteria, through up to 50,000 generations, have displayed a change in species, definably different traits, from being able to metabolise different nutrients and being able to live in completely different environments than their ancestors (what creationists used to call "macro-evolution") until they asked for other examples.

We have now seen mosquito populations in controlled circumstances becoming a new genus, and an article I was reading in a scientific magazine (think it was Science) was discussing an ongoing experiment to evolve two breedable insect populations to be un-breedable, with the experiment to date progressing as predicted.

Speciation has been established. Creationists just keep asking for more examples of longer lived organisms, without ever accepting the whole concept of evolution.


Therefore, those who say macro-evolution is fact take that statement on faith rather than science.

This reveals your true motives... being the common belief amongst creationists that "evolution" is a faith based theory.

It's not.


If you are actually honest, the truth about macro-evolution is we do not yet know.

The truth is that we do know.

As time continues longer lifed examples will be added to the ever growing catalogue as we have the chance to witness thousands of generation of a particularly species. The more complex the organism, the more generations have to be iterated before a significant speciation can be observed.

If humanity survives for a few hundred thousand years... and we record it... we may even to be lucky enough to witness speciation in our own species.


Do I believe it is the most likely scenario for describing the process God or nature used to create life. No. Why? Well I hate to be cliche but evolution doesn't account for morality nor does it make logical sense based on the argument from Reason.

No other scientific theory (god or "creation" is not a scientific theory) has ever been presented that better explains the known facts. If you have one, please present it... scientists (including myself) would be happy for a new avenue of inquiry.

Even if you could, it would just add to the body of knowledge, and would likely adopt the bits of evolutionary theory that help to describe a more accurate model.

If not evolution, what better scientific theory is there?
edit on 17-6-2014 by puzzlesphere because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 17 2014 @ 09:27 AM
link   
Can a creationist please explain the magical barrier (and a means to test it) that stops "micro" evolution from accumulating into "macro" evolution?



posted on Jun, 17 2014 @ 10:04 AM
link   
a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb


[ Facts are not what I am interested in. I am interested in truth. Should we discuss the difference?


There is no difference between facts and truth. Look up the definitions.



posted on Jun, 17 2014 @ 10:20 AM
link   
a reply to: AfterInfinity

i think there is.. (or do only religious/spiritual people dig this??)

scientific theories contain many "facts" yet are constantly updated as new research & info comes along..

ie: theory of gravity
gravity is a "fact" (observable) but we don't completely understand it yet..
..how can we say we know the "truth" of it?

..truth & facts seem to be entirely different things.. facts can be updated, the truth is always the same..

 



Can a creationist please explain the magical barrier (and a means to test it) that stops "micro" evolution from accumulating into "macro" evolution?

micro-evolution into macro-evolution seems to indicate a speck of dust can become a living thing (with consciousness) and continue evolving to (what?) a type of "godhood" (?)

..we may have heard this before?

"ye shall be as gods"


i don't know of a means to test it.. i'd just think because we're not seeing any intermediate forms or end-result godlings, this seems to indicate they aren't there and/or aren't possible?
edit on 17-6-2014 by UNIT76 because: just thinking out loud..



posted on Jun, 17 2014 @ 10:28 AM
link   
a reply to: UNIT76

Scientific use and layman use of 'fact' are different. Even if we rephrase OP's statement to reflect this, it doesn't sound any better:

"Evidence is not what I am interested in. I am interested in truth. Should we discuss the difference?"

Considering OP's definition of truth appears to be "whatever it says in the bible", it doesn't bode well for intelligent and informed discussion.



posted on Jun, 17 2014 @ 10:38 AM
link   
a reply to: GetHyped

the bible says "lean not to thine own understanding, but consider God in all your ways and he will direct your paths"

i've found that's not entirely a "bad" thing either...

maybe the guy who dreamt of the benzene molecule was following this advice?

/shrugs
 

i also think there's a big discourse that comes along with "scientific" and "layman" back there..
edit on 17-6-2014 by UNIT76 because: trance-formers... more than meets the eye *wink*



posted on Jun, 17 2014 @ 11:00 AM
link   
a reply to: Astyanax

Twas an accident. My replies have been off of a mobile phone . why don't you stop attacking me just because you disagree with me doesn't mean you have to be a disrespectful twat.



posted on Jun, 17 2014 @ 11:01 AM
link   
a reply to: UNIT76

I think you ask a fair question.

As you imply, a spiritual outlook is one that encompasses a world beyond the physical. And facts — if we refrain from splitting hairs — are essentially about physical things.

One who believes in a world of the spirit must necessarily believe in a truth that takes in more than the material world: that is to say, the world of facts.

So yes, truth to the OP* (and perhaps to you, 'sick puppy') may not necessarily be the same thing as fact.

But those who say otherwise have very strong grounds on which to premise their disagreement. What grounds have you, or is that too provocative a question?

------------------------------------
*To whom I really must apologise for my regrettable earlier post.



posted on Jun, 17 2014 @ 11:05 AM
link   

originally posted by: GetHyped
Can a creationist please explain the magical barrier (and a means to test it) that stops "micro" evolution from accumulating into "macro" evolution?


Its not.magic its genetics and natural selection that limit the variation within species.



posted on Jun, 17 2014 @ 11:10 AM
link   
a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb


just because you disagree with me doesn't mean you have to be a disrespectful twat.

I'm sorry. See footnote to my earlier post.

There is, however, an Edit button. See? I just used it.




edit on 17/6/14 by Astyanax because: sometimes you just have to state the obvious.



posted on Jun, 17 2014 @ 11:19 AM
link   
a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

[citation needed]

You make the claim, you back it up. All the evidence points to the contrary so let's see what you've got.



posted on Jun, 17 2014 @ 11:21 AM
link   
a reply to: Astyanax

not sure what you're asking, but all the prophecies in the bible are hard to get around, when i see people like obama & daschell quoting ezekial (the sycamores have been cut down, but we will plant cedars in their place" (etc) after 911 it just gets weirder and weirder..
(and) how the bible predicts a world government in the last times (hello again obama, daschell & friends), how there have been multiple attempts at world gov. before, who's supposedly behind all that, (and) the introduction of foreign genetic material (back in genesis) etc etc
..how everything else but the bible seems to coalesce & compliment eachother along the way, yet still oppose what the bible says..

how is all this stuff *not* fascinating?



posted on Jun, 17 2014 @ 11:27 AM
link   
a reply to: GetHyped

Yes, just for fun... I'd like to see that too.

Sophisticated argument, I bet.



posted on Jun, 17 2014 @ 11:39 AM
link   
a reply to: UNIT76


how is all this stuff *not* fascinating?

You'll just have to take my word for it that it isn't fascinating to me.

I study history. I have no formal training in the subject but I have become, by virtue of my trade of writer, something of a historian.

Those who know history are aware that millennial prophecies have been made ever since Jesus vanished from human ken. Understandably, they were rife about a thousand years ago, around 1000AD. But throughout history, whenever the times were uncertain and troubling, such prophecies have appeared. Some were very convincing: consider how well the rise to power of the Fatimid Caliph al-Hakim bin Amr Allah, in 1009, and his subsequent actions match the prophecies relating to the Antichrist.

So the current crop of millennial rumours doesn't really impress me. Sorry about that.

I'm sure you could find better grounds than that for believing in a world of the spirit, though. Surely?



posted on Jun, 17 2014 @ 11:41 AM
link   
a reply to: puzzlesphere

Your making a logical flaw here. You arguing hat just because Humans chose to give the prefix Micro and Macro to a word that it makes that fact. Now, Macro-evolution is presented to explain how animals get major morphological changes. Not one animal in the fossil record is complete. There are fossils of animals that are alive today buried very deep, but they aren't found in any of the layers in between. How does evolution account for that? Are you really going to try and tell me you don't know why evolution will ever produce completely new organisms? Look at any of the experiments people have done, lets say in Antibiotic resistance, as bacteria evolve to resist a drug they live and become more plentiful as long as the drug is applied, but as soon as the drug is removed those bacteria die off because the mutation doesn't allow other desirable traits to be expressed. I think a guy has been experimenting on fruit flies for 30 years and still not one sign of the morphological changes you are saying are cold hard fact. I mean believe what you want bro.



posted on Jun, 17 2014 @ 11:43 AM
link   
a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb


There are fossils of animals that are alive today buried very deep, but they aren't found in any of the layers in between.


Examples?



posted on Jun, 17 2014 @ 11:45 AM
link   

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
a reply to: Astyanax

Twas an accident. My replies have been off of a mobile phone . why don't you stop attacking me just because you disagree with me doesn't mean you have to be a disrespectful twat.



Speaking of disrespectful...I don't believe the word "twat" is appropriate language to use in any setting outside of your private domain. Please reflect this in future responses.
edit on 17-6-2014 by AfterInfinity because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 17 2014 @ 11:50 AM
link   
a reply to: UNIT76



micro-evolution into macro-evolution seems to indicate a speck of dust can become a living thing (with consciousness) and continue evolving to (what?) a type of "godhood" (?)

..we may have heard this before?


I'll explain that to you when you explain to me why thousands of children are dying of starvation and disease every day. Is that what you consider "divine justice"?



new topics

top topics



 
10
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join