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.

 

How does creationism explain....

page: 3
0
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 22 2004 @ 06:01 PM
link   
phantom chatter you are being very ignorant, evidence is always being presented to show the bible is not correct except anything that is shown is quickly writen off by you and others alike. also you are trying to put across that there was a large plant eating dinosaur living less than 10,000 years ago? wheres the evidence in that...there is none just some vague desciption that sounds more like a hippo.
and another thing why is it up to science to prove the bible wrong? when science comes up with facts and theories they are always written off by christians no matter what they are. in your eyes the bible doesn't have to prove science wrong, the reason why is doesn't have to prove science wrong simply is because it could not prove science wrong.
religion was the way of life 2000 years ago, but today our way of life is governed by science, new scientific ideas and new scientific discoveries. the bible does not stand up to science like it used to. stories of people living to 500, 600 or 700 years old, noah's ark, jonah and the whale, noah having 3 sons that were each of a different race, jesus being the messiah, the virgin birth it's all just fairytale and anyone with the slightest bit of logical thinking can see most stories in the bible are nothing but fairytales. really noah's ark??? a flood that covered the world, a boat built in 120 years that held 2 of each animal should not be taken literaly. indeed much of the bible if interpreted literaly would not make sense, which is why if it cannot be taken literaly on a scientific level then it should not be taken literaly on a spiritual level either.




posted on Dec, 22 2004 @ 06:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by Slicky1313
and can anyone give evidence of how the Bible ha been PROVEN wrong?

It doesn't have to be proven wrong, it's never been proven true to begin with. Can you prove that the pagan Greek and Roman religions were wrong? That there is no Zeus or Apollo or Hades? No. So does that mean they exist? Most certainly not.


KJ,NIV,NAS versions please. Ive searched for contradictions in the Bible, and havent found any. can anyone please give PROOF of how the Bible is false, instead of pointing the finger and saying its false, without presenting information and falsness in it?

You haven't found any contradictions because you don't WANT to find any. Here's an example:

"And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and the cattle after their kind ... And God said, Let us make man ... So God created man in his own image." (Gen 1:25-27)

"And the Lord God said it is not good that man should be alone; I will make a help-meet for him. And out of the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air, and brought them to Adam to see what he would call them." (Gen 2:18-19)

So did God make man first or animal first?

There's quite a few here.



All I can say is, I havent found any, so please enlighten me if u got any. and evolution is just all about chances. what makes u so sure that these creatures keep the right "links" and discard the wrong ones. what if the next time comes and the right ones are lost. even so, the chances are very high of it ever happening anyway.

Think about how natural selection works. The animals more suited to survive will live to reproduce, the weaker ones will die off. The weaker animals won't outlive the stronger ones, that makes no sense whatsoever.



posted on Dec, 23 2004 @ 07:21 PM
link   
there's one simple answer...creationism can not explain things like dinosaurs or their remains. thing is we can only accurately carbon date things that aren't older than 2000 years. thing is if you believe in a young universe say '10,000' years then to you the ice age was bull#???



posted on Dec, 24 2004 @ 12:12 PM
link   
hmmm, excellent point, it does seem to lead to 2 different creation stories, doesnt it? Ill have to check into it though. and thanks for the site, I noticed quite a few things wrong with the "contradictions", but the first one was ht best one, cause it appears to contradict itself, ill look into it.

but just for the record, like the second one on the site,

Adam will die on the day that he eats from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Adam eats from the tree, yet lives another 930 years.

Gen.2:17
"But of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die."

Gen.3:6
"And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food ... she took of the fruit therof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat." Gen.5:5
"And all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years: and he died."
the Bible is talking about a spiritual death, I noticed quite a few other "contradictions" that werent really contradictions.



posted on Dec, 25 2004 @ 04:50 PM
link   
there are many contradictions in the first 5 books of the old testament. this is because there is believed to be 4 different writters that wrote the first 5 books. there are also 4 completly different accounts to what god is and how he shows himself to people. so indeed these 4 writters' works were put together and this now makes up the first 5 books of the old testament. many christians believe that moses wrote these from the words given to him by god, and that these first 5 books should be interpreted literaly.



posted on Dec, 26 2004 @ 06:42 PM
link   
first off, with Genesis and the "two creation stories" u sort of molded them together, and shortened them, but here it goes.

Genesis 2:19- From the ground God formed every wild animal and every bird in the sky. He brought them to the man so the man could name them.

Genesis 1: 24- Then God said "Let the earth be filled with animals. And let each produce more of its own kind. Let there be tame animals and small crawling animals and wild animals. And let each produce more of its kind." And it happened.

In Genesis 2: 19, God would was simply referring to when he made the animals.
in Gen 1:24, God clearly stated he made the animals then. in Gen 2: 19l, he did not, but instead a referral.



posted on Dec, 26 2004 @ 06:58 PM
link   
"And God made the beast of the earth after his kind and the cattle after their kind... And God said; Let us make man... So God created man in his own image." (Gen 1:25-27) this shows that man was created after animals. Then further on in genesis you get

"And the Lord God said it is not good that man should be alone; I will make a help-meet for him. And out of the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air, and brought them to Adam to see what he would call them." (Gen 2:18-19) this shows man to be created before animals.

the excuse for this contradtiction is that in gen 1:25-27 it's only a referal to what he was going to do? i don't really get that. does definatly not seem like just a referal to me.



posted on Dec, 26 2004 @ 09:22 PM
link   
well, the words arent exact on the second Genesis thingy bobber.

u say...

"and every fowl of the air, and brought them to Adam to see what he would call them."

the "AND" part would be led to assume that right after God created the animals, he brought them to Adam.

this is what it really says...
"He brought them to the man so the man could name them." and before that, it is stating that...
"From the ground God formed every wild animal and every bird in the sky."
Thats right, God did do that, and then says He took them to Adam to be named.
when ya think about it, it could go towards both ways sorta, but it does seem to lean towards the "God made animals from the ground. He brought them to Adam" its just stating God made them, so he decided to bring them to Adam to be named to find a helper.



posted on Dec, 26 2004 @ 10:50 PM
link   
Im not sure that the pentachuke (spelling?) is meant to be taken literally. I think there is a verse in the old testament that says something like "for these things (stories) have been handed down to you so that you might understand"

And there are other verses that refer to the importance of faith where notions of creation are concerned.

Bear in mind that God might not think that it is important for man to know all the ins and outs of his creation.

True creationism will never die. It is constantly revising itself as new evidence becomes uncovered. Its a bit like science in that respect.

When metaphysiscists discoverd the cosmic constant (irrefutable evidence for a design behind the universe) they contrived the theory (more of a notion) of the multiverse, for which there is no evidence or can ever be, at least not in my lifetime.



posted on Dec, 27 2004 @ 05:32 AM
link   
multiverse would mean that there are many universes happening where we are but in a different dimension/time. it's not really a farfetched theory if you think of theories such as god making us, the earth, the stars and the universe. just like god the multiverse cannot really be proven. just because a theory cannot be proven doesnt make it any less credible to a theory that can almost be proven.
i must have a different bible because that's what it read in the book of genesis in mine. also creationists are not like scientists and do not hold there beliefs on any kind of factual scientific evidence. i once read on here that because it says god made us from the dirt and that science found out some of our components are also in dirt that this mean science prooves creationism right. well it doesn't because we actually have more in common with a banana than dirt. also the reason why we do is because all life derived from the same mixture of components. we are as everything in this world made up from carbon, just because the dirt is, it does not mean that science has prooved the creationists theory to be true.
the bible if interpreted literaly like it should be...even in genesis you are supposed to believe every single word that that is the way it happened. then again if you interpret the whole bible literaly you are not a very logical person. if you notice over the years that the four gospels were writen by people that never met jesus, the bible was edited over and over again and when tried to first be made in to english the people that did so were hunted down and killed. in the 1600s the KJV was put together, with the chapter/versus system introduced and also the books were presently know in there were the order that king james had made. that's your religion...built around a cult that jesus created and that paul, who never met him, carried on to be the founder of christianity. that's the true christianity...



posted on Dec, 27 2004 @ 10:29 AM
link   
yes, true, half of the gospels of the Bible people that wrote them never met Jesus. but, these people did have their friends there who did meet Jesus, they had eye witnesses, and the holy spirit to guide them to write the books.



posted on Dec, 27 2004 @ 11:03 AM
link   
Creationism is a theory, Evolution is a SCIENCE.

Carbon dating has been proven to have some problems? Okay. I'll admit that.

How do you explain the HUGE amounts of data about the evolution of man?

Australopithicus man, Neanderthal, Homo Erectus, Homo Sapiens.

Are these lies? Did these humans actually only live 10,000 years ago instead of 140,000?

How about land erosion? Did God just scoop out the Grand Canyon on the first Monday, or is it in fact the result of millions of years of erosion?

Sorry, but whenever I hear someone defending creationism, I run for the hills. It's the most simplistic claptrap around, and I can't see how anyone can believe it.

Sure, I believe some things in the Bible are historical fact, but by far most of it is SYMBOLISM. They didn't know anything about evolution in the days when the Bible was written, so they needed to explain things in a theological way.

The Ancient Greeks believed that the sun was actually Apollo crossing the sky in a fiery chariot pulled by flying horses. Does that mean it's true? Hardly.

Five thousand years ago, we had no science to explain these things, and it's human nature to want to understand things.

So if you have no concept whatsoever about how and why the sun comes up every day, you tend to believe what you're told about it, in order to try and have the world make sense to you.

That's how I see it anyway. I'm not saying Christians are idiots, I'm just saying that people who believe 100% in Creationism and totally discount Evolution are gullible and woefully ignorant.



jako



posted on Dec, 27 2004 @ 01:07 PM
link   
like the ever growing number of people that are dying from that earthquake, around 30,000 now, that is devine. that was meant to happen according to god. i don't even wanna start to hear that's the work of the devil because it's not. everything happens for a reason right? those 30,000 and more did they all have to die for their sins? all those people living in poverty in india...were they really that bad, that god had to murder them off? if there really was a god and this is the work of satan then do you not think a god should help what he created rather than to die at the hands of satan? i cant get over the fact how # the world is yet you think there was a great, holy, so devine creator...this is not perfection...this is not devine...life is harsh and it kicks you when you're down. there are no signs nowadays of anythin remotly devine or god-like. my last point to say is that you actually say this is all part of what god wanted, this is what he created and this is what he wants...doesnt seem very god-like to me. im also questioning why god does these things...but surely he shoudnt do them so we have no reason to question him.



posted on Dec, 27 2004 @ 01:39 PM
link   
It's a hard question. Quoting the writings here from someone I don't know to try to help:

\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
"Like so many people, I have struggled with this question as it pertains to my own life and the lives of others. Only by coming to terms over time with something terribly sad in my life have I come to understand the role God plays when human tragedies occur.

I now feel that my God does not send bad things to punish us or test us. In fact, God does not send them at all. Rather I sense that there are powerful forces loose in the world, forces like evil, disease and death.

What is God's role in all this turmoil? If God is not sending the disease, the accidents, the tragedies, then why not, Zeus-like, step in and prevent them? For me, this is a harder question. The experience of the individual cries so clearly for divine intervention, for healing, for salvation from emotional or physical pain. Although sometimes miraculous healings do occur which suggest the presence of the Divine, in my experience there generally is not much physical intervention.

However, the "intervention" I have experienced has been as powerful as anything physical. I have grown certain that God actually mourns these horrible events with us, that God is as sad, even more so, about what is happening to me as I am. God's role, I have felt, is to be "by my side," to understand me, to comfort me, to "lead me beside still waters... [and] restore my soul" (from Psalm 23) in the metaphorical "Valley of Death" which I face, as does every other person in the world. Finally, and most importantly, God's role is to help me heal on a daily basis- help me collect the pieces broken by experience- help me become Whole again, Whole as I was intended and created to be from the beginning by this loving God."
--Elizabeth
\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\

It's an incredibly terrible tragedy that's completely overwhelming. It'll take me some time to get accustomed to the shock and sorrow.


Pray for Sri Lanka, surrounding areas, and the surviving families.

[edit on 27-12-2004 by saint4God]



posted on Dec, 27 2004 @ 03:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jakomo

Creationism is a theory, Evolution is a SCIENCE.

Carbon dating has been proven to have some problems? Okay. I'll admit that.

How do you explain the HUGE amounts of data about the evolution of man?

Australopithicus man, Neanderthal, Homo Erectus, Homo Sapiens.

Are these lies? Did these humans actually only live 10,000 years ago instead of 140,000?

How about land erosion? Did God just scoop out the Grand Canyon on the first Monday, or is it in fact the result of millions of years of erosion?

Sorry, but whenever I hear someone defending creationism, I run for the hills. It's the most simplistic claptrap around, and I can't see how anyone can believe it.

Sure, I believe some things in the Bible are historical fact, but by far most of it is SYMBOLISM. They didn't know anything about evolution in the days when the Bible was written, so they needed to explain things in a theological way.

The Ancient Greeks believed that the sun was actually Apollo crossing the sky in a fiery chariot pulled by flying horses. Does that mean it's true? Hardly.

Five thousand years ago, we had no science to explain these things, and it's human nature to want to understand things.

So if you have no concept whatsoever about how and why the sun comes up every day, you tend to believe what you're told about it, in order to try and have the world make sense to you.

That's how I see it anyway. I'm not saying Christians are idiots, I'm just saying that people who believe 100% in Creationism and totally discount Evolution are gullible and woefully ignorant.



jako


first off... evolution is a theory, not a science. in order to be a science, you need 3 things, and one of them is it needs to be witnessed.
evolution and creation are not sciences, but only theorys and so far cant be proven or make it a science. The grand canyon... lol. have u ever heard of Mount St. Helens, and how the volcanoe erupted, basically made a 1/40th of a scale of the Grand Canyon in just DAYS. so thats about what... theoretically its 40-80 days at the same power to cause the grand canyon. instead of lookign at a canyon and thinking "the water cause the canyon" but think "the canyon caused the water" both can be said, and logically drawn up. can u imagine the effects of a global flood? the canyon could easily be made by that.



posted on Dec, 27 2004 @ 04:20 PM
link   
the canyon could not have been made by the flood, it takes millions of years to carve out a canyon like that. having a big flood for 40 days would not have created the grand canyon.



posted on Jan, 21 2005 @ 02:28 PM
link   
Slicky1313:

first off... evolution is a theory, not a science. in order to be a science, you need 3 things, and one of them is it needs to be witnessed.
evolution and creation are not sciences, but only theorys and so far cant be proven or make it a science. The grand canyon... lol. have u ever heard of Mount St. Helens, and how the volcanoe erupted, basically made a 1/40th of a scale of the Grand Canyon in just DAYS. so thats about what... theoretically its 40-80 days at the same power to cause the grand canyon. instead of lookign at a canyon and thinking "the water cause the canyon" but think "the canyon caused the water" both can be said, and logically drawn up. can u imagine the effects of a global flood? the canyon could easily be made by that.


Too bad it's been proven the Grand Canyon was created over MILLIONS of years from erosion. Go there and take the tour, they will tell you the same.

None of what you say disproves anything about evolution. Evolution is not a science because it hasn't been witnessed? Huh? Who was Charles Darwin and what was he doing in the Galapagos?



posted on Jul, 26 2005 @ 01:43 AM
link   
well I would like to point out a few things about grand canyon.

if you built a dam across grand canyon (by the way, that would take a lot of dirt) but if you did, I huge lake would fill in behind it. Water from Montana drains through the grand canyon.

1. Grand Canyon is a pretty big hole in the ground.
2. The top is higher than the bottom.
3. The river runs through the bottom.
4. No one knows where the delta from grand canyon went.

here is a link to show what grand canyon looks like from a satellite.
Grand Canyon

if you take a look at the picture, you will notice what looks like ice or snow. almost 270 miles worth is what is called the snow line, there is a ridge in that area. its hard to explain every detail which is why I am trying to use pictures to help explain.

At the top of grand canyon, the river enters the canyon at 2800ft above see level. as river flows through the canyon, the top is slowly rising up and slowly coming back down. there is a ridge.
the top of grand canyon starts out at about 2800ft above sea level, as you get further along in the canyon the top of grand canyon reaches heights from 6900ft-8500ft elevation then all the way back down to 1800ft elevation.

now if the colorado river carved grand canyon for millions of years. that river would have to find a way to flow uphill; almost 270 miles of uphill terrain.

did that canyon really form over millions of years? I think you were right about noahs flood washing that dirt out and forming GC in a few weeks.

im not saying im right. im just giving another side to the story. I think its more possible for noahs flood to have done it.

but I do have a question, how did they prove Grand Canyon to be millions of years old?



posted on Jul, 26 2005 @ 12:48 PM
link   
from the post above, I find it it geophyisically impossible for grand canyon to have formed by the colorado river. now many people believe it I understand. but I think that the facts must be carefully examined before making a statement like "it took millions of years to form grand canyon".

now if you havent guessed already, I dont believe it took millions of years to form grand canyon. I believe that it formed shortly after the flood then the water was running off from Grand lake and Hopi lake. I think that when those two lakes got full, the water went over the top and carved out grand canyon while the ground was still soft.

I take that by faith, im not an expert, but I can put two things together and find it very hard to believe that grand canyon formed by the colorado river. over millions of years.

but I would still like to know how they figured out grand canyon is millions of years old.



posted on Jul, 26 2005 @ 05:03 PM
link   
be carefull what you say about the grand canyon. They are touchy about that.
I presented a case with pics and vids that I believe you are trying to present and the thread got thrown into the trash. They dont like you proving the canyon wasnt made over billions/millions of years.




top topics



 
0
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join