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.

 

Why do people belive in Creationism, how could they think that?

page: 5
0
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 26 2004 @ 01:16 AM
link   
Wupy, I dare say that what you wrote makes good sense; and, in the long run, you are absolutely right: whether a person believes in evolution, or intelligent design, or a combination of the two (as I personally believe) is, in fact, irrelevant. How our lives began is not as important as what we actually do with them.

Nevertheless, I continue to be haunted by the words of Descartes: "I was struck by the number of false opinions I held in my youth, and thus how doubtful were all those I had built upon them."




posted on Dec, 26 2004 @ 09:03 AM
link   
Hi mrwupy, I read your post and just had to reply.
You said:



In the immortal words of Rodney King, "Why can't we all jus git alone?"


and then versed the will of God by saying



man was created and evolved just as the good lord intended. What’s so difficult to understand about that statement?


Doesn’t this contradict your first statement? It is like saying, 'Why can't people stop lighting fires?' and then flicking a match into a tank of petrol. Strange.

I can see that your philosophy leans towards the new age, but here are some reasons as to 'why' humans can't all get along (taking religion totally out of the picture):
- Greed,
- Jealousy
- Anger
- Mistrust
- Superiority etc.

So in a nut-shell, humans will NEVER get along without conflict, religion is the excuse people like to use to wage wars etc.




shaunybaby
this thread has kinda evolved a little??? now its talk about people being possessed by the devil etc...what happened to the creationism thread and why people believe in it???


Because, if the devil is proved to exist, then God must exist. If the Devil can possess people and 'supernatural' events happen that defy scientific explanation, then logic would dictate that the theories of science can be broken by 'supernatural' activity. End result, any theories that scientists create at the end of the day are fallible.

Why do people believe in Creationism? Because people believe in the supernatural intervention by an all powerful creator. This was important ground to cover.



posted on Dec, 26 2004 @ 06:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by shmick25
Really? And does [psychology]explain objects flying around a room, claw marks magically appearing around a persons neck, the ability to speak in non learned languages?

Demonstrate that this has occured and then maybe there is something to consider.


shmick
So, you are saying, for science to be able to 'scientifically' explain anything it must be in a lab?.

Not in a lab per say, but at least under controlled conditions.
Again, which supposedly supernatural acts of vanatuan witch doctors have been demonstrated to have occured? Outside of a lab and in uncontrolled conditions there are all sorts of ways to commit fraud. If these people get supernatural favours from their gods or some other source then get then set it up so as to eliminate, within reason, fraud or other explanations.

shmick
Of course some scientists will have an answer, because they have an answer for everything.

I thought your entire point was that there was no answer?


A guesstimate, even an educated guesstimate, however, is not a legitimate answer when it comes to science as guesstimates involve faith.

Which scientific explanations can you demonstrate are incorrect? They aren't 'guesses', they're attempts at an anwer. Indeed, they might be wrong, they might be right, they might need some modification. But why should the fact that many people beleive in god require the existence of god? Does the fact that many people don't beleive in god require supernatural explanation? Does beleif in greco-roman gods require that they exist? YOu are arguing that god must exist because man beleives in god and science 'can't explain why man beleives it'. But there is nothing so fantastic about man beleiving in one god or another, why shouldn't man beleive in such a thing?


The response by the Medical Research Council was that ‘microwave therapy has no scientific basis for the treatment of cancer’. Tell that to the hundreds and thousands of people that die each year from cancer! I wonder if you were dying from this same disease, would you be looking for ‘un-scientific’ methods of treatment?

I recall Dawkin's made mention of another scientist who was dying from cancer. Rather than throw his hands up in fear and run from snake oil sales man to the snake oil sale man he stayed the course and only took treatment that was demonstrated to work. As so many people with cancer do, he died. But he died not having given in to witch doctorism. I find it admirable. You, however, have left out some important details. For what reasons did the MRC conclude that 'microwave therapy' didn't work? Thats whats important. It doesn't matter that some people went to this guy and didn't die of cancer. Juju bags, by that reasoning, cure cancer. Satanic sacrifices, by that reasoning, can work miracles.


shmick
I never argued that this model didn't carry across to religions, and it does.

So if all science is worthelss because of disagreement then why aren't you applying this rational to your own religion?




The topic of this thread is 'why do people believe in Creationism'. I am trying to give you an answer. The origins of life are a mystery. The complex design of earth is too unique and perfect for 'chance' to have created it.

What data demonstrates this? I understand that you, personally, find it too 'incredible', and that this leads you to beleive in a creator. But don't you think that there have been other times where people thought something was incredible. Like you noted above, people used to think disease was cuased by demons or angry gods as punishment. The idea that it had natural causes, or that there were tiny germs, anti-histamines, a weak immune-system, was too incredible for them.



posted on Dec, 26 2004 @ 06:47 PM
link   
o rite i see, so if a person says they have been or are being possesed by some sort of devil that it makes the creationists theory more credible? i don't see why it would. just because some one saw some lights in the sky last night and posted on the internet...''ufo's in the sky''...that doesnt make the claim for extra terrestrial any more true.
the books matthew, mark, luke and john were written by people that never met jesus, which shows abosolutely no devinity or any apparent inspiration of god. you read genesis and find one huge contradiction saying animals were made before man and in the very next verse you see that it says man was created before animals. i see nothing at all that is devine or spiritual about the bible. show me where the devinity is?...is it the threat made at the end about anyone trying to change the bible will be condemed to hell. is it prehaps the so called new testament books that make it look as thought they are eye witness accounts, when really they were mostly written by people that never even met jesus. the founder of christianity was a person called paul, he never met jesus! the founder of christianity never even met the so called messiah. without paul all you have is a cult that jesus and john the baptist tried to promote. what happened to those two?...john the baptist was decapitated, and jesus died of a humilating death. jesus didnt die for our sins, he had no choice...he went against the rules of his land, his original religion and teachings of judaism to pretending to be something he was not.



posted on Dec, 26 2004 @ 09:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by TKainZero
I have never gotten how these people that think that god made the earth in 7 days, or that there was nothing and then poof, there is everything. It is purely insane. Can everyone here give me any fact, sientific or not that this is even possible. Also question to you, people like to try to debunk the big bang by saying that where did the stuff come from if there was nothing there, then i ask you where did your gad come from, the same nothing that you doubt?

[edit on 12/21/2004 by TKainZero]


first off, these people who belive the earth went poof out of nothing and thee it is in 7 days dont think it was "nothing" and then poof. its just silly, there was God from the start. if God did it, I see no reasojn its not possible. if God is real, who can say that he cant make the earth??!! this is silly... no man of any sense would ever say where did the big bang stuff come from if their was nuthing. of course their was something... their has to be soemthing eternal in the universe, cause if nuthin ever was, than nuthin their will always be, u dont get somethin fro nuttin

[edit on 26-12-2004 by Slicky1313]



posted on Dec, 26 2004 @ 09:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by shaunybaby
i like phantom chatter's point about the extra layer of atmosphere that would have made us live in to out 800s. however, a flood destroyed this and now we only live to about 70...what a bummer. could you imagine if god hadn't have wanted to kill his people and make a flood then we would have been living in to our 800s. i also like the fact that phantom has tried to link the ancient bible and its teaching of a flood to the same world wide event of our hole in the atmosphere.
the only problem with this is that adam and eve lived till about 900, noah was about 900, enoch was about 365, lamech was about 700. from this it is acceptable to say that everyone in those days lived a very long life to that of what we know today. however, no extra layer in the atmosphere is going to make us live till we are 900. i would love to know exactly how it would because the human body is only capable of living to a certain time. this is because the very few that make it to about 120 years old, can barely walk, are blind and possible deaf. the reason why we age like we do is to do with our genes and dna. they are set up to make us age like we do. the only way people could have lived to 900 would be if the genes and dna were set up to slow down the ageing process by about 10 times. the only problem with this again is that no extra layer in our atmosphere would do this. we already have a protective layer that stops our planet from freezing over from the cold of space, gives us air to breathe, and keeps the uv rays away from us. there is no need for an extra layer in our atmosphere.

Shauna, u bring up very good points... and I no the answers to da questions, son.
yes, the extra layer in thr atmosphere back in da day would have increased life greatly. but also, God's spirit was inside of people, as God had said in the Bible his spirit wouldnt be in people much longer after the flood. and the genes question, could question. God has said in the Bible no man shall live past 120 years old. (which id assume thats a second less than 130 years old, considering theres been 124 about year olds (they lost their birth certificates though, so who knows?) but yeah, Adam's genes, and his son's genes were PERFECT. thru the generations, humans get weaker and weaker in genes, as seen in Moses's law that u cant marry or do yer sister or close relative as it was common back in da day cause the genes got so bad. but eh, I dont no, I think id get suick of life past 100, id rather only live a few years here like now



posted on Dec, 26 2004 @ 11:18 PM
link   



I've heard it refered to as the 'fine tuning' arguement or the 'anthropic principle'. I think its a bit of a fallacy, which is illustrated by the more extreme version of it where the proponent states that, not only is the universe 'fine tuned' so as to guarantee that life exists, but its so fine tuned, and the evolutionary history was so constrained, that, since if any one of billions of stages had been slightly different there wouldn't be humans, that the universe is predetermined to result in man



wow. John Prescot would be proud of that. Can you explain a little more clearley why you dissagree with the 'Goldie Locks' (cosmic constant) argument?



posted on Dec, 27 2004 @ 05:39 AM
link   
everything that is in the universe, our universe that is dubed 'infinite', had to all start from one point. could you imagine every single component that the universe is made from in one single place. would there not just be some sort of gigantic rock thing that held everything that life would need to be created from. just to think about how the universe started off boggles the mind whether you believe in a big bang or god.
however, a god that created us, the earth, the stars and universe, howcome he fell short of just creating our life on earth rather than not making the whole universe full of life. mars doesnt have an atmosphere and isn't livable like earth is...so why if there is a god did god not make life on mars aswell like we have on earth? a god so poweful that he can make an infinite universe, yet he can only create life on one planet. this is a god that loves life itself yet only wants to make one planet with life. i don't get this...someone tell me why?



posted on Dec, 27 2004 @ 07:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by shaunybaby
o rite i see, so if a person says they have been or are being possesed by some sort of devil that it makes the creationists theory more credible?


There's a train of thought associated here which is why the thread gets seemingly off-topic. There is proof by negative instead of positive. Some people, idiots like myself, sought out evil instead of good. Thus you run into demons (those critters who can possess), find out their serving the Devil, that there's a God keeping him in check, and that God created all life. It doesn't destroy evolution, but once you get to know who God is, you tend to side with his word as it is written for a foundational understanding of how things work. Science typically 'fills in the blanks'. Case in point, the Kosher laws of Leviticus. It's clear there were some procedures or laws that were for health reasons such as not eating pork and avoiding mildew. It's an interesting book from a Physiological standpoint.


Originally posted by shaunybaby
you read genesis and find one huge contradiction saying animals were made before man and in the very next verse you see that it says man was created before animals.


Are you reading the 'Oxford Study Bible'? Try the New Internation Version (study bible edition if you're able to get it). I had to throw the one the university issued me because the translation was so poor. Chapter 1: The Beginning (Creation of Life, the Universe, and Everything). Chapter 2: Creation of the Garden of Eden. The Garden of Eden was one isolated spot, in other words 'The Lab'. Adam and Eve were considered the primary humans, but I don't see where they were the only humans...especially since there were established lands or cities after they were banished from the garden.


Originally posted by shaunybaby
i see nothing at all that is devine or spiritual about the bible. show me where the devinity is?


Such things need not only reading, but understanding. Are you looking for things to debunk the Bible or are you looking for things that can help you out?


Originally posted by shaunybaby
...is it the threat made at the end about anyone trying to change the bible will be condemed to hell. is it prehaps the so called new testament books that make it look as thought they are eye witness accounts, when really they were mostly written by people that never even met jesus. the founder of christianity was a person called paul, he never met jesus! the founder of christianity never even met the so called messiah. without paul all you have is a cult that jesus and john the baptist tried to promote. what happened to those two?...john the baptist was decapitated, and jesus died of a humilating death. jesus didnt die for our sins, he had no choice...he went against the rules of his land, his original religion and teachings of judaism to pretending to be something he was not.


Says you but not says me. I see where they had choices to make, the choices they actually did make as opposed to the opportunity to escape consequences, and the reasons for doing so. By the way, if you read the gospels then what Paul wrote, there's a distinction between what Paul offers as suggestions at times and what Jesus taught because a lot of people wanted Paul to define some things further. This was true for all the apostles though, hence the occasional disagreement. Finally, it looks like from your post you're bent on the idea that one must die 'an honourable death'. The end result is the same so why does it matter how it happened? Also, you're assuming that they do not have eternal life, contrary to their teachings. It doesn't matter how someone dies, but rather what they die for.

[edit on 27-12-2004 by saint4God]



posted on Dec, 27 2004 @ 07:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by shaunybaby
however, a god that created us, the earth, the stars and universe, howcome he fell short of just creating our life on earth rather than not making the whole universe full of life.


Who said this is the case?


Originally posted by shaunybaby
mars doesnt have an atmosphere and isn't livable like earth is...so why if there is a god did god not make life on mars aswell like we have on earth?


Studies are suggesting microscopic organisms may exist within the salt and/or ice caps of the planet. There may not be any 'big brothers' to play with but given the conditions, I'd be difficult to sustain life.


Originally posted by shaunybaby
a god so poweful that he can make an infinite universe, yet he can only create life on one planet.


And you know this...how?


Originally posted by shaunybaby
this is a god that loves life itself yet only wants to make one planet with life. i don't get this...someone tell me why?


Don't know why anyone would feel this way. I guess fellow mankind isn't companion enough?



posted on Dec, 27 2004 @ 08:17 AM
link   


Demonstrate that this has occured and then maybe there is something to consider.

Not in a lab per say, but at least under controlled conditions.


And how can you demonstrate the big bang theory in a lab or under controlled situations?



I thought your entire point was that there was no answer?


You failed to pick up my sarcasm




Which scientific explanations can you demonstrate are incorrect?


Explain to me the entire process of radio dating -
Possibly you would know that these assumptions are made:

- What the initial amount of the parent atoms are at the time that the rock formed.
- That the original composition of the rock contained no daughter atoms.[70]
- That neither parent nor daughter atoms have ever been added or removed from the rock.
- That the decay rate of parent atom to daughter atom has always remained constant.

I will repeat my statement regarding guesstimates and science.



But why should the fact that many people beleive in god require the existence of god?


I was a bit lost on the follow up to your point but I think I understand where you are going. Look at the story in the Bible (which Christians take as the word of God). Read the account of Baal vs God in 1st Kings 18. Interesting read.

The point remains, God exists if you believe him or you don't.



I recall Dawkin's made mention of another scientist who was dying from cancer. Rather than throw his hands up in fear and run from snake oil sales man to the snake oil sale man he stayed the course and only took treatment that was demonstrated to work. As so many people with cancer do, he died. But he died not having given in to witch doctorism. I find it admirable.


I find it stupid. A friend of mine had cancer at the age of 21. She was placed on kemo and died shortly after. If I get cancer, I will NOT be subscribing to 'scientific' treatment of cancer when I can see the results with my own eyes. One would have to question how much power the drug companies have over what gets practiced and prescribed.



You, however, have left out some important details. For what reasons did the MRC conclude that 'microwave therapy' didn't work? Thats whats important. It doesn't matter that some people went to this guy and didn't die of cancer. Juju bags, by that reasoning, cure cancer. Satanic sacrifices, by that reasoning, can work miracles.


Not quite sure if I get your logic here. A cure for cancer would be traced back to it's treatment. If we had 200 diagnosed with cancer and the only treatment they received was drinking iced tea, I would argue that there could be a link between drinking ice tea and remission of cancer.



So if all science is worthelss because of disagreement then why aren't you applying this rational to your own religion?


I do not think that all science is worthless at all. I do not think all religion is worthless either. There is a balance.



What data demonstrates this? I understand that you, personally, find it too 'incredible', and that this leads you to beleive in a creator.


Correct I do, as do many more intelligent people than myself. What data? The laws of commen sense and probability.

The odds in favor of the chance formation of a functional simple cell are acknowledged to be worse than 1 in 10 sq40,000 (www.foolishfaith.com...)



posted on Dec, 27 2004 @ 09:20 AM
link   
im not saying i know that there isnt life anywhere else in the universe. im saying why if there is a god...why did he not make 10 planets like ours in our solar system...what is there a need for all that other stuff that far away? millions and millions of lightyears away stuff that we can never get to...whats the point in that?? it says that when the stars were made adam saw them right away, which is impossible because the light we see from the stars is what has happened millions of years ago, adam could not have seen those stars straight away. even if god did create light...he cannot make us see it instantly from a million lightyears away, that's impossible in a spiritual sense and a scientific way to.



posted on Dec, 27 2004 @ 09:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by toneloke
Can you explain a little more clearley why you dissagree with the 'Goldie Locks' (cosmic constant) argument?


Well, on the one hand, if things were different, then they'd just be different. If some cosmological constants were altered, then matter would've clumped this way, or not have arranged itself into elements like now or any number of things, so far as its understood now. But if things were different and there were organisms thinking about it, they too might very well argue that there is a fine tuning to the universe.

Besides, we don't, as far as I know, know what controls the constants and why they are 'fine tuned'. I also find it somewhat ironic that, on the one hand, they're arguing that the scientific evidence that supports a natural origin of the universe is garbage, but that that information derived from it and those studies that supports fine tunning is acceptable.

Also, inflation theory doesn't state that nothing existed before inflation began, it just states that inflation effectively erased the information about it. The universe might well've gone thru cycles of existence, collapse, inflation, collapse, etc etc, with different cosmological constants during each episode, for all we know. So in an infinity of possibilities, its only a matter of time before something like our universe with its set of constants comes into being. But that obviously is purely speculative.

And, ultimately, its non informative as to the existence of divinity and the supernatural. No scientific evidence can demonstrate that god exists, just like no scientific evidencecan refute his existence.



posted on Dec, 27 2004 @ 10:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by shmick25
And how can you demonstrate the big bang theory in a lab or under controlled situations?

The big bang isn't said to occur in the medecine huts of vanatuan witchdoctors. Scientists have evidence and they have come up with a theory, inflation, that explains that evidence. They don't claim to have 'the big bang', whereas you are saying that these magical occurances can be replicated on command by any of the witchdoctors in this island. Or that the other magical happenings can be replicated. And, to go a little further with this, i suppose you are claiming that that these magical happenings come, in one way or another from god. Are you saying that god is scared of laboratories or that he has no power when scientific methods of investigation are used? i doubt thats what you are saying, the only option I should think then is that these phenomena are not something open to scientific investigation, or rather that if investigated, and found to be frauds, then thats because god set it up that way.

What the initial amount of the parent atoms are at the time that the rock formed.

Radiometric dating is independent of this.

That the decay rate of parent atom to daughter atom has always remained constant.

Demonstrate that they have remained inconstate and that scientists don't correct for this. I don't think that this needs to become a thread about radiometric dating, but most of what you have listed as 'problems' don't affect radiometric dating. And I would ask, why are, when the method is used properly, radiometric dates in agreeance with one another? And why is a consistent 'system' able to be created out of it, if, as you claim, the methods don't actually work?

I find it stupid. A friend of mine had cancer at the age of 21. She was placed on kemo and died shortly after. If I get cancer, I will NOT be subscribing to 'scientific' treatment of cancer when I can see the results with my own eyes.

And what of the thousands that are 'saved' by chemo-therapy? These other methods, they have not been demonstrated to work. If they were shown to have consistent results, then people studying cancer would have reason to work with and try to understand it.

One would have to question how much power the drug companies have over what gets practiced and prescribed.

The same can be said for the 'alternative medecine' industry.

If we had 200 diagnosed with cancer and the only treatment they received was drinking iced tea, I would argue that there could be a link between drinking ice tea and remission of cancer.

And what study showed that microwave therapy caused significant remission of cancer? I understand that this guy claims to have cured lots of people, but the world has been defrauded in the past. Why hasn't he been able to demonstrate, in a satisfactory manner, that his methods work? For all I know his methods do work, for all anyone knows they do work. But testimonials aren't going to demonstrate that anymore than the King of Nigeria is going to transfer a million dollars to my bank account. Why should I, to continue the analogy, give him my bank account number and see what happens? I would expect him to demonstrate several things to sufficiently show that what he says is true, what demonstrates that this guys method, which, I assume, he is not claiming that its magic or unscientific, is true?


So if all science is worthelss because of disagreement then why aren't you applying this rational to your own religion?

I do not think that all science is worthless at all. I do not think all religion is worthless either. There is a balance.
But your rationale for what is worthless and what isn't seems to be based on preference. If this theory can predict the weather, then its good, if this pill will cure this disease, then its good, and if i pray and get what i ask for, then its good. But you're 'rejecting' science itself, becuase you are rejecting the method and merely accepting the products. Its likesay,Job, rejecting god when things don't go his way, rather than the truly pious, who accept the underlying idea, not the products.

The odds in favor of the chance formation of a functional simple cell are acknowledged to be worse than 1 in 10 sq40,000 (www.foolishfaith.com...)

This is based on the cell forming ad hoc out of raw chemicals. This is not what science claims to have happened. Indeed, thats so stupid as to actually be foolish, to think that entire cells. You'dbe right to think a scientist who claimed that that happened is either off his rocker, or unfamiliar with the evidence. But that is not what is claimed.

And, let me ask, if scientists came up with a non living chemical mixture that, say, when given current or sunlight or some energy, results in 'proto-life', or even ultimately very simple bacterial cells, are you saying that you'd reject your faith in a creator god? I doubt it, it'd be a pretty weak faith that was based upon mere experiments. Similarly, the'faith' of the greeks and the romans and nature worshipping pagans is seen as weak, especialyl if they say 'the gods make and throw lightening, no man can explain it'.

I can understand faith in a creator god, even faith that science is, somehow, ineffective and fundamentally wrong, but I can't understand a faith that requires and is based upon experiments. Or rather, i can understand it, but I can't see it as 'real' faith, as anything other than supperstition. Similarly, the man I mentioned above, is 'tested' like Job, but rather than 'loose faith' or loose his reason because he isn't getting what he wants, he sticks to it, because he has accepted that science works, that it explains the universe, and he isn't scared of that, like some are merely scared by god, or like some seek to merely 'use' god. He's 'pious' in that sense. Of course, I'd add the disclaimer that this isn't the same as 'worshiping' religion, and that his position isn't based on faith. Indeed, thats the very issue, he isn't using so called 'cures' that don't work scientifically and require 'faith'.



posted on Dec, 27 2004 @ 10:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by shaunybaby
im not saying i know that there isnt life anywhere else in the universe. im saying why if there is a god...why did he not make 10 planets like ours in our solar system...what is there a need for all that other stuff that far away? millions and millions of lightyears away stuff that we can never get to...whats the point in that?? it says that when the stars were made adam saw them right away, which is impossible because the light we see from the stars is what has happened millions of years ago, adam could not have seen those stars straight away. even if god did create light...he cannot make us see it instantly from a million lightyears away, that's impossible in a spiritual sense and a scientific way to.


Ive never heard of that, Adam seeing the stars immediately when they were made, but anyway, God made the light ALREADY on the earth when he made the stars.



posted on Dec, 27 2004 @ 10:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by shaunybaby
im not saying i know that there isnt life anywhere else in the universe. im saying why if there is a god...why did he not make 10 planets like ours in our solar system...what is there a need for all that other stuff that far away? millions and millions of lightyears away stuff that we can never get to...whats the point in that?? it says that when the stars were made adam saw them right away, which is impossible because the light we see from the stars is what has happened millions of years ago, adam could not have seen those stars straight away. even if god did create light...he cannot make us see it instantly from a million lightyears away, that's impossible in a spiritual sense and a scientific way to.

I like it when people try to say "God cant..." and then continue. if "God cant..." then, truly, God is not God. "God" has no limits. im sorry, but if God can make a star in a second, then theres no reason God cant create its light, and put it wherever he wants to. And if God made 10 planets, ud say "Why did God make 10, why not 11" God did because he wanted to, period. Theres probably a need for it all so far away, so Man wont see the end of the universe, but be trapped there and not go out of it.
and Shauna, in the Bible, NIV,KJ,NAS versions, God made stars BEFORE man, so Adam couldnt have seen it when God made stars, Adam never existed till after.
Genesis 1:3 "Let there be light" and there was light. that means right away, there was light, no waiting for it come in.
Genesis 1:14-15 "Let there be lights in the sky to seperate day and night. These lights will be used for signs, seasons, days and years. They will be in the sky to give light to earth" And it happened. it happened right then, it didnt take the time traveled by light to earth, but immediately.



posted on Dec, 27 2004 @ 11:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by shaunybaby
im not saying i know that there isnt life anywhere else in the universe. im saying why if there is a god...why did he not make 10 planets like ours in our solar system...


Same reason why we ready mystery novels and study science. It captures our curiosity. Shows us there's something bigger than us.


Originally posted by shaunybaby
what is there a need for all that other stuff that far away?


So that we keep reaching higher. What happens when we know it all? We'll get so bored with life we'd want to do absolutely nothing.


Originally posted by shaunybaby
millions and millions of lightyears away stuff that we can never get to...whats the point in that??


Patience my friend. Patience.


Originally posted by shaunybaby
it says that when the stars were made adam saw them right away, which is impossible because the light we see from the stars is what has happened millions of years ago, adam could not have seen those stars straight away.


I'm sure a hundred years ago, there is a lot of things that we do on a daily basis that simply 'could not happen'.


Originally posted by shaunybaby
even if god did create light...he cannot make us see it instantly from a million lightyears away, that's impossible in a spiritual sense and a scientific way to.


Why? By definition, God is omnipotent. All powerful. Tell someone living in the 1950's that you carry a computer in your pocket. See what kind of reaction you get. Christianity isn't about closing your mind to possibilities, it's about recognizing that with God all things are possible.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join