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.

 

Ben Carson is a Creationist

page: 21
23
<< 18  19  20    22 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 5 2015 @ 02:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: MystikMushroom
a reply to: deadeyedick

You asked:



How are his views any different than the current potus


And in reply I showed you that Obama believes in evolutionary theory, he is not a creationist like Ben Carson.

As you can see, Obama's views are different when compared to Ben Carson's.


So can he be Christian and still believe in evolution solely?

You have proven again that Obama is a liar.


I think a major point you all miss is that history has shown us that a president can be a Christian without burning sciences at the stake.

No one wants to completely remove the theory of evolution but the pro evo crowd has shown that they would be just fine accepting evolution as being an absolute fact and that is far dangerous than any belief carson holds.
edit on 5-11-2015 by deadeyedick because: (no reason given)




posted on Nov, 5 2015 @ 02:22 PM
link   
a reply to: deadeyedick

I don't understand, Christians pick and choose things from the OT they want to believe and follow all the time, why can't creation be one of them?

You can be a Christian and still believe that the origin story in Genesis is just a parable and not literal. Carson, on the other hand, does not believe this -- he is a Biblical literalist and believes that the universe and Earth were created in 6 days or so.



posted on Nov, 5 2015 @ 02:29 PM
link   
a reply to: deadeyedick

It doesn't matter where the "roots" for the theory come from, logic doesn't care. Logic is black and white.

Absensce of evidence does not make something more plausible or possible. This is what you are implying. You are saying that we have no "proof" they were not used for grain storage.

Do we have proof that the pyramids were used to store grain? No.

Does that absence of proof make it more possible that the pyramids were, in fact, used for grain storage? No.

Do we have proof that Stonehenge was used as a picknick spot? No.

Does that absence of proof make it more possible that Stonehenge was, in fact, used as a picknick spot? No.



posted on Nov, 5 2015 @ 02:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: deadeyedick

originally posted by: MystikMushroom
a reply to: deadeyedick

You asked:



How are his views any different than the current potus


And in reply I showed you that Obama believes in evolutionary theory, he is not a creationist like Ben Carson.

As you can see, Obama's views are different when compared to Ben Carson's.


So can he be Christian and still believe in evolution solely?

You have proven again that Obama is a liar.


I think a major point you all miss is that history has shown us that a president can be a Christian without burning sciences at the stake.

No one wants to completely remove the theory of evolution but the pro evo crowd has shown that they would be just fine accepting evolution as being an absolute fact and that is far dangerous than any belief carson holds.
you can be Christian but not jewish if you accept evolution. Nothing in new testament contradicts evolution, the old testament does tho. But Jesus came and let us know the real facts not the pagan superstitions in old testament.



posted on Nov, 5 2015 @ 02:32 PM
link   
a reply to: MystikMushroom

It absolutely matters where a theory is derived from.

Nothing at all supports the claim of Stonehenge but the theory of grain being stored in the pyramids is very well grounded in reality.

First you have the mention in the bible then you have the issue of grain needing to be covered and then you have these giant structures that would fit the job well.

There is no logic at all behind the toothpick theory.



posted on Nov, 5 2015 @ 02:34 PM
link   
a reply to: deadeyedick




No one wants to completely remove the theory of evolution but the pro evo crowd has shown that they would be just fine accepting evolution as being an absolute fact and that is far dangerous than any belief carson holds.

No they have not, that is just what the deniers like to say.

Even if people did think that, it still wouldn't be as dangerous as holding on to fundamental religious beliefs.



posted on Nov, 5 2015 @ 02:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: deadeyedick

originally posted by: MystikMushroom
a reply to: deadeyedick

You asked if we had proof the pyramids weren't used for grain storage, as some sort of attempt to show that means that they could have been used as grain storage.

I suggested that since we have no proof Stonehenge was used as a picknick spot, that it could have been a picknick spot.

I'm following your lines of logic ...


No you are not following my line of logic.

The thing you forgot is that the theory had roots in a biblical interpretation and the Stonehenge concept was born from your own imagination. I get the point you make unfairly.
where would you get grain silo pyramids from if you were reading the bible?



posted on Nov, 5 2015 @ 02:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: HorusChrist

originally posted by: deadeyedick

originally posted by: MystikMushroom
a reply to: deadeyedick

You asked if we had proof the pyramids weren't used for grain storage, as some sort of attempt to show that means that they could have been used as grain storage.

I suggested that since we have no proof Stonehenge was used as a picknick spot, that it could have been a picknick spot.

I'm following your lines of logic ...


we will have to ask ben I suppose. I am not really a big supporter of the idea as a reason the pyramids were created but I have read some threads on here where folks have shown the reasoning biblically based. If I had a gun to my head and had to guess weather or not grain was ever stored in the pyramids I would say yes and hope for life. It is highly plausible that they stored grain but not so much that that was a sole purpose.

No you are not following my line of logic.

The thing you forgot is that the theory had roots in a biblical interpretation and the Stonehenge concept was born from your own imagination. I get the point you make unfairly.
where would you get grain silo pyramids from if you were reading the bible?


we will have to ask ben I suppose. I am not really a big supporter of the idea as a reason the pyramids were created but I have read some threads on here where folks have shown the reasoning biblically based. If I had a gun to my head and had to guess weather or not grain was ever stored in the pyramids I would say yes and hope for life. It is highly plausible that they stored grain but not so much that that was a sole purpose.


The theory seems to be that the pyramids were created to store the grain and the mummies were scarecrows.

edit on 5-11-2015 by deadeyedick because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 5 2015 @ 02:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: MystikMushroom
Let's not forget there is very little historical evidence that the Jewish people were slaves and built the pyramids in the first place.

Historical 'evidence' and truth have very little in common.

History has about as much credibility as the MSM or the National Enquirer.

The mainstream apparatus is no longer a credible source.

Finding the truth sometimes requires believing the opposite of what propaganda is telling us...


In U.S. Army Intelligence, I was trained that the truth most often lies in the exact opposite direction of the public rhetoric. You must learn this technique if you are to successfully glean the truth from news reports.

LEARNING TO THINK IN THE OPPOSITE DIRECTION OF PROPAGANDA

"History is more or less bunk." ~ Henry Ford

"The falsification of history has done more to impede human development than any one thing known to mankind" ~ Rousseau

“The biggest cover-up in the history of mankind is the history of mankind itself”

“There are two histories: official history, lying, and then secret history, where you find the real causes of events.” ~ Honoré de Balzac

originally posted by: Nichiren
Jesus was a 'Judean', not a Jew. During His lifetime, no persons were described as "Jews" anywhere. That fact is supported by theology, history and science. In none of the manuscripts of the original Old or New Testament was Jesus described or referred to as a "Jew". The term originated in the late eighteenth century as an abbreviation of the term Judean and refers to a resident of Judea without regard to race or religion, just as the term "Texan" signifies a person living in Texas.

In spite of the powerful propaganda effort of the so-called "Jews", they have been unable to prove in recorded history that there is one record, prior to that period, of a race religion or nationality, referred to as "Jew". The religious sect in Judea, in the time of Jesus, to which self-styled "Jews" today refer to as "Jews", were known as "Pharisees". "Judaism" today and "Pharisaism" in the time of Jesus are the same. Jesus abhorred and denounced "Pharisaism"; hence the words, "Woe unto you Scribes and Pharisees, Hypocrites, Ye Serpents, Ye Generation of Vipers".

originally posted by: pthena
The original Jews were the people from the Babylonian Captivity who didn't want to return to Judea, because they enjoyed the benefits of Babylonian and Persian culture. They aren't Israelites or Judeans. They are Babylonians. There is no mention of Jews until Esther. They didn't exist until Esther.

originally posted by: sweftl337
The word “Jew” never existed in Hebrew, Greek and Aramaic and Jesus spoke mostly Greek and Aramaic. First of all, if we go back some 2000 years, there were no Jews. There was a land known as “Judea” and in that land lived many different peoples. The people of Moses were the Hebrew Israelites – there was no Jew.

“Judaism as we know it today did not exist before Christ. Before Christ, there was only the faith of the Israelites, until by a gradual process, the pure faith of the Israelites was subverted by corrupt teachings. These corrupt teachings were transmitted orally by the Pharisees. Christ condemned these teachings when calling them the ‘traditions of the elders.’”

Judaism Discovered

"The first time Jews are mentioned in the Bible, is in II Kings 16:6 (and then only in translations revised in the eighteenth century) where we find Israel was at war with the Jews and drove the Jews from Elath.

Isn't it interesting that we can read over five hundred pages of the Bible before we find a Jew anywhere, yet those who call themselves Jew today claim the first five books of the bible and call it their Torah. Do you not find it rather strange that those who claim to have written the first five books of the Bible and call themselves Jew, can't find the word Jew written anywhere in the book they call their own bible, and claim to have written?

It wasn't until the revised editions of the King James Bible, that the word Jew appeared. The word Jew does not mean Israel or Israelite! We must conclude therefore that the first "Jews" were Canaanite-Edomite-Hittite. It is certain, according to the Bible, that Jews are not Israel."

Who was the First Jew?

The late Rabbi Stephen F. Wise, formerly the Chief Rabbi of the United States said, "The return from Babylon and the introduction of the Babylonian Talmud mark the end of Hebrewism and the beginning of Judaism."

The learned Rabbi was correct in distinguishing the true religion of the Old Testament as Hebrewism for it was the religion of the real Hebrews, who were not Jews at all. Judaism, the religion of the Jews, is as the learned Rabbi says, based upon the Babylonian Talmud, which contains the supposed oral law. It was never reduced to writing as part of the Bible. This oral law gradually gained greater force among the Jews than the written law in the Bible, with which it often conflicted in Jesus' day, the Babylonian Talmud was known as the Tradition of the Elders.

The Bible is not a Jewish Book





edit on 5-11-2015 by Murgatroid because: felt like it...



posted on Nov, 5 2015 @ 02:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: deadeyedick




No one wants to completely remove the theory of evolution but the pro evo crowd has shown that they would be just fine accepting evolution as being an absolute fact and that is far dangerous than any belief carson holds.

No they have not, that is just what the deniers like to say.

Even if people did think that, it still wouldn't be as dangerous as holding on to fundamental religious beliefs.


Well the recent comments that creationist should not be teachers does not help. The push to remove all mentions of opposing theories from schools shows that indeed some minds are completely made up on the subject and action should be taken to remove other trains of thought. I would have to say that your comment represents only a small portion of the evo's.



posted on Nov, 5 2015 @ 03:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: deadeyedick

originally posted by: HorusChrist

originally posted by: deadeyedick

originally posted by: MystikMushroom
a reply to: deadeyedick

You asked if we had proof the pyramids weren't used for grain storage, as some sort of attempt to show that means that they could have been used as grain storage.

I suggested that since we have no proof Stonehenge was used as a picknick spot, that it could have been a picknick spot.

I'm following your lines of logic ...


we will have to ask ben I suppose. I am not really a big supporter of the idea as a reason the pyramids were created but I have read some threads on here where folks have shown the reasoning biblically based. If I had a gun to my head and had to guess weather or not grain was ever stored in the pyramids I would say yes and hope for life. It is highly plausible that they stored grain but not so much that that was a sole purpose.

No you are not following my line of logic.

The thing you forgot is that the theory had roots in a biblical interpretation and the Stonehenge concept was born from your own imagination. I get the point you make unfairly.
where would you get grain silo pyramids from if you were reading the bible?


we will have to ask ben I suppose. I am not really a big supporter of the idea as a reason the pyramids were created but I have read some threads on here where folks have shown the reasoning biblically based. If I had a gun to my head and had to guess weather or not grain was ever stored in the pyramids I would say yes and hope for life. It is highly plausible that they stored grain but not so much that that was a sole purpose.


The theory seems to be that the pyramids were created to store the grain and the mummies were scarecrows.
why'd you say it has roots in biblical interpretation then



posted on Nov, 5 2015 @ 03:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: deadeyedick

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: deadeyedick




No one wants to completely remove the theory of evolution but the pro evo crowd has shown that they would be just fine accepting evolution as being an absolute fact and that is far dangerous than any belief carson holds.

No they have not, that is just what the deniers like to say.

Even if people did think that, it still wouldn't be as dangerous as holding on to fundamental religious beliefs.


Well the recent comments that creationist should not be teachers does not help. The push to remove all mentions of opposing theories from schools shows that indeed some minds are completely made up on the subject and action should be taken to remove other trains of thought. I would have to say that your comment represents only a small portion of the evo's.


Remove opposing theories from school? What opposing theories? They were never taught to begin with. Creationists like to try to ADD their hypothesis as a competing idea (I refuse to call Creationism a theory) to school curriculum and some Christians like to pretend like they are being religiously persecuted when they don't get their way their. But at no point were schools teaching evolution and Creationism together as competing "theories".
edit on 5-11-2015 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 5 2015 @ 03:16 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t
Again you post such as though I just crawled from under a rock and decided to ramble on with no knowledge whatso ever.

You are pretty bold to try to get people to believe that creationism was never taught in a public school.

I myself went to school for a few months and was indeed taught creationism along with evolution.

Speak for yourself and not the whole world.



posted on Nov, 5 2015 @ 03:18 PM
link   
a reply to: HorusChrist

because back in the 80's there was an author that used the bible to promote the theory.

The bible deals much with Egypt.



posted on Nov, 5 2015 @ 03:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: deadeyedick
a reply to: Krazysh0t
Again you post such as though I just crawled from under a rock and decided to ramble on with no knowledge whatso ever.

You are pretty bold to try to get people to believe that creationism was never taught in a public school.

I myself went to school for a few months and was indeed taught creationism along with evolution.

Speak for yourself and not the whole world.



Ok, I can't speak for fringe Christian schools that do it, but I CAN speak about overall school curriculums, especially public school curriculums. It was never a valid topic in public schools. Some public schools have attempted to add these curriculums to the teaching schedule, but court rulings keep saying no.



posted on Nov, 5 2015 @ 03:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: deadeyedick
a reply to: Krazysh0t
Again you post such as though I just crawled from under a rock and decided to ramble on with no knowledge whatso ever.

You are pretty bold to try to get people to believe that creationism was never taught in a public school.

I myself went to school for a few months and was indeed taught creationism along with evolution.

Speak for yourself and not the whole world.



Ok, I can't speak for fringe Christian schools that do it, but I CAN speak about overall school curriculums, especially public school curriculums. It was never a valid topic in public schools. Some public schools have attempted to add these curriculums to the teaching schedule, but court rulings keep saying no.


yea
if you reread my post I referenced a public school.

where did you derive private schools from my post?




They were never taught to begin with.

perhaps it is the case that you think one thing and post another
edit on 5-11-2015 by deadeyedick because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 5 2015 @ 07:47 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

I went to public school and there I learned both the creation theory and the evolution theory.




It was never a valid topic in public schools.

That statement is false. Never is a very long time you know and some of us have lived long enough to have had the theory of Creation taught along side the theory of Evolution---in public schools. As late as 1972, high school general science classes still presented both theories.
Perhaps you need to do a bit of research on what actually happened before you go making such grand, sweeping statements. In order to deny ignorance, you have to realize just how ignorant you are.



posted on Nov, 6 2015 @ 06:00 AM
link   
a reply to: diggindirt


theory of creation


There's no such thing.....perhaps you should carry out some research into what constitutes a scientific theory?



posted on Nov, 6 2015 @ 06:33 AM
link   
a reply to: diggindirt


In order to deny ignorance, you have to realize just how ignorant you are.


Says the guy using the phrase "theory of Creation".



posted on Nov, 6 2015 @ 08:19 AM
link   
Hi folks, I'm back.


Want to thank mojom for the thread about Carson's beliefs about the pyramids (which is a great companion thread for this one); also everyone here who's helped keep this thread alive and pertinent.

I think it would be a mistake for it to simply fade into the ATS archives, and I predict we'll be hearing more about Dr Carson until he drops out. I just don't think his whisper-soft bed-side manner and child-like facial expressions are going to cut it. Maybe as head of a major university, but not as a diplomat executive global leader.

Much of the world already thinks we've lost our collective minds here in the USA...with good reason. I hope readers can now see why we don't want someone who denies world history and science as the POTUS.
A man who appears to be sleep-walking and has a baby-talk tone of voice when he does speak ever so slowly and meekly is no sort of person to send out into the world as our Head of State.


edit on 11/6/2015 by BuzzyWigs because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
23
<< 18  19  20    22 >>

log in

join