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.

 

God Did It! The rest is post modern chatter!

page: 9
23
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 21 2016 @ 08:18 AM
link   
a reply to: JoshuaCox

This was explained very succinctly in a thread posted a couple of days ago:

The Genesis Account Refutes Creationism




posted on Apr, 21 2016 @ 08:30 AM
link   

originally posted by: LifeisGrand
a reply to: JoshuaCox

This was explained very succinctly in a thread posted a couple of days ago:

The Genesis Account Refutes Creationism




Yea, I live in Mississippi. So it was a bit of a shock to find out conservative evangelicals ARE NOT the average Christian. That I just live right in the middle of all the crazies lol.


Catholics,Jews, Chinese Christians, exc all have a pretty logical view of the bible. Assuming most of the stories are Esops fables. Stories that teach a moral. Really only American evangelicals actually that a fundamentalist veiw.


Which is hilarious considering judiaism is the root of Christianity, they all support Isreal even at the detriment of America and yet the Jews believe whole heartedly in evolution and climate change.



posted on Apr, 21 2016 @ 08:40 AM
link   

originally posted by: edmc^2

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: edmc^2

Well one side requires pure faith and to ignore what can be observed.


Like the side where they believe that nothing created everything?



No like the side that hasn't been able to provide one shred of proof that there is ANYTHING supernatural at all.

Religion is almost as old as humanity, and before modern science, nearly every single human on the planet bought into one religion or the other.

So LITERALLY, over 10's of thousands of years, you have had nearly every human who has ever existed trying to find and present some proof that their religion is true.

Well, after all of that time, with some of those people devoting their entire life to seeking proof, what does the religious community have to show for it?

Testimonials....that's it. Just a bunch of hear say, without one shred of repeatable experimentation evidence.


All While science has taken us from the horse and buggy to the moon in 80 years and disproved EVERY single testable claim in the bible.
edit on 21-4-2016 by JoshuaCox because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 21 2016 @ 08:48 AM
link   
There may people many people who did not know it, who believe in evolution, and perhaps are atheists, but scientists have proven the very first statement of the Holy Scriptures as correct science. There was a beginning to our universe. This is proven by the background radiation, as well as other things, such as the red shift in the stars, moving away from each other. They say that beginning was 13.8 billion years ago.

This is observable provable science. Any speculation that the universe itself is eternal, or comes from an infinite number of universes etc. are mere speculation, and ruminations of highly fanciful minds that actually delve into the realm of fantasy to answer the question of WHAT caused the universe to begin.

There is no doubt that there was a first CAUSE.

What it all boils down to, is how the universe was caused to become.

In science it is a known fact that all life comes from previous life. And all order comes from thinking persons with the ability to reason and think.

Really many chose to believe that something impersonal caused the universe to exist. But since something cannot and never will come from nothing (this is observable scientific fact, no one has ever observed the creation of something from nothing) that something was eternal.

They rest their blind faith on an eternal impersonal something which they cannot understand or describe, for science cannot even prove it.

Others look at the order of the universe, the four fundamental forces of nature (namely, the strong nuclear force, the weak nuclear force, electromagnetism, and gravity) each highly tweaked to beyond mere coincidence.

For example gravity is the weakest of the forces, but it holds the universe together. You can observe how weak it is looking at an apple hanging from an apple tree. It may take all summer from the constant pull of the earth's gravity on it to make it finally fall to the ground.

Yet if this force were just a little weaker the universe would have never existed. And if it were a little stronger the stars would have burned out too fast before life came to be.

The force of electromagnetism is 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 (10^40) stronger than that of gravity.

If gravity were 10^41, that small fractional of a difference in this unbelievably great number would seem to be not a big deal. But if gravity was that greatly proportionally weaker to electromagnetism, nuclear fusion would never have started in the cores of stars. And conversely if it was 10^39, the life expectancy of stars would be much much shorter, the universe probably would have burned itself out by now.

We can actually write a book on the subject of how finely tuned the universe is. The strong nuclear force is the most powerful force in the universe, so strong that it is able to keep protons and electrons opposite forces that repel each other from separating. But it is also the least pervasive force. Outside the atom the force ceases to hold sway.

So if you popped the hood of a car and saw a highly efficient running engine, with the correct fuel/air ratio, would it be illogical to conclude that a very intelligent person designed it?

The finely tuned forces of nature lead a logical and opening mind to the possibility of a Creator.

That is the first CAUSE was a someone and not an impersonal something that cannot think. You have the right to disagree, but to claim that it is illogical to conclude that much based on fact would be bias. There is evidence that can lead to that conclusion.

We have just glimpsed into the four forces of the universe here (that are known). We haven't even touched the surface of life itself on earth, and the chances for example the digital code found within DNA to have come about by chance, or any other of the spectacular working machines inside even the most simplistic of cells.

Bottom line:

The universe had a beginning - It had no beginning

It had a beginnig

That beginning was caused - it was not caused

It was caused

The cause was someone or something

You decide. But to conclude, rationally, looking at the universe, the order and design in everything from the galaxies in their wonderful array o superclusters, to the infinitesimally small inside the nucleolus of an atom, order and design exist.

And it is rational and very full of reason and logic to conclude the first cause was Someone who was able to think and reason.

Those who believe in Chance still believe in a god. Just theirs is impersonal and creates magic and stuff of fairy-tales, not because they have proof of their Chance. But because they blindly wish to put faith in their non-existent impersonal force which they can neither prove exists, or prove that it caused all things to become.


edit on 21-4-2016 by LifeisGrand because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 21 2016 @ 08:49 AM
link   

originally posted by: whereislogic
a reply to: edmc^2

Since others have brought up archeology and the Exodus, I'm interested in your views regarding the information in the videos below (regarding what things you're aware of in terms of reliability). If others know any serious responses to this information they're welcome to share too (not blanket statements that it's nonsense or ad hominems and such, something that adresses the finds and lab results in detail, especially regarding the rather unique composition of the sulphur or brimstone balls mentioned in the last set of videos).

The video below I'm only interested in your views regarding the first 24 minutes (it has a few more details than the video above about the possible Red Sea crossing site).



In the video below I'm particularly interested in someone adressing the manner in which these sulphur or brimstone balls are found (the rain pattern, or perhaps someone that can demonstrate what other deception might possibly be going on there that might suggest these balls actually did not fall on that rock in a rain pattern from the air).

And this video is just bonus for everyone who hasn't seen it yet:




All of the stuff you listed was "discovered" by one guy... Here is his wiki page.

Ronald Eldon Wyatt (2 Jun 1933 – August 4, 1999) was an adventurer and former nurse anesthetist noted for advocating the Durupınar site as the site of Noah's Ark, among other Bible-related pseudoarchaeology. His claims were dismissed by scientists, historians, biblical scholars, and by leaders in his own Seventh-day Adventist Church, but his work continued to have a following among some fundamentalists[who?] and evangelical Christians.



Here is what he personally claimed to have discovered, which is just silly for one person to claim......


By the time of his death on August 4, 1999, his claimed discoveries included:

Noah's Ark (the Durupınar site, located approximately 18 miles (29 km) south of Mount Ararat)[2]
Anchor stones (or drogue stones) used by Noah on the Ark[3]
The post-flood house, grave markers and tombs of Noah and his wife[4]
The location of Sodom and Gomorrah and the other Cities of the Plain: Zoar, Zeboim and Admah[5]
Sulfur/brimstone balls from the ashen remains of Sodom and Gomorrah[6]
The area of Djoser's pyramid complex believed to be the remains of Joseph's grain distribution bins used during the 7 year famine[7]
The Tower of Babel site (in southern Turkey)[8]
How the Egyptians may have built the pyramids[9]
The site of the Israelites' crossing of the Red Sea (located in the Gulf of Aqaba)[10]
Chariot wheels and other relics of the army of Pharaoh at the bottom of the Red Sea
The site of the biblical Mt. Sinai (in Saudi Arabia at Jabal al Lawz)[11]
A chamber at the end of a maze of tunnels under Jerusalem containing artifacts from Solomon's Temple (including the Ark of the Covenant)[12]
The site of the Crucifixion of Jesus
Christ's blood, dripped onto the Mercy seat of the Ark of the Covenant beneath the Crucifixion site
Burial pots off the coast of Ashkelon[13]



posted on Apr, 21 2016 @ 09:00 AM
link   

originally posted by: burgerbuddy

originally posted by: Joecanada11
a reply to: edmc^2

That is proof of nothing. Anyone can look outside and say the earth hangs on "nothing"

If the bible said "God spins the earth in its orbit around the Sun and in accordance with the other planets" then you might have a case.

The whole earth could not be flooded as the bible states. Not could all the animals be taken on the Ark. Nor could they get along if they did. What would the lions and tigers and bears do?

In exodus it states that the first born in every Egyptian household was killed by God. The Egyptians would have had a record of this if it were true.

Samson killing 1,000 people by himself with a jawbine? I think not.

Your arhuement for the bible fails. Sorry.



How did they know it hung on nothing? What do you mean by just looking outside?

#2 Why? There is no need to know that.

Why do you not think the earth couldn't be covered in water and we are talking about God here, He sent the animals and
they were probably drugged by Noah.

They haven't found the hieroglyphic tablet that said, "the israelites kicked our ass" yet.

1000 sales are killed with the same weapon everyday.









Because, there is not now, nor has there ever been, enough water on the planet to cover Everest.

If that amount of water were to spontaneously manifest, it would throw off the earths rotation.

We have archeological evidence that there has never been a global flood (without covering the mountains, even) within the last 100,000 years.

Nor could you fit 2 of every animal on a boat the size the arc was reported to be. There are millions of species. The arc was only a couple football fields.



posted on Apr, 21 2016 @ 09:06 AM
link   

originally posted by: LifeisGrand
There may people many people who did not know it, who believe in evolution, and perhaps are atheists, but scientists have proven the very first statement of the Holy Scriptures as correct science. There was a beginning to our universe. This is proven by the background radiation, as well as other things, such as the red shift in the stars, moving away from each other. They say that beginning was 13.8 billion years ago.

This is observable provable science. Any speculation that the universe itself is eternal, or comes from an infinite number of universes etc. are mere speculation, and ruminations of highly fanciful minds that actually delve into the realm of fantasy to answer the question of WHAT caused the universe to begin.

There is no doubt that there was a first CAUSE.

What it all boils down to, is how the universe was caused to become.

In science it is a known fact that all life comes from previous life. And all order comes from thinking persons with the ability to reason and think.

Really many chose to believe that something impersonal caused the universe to exist. But since something cannot and never will come from nothing (this is observable scientific fact, no one has ever observed the creation of something from nothing) that something was eternal.

They rest their blind faith on an eternal impersonal something which they cannot understand or describe, for science cannot even prove it.

Others look at the order of the universe, the four fundamental laws of nature (namely, the strong nuclear force, the weak nuclear force, electromagnetism, and gravity) each highly tweaked to beyond mere coincidence.

For example gravity is the weakest of the forces, but it holds the universe together. You can observe how weak it is looking at an apple hanging from an apple tree. It may take all summer from the constant pull of the earth's gravity on it to make it finally fall to the ground.

Yet if this force were just a little weaker the universe would have never existed. And if it were a little stronger the stars would have burned out too fast before life came to be.

The force of electromagnetism is 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 (10^40) stronger than that of gravity.

If gravity were 10^41, that small fractional of a difference in this unbelievably great number would seem to be not a big deal. But if gravity was that greatly proportionally weaker to electromagnetism, nuclear fusion would never have started in the cores of stars. And conversely if it was 10^39, the life expectancy of stars would be much much shorter, the universe probably would have burned itself out by now.

We can actually write a book on the subject of how finely tuned the universe is. The strong nuclear force is the most powerful force in the universe, so strong that it is able to keep protons and electrons opposite forces that repel each other from separating. But it is also the least pervasive force. Outside the atom the force ceases to hold sway.

So if you popped the hood of a car and saw a highly efficient running engine, with the correct fuel/air ratio, would it be illogical to conclude that a very intelligent person designed it?

The finely tuned forces of nature lead a logical and opening mind to the possibility of a Creator.

That is the first CAUSE was a someone and not an impersonal something that cannot think. You have the right to disagree, but to claim that it is illogical to conclude that much based on fact would be bias. There is evidence that can lead to that conclusion.

We have just glimpsed into the four forces of the universe here (that are known). We haven't even touched the surface of life itself on earth, and the chances for example the digital code found within DNA to have come about by chance, or any other of the spectacular working machines inside even the most simplistic of cells.

Bottom line:

The universe had a beginning - It had no beginning

It had a beginnig

That beginning was caused - it was not caused

It was caused

The cause was someone or something

You decide. But to conclude, rationally, looking at the universe, the order and design in everything from the galaxies in their wonderful array o superclusters, to the infinitesimally small inside the nucleolus of an atom, order and design exist.

And it is rational and very full of reason and logic to conclude the first cause was Someone who was able to think and reason.

Those who believe in Chance still believe in a god. Just theirs is impersonal and creates magic and stuff of fairy-tales, not because they have proof of their Chance. But because they blindly wish to put faith in their non-existent impersonal force which they can neither prove exists, or prove that it caused all things to become.








There is a beginning to everything any human has ever seen or thought of....


That is like that is like me claiming i spontaneously created my car, and you being like:

"well the car had a beginning, and he said he created it. So he must be able to spontaneously create vehicles."



posted on Apr, 21 2016 @ 09:12 AM
link   
a reply to: LifeisGrand

Science doesn't claim the universe came from nothing. It's called a multiverse. With a multiverse there would be countless universes, all with varying primal forces. So our universe wasn't a 1 in infinite chance to get it right. There would be countless "dice rolls" the universe had to get it right.



posted on Apr, 21 2016 @ 09:47 AM
link   
Why make another thread with the same exact topic as the last one? You haven't brought anything new to the table just the same ol' tireless arguments based on personal bias. Why can't you just believe without pushing your opinion on others as fact? I think you need a new shtick Mr preacher. Lies do not qualify as evidence and your opinion is not fact.

We know your game. You will stick around for a week or so trying to prove that your version of god is automatically right without any proof, just because you say so. Once your points get debunked and demolished over and over, you will disappear again for another few months until we "forget" about that and then come back and revive the thread pretending that nothing even happened, just like you did a few days ago with the "only logical explanation" thread, and you have done in the past with so many others. Doesn't it get old making topics about the same thing over and over again with nothing new to even bring to the table?


Like the side where they believe that nothing created everything?


Um, don't you believe that nothing created god?
edit on 4 21 16 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 21 2016 @ 10:12 AM
link   

originally posted by: LifeisGrand
There may people many people who did not know it, who believe in evolution, and perhaps are atheists, but scientists have proven the very first statement of the Holy Scriptures as correct science. There was a beginning to our universe. This is proven by the background radiation, as well as other things, such as the red shift in the stars, moving away from each other. They say that beginning was 13.8 billion years ago.


Wrong. This doesn't prove anything about a beginning. It proves that everything was once condensed and expanded from that point. That is just as far back as we can measure. You assume that there is a beginning but no scientists actually claim that they have proven a beginning. Maybe the beginning of what we currently observe as the expanding universe, but not the beginning of everything in existence (including on the quantum level). Also FYI, evolution has nothing to do with the big bang.


This is observable provable science.


No it's not.


Any speculation that the universe itself is eternal, or comes from an infinite number of universes etc. are mere speculation, and ruminations of highly fanciful minds that actually delve into the realm of fantasy to answer the question of WHAT caused the universe to begin


Any speculation that GOD itself is eternal is mere speculation, and ruminations of highly fanciful minds that actually delve into the realm of fantasy to answer the question of WHAT caused god to begin.


There is no doubt that there was a first CAUSE.


False. There are doubts. One of them is based on the laws of physics. Energy cannot be created or destroyed. This lends credence to the idea that energy is eternal, which would make the singularity prior to the big bang eternal.


In science it is a known fact that all life comes from previous life. And all order comes from thinking persons with the ability to reason and think.


Wrong again. That is NOT a known fact. It is assumption that requires complete knowledge of the universe to even consider. Also wrong about order. Gravity is what creates the appearance of order in the universe, not people with the ability to think and reason.


Really many chose to believe that something impersonal caused the universe to exist. But since something cannot and never will come from nothing (this is observable scientific fact, no one has ever observed the creation of something from nothing) that something was eternal.


People believe in a natural universe because there is no evidence of god. If something cannot come from nothing where did god come from? Calling him eternal is a cop out. That means he just happened to be there before everything, completely uncaused, he's just there randomly. That makes even less sense than calling energy or the singularity eternal.


Others look at the order of the universe, the four fundamental forces of nature (namely, the strong nuclear force, the weak nuclear force, electromagnetism, and gravity) each highly tweaked to beyond mere coincidence.


Nope. There is no evidence whatsoever to suggest that any of those forces were ever tweaked. Wishful thinking on your part, just not true. We know that the universe exists as it does because of the 4 fundamental forces. You are assuming they were created just because they are the way they are. You have no evidence of such. It's faulty logic assume that any laws were ever fine tuned.


So if you popped the hood of a car and saw a highly efficient running engine, with the correct fuel/air ratio, would it be illogical to conclude that a very intelligent person designed it?


Cars are known human creations, so of course we know it was designed. However, planets, stars, DNA, galaxies, black holes, etc are not creations of humans so there is no reason to assume they were created. That is pure bias right there. To assume intelligent design YOU NEED evidence of an intelligent designer, not just appeals to complexity.


That is the first CAUSE was a someone and not an impersonal something that cannot think. You have the right to disagree, but to claim that it is illogical to conclude that much based on fact would be bias. There is evidence that can lead to that conclusion.


So you have evidence of this first cause? I hope you have something besides conjecture, because thus far that's all you have posted.


And it is rational and very full of reason and logic to conclude the first cause was Someone who was able to think and reason.


Negative. Everything in the history of science that we have studied over the years has been shown to fully function and operate WITHOUT intelligent interference. Everything works without god. It is far more logical to conclude the universe was caused naturally via quantum membrane collisions then to blindly assume god just because we are here.


edit on 4 21 16 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 21 2016 @ 10:24 AM
link   

originally posted by: JoshuaCox
a reply to: LifeisGrand

Science doesn't claim the universe came from nothing. It's called a multiverse. With a multiverse there would be countless universes, all with varying primal forces. So our universe wasn't a 1 in infinite chance to get it right. There would be countless "dice rolls" the universe had to get it right.



Exactly. Even if the odds are 1 billion to 1, if you roll the dice a billion times, it becomes virtually inevitable. These guys just constantly appeal to complexity and the unknown and place god in that gap of knowledge without any evidence at all.
edit on 4 21 16 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 21 2016 @ 01:09 PM
link   
a reply to: JoshuaCox
I tried to discourage your type of response by saying:

If others know any serious responses to this information they're welcome to share too (not blanket statements that it's nonsense or ad hominems and such, something that adresses the finds and lab results in detail, especially regarding the rather unique composition of the sulphur or brimstone balls mentioned in the last set of videos).

I would have to qualify your comment under "and such" since I'm not interested in what you think of Ron Wyatt or any of his other claims (also as a reminder, I do not consider Ron Wyatt to be a reliable honest person). Ron Wyatt doesn't get to discredit the finds that he found and told people about. I'm particularly interested if anyone knows any specific information regarding the finds at the possible Red Sea crossing and Sodom and Gomorrah being faked, falsified or misrepresented. Others have made the same finds, so it's those finds that need to be adressed for me to be able to tell whether or not it's fake, a fraud or a deception (I am not unaccustomed with this behaviour to make money and get some attention, but it's a bit presumptuous and prejudiced to not at least require some clear evidence regarding specific finds to come to that conclusion, especially the sulphur balls, cause there are more people running around with those by now who have been there, as well as others making videos of the sites, this isn't just about Ron Wyatt anymore; and it never was, he doesn't own the finds and he doesn't represent them).

That's also why I left out videos regarding his other claims as well as Noah's Ark (which is only mentioned once at the very end of the one video that I made clear I was only sharing for the first 24 minutes and in no way implied that I agreed with any of the inormation in it, just wanted edmc^2 opinion on it and what he might know in terms of what I mentioned above again, reliability, not the person, but the finds and laboratory tests).

Btw, the last video has nothing at all to do with Ron Wyatt, so your blanket statement:

All of the stuff you listed was "discovered" by one guy...

is a bit telling for me too regarding how quick your dismissal is regarding things that aren't 'tickling your ears' (what you want to hear, 2 Timothy 4:3,4).
Just thinking out loud here, there seem to me to be much cheaper ways to pull of a fraud then doing expensive laboratory tests, but who knows if someone is determined to fool people and thinks that including laboratory tests in their presentation increases their revenue (when selling DVD's and advertising on their websites).
Again, only sharing this video for the laboratory footage:

edit on 21-4-2016 by whereislogic because: addition



posted on Apr, 21 2016 @ 05:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: LifeisGrand
There may people many people who did not know it, who believe in evolution, and perhaps are atheists, but scientists have proven the very first statement of the Holy Scriptures as correct science. There was a beginning to our universe. This is proven by the background radiation, as well as other things, such as the red shift in the stars, moving away from each other. They say that beginning was 13.8 billion years ago.

This is observable provable science. Any speculation that the universe itself is eternal, or comes from an infinite number of universes etc. are mere speculation, and ruminations of highly fanciful minds that actually delve into the realm of fantasy to answer the question of WHAT caused the universe to begin.

There is no doubt that there was a first CAUSE.

What it all boils down to, is how the universe was caused to become.

In science it is a known fact that all life comes from previous life. And all order comes from thinking persons with the ability to reason and think.

Really many chose to believe that something impersonal caused the universe to exist. But since something cannot and never will come from nothing (this is observable scientific fact, no one has ever observed the creation of something from nothing) that something was eternal.

They rest their blind faith on an eternal impersonal something which they cannot understand or describe, for science cannot even prove it.

Others look at the order of the universe, the four fundamental forces of nature (namely, the strong nuclear force, the weak nuclear force, electromagnetism, and gravity) each highly tweaked to beyond mere coincidence.

For example gravity is the weakest of the forces, but it holds the universe together. You can observe how weak it is looking at an apple hanging from an apple tree. It may take all summer from the constant pull of the earth's gravity on it to make it finally fall to the ground.

Yet if this force were just a little weaker the universe would have never existed. And if it were a little stronger the stars would have burned out too fast before life came to be.

The force of electromagnetism is 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 (10^40) stronger than that of gravity.

If gravity were 10^41, that small fractional of a difference in this unbelievably great number would seem to be not a big deal. But if gravity was that greatly proportionally weaker to electromagnetism, nuclear fusion would never have started in the cores of stars. And conversely if it was 10^39, the life expectancy of stars would be much much shorter, the universe probably would have burned itself out by now.

We can actually write a book on the subject of how finely tuned the universe is. The strong nuclear force is the most powerful force in the universe, so strong that it is able to keep protons and electrons opposite forces that repel each other from separating. But it is also the least pervasive force. Outside the atom the force ceases to hold sway.

So if you popped the hood of a car and saw a highly efficient running engine, with the correct fuel/air ratio, would it be illogical to conclude that a very intelligent person designed it?

The finely tuned forces of nature lead a logical and opening mind to the possibility of a Creator.

That is the first CAUSE was a someone and not an impersonal something that cannot think. You have the right to disagree, but to claim that it is illogical to conclude that much based on fact would be bias. There is evidence that can lead to that conclusion.

We have just glimpsed into the four forces of the universe here (that are known). We haven't even touched the surface of life itself on earth, and the chances for example the digital code found within DNA to have come about by chance, or any other of the spectacular working machines inside even the most simplistic of cells.

Bottom line:

The universe had a beginning - It had no beginning

It had a beginnig

That beginning was caused - it was not caused

It was caused

The cause was someone or something

You decide. But to conclude, rationally, looking at the universe, the order and design in everything from the galaxies in their wonderful array o superclusters, to the infinitesimally small inside the nucleolus of an atom, order and design exist.

And it is rational and very full of reason and logic to conclude the first cause was Someone who was able to think and reason.

Those who believe in Chance still believe in a god. Just theirs is impersonal and creates magic and stuff of fairy-tales, not because they have proof of their Chance. But because they blindly wish to put faith in their non-existent impersonal force which they can neither prove exists, or prove that it caused all things to become.





Nicely done, nicely put. This should be a great OP!!!

I got nothing to add to it.



posted on Apr, 21 2016 @ 05:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: Barcs
Why make another thread with the same exact topic as the last one? You haven't brought anything new to the table just the same ol' tireless arguments based on personal bias. Why can't you just believe without pushing your opinion on others as fact? I think you need a new shtick Mr preacher. Lies do not qualify as evidence and your opinion is not fact.

We know your game. You will stick around for a week or so trying to prove that your version of god is automatically right without any proof, just because you say so. Once your points get debunked and demolished over and over, you will disappear again for another few months until we "forget" about that and then come back and revive the thread pretending that nothing even happened, just like you did a few days ago with the "only logical explanation" thread, and you have done in the past with so many others. Doesn't it get old making topics about the same thing over and over again with nothing new to even bring to the table?


Like the side where they believe that nothing created everything?


Um, don't you believe that nothing created god?


Hmmm. I think you need a new shtick Mr. Rant.

Same ol shtick - rant, rant, and rant some mo from Mr. Rant.

Nothing new.



posted on Apr, 21 2016 @ 05:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: Barcs
Why make another thread with the same exact topic as the last one? You haven't brought anything new to the table just the same ol' tireless arguments based on personal bias. Why can't you just believe without pushing your opinion on others as fact? I think you need a new shtick Mr preacher. Lies do not qualify as evidence and your opinion is not fact.

We know your game. You will stick around for a week or so trying to prove that your version of god is automatically right without any proof, just because you say so. Once your points get debunked and demolished over and over, you will disappear again for another few months until we "forget" about that and then come back and revive the thread pretending that nothing even happened, just like you did a few days ago with the "only logical explanation" thread, and you have done in the past with so many others. Doesn't it get old making topics about the same thing over and over again with nothing new to even bring to the table?


Like the side where they believe that nothing created everything?


Um, don't you believe that nothing created god?


Hmmm. I think you need a new shtick Mr. Rant.

Same ol shtick - rant, rant, and rant some mo from Mr. Rant.

Nothing new.

-- double post.

you haven't debunked any of my points - in fact you always end up saying the ol 'IDK'.





edit on 21-4-2016 by edmc^2 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 21 2016 @ 05:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: whereislogic
a reply to: JoshuaCox
I tried to discourage your type of response by saying:

If others know any serious responses to this information they're welcome to share too (not blanket statements that it's nonsense or ad hominems and such, something that adresses the finds and lab results in detail, especially regarding the rather unique composition of the sulphur or brimstone balls mentioned in the last set of videos).

I would have to qualify your comment under "and such" since I'm not interested in what you think of Ron Wyatt or any of his other claims (also as a reminder, I do not consider Ron Wyatt to be a reliable honest person). Ron Wyatt doesn't get to discredit the finds that he found and told people about. I'm particularly interested if anyone knows any specific information regarding the finds at the possible Red Sea crossing and Sodom and Gomorrah being faked, falsified or misrepresented. Others have made the same finds, so it's those finds that need to be adressed for me to be able to tell whether or not it's fake, a fraud or a deception (I am not unaccustomed with this behaviour to make money and get some attention, but it's a bit presumptuous and prejudiced to not at least require some clear evidence regarding specific finds to come to that conclusion, especially the sulphur balls, cause there are more people running around with those by now who have been there, as well as others making videos of the sites, this isn't just about Ron Wyatt anymore; and it never was, he doesn't own the finds and he doesn't represent them).

That's also why I left out videos regarding his other claims as well as Noah's Ark (which is only mentioned once at the very end of the one video that I made clear I was only sharing for the first 24 minutes and in no way implied that I agreed with any of the inormation in it, just wanted edmc^2 opinion on it and what he might know in terms of what I mentioned above again, reliability, not the person, but the finds and laboratory tests).

Btw, the last video has nothing at all to do with Ron Wyatt, so your blanket statement:

All of the stuff you listed was "discovered" by one guy...

is a bit telling for me too regarding how quick your dismissal is regarding things that aren't 'tickling your ears' (what you want to hear, 2 Timothy 4:3,4).
Just thinking out loud here, there seem to me to be much cheaper ways to pull of a fraud then doing expensive laboratory tests, but who knows if someone is determined to fool people and thinks that including laboratory tests in their presentation increases their revenue (when selling DVD's and advertising on their websites).
Again, only sharing this video for the laboratory footage:




So you want to debate a claim, but the origin and author of that claim are off the table...huh?!?!

You sited his claims as proof of your theory....


While ignoring the MOUNTAIN of evidence that contradicts your theory...


No one , not a creationist, thinks those are sulfur balls from heaven. No one not a creationist thinks the cities found were:

A: named Sidon and gohmora.

B:destroyed my raining sulfur.

C:destroyed in the right time period for the biblical account.



posted on Apr, 21 2016 @ 09:15 PM
link   
Everything was created through Jesus, right? What is Jesus according to the bible? The image of God and light of the world. What do you see right now? An image of light that reveals your computer screen and the world around you. That is the image of God, that is what God creates the universe through (Jesus) and is what we are made in.

The double slit experiment tells us that nothing is concrete until it is observed. We are the observer and we create the universe through the act of observation. If there is no observer there is only probability, not actuality.

You're right, God did and does create the universe through his image, you see his image right now as you read this.

Like I said, the biblical God represents the universal energy that permeates everything in existence, we are its expression and we are not separate from it.



posted on Apr, 21 2016 @ 09:59 PM
link   
a reply to: whereislogic
Oh, every real archeologist, thinks the "salt pillars" and such were the origin of the biblical story. They saw the ruins of the cities, salt pillars and such, then made up a cool story about their God doing it.

Not that the story is an account of what actually happened.,



posted on Apr, 21 2016 @ 11:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: JoshuaCox

originally posted by: whereislogic
a reply to: JoshuaCox
I tried to discourage your type of response by saying:

If others know any serious responses to this information they're welcome to share too (not blanket statements that it's nonsense or ad hominems and such, something that adresses the finds and lab results in detail, especially regarding the rather unique composition of the sulphur or brimstone balls mentioned in the last set of videos).

I would have to qualify your comment under "and such" since I'm not interested in what you think of Ron Wyatt or any of his other claims (also as a reminder, I do not consider Ron Wyatt to be a reliable honest person). Ron Wyatt doesn't get to discredit the finds that he found and told people about. I'm particularly interested if anyone knows any specific information regarding the finds at the possible Red Sea crossing and Sodom and Gomorrah being faked, falsified or misrepresented. Others have made the same finds, so it's those finds that need to be adressed for me to be able to tell whether or not it's fake, a fraud or a deception (I am not unaccustomed with this behaviour to make money and get some attention, but it's a bit presumptuous and prejudiced to not at least require some clear evidence regarding specific finds to come to that conclusion, especially the sulphur balls, cause there are more people running around with those by now who have been there, as well as others making videos of the sites, this isn't just about Ron Wyatt anymore; and it never was, he doesn't own the finds and he doesn't represent them).

That's also why I left out videos regarding his other claims as well as Noah's Ark (which is only mentioned once at the very end of the one video that I made clear I was only sharing for the first 24 minutes and in no way implied that I agreed with any of the inormation in it, just wanted edmc^2 opinion on it and what he might know in terms of what I mentioned above again, reliability, not the person, but the finds and laboratory tests).

Btw, the last video has nothing at all to do with Ron Wyatt, so your blanket statement:

All of the stuff you listed was "discovered" by one guy...

is a bit telling for me too regarding how quick your dismissal is regarding things that aren't 'tickling your ears' (what you want to hear, 2 Timothy 4:3,4).
Just thinking out loud here, there seem to me to be much cheaper ways to pull of a fraud then doing expensive laboratory tests, but who knows if someone is determined to fool people and thinks that including laboratory tests in their presentation increases their revenue (when selling DVD's and advertising on their websites).
Again, only sharing this video for the laboratory footage:

So you want to debate a claim, but the origin and author of that claim are off the table...huh?!?!

No I do not want to debate a claim, I'm looking for someone who has any information regarding the finds and laboratory reports themselves (in the videos I've shared so far there are 3 different laboratories where samples of the sulphur balls or the ashes are tested and 3 different teams of investigators, only 1 of those teams is led by Ron Wyatt who is not doing any of the laboratory tests himself).

You sited his claims as proof of your theory....

No I did not, please go twist somewhere else (I even emphasized what someone might view as the opposite, twice). Again, I'm looking for logical reasons to figure out what is fake or misrepresented and what not (cause I neither trust Ron Wyatt or any of the others who claim to have found those sulphur balls, like I said, I already know these people are not trustworthy and biased, possibly even trying to make money by getting some attention), but of course, I do need something other than ad hominems and blanket dismissals without addressing the important content: the finds and the laboratory reports by different teams. I'm hoping someone out there actually has some evidence that these sulphur balls were either not found in the manner displayed in the videos (perhaps self-made and then either swapped with the finds shown in the video or just put there with a bit of a paintjob to simulate the scorch marks, I dunno) or perhaps something else is going on. Like I said, specifics please if you know of something cause I have a hard time coming up with something myself. If it's a deception, it's certainly well presented, I usually don't have this amount of difficulty in spotting deception and figuring it out.

While ignoring the MOUNTAIN of evidence that contradicts your theory...

Your house of cards and bad arguments have little effect on me and are of little use. Especially if you only refer to them vaguely without any specifics, i.e. a blanket statement.

No one , not a creationist, thinks those are sulfur balls from heaven. No one not a creationist thinks the cities found were:

A: named Sidon and gohmora.

B:destroyed my raining sulfur.

C:destroyed in the right time period for the biblical account.

Again a blind blanket statement ( "no one"?), Ron Wyatt and all his fans already aren't "no one". And I'll make up my own mind which you're not really helping with; with statements like that.

Mind you, I hardly ever see so-called finds of human-apelike ancestor remains being scrutinized like this. Would be a good thing though, a video showing how and where a fossil is found would go a long way in determining whether or not it's just another orangutan jaw glued to a human skull like has happened before ("Piltdown Man" taught and shown for a very long time in textbooks), or similar frauds.
edit on 22-4-2016 by whereislogic because: addition



posted on Apr, 21 2016 @ 11:16 PM
link   
a reply to: edmc^2

People for some reason are hung up on creation vs revolution

Creation through evolution

I knew that when I was 18




top topics



 
23
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join