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.

 

The Bible is True

page: 18
79
<< 15  16  17    19  20  21 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 18 2019 @ 01:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: cooperton
Science already figured out the best scientific approximation of the truth with the Copenhagen interpretation back in the early 20th century. What sort of liberating truth are you waiting for from science? Cancer rates continue to climb, longevity sees no noticeable improvements. If your hope relies on science to free you, you will die disappointed like the rest of those who hoped for some great scientific breakthrough that never came. The answer is already out there, you just need to look in the right place.


Longevity has ZERO to do with evolution, sorry. Evolution relies on being alive long enough to reproduce. Getting cancer late in life and how long you live afterwards is completely irrelevant. You have been arguing against evolution for decades and are still unaware of the very basics.




posted on Jan, 18 2019 @ 01:24 PM
link   
a reply to: Toolman18

Wait a second, I thought Jesus was God, and not a god named God who was said to have made everything an not originally called Jesus in the first place.
Are you telling me Jesus isn't your God? You can burn in hell for that you know.

Anyways if the Bible true, then why didn't it include the rest of the passages that were used by the various different books to help make it?

Genesis an Adam an Eve may have been seperate books.

No one ever talked about what happens at the end of Adam an Eve. And Satan was a child of God btw, so let give praise.



posted on Jan, 18 2019 @ 09:33 PM
link   
To: coomba98


Nope, your reading some scientists opinions.

Matter is not really a gas, or liquid or solid. Its kinda one and yet all at the same time.


The article was talking about the fabric of spacetime and not matter. lol Did you even bother to read the content?


You said: "Matter is one and yet all at the same time?"

What? lol

You mean to say this solid plastic keyboard I'm typing on is also a gas, liquid, and plasma all at the same time? Lol

Not sure whether to take you seriously though.



This isn't near the beginning of the current state of the Universe.

Being:

(1) a beginning;
(2) light;
(3) sun and stars;


If you read carefully, it's not about the beginning. It is about the condition "before" the beginning.


Your sequence is also incorrect:


(1) a beginning;
(2) light;
(3) sun and stars;
(4) primitive earth, moon, and atmosphere;
(5) dry land;
(6) sea creatures;
(7) some land plants;
(8) land creatures and more plants and sea creatures;
(9) flying creatures (insects) and more plants and land and sea creatures;
(10) mammals, and more land and sea animals, insects, and plants;
(11) the first birds,
(12) fruiting plants (which is what Genesis talks about) and more land, sea, and flying creatures;
(13) man and more of the various animals and plants



Your sequence is out of whack. It goes against evolution's tree of life. Not sure where you copied it. Lol



Prokaryotes
Plants
Arthropods
Fish
Reptiles and birds
Mammals

Evolution's tree of life is pretty much similar to the creation sequence.

Day 3 and 4:

Prokaryotes
Plants

Day 5:

Arthropods
Fish
Reptiles and birds

Day 6:

Mammals


edit on 18-1-2019 by syndicatesyn because: Added some information

edit on 18-1-2019 by syndicatesyn because: Added even more info



posted on Jan, 18 2019 @ 09:53 PM
link   
a reply to: Toolman18

Which Bible is true?



posted on Jan, 19 2019 @ 03:50 AM
link   
a reply to: syndicatesyn



The article was talking about the fabric of spacetime and not matter.


Umm don't know how to respond.. But.... space in 'space'/time takes into account matter. Ummm yeah you will learn this when you get to high school.

When people talk about 'space/time' they talk about everything within the three 'space' dimensions that changes within intivals.
aka Time.

The layman's terms is defined as:
Space-time is a mathematical model that joins space and time into a single idea called a continuum. This four-dimensional continuum is known as Minkowski space. ... Also, the strength of any gravitational field slows the passage of time for an object as seen by an observer outside the field.

Here is a dummies version [don't knock these explanations as sometime you have to dumb it down a lot to understand, even me. Like the evolution picture of the monkey like being slowly changing into a human many steps away, not really how it happens but good enough for the uninitiated.]

www.dummies.com...



You said: "Matter is one and yet all at the same time?"

What? lol

You mean to say this solid plastic keyboard I'm typing on is also a gas, liquid, and plasma all at the same time? Lol


Within 'Physics' matter is a gas. The more dense the mass the more it resembles a liquid or a solid.

Remember an atom is mostly empty space.

If a physicist on this website educates me further, i'll continue to have this viewpoint.



Your sequence is out of whack. It goes against evolution's tree of life. Not sure where you copied it. Lol
* Prokaryotes.
* Plants...


Holy Moses!!!

A fully functional unicellular organism, sometimes a multi-cellular organism, that lacks a membrane-bound nucleus, mitochondria, or any other membrane-bound organelle came before the even Universe was created!!!

Ummmmm yeahhhh hmmmmm, please!!! Can I have what your having cause what I have seem weak!! Please?!!!

Yes... $50? I'll treat it with respect.

Talk about a huge massive straw man response!!!

Thats low bro, low.

Master Coomba
(Your female friendly companion)

Edit:
Specifically, space/time is not the matter within 'space/time'. From a physics point of view.

However context is the key.

So when non- physicists speaks of 'space/time', it is to speak of the Cosmos or Universe.

So within context I suppose your right.

Coomba98
edit on 19-1-2019 by coomba98 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 19 2019 @ 06:41 PM
link   
@Coomba98

If you want to represent atheism, please not like this, Ms. Coomba. If you do not believe there is a Creator, that's totally fine with me. But, personal biases should be set aside and let objectivity be your main focus.



posted on Jan, 19 2019 @ 06:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: InTheLight
a reply to: Toolman18

Which Bible is true?


It's not the question of whether which Bible is true, rather, it is the question of copyright laws. Business will always be business and it needs to protect its investment. Thus, the various versions we have today.

I use several versions to cross reference, no problem with me. Just as long as I read the whole context of the story or passage.



posted on Jan, 20 2019 @ 06:02 AM
link   

originally posted by: coomba98
a reply to: cooperton

And God of the gaps is decreasing, mother nature is slowly being explained and how things occur is now being known.


Note what's said in the video below at 4:55 - 7:28 and 8:23 - 9:17 (and only those timeframes, no need to pick holes in anything else he says or how he chooses to phrase it, that's not what I'm referring to, so I also won't respond to it if someone feels like nitpicking like that):

The system's programming 101:

You might wanna wake up to it one day.
edit on 20-1-2019 by whereislogic because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 20 2019 @ 08:47 AM
link   
a reply to: Toolman18

Of course parts of it are true you would not believe it if it did not resonate with you.
all religions are just one religion and they are the worship of aliens from Saturn
but of course most peoples brains have been damaged to the lack of oxygen in the air due to petrol using 14 grams of oxygen in order to burn one gram of fuel, no winds in the cities due to the taller buildings leads to a drop in oxygen levels below 19.5% leading to every breathe you take being short of oxygen meaning you are retarding your brain with every breathe you take. and thats without the nuclear power stations emitting nuclear waste int the sky and chemical fertiliser factories releasing nuclear waste into the sky due to burning phosphate rock which contains uranium and its breakdown products some of this is captured and resold as fluoride have a look at the water companies putting sodium fluoride and sodium silica fluoride. there is a law regarding sodium silica fluoride that requires the extraction of silica from the chemical fertiliser smoke stacks.

there is one report out there that says 85% of the worlds population live within 50 miles of 21 cities hmm not too hard to work out wind directions and place factories in key positions 50% of the cities have been found to contain iodine 131 which is from the nuclear power stations.

God made this dimension for us so we could have free will and we have been coming here for 500 million years, gods laws are don't kill another human steal from another human or injure another human, all men are equal and there are no borders,
the bible stems back to the end of the last ice age 11700 years ago and was an agriculture marketing tool as we never used to eat food only drink rain water adam and eve depicts the hybridisation of humans enabling them to neutralise the alcohol released by the bacteria in your stomach after you have eaten food the detoxification point of alcohol is the brain so why is jesus turning water into wine when it is a poison for our brain look at the miracles they are based on eating food and drink.

Oh look Saturn is the roman god of agriculture and the reason Jesus gave fish is due to the age of pisces that we have just left so now we get a new religion for the next 2000 years

jesus was a real character whose story has been added to in order to force you into following a hierachal system with just a few families at the top controlling all of us for the aliens on saturn but jesus was just a guy who fought the ruling classes and had 12 followers

this stuff is so badly hidden in plain site its amazing none of you read the psalms which clearly states research all what your told. the psalms are from king david the gospels are from john the baptist judas was the leader of the maccabees who was fighting the catholics and who the catholics are trying to slaughter,
the maccabee religion was coptic orthodox and maronites all of whom are being systematically wiped out 90% of russians have been killed since the catholics invaded russia in 1914 lenin was living in germany and its been proven the catholics funded the bolshevik revolution germany has never stopped fighting ww2
genghis khan annexed the khazarian jews from khazaria around 1215 into poland because they were psychopathic maniacs.


enjoy your breathing

edit on 20-1-2019 by jinni73 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 20 2019 @ 10:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: Barcs
"Science already figured out the best scientific approximation of the truth with the Copenhagen interpretation back in the early 20th century. What sort of liberating truth are you waiting for from science? Cancer rates continue to climb, longevity sees no noticeable improvements. If your hope relies on science to free you, you will die disappointed like the rest of those who hoped for some great scientific breakthrough that never came. The answer is already out there, you just need to look in the right place."

Longevity has ZERO to do with evolution, sorry. Evolution relies on being alive long enough to reproduce. Getting cancer late in life and how long you live afterwards is completely irrelevant. You have been arguing against evolution for decades and are still unaware of the very basics.


I was not referring to longevity in terms of evolution. If you read my post (in quotes) it is in reference to medical advancements in the field of science that people are waiting to find some panacea to set them free from their diseases.

But to reply to your comment, yes, in theory, longevity would actually be an integral portion of evolution... an increase in longevity would be necessary for more complex organisms to reach sexual maturity. So even though I wasn't even arguing this to begin with, I figured I would let you know you are wrong according to your own theory.

The reason I know the theory is wrong is because I know it inside and out. The interdependent nature of organisms, organs, tissues, cells, organelles, macromolecules, and molecules within a living organism demonstrate beyond a reasonable doubt that evolutionary theory is entirely impossible. Because all parts of the system rely on other parts of the system, there could be no sequential increase in function as proposed by evolutionary theory, because all pieces need to be in play for the whole organism to work.



posted on Jan, 21 2019 @ 01:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: Barcs
"Science already figured out the best scientific approximation of the truth with the Copenhagen interpretation back in the early 20th century. What sort of liberating truth are you waiting for from science? Cancer rates continue to climb, longevity sees no noticeable improvements. If your hope relies on science to free you, you will die disappointed like the rest of those who hoped for some great scientific breakthrough that never came. The answer is already out there, you just need to look in the right place."

Longevity has ZERO to do with evolution, sorry. Evolution relies on being alive long enough to reproduce. Getting cancer late in life and how long you live afterwards is completely irrelevant. You have been arguing against evolution for decades and are still unaware of the very basics.


I was not referring to longevity in terms of evolution. If you read my post (in quotes) it is in reference to medical advancements in the field of science that people are waiting to find some panacea to set them free from their diseases.

But to reply to your comment, yes, in theory, longevity would actually be an integral portion of evolution... an increase in longevity would be necessary for more complex organisms to reach sexual maturity. So even though I wasn't even arguing this to begin with, I figured I would let you know you are wrong according to your own theory.

The reason I know the theory is wrong is because I know it inside and out. The interdependent nature of organisms, organs, tissues, cells, organelles, macromolecules, and molecules within a living organism demonstrate beyond a reasonable doubt that evolutionary theory is entirely impossible. Because all parts of the system rely on other parts of the system, there could be no sequential increase in function as proposed by evolutionary theory, because all pieces need to be in play for the whole organism to work.


There are several threads all over this forum, that have demonstrated two things: you don't understand evolution as well as you claim, and your hypothesis of intelligent design/supernatural meddling has 10x the plot holes that evolution does. Remember your thread on glacial erratics and trying to prove a global flood? Can't stop you from trying, but you can't stop us from pointing out the errors in your "research" either.



posted on Jan, 21 2019 @ 01:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: cooperton
The reason I know the theory is wrong is because I know it inside and out. The interdependent nature of organisms, organs, tissues, cells, organelles, macromolecules, and molecules within a living organism demonstrate beyond a reasonable doubt that evolutionary theory is entirely impossible. Because all parts of the system rely on other parts of the system, there could be no sequential increase in function as proposed by evolutionary theory, because all pieces need to be in play for the whole organism to work.


Yet you can't debunk a single piece of evidence. LOL! You don't know anything inside and out. You are pretentious and talking nonsense as always.



posted on Jan, 21 2019 @ 01:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: cooperton
The reason I know the theory is wrong is because I know it inside and out. The interdependent nature of organisms, organs, tissues, cells, organelles, macromolecules, and molecules within a living organism demonstrate beyond a reasonable doubt that evolutionary theory is entirely impossible. Because all parts of the system rely on other parts of the system, there could be no sequential increase in function as proposed by evolutionary theory, because all pieces need to be in play for the whole organism to work.


Yet you can't debunk a single piece of evidence. LOL! You don't know anything inside and out. You are pretentious and talking nonsense as always.



posted on Jan, 21 2019 @ 02:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: Barcs

Yet you can't debunk a single piece of evidence. LOL! You don't know anything inside and out. You are pretentious and talking nonsense as always.


You just said longevity has nothing to do with evolution. Which is wrong. I don't even have to look back halfway through this page to show you don't understand the intricacies of your own beloved theory. An increase in longevity would be required to allow more complex organisms, in theory. Prove that wrong.



posted on Jan, 22 2019 @ 11:30 AM
link   

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: Barcs

Yet you can't debunk a single piece of evidence. LOL! You don't know anything inside and out. You are pretentious and talking nonsense as always.


You just said longevity has nothing to do with evolution. Which is wrong. I don't even have to look back halfway through this page to show you don't understand the intricacies of your own beloved theory. An increase in longevity would be required to allow more complex organisms, in theory. Prove that wrong.


LOL! Longevity is not about surviving long enough to reproduce. It's about life expectancy AS A WHOLE. The vast majority of organisms reproduce within a couple years. If organisms could not survive long enough to reproduce they would have died out over a billion years ago. You are incredibly dishonest. The length of one's life after reproducing is COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT TO EVOLUTION and always was. In the past, humans had to have tons of kids because so many would die young, but we reproduced with a frequency high enough to counter that and thanks to modern medicine is it no longer necessary.

Still waiting for a refutation of the evidence, but hey. Keep the hope alive right?


edit on 1 22 19 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 22 2019 @ 02:36 PM
link   
a reply to: coomba98


The creation order you Write about is not right. Many think that God created the Heaven and the Earth already in verse 1.

One of the Clues that this was not the case are given to you in verse 8. If heaven was already created in verse 1. Why would God create a second heaven called the firmament in verse 8 ? Did not verse one state that God Created the Heaven and the Earth as you have been instructed? Well,.. this teaching is wrong.

...…. You have all got verse one wrong. Heaven and Earth dont exist in verse one.


Verse 2 practically tells you with the knowledge you should have to day that earth is non existing at this point (verse 2).

Dont you have the capasity to see that what we have been though about the Bible is all wrong? If you have a bit of scientific knolwedge you should be able to make a own conclution about what verse 2 states.

And if Verse 8 state what is called heaven and what day it is. Heaven sure was not formed in verse 1.

edit on 27.06.08 by spy66 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 22 2019 @ 02:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: spy66
a reply to: coomba98


The creation order you Write about is not right. Many think that God created the Heaven and the Earth already in verse 1.

One of the Clues that this was not the case are given to you in verse 8. If heaven was already created in verse 1. Why would God create a second heaven called the firmament in verse 8 ? Did not verse one state that God Created the Heaven and the Earth as you have been instructed? Well,.. this teaching is wrong.

...…. You have all got verse one wrong. Heaven and Earth dont exist in verse one.


Verse 2 practically tells you with the knowledge you should have to day that earth is non existing at this point (verse 2).

Dont you have the capasity to see that what we have been though about the Bible is all wrong? If you have a bit of scientific knolwedge you should be able to make a own conclution about what verse 2 states.

And if Verse 8 state what is called heaven and what day it is. Heaven sure was not formed in verse 1.


Coomba's description is spot on, its the book that is confused.



posted on Jan, 22 2019 @ 02:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: Barcs

Yet you can't debunk a single piece of evidence. LOL! You don't know anything inside and out. You are pretentious and talking nonsense as always.


You just said longevity has nothing to do with evolution. Which is wrong. I don't even have to look back halfway through this page to show you don't understand the intricacies of your own beloved theory. An increase in longevity would be required to allow more complex organisms, in theory. Prove that wrong.


The bible is a pseudo historical document engineered by the Roman empire for political and economic gain. Prove that wrong.



posted on Jan, 22 2019 @ 03:02 PM
link   
a reply to: TzarChasm


No he is not.



posted on Jan, 22 2019 @ 03:04 PM
link   
a reply to: TzarChasm



You are actually right. They way we are being thought how to read it is also evidence of that. its all messed up.
edit on 27.06.08 by spy66 because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
79
<< 15  16  17    19  20  21 >>

log in

join