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 evolution theory is a huge misinterpretation of the Bible.

page: 7
13
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 30 2019 @ 10:35 AM
link   
a reply to: whereislogic

I keep an open mind and don't discount the notion of some kind of creator or underpinning force that dictates the course of the universe.

What i don't hold with is Mans organized religious practices, interpretation anthropomorphization of God.




posted on Aug, 30 2019 @ 04:44 PM
link   
a reply to: whereislogic

Your always-lengthy posts are full of quotes, YouTube links and author references to seemingly add weight to what you are posting, but they never have any substance or evidence. In fact, the summary of every post you make is an argument from ignorance, or more specifically, an appeal to complexity - that you can’t conceive it happening means that you don’t believe it and therefore there must be a spiritual answer.

The problem with you and others like you is that almost every person that has not chosen a creationist view is that we have decided that, and despite having a religious influence in our education at least, we have chosen another point of view. We have decided to read and critique and decide to believe many hundreds of contemporary scientists and experimenters who also seek answers.

Just as we are unlikely to turn you from your book, you are certainly not going to turn us back to something we rejected in search of better and more fulfilling answers.



posted on Aug, 30 2019 @ 07:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: andy06shake

What i don't hold with is Mans organized religious practices, interpretation anthropomorphization of God.


Why throw away the potential for anthropomorphism? It insists on a direct link between the Source God and our human experience. The human being the manifestation of this creative Spirit. We are definitely a vessel capable of all sorts of creation (and destruction).

"The Mind, O Tat, is of God's very essence - (if such a thing as essence of God there be) - and what that is, it and it only knows precisely. The Mind, then, is not separated off from God's essentiality, but is united to it, as light to sun. This Mind in men is God, and for this cause some of mankind are gods, and their humanity is nigh unto divinity. For the Good Daimon said: "Gods are immortal men, and men are mortal gods."

Evolution insists that consciousness came from matter, but it makes more sense that matter came from consciousness, especially in light of empirical evidence from quantum physics.



posted on Aug, 30 2019 @ 07:26 PM
link   
a reply to: cooperton

"Why throw away the potential for anthropomorphism?"

Because the universe is a big, infinitely so apparently, and given the grand scheme of the place, nevermind our very limited perspective and place in such, chances are God won't resemble Man.

The matter came from the singularity, all the matter found in the universe today, including the matter in people, plants, animals, the earth, stars, and galaxies.

I cannot see where quantum physics suggest matter came from consciousness, although i would not rule it out per-say.



posted on Aug, 31 2019 @ 12:12 AM
link   

originally posted by: TerraLiga

Just as we are unlikely to turn you from your book, you are certainly not going to turn us back to something we rejected in search of better and more fulfilling answers.


You reject nothing, you deny it seemingly because you are afraid to know anything different that what you can observe with your 5 senses.



posted on Aug, 31 2019 @ 12:14 AM
link   
a reply to: andy06shake

On your quest of finding out where matter came from. If it didn't come from other matter, what are the options left?

And if it came from other matter, where did that matter come from?

Is there really an origin or do you think everything has been here for ever and ever,.. and ever.
edit on 31-8-2019 by Out6of9Balance because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 31 2019 @ 03:44 AM
link   

originally posted by: TerraLiga
a reply to: whereislogic

In fact, the summary of every post you make is an argument from ignorance, or more specifically, an appeal to complexity - that you can’t conceive it happening means that you don’t believe it and therefore there must be a spiritual answer.

Isn't it a little too easy to paint everything I say with the same broad brush of dismissal without really responding to any of it? The term "appeal to complexity" doesn't apply to my commentary.

The poem by John Kendrick Bangs applies quite well to your attitude towards the evidence for creation though. As does my mention (or prediction) of:

...dismiss it with a variety of quick dismissive arguments and short phrases that have almost become mantras...

Or memes (see video).

The reality is that the argument for creation as it is often presented by me, is an argument of induction. Which one could call the opposite of an argument from ignorance (and thus also a so-called "appeal to complexity" which is a term used by some people trying to sound clever, the term isn't particularly useful). The Encyclopaedia Britannica on inductive reasoning:

"When a person uses a number of established facts to draw a general conclusion, he uses inductive reasoning. THIS IS THE KIND OF LOGIC NORMALLY USED IN THE SCIENCES. ..."

What are some of the minimal logical requirements for the production or emergence of machinery and technology?

Are natural processes (or the forces of nature) capable of causing the emergence of machinery and technology all on their own? (how do the researchers working on the SETI program tell the difference between an effect/phenomenon that is caused exclusively by the forces of nature or one that is a sign of extraterrestrial intelligence? Why are spaceships usually not proposed to be products of nature in Sci-Fi movies and shows yet the machinery and technology present in living cells constantly are when they are promoting evolutionary ideas as they so often do?)

Do you deny or are you willing to acknowledge that life is made up of machinery and demonstrating a level of technology that is far more advanced than our own current level of technology*?

*: but still bearing a resemblence to our own machinery and technology (or similar solutions to engineering problems or goals, using the same or similar engineering concepts):

Ticker Tape Machine & Information Processing in Living Cells (short version)

Which Approach Is More Reasonable? Awake!—2011

Which Approach Is More Reasonable?

NO HUMAN witnessed the beginning of life on earth. Nor has anyone seen one kind of life evolve into another kind​—a reptile into a mammal, for example.* [Although he firmly believed in evolution, biologist Ernst Mayr admitted that “the fossil record is one of discontinuities,” in that new types of organisms appear suddenly.] Therefore, we must rely on the available evidence to draw conclusions about the origin of life. And we need to let the evidence speak for itself rather than force it to say what we want it to say.

Many atheists, however, view science through the lens of materialism​—a philosophy that assumes purely material causes for the origin of life. “We have a prior commitment . . . to materialism,” wrote evolutionist Richard C. Lewontin. “That materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.” Hence, materialists embrace the only alternative they have​—evolution.

Religious people too may have preconceptions that distort their attitude toward science. For instance, as mentioned earlier, some creationists cling to the erroneous notion that God formed the world in six literal days a few thousand years ago. Having made that prior commitment, they try to force the evidence to fit their extremely literal interpretation of the Bible. ... People who have such extreme interpretations of both the Bible and science are left without satisfying answers when they try to seek evidence for their faith.

Which View Fits All the Facts?

With regard to the origin of the complex molecules that make up living organisms, some evolutionists believe the following:

1. Key elements somehow combined to form basic molecules.

2. Those molecules then linked together in the exact sequences required to form DNA, RNA, or protein with the capacity to store the information needed to carry out tasks essential to life.

3. The molecules somehow formed the specific sequences required to replicate themselves. Without replication, there can be neither evolutionary development nor, indeed, life itself.

How did the molecules of life form and acquire their amazing abilities without an intelligent designer? Evolutionary research fails to provide adequate explanations or satisfying answers to questions about the origin of life. In effect, those who deny the purposeful intervention of a Creator attribute godlike powers to mindless molecules and natural forces. [whereislogic: which sounds like Mother Nature/Gaia-worship in the closet to me.]

What, though, do the facts indicate? The available evidence shows that instead of molecules developing into complex life-forms, the opposite is true: Physical laws dictate that complex things​—machines, houses, and even living cells—​in time break down.* Yet, evolutionists say the opposite can happen. [*: Such decay is a result of what scientists call the second law of thermodynamics. Put simply, this law states that the natural tendency is for order to degenerate into disorder.] For example, the book Evolution for Dummies says that evolution occurred because the earth “gets loads of energy from the sun, and that energy is what powers the increase in complexity.”

To be sure, energy is needed to turn disorder into order​—for example, to assemble bricks, wood, and nails into a house. That energy, however, has to be carefully controlled and precisely directed because uncontrolled energy is more likely to speed up decay, just as the energy from the sun and the weather can hasten the deterioration of a building.* Those who believe in evolution cannot satisfactorily explain how energy is creatively directed. [*: DNA can be altered by mutations, which can be caused by such things as radiation and certain chemicals. But these do not lead to new species.​—See the article “Is Evolution a Fact?” in the September 2006 issue of Awake!] [whereislogic: or see some of my commentary about the law of recurrent variation as described by Dr. Lönnig in various threads where the subject of mutations providing the raw material for evolution comes up]

On the other hand, when we view life and the universe as the work of a wise Creator who possesses an “abundance of dynamic energy,” we can explain not only the complexity of life’s information systems but also the finely tuned forces that govern matter itself, from vast galaxies to tiny atoms.*​—Isaiah 40:26.
...

edit on 31-8-2019 by whereislogic because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 31 2019 @ 05:24 AM
link   
a reply to: TerraLiga

...
Luck as the First Cause​—Good Science?

According to atheists, “the universe is as it is, mysteriously, and it just happens to permit life,” explains Paul Davies. “Had it been different,” say atheists, “we would not be here to argue about it. The universe may or may not have a deep underlying unity, but there is no design, purpose, or point to it all​—at least none that would make sense to us.” “The advantage of this position,” notes Davies, “is that it is easy to hold​—easy to the point of being a cop-out,” that is, a convenient way to avoid facing the issue.

In his book Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, molecular biologist Michael Denton concluded that the theory of evolution “is more like a principle of medieval astrology than a serious . . . scientific theory.” He also referred to Darwinian evolution as one of the greatest myths of our time.

To be sure, the appeal to luck as the first cause does smack of myth. Imagine this: An archaeologist sees a rough stone that is more or less square. He may attribute that shape to chance, which would be reasonable. But later he finds a stone that is perfectly formed in the shape of a human bust, down to the finest details. Does he attribute this item to chance? No. His logical mind says, ‘Someone made this.’ Using similar reasoning, the Bible states: “Every house is constructed by someone, but he that constructed all things is God.” (Hebrews 3:4) ...

Inductive reasoning isn't hard or complicated.

“The more we get to know about our universe,” writes Dr. John Lennox, “the more the hypothesis that there is a Creator God, who designed the universe for a purpose, gains in credibility as the best explanation of why we are here.” (andy06shake spoke about questioning existence, which would include our existence, or why we are here as Lennox puts it)

Source was: Has Science Done Away With God? Awake!—2010

Painting it as fallacious by turning it into a straw man argument (or reading that into it and describing it as such) doesn't make the original reasoning akin to arguing from ignorance. That term would be more appropiate for those who promote the notion that nature on its own produced the machinery and technology (or caused it to emerge) that make up life, yet acknowledge that they do not know exactly how this happened and how the forces of nature overcame and counteract the reality that things break down over time, the natural tendency for order to degenerate into disorder; which provides evidence to the contrary, that nature on its own didn't produce this machinery and technology from individual molecules by chance, dumb luck. Like these people:

...
“Some writers,” says Robert Shapiro, professor emeritus of chemistry at New York University, “have presumed that all life’s building blocks could be formed with ease in Miller-type experiments and were present in meteorites. This is not the case.”2 *

Consider the RNA molecule. It is constructed of smaller molecules called nucleotides. A nucleotide is a different molecule from an amino acid and is only slightly more complex. Shapiro says that “no nucleotides of any kind have been reported as products of spark-discharge experiments or in studies of meteorites.”3 He further states that the probability of a self-replicating RNA molecule randomly assembling from a pool of chemical building blocks “is so vanishingly small that its happening even once anywhere in the visible universe would count as a piece of exceptional good luck.”4

[*: Professor Shapiro does not believe that life was created. He believes that life arose by chance in some fashion not yet fully understood. In 2009, scientists at the University of Manchester, England, reported making some nucleotides in their lab. However, Shapiro states that their recipe “definitely does not meet my criteria for a plausible pathway to the RNA world.”]
...
... RNA is required to make proteins, yet proteins are involved in the production of RNA. What if, despite the extremely small odds, both proteins and RNA molecules did appear by chance in the same place at the same time? How likely would it be for them to cooperate to form a self-replicating, self-sustaining type of life? “The probability of this happening by chance (given a random mixture of proteins and RNA) seems astronomically low,” says Dr. Carol Cleland *, a member of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration’s Astrobiology Institute. “Yet,” she continues, “most researchers seem to assume that if they can make sense of the independent production of proteins and RNA under natural primordial conditions, the coordination will somehow take care of itself.” Regarding the current theories of how these building blocks of life could have arisen by chance, she says: “None of them have provided us with a very satisfying story about how this happened.”6

[*: Dr. Cleland is not a creationist. She believes that life arose by chance in some fashion not yet fully understood.]

Now that is reasoning from ignorance (and wishful thinking, often accompanied by wishful speculation). Long live the great 'we don't know (yet)'-god of the agnostic gaps! ('but Nature did it anyway', 'life found a way', etc.; no matter what the evidence actually shows or is pointing towards) When all the evidence is screaming: creation! Not chance (luck, spontaneous generation according to imaginary forces of nature that are unspecified, undiscovered, unknown and never established to have that effect, instead the actual well-established forces of nature described by the second law of thermodynamics have the opposite effect, disproving the whole notion that life is a product of chance, a result of accidental spontaneous events which only operate according to the forces of nature).

Source: QUESTION 1: How Did Life Begin? (The Origin of Life​—Five Questions Worth Asking)
edit on 31-8-2019 by whereislogic because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 31 2019 @ 07:39 AM
link   
a reply to: Out6of9Balance

Edit its not my quest per say, but science and mathematics.

I think the space-time we exist within just now was spawned via the singularity(big bang).

Even if a universe existed before our own, the question is kind of meaningless considering it never an event we could ever witness, measure or record in any kind of meaningful manner.

Some queries we simply do not have the mental capacity nor tools at our disposal to ever address, and probably never will have.
edit on 31-8-2019 by andy06shake because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 31 2019 @ 09:32 AM
link   
a reply to: andy06shake

So you don't know since science doesn't know. You say "big bang" while you don't really know for sure but it sure was big bang and leave it all to my wild imagination.

Our answer is simple though.
edit on 31-8-2019 by Out6of9Balance because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 31 2019 @ 09:41 AM
link   
a reply to: Out6of9Balance

Science can only ever address some of the queries we pose.

It poses more questions than it answers, and i pitty a universe where anything else is ever the case.

There is evidence to suggest the big bang occurred via the cosmic background radiation.

What is this simple answer?



posted on Aug, 31 2019 @ 09:50 AM
link   
a reply to: andy06shake

This simple answer is science is seldomly based on realistic common sense. The mistakes it made so far have been outrageous to humanity.



posted on Aug, 31 2019 @ 10:04 AM
link   
a reply to: Out6of9Balance

Science is based on repeatable refinable results observation and experimentation.

Religion is based on fear, fables and folklore, and requires a leap of faith.

Point of fact without science and technology we could not even have this conversation.


Tell us all about the mistakes science has made then?
edit on 31-8-2019 by andy06shake because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 31 2019 @ 10:38 AM
link   
a reply to: andy06shake

Like this conversation is of any use.

The mistakes? They've truly been outrageous!



posted on Aug, 31 2019 @ 10:43 AM
link   
a reply to: Out6of9Balance

List those mistakes then!

What's the bet people subverted science to there own evil purposes rather than science being directly responsible?

Science is a tool Out6of9Balance, humanity does not produce tools that it does not use.

As to this conversation, well the information age in which we exist allows us to communicate in the manner that we are now doing, and that age is indeed of immense use and importance to humanity, more so even in certain respects than the industrial revolution and age that came before.
edit on 31-8-2019 by andy06shake because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 31 2019 @ 10:53 AM
link   
a reply to: andy06shake

Yea, science is as good as the people doing it.

Do a google search for scientific blunders.
edit on 31-8-2019 by Out6of9Balance because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 31 2019 @ 11:01 AM
link   
a reply to: Out6of9Balance

Try a search for religious blunders.

People make mistakes, science produces results.

What does religion produce aside form blind obedience and the will to kill your fellow Man in the name of God simply because he may not share the same belief system?



posted on Aug, 31 2019 @ 11:22 AM
link   

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: Out6of9Balance

Try a search for religious blunders.

People make mistakes, science produces results.

What does religion produce aside form blind obedience and the will to kill your fellow Man in the name of God simply because he may not share the same belief system?



There doesn't exist any "religion" that condones or teaches that people should kill people. The cult of Islam is the only one, but it isn't a religion, just a false doctrine. People become engulfed in their own self pride and then rewrite the rules to justify killing others with a lot of lying to themselves in the process. There is no difference with any human system, and so with science, can also become cult like and filled with zealots using the system to hide their true nature.

I can see your nature by what you write here. I can see the lies you tell yourself to keep your own belief system intact. Nothing is really hidden.



posted on Aug, 31 2019 @ 11:28 AM
link   
a reply to: NoCorruptionAllowed

I don't particularly have a belief system so whatever you think you see is entirely of your own creation.

Islams got quite the ways to travel if they wish to catch up with The Holy Roman Church of St Peters atrocities, thats a given.

I tend to keep an open mind, but i will take Science over Religion, at least until God turns up, or more lightly we build our own.



posted on Aug, 31 2019 @ 11:34 AM
link   
a reply to: andy06shake

My point I clearly made was that when people were killed and murdered, it was zealotry infested people doing it to others, and they were clearly not following any religion. The Catholic church in those days had people doing evil deeds, but they made their own rules.

OH and yes you do have a belief system. Everyone has one..

edit on 31-8-2019 by NoCorruptionAllowed because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
13
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join