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.

 

what do hardcore bible believers say about this???

page: 4
0
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 14 2005 @ 09:25 PM
link   
I was trying to distinguish the difference at least in my eyes of evolution (a religion) and adaptation (God's creation at work)

But that is only my opinion....




posted on Mar, 14 2005 @ 09:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by edsinger
I was trying to distinguish the difference at least in my eyes of evolution (a religion) and adaptation (God's creation at work)

But that is only my opinion....


Wait how are evolution and adaption different? They sound the same to me



posted on Mar, 14 2005 @ 09:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by Croat56Wait how are evolution and adaption different? They sound the same to me


Well to be honest, adaptation says there had to be a starting point so to speak and evolution says we all evolved from a one-celled creature.

Evolution says that the one-cell evolved into a eye-ball


Adaptation says that an eyeball that was created adapted to fit the changing needs of Gods Creatures ....


But this is only my opinion.



plus, people don't worship adaptation.......



posted on Mar, 14 2005 @ 09:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by edsinger

Originally posted by Croat56Wait how are evolution and adaption different? They sound the same to me


Well to be honest, adaptation says there had to be a starting point so to speak and evolution says we all evolved from a one-celled creature.

Evolution says that the one-cell evolved into a eye-ball


Adaptation says that an eyeball that was created adapted to fit the changing needs of Gods Creatures ....


But this is only my opinion.



plus, people don't worship adaptation.......



But that one cell had to come from somewhere and wouldnt that have been God?



posted on Mar, 14 2005 @ 10:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Croat56


plus, people don't worship adaptation.......



But that one cell had to come from somewhere and wouldnt that have been God?

Exactly! Therefore evolution is a foundation built upon sand, for God created the world, not some amino acid from a meteor strike.

[edit on 14-3-2005 by edsinger]



posted on Mar, 14 2005 @ 10:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by edsinger
[
Exactly! Therefore it is a foundation built upon sand, for God created the world, not some amino acid from a meteor strike.


lol but Ed that meteor could have been the way God created life. Somethin to think about there.



posted on Mar, 14 2005 @ 10:11 PM
link   


You have voted edsinger for the Way Above Top Secret award. You have one more vote left for this month.


lol your a good dude for putting up with me ED!



posted on Mar, 14 2005 @ 10:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by Croat56

Originally posted by edsinger
[
Exactly! Therefore it is a foundation built upon sand, for God created the world, not some amino acid from a meteor strike.


lol but Ed that meteor could have been the way God created life. Somethin to think about there.


hey thanks for above ^,


and as for the meteor, I don't know as God never told us how, He just told us He did. And the evolutionists want you to think that it was 'mother nature' or whatever. That is why I call the theory a religion because that is exactly what it is.

Yet they have no explanation for the human conscience, we know it as a soul yet they still do not understand that is what separates us from all other animals in God's Creation!

Glad I could help!



posted on Mar, 15 2005 @ 01:20 AM
link   
Okay the original post has used the term "hardcore," referencing to "bible believers." Everyone here has has their button pushed, as I have said before, some are saying "got you now," others are "insulted."

The only "creation science," I think is entirely valid and sound in reasoning is simple, "God is living within us," and "God is love," and when we "love one another," simply in that understanding we are okay with ourselves and others. We do not need to place ourselves in little groups that love only themselves and think the worst of others first if they do not agree with some particular distinctive message.

You can quote hundreds of bible passages that get you to that, but when the importance of things comes to pass, that is the result. You can ask for a convoluted path to God, or you can just admit the truth that "God is love." For that matter God is life, and he is special creating us every moment of every day.

When all of you arguing people are done, presumably that will be all that matters. The creator and upholder is creating and upholding us daily.

If you view things within "evolution," and you think "God is love," and "what a wonderful world it is," that is fine with me. If you think everything is literal as your reverend may say the bible is, and arrive upon the same things, you are okay with me too. Get over all this "divide and conquer stuff," that COINTELPRO type elitists have been placing in you minds for centuries. They do it so they can rob you blind, face the truth already, religious division is not your friend.

P.S.

I am reminded about paradigms and how various groups within the history of science arrive upon a prevailing consensus, where people build careers, staff meetings, and gain their daily bread. It is difficult to change things when someone discovers an anamole, a new theory, a more exact and evident way of conducting things. Usually strict theology is the loser, because while the earth is a "firmament," that does not mean it is flat. Most people today agree the world is round. By the same token the geological record is extensive, and does not agree with the literal bible supposition of much less than that. Until there is hard evidence, and some actual scientific structure within peer review that passes the paradigm test, you may not convince scientists about a general view of "special creation."

Creation science as currently promoted was originally fostered by someone concerned in a career with statistics. He viewed the randomness of atoms and molecules much like billiard balls, rather than as chemistry and physics understands these things with a far deeper mathematics. His argument against evolution does not pass muster with scientists, but I am certain his religious intentions are with good heart.

We have a President of the United States who seems to think that if you can gain authority from the reputation of the CIA as it "speaks the truth to power," then you gain justification when you tell it how to conduct intelligence. By the same token, altering science to suit the political needs of large constituent corporations is obviously unsound, since it uses only the reputation of science as previously using sound laboratory technique to bolster a current argument without laboratory technique.

So too the promotion of literal fundamentalism by politically denying the current paradigm of evolution, without laboratory technique and rigorous peer review is also without merit either scientifically or academically.

Religiously, please "love one another, and do good things." Scientifically please leave these things to science, and argue your theory with peer review and prove what you are saying is a functionally better theory. It may take a long time to prove "creation science," never mind it is neither a "theory," or a "paradigm." If you are speaking sound science, prove it by expermental and duplicatable results. Otherwise keep on doing "creation science," within theology, and please teach it as theology in schools if you want, while keeping evolution in the science department.

[edit on 15-3-2005 by SkipShipman]



posted on Mar, 15 2005 @ 01:33 AM
link   
Evolution has some major flaws, and needs to be reconsidered by scientists, which, interestingly enough, it is. Now, i am not saying that Creationism is correct, i am just saying that there are a lot of flaws in evolution. One that comes to mind is if non-living organisms weren't created by evolution than how do you explain life through evolution, because Protein and Amino Acids are non-living and they make up your DNA. I dunno, it just needs some major overhaul, and i think we will have a brand new theory out there in 20 years. However, science is basically showing us that it would be almost statistically impossible for the Universe to be created without a God/designer, so that is something we all need to take into serious consideration.



posted on Mar, 15 2005 @ 03:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by edsinger
As for the Trinity, you need a little education, although the word trinity did not exist until around the time of the council of Nicea, the understanding was always there. Let US make man in OUR image.


Nope, the understanding was not always there. There were many interpretations of the Bible in early Christianity. The council of Nicea was to decide the debate whether Jesus was "of the same matter as God"(i.e. divine, God himself), or if he was "made of the matter of God"(i.e. a man instilled with the divine spirit). Sorry I don't know the Greek terms for these. BOTH the cases were well backed up (and still are). One side won over the other due to pressuring from Constantine, and Arius's view became heresy. In fact, it caused many problems with later theologists, who then had to explain how Jesus fit in while there was already God, forming the Trinity, without deviating from the monotheistic viewpoint. Guess what the explaination they came up with was? It went along the lines of:


Gregory of Nazianzus
No sooner do I conceive of the One than I am illumined by the splendour of the Three; no sooner do I distinguish Three than I am carried back into One. When I think of any of the Three, I think of him as whole, and my eyes are filled , and the greater part of what I am thinking escapes me.


He tried showing that contemplation of the Trinity caused a surge of emotion that confounded clarity. CONFOUNDED CLARITY. As in you can't understand it.

I don't understand this. In early Christianity there were constant debates, discussions, exchanges of ideas about the religion. What happened to that? Now if someone comes up with a interpretation different from orthodox, they are labelled heritecs. Thanks to the separation of Church from state though, that does not have the implications it once had. I say bring back the Arian Heresy!
It makes so much more sense



posted on Mar, 15 2005 @ 05:23 AM
link   
I don't think so!

NASA has viewed all the planets in this solar system and it seems Earth has no comparison. Too heavy, too thick, too light, too soft, too violent, too big, too small, too dark- just can't get the amino acids to shag.
Send a space probe to the next star system and have it count seven planets in, then dip a pregnancy stick in its atmosphere to see if it's a boy or sterile.

You know where I'm going. Planet earth has won the lottery multiple times over.



posted on Mar, 15 2005 @ 05:43 AM
link   
i actually don't believe the EArth has won any lottery, I think there are hundreds of thousands of earth like planets in our galaxy alone, just because we haven't found them yet doesn't mean we are necessarily an oddity.

What I find strange is what how the Bible will explain that? Or should there ever be an alien species encountered what will their religion be like and will Christians condemn them all to hellfire as well, because they don't believe in a human saviour??

The Bible is man made, not divine and it therefore contains all the flaws that a man has. And adaption is a weak ass attempt by Christian groups to counter or absorb a popular theory into their own religion. Absorption is not new for Christianity, look at many Christian holidays including Christmas and notice that they almost all fall on past Pagan holidays. It is just a means to keep control or the appearance of control. Really if Darwin was alive he'd be suing for copyright infringement and intellectual property rights being stolen.



posted on Mar, 15 2005 @ 10:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by they see ALL
"hardcore" bible believers believe that God made ALL life on earth right???

what do they have to say about the fact that there are NEW species of animals that weren't around when God "made the earth in seven days"???

some species of animals weren't around for thousands of years but only hundreds...

what do hardcore bible believers say about this???

do they admit that these NEW creatures evolved or do they still think that God made them???




I am a very strong christian but, I absolutely refuse to beleive evolution cannot happen. The earth is full of animals that have evolved. I think the new canimals could be, for example, a species rapidly began to die out because of a predator and there were only the few more efficient ones left to take there place. Then with sudden desperation they moved out of their predators' territory and survived ultimately making two species from what should've been one evolved animal.



posted on Mar, 15 2005 @ 10:43 AM
link   
A lot of this discussion seems to duplicate, so for more in-depth study, check it out. They have my favorite PHD (Mattison) featured:

Creationist Confustion
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Creation...where is the evidence? I see none:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Creationists, what will it take?
www.abovetopsecret.com...


Hehe
, evilution. Hm... Ah well.


[edit on 15-3-2005 by saint4God]



posted on Mar, 15 2005 @ 10:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by edsinger

Originally posted by EastCoastKid
Here's a good example of evolution.. dinosaurs walked the earth for however many years.. they died off.. the oil we use today wouldn't be here if it weren't for them.



Oil did not come from dinosaurs alone, it came from peat and coal mostly. There might be truth that is it not necessarily all organic in nature either.


Yes, but through the process of organic evolution, our age has oil - in part from their breakdown and absorption into the earth.



posted on Mar, 15 2005 @ 09:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by babloyi

Nope, the understanding was not always there. There were many interpretations of the Bible in early Christianity. The council of Nicea was to decide the debate whether Jesus was "of the same matter as God"(i.e. divine, God himself), or if he was "made of the matter of God"(i.e. a man instilled with the divine spirit). Sorry I don't know the Greek terms for these. BOTH the cases were well backed up (and still are). One side won over the other due to pressuring from Constantine, and Arius's view became heresy. In fact, it caused many problems with later theologists, who then had to explain how Jesus fit in while there was already God, forming the Trinity, without deviating from the monotheistic viewpoint. Guess what the explaination they came up with was?


Of course the Church struggled, heck it really wasn't a corrupt Church at that point yet as Rome would become. The struggle in 325AD was the Gnostic of you can gain salvation through knowledge that completely disregard the price already paid on the cross. The term trinity was use to help explain how Christ (Jesus) could be God and yet be one..


When I explain it, it is as H2o, It can be water, steam, or ice, and yet it is the same thiing......


Christ Himself when asked, said it plain as day "I AM", that is all the Jews needed to hear and demanded his death for Heresy. That same argument was around even 300 years later. I mean you have the folks that believe that Jesus did not become Holy until the dove descended.

Christ Himself dispels this, as John said in the very famous verse.....

John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

This is the one verse that the Jehovah's Witnesses so try to discredit and even to the lite Christian, they have a hard time.

The Muslims think of Him as a Prophet, but yet they can not see that the Redeemer came just as was promised in Job, which predated Moses.



Originally posted by babloyiI don't understand this. In early Christianity there were constant debates, discussions, exchanges of ideas about the religion. What happened to that?


I to think that this is a good thing and yes it still happens, just look at the conference to create the NIV version which I do not consider one of the best but yet use it nonetheless.



posted on Mar, 15 2005 @ 10:10 PM
link   
Evolution could be wrong. For all we know all the animals on Earth could have been here since the beginning. Theyve just been hiding.



posted on Mar, 15 2005 @ 10:28 PM
link   
It doesnt take a rocket scientist to figure this one out, explain this then yes God made this earth and the planets the stars the Universe etc... So yes there are new animals but where did they come from???? Come on do some research before posting this one up.

For one did God make Pitbulls? Of course he did. What dogs make pittbulls? A terrior and what? Oh ya a bull dogg. He made things to evolve themselfs over time. Have humans made new species? No they havent we're the same hard headed people. What you said wouldnt misguide me for the life of God. To me thats just an excuse for your ignorance of not believing in God.

So here is a question for you since you know everything about evolution. If the whole Universe was made by the Big bang(Big Bang LOL silly people I tell you) Then what the heck made the big bang? What made the atoms? How the heck did it get all that energy? If you ever read the bible it says God has a high abdundence of energy. So if the big bang created everything where did the particles, atoms, and energy come from? It cant just make itself. Something has to be created by SOMETHING.

If evolution exists like you say, then does that mean if I had a seed in my hand it will evolve into a flower? NO, it needs creation, How? Soil and Water. You have your opinion I have mine, you atleast tell me why There is no such thing as God?



posted on Mar, 15 2005 @ 10:57 PM
link   


If evolution exists like you say, then does that mean if I had a seed in my hand it will evolve into a flower? NO, it needs creation, How? Soil and Water.


That is the most ridiculous sense of what evolution is. Do you even know the theory? Do know ANY of the science behind the theory? Evolution is anything but instantaneous, it is a process, it takes generations to see any sort of change, and it has nothing to do what a seed needs to become a flower rather what kind of flower that seed will become given its genes adn the conditions which it is surrounded by. The soil could change and through evolution, the flower would either adapt to the new conditions or die off.

Read a text book before you spout off a bunch of pathetic crap.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join