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: 7
0
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 20 2005 @ 10:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by they see ALL
UPDATE

in the bible it says that God created man FIRST (after making earth obviously) and THEN animals...

NOW, we have PROOF that some "animals" lived BEFORE us...

what do hardcore believers say about this???




What are you talking about it sais He created man last




posted on Mar, 20 2005 @ 10:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by Croat56

What are you talking about it sais He created man last


He did???

damn, i gotta' read the Bible more


thanks






posted on Mar, 21 2005 @ 11:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by Croat56
Just to clerify, I think evolution is true and that it is the hand of God. He just loves creating things.



Evolution requires millions of years of death and suffering. According to scipture death did not occur until man sinned. Christians accepting the belief of millions of years of death prior to sin are opening the door for undermining biblical authority.

"And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day." Gen. 1:31




Steve



posted on Mar, 21 2005 @ 11:35 AM
link   
The problem with freshness dating the Bible is the fact that it's never stated or conclusive when 'the beginning' was. I've read a theory on why it's only 5,000 years old, but candidly I don't see how it's a convincing one. What's the 'born on' date the earth formed? What's the 'born on' date of the bible referring to as 'the beginning'? God only knows. The rest is scientific guesswork.


[edit on 21-3-2005 by saint4God]



posted on Mar, 21 2005 @ 11:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by saint4God
The problem with freshness dating the Bible is the fact that it's never stated or conclusive when 'the beginning' was. I've read a theory on why it's only 5,000 years old, but candidly I don't see how it's a convincing one. What's the 'born on' date the earth formed? What's the 'born on' date of the bible referring to as 'the beginning'? God only knows. The rest is scientific guesswork.




No matter how old creation is, it is clear that death is a result of sin. Therefore if the Bible is true (and no, my use of the word if does not indicate any doubt on my part) then any evolutionary process requiring death could only begin after the creation of man.

Steve



posted on Mar, 22 2005 @ 09:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by sntx

No matter how old creation is, it is clear that death is a result of sin. Therefore if the Bible is true (and no, my use of the word if does not indicate any doubt on my part) then any evolutionary process requiring death could only begin after the creation of man.

Steve


death is the result of sin? therefore the Bible is true? What the hell, how is that proof? Did I miss some changes in the empirical formula? Bah blind faith = blind ignorance



posted on Mar, 25 2005 @ 10:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by jawapunk
Another beautiful example that only took a couple generations to see, were a certain breed of moths in England that were observed during the advent of the indutrial revolution.


The scientist who did this study fabricated his data. 25 years of research has proven that he cheated and misrepresented his findings. He glued the moths on the tree trunks. The moths rarely rested on the trunks.

His conclusions were false.

Scientists who tested his conclusions came up with an completely different results: Although the number of light moths would be expected to be larger in the less polluted regions of England, the dark moths there numbered four times as many as the light ones. This meant that there was no correlation between the moth population and the tree trunks as claimed by the original scientist and repeated by almost all text books.



posted on Mar, 25 2005 @ 10:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by jawapunk

death is the result of sin? therefore the Bible is true?



That's not even close to being what I said.


What the hell, how is that proof? Did I miss some changes in the empirical formula? Bah blind faith = blind ignorance



I would suggest reading comprehension work on your part if you are at all concerned about ignorance. At first It seems ironic that those with the most warped view of existence consider defenders of the truth to be blind.

Steve



[edit on 3/25/0505 by sntx]



posted on Mar, 25 2005 @ 10:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by sntx
No matter how old creation is, it is clear that death is a result of sin. Therefore if the Bible is true (and no, my use of the word if does not indicate any doubt on my part) then any evolutionary process requiring death could only begin after the creation of man.
Steve


Question for you Steve: Did Satan sin when he rebelled against God? If you say yes, then did this rebellion occur before or after the creation of Man? Before right? Satan was there to tempt Eve into eating from the tree, and disobeying God. He was also lying (another sin.). Satan was already separated (cast out) from God, right? Then sin had already happened.

I believe death became a reality for mankind because of man’s sin in the Garden, but who is to say that death (or sin) was not already occurring outside of the Garden.



posted on Mar, 25 2005 @ 11:12 AM
link   
not sure how many will agree with this but,

my father told me about an indian legend [ native american ] which went , " that little moons would come down from the sky and release the crazy bears " [ bigfoot ] [ a survival experiment ? ] [ I've never been able to find that legend on the net ]

there are many anomailes which do not fit the record [ there's even a book on it ]

I guess the next question would be, where did the UFOS' come from ? [ I dunno that either, but ultimately God ]

it sure looks like earth has been thru a number of births and rebirths

sorry I don't have a better answer...



posted on Mar, 25 2005 @ 11:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by NoPhobos

Question for you Steve: Did Satan sin when he rebelled against God?


Yes, although I must say I do not know or understand well how sin applies to non carnal beings.


If you say yes, then did this rebellion occur before or after the creation of Man? Before right?


From my understanding of scripture it would have occured after the creation of man. Satan was given dominion over the Earth when man handed it over by showing that they were not worthy.


Satan was there to tempt Eve into eating from the tree, and disobeying God. He was also lying (another sin.). Satan was already separated (cast out) from God, right? Then sin had already happened.


It may have been as in the book of Job, a situation where Satan asked for permission to manipulate man.


I believe death became a reality for mankind because of man’s sin in the Garden, but who is to say that death (or sin) was not already occurring outside of the Garden.



You bring up some excellent and thought provoking points. Since death being a direct result of sin is a well established and repeated precept in scripture, death occuring outside of the garden before sin just does not fit.


Steve



posted on Mar, 25 2005 @ 12:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by sntx
It may have been as in the book of Job, a situation where Satan asked for permission to manipulate man.


But God wasn’t happy with what happened and cursed Satan for doing what he did – therefore it must have been a sin, i.e., It was against God, so it was a sin, and it occurred before Eve sinned.


Since death being a direct result of sin is a well established and repeated precept in scripture, death occuring outside of the garden before sin just does not fit.


I agree that sin causes death and is well established in the Bible, but that is not saying other things cannot cause death.

Let me say it another way: All snakes have scales. But the presence of scales does not make an animal a snake.

One of the results of sin is death, but death could be the result of other things, as well.

We also do not have very much understanding of what was going on outside the garden. It wasn’t void, since God had already formed the whole Earth, and populated it.

edited to fix quotes


[edit on 3/25/05 by NoPhobos]



posted on Mar, 25 2005 @ 12:15 PM
link   
I find it amusing that people with faith, especially christians, offend people of no faith. i wonder how much of this is a christian prejudice. anyway, the bible is a record written by MAN! of God's works. with the exception of the ten commandments and some other things, very little is the word of God but the word of man as a witness to God. There is also a deeper meaning in the bible that often takes a scholar to decipher.



posted on Mar, 28 2005 @ 06:46 PM
link   
Is this what History books tell us ?

QUOTE//“evolutionary ancestors of man,” - “Piltdown Man,” - was discovered 20 years ago to have been a deliberate fraud.
It is an interesting fact that Teilhard de Chardin was one of the “discoverers” of “Piltdown Man” - a fact which you will not find in most textbooks or in biographies of him.
He “discovered” the canine tooth of this fabricated creature - a tooth which had already been dyed with intent to cause deception regarding its age when he found it!
I do not have the evidence to say that Teilhard de Chardin consciously participated in the fraud; I think it more likely that he was the victim of the actual perpetrator of the fraud,
and that he was so anxious to find proof for the “evolution of man”

in which he already believed that he simply did not pay any attention to the anatomical difficulties which this crudely fabricated “man” presented to any objective observer.
And yet in evolutionary textbooks printed before the discovery of the fraud, Piltdown Man is accepted as an evolutionary ancestor of man without question; his “skull” is even illustrated and it is confidently stated that “he combines human characteristics with others far retarded.
” This, of course, is just what is required for a “missing link” between man and ape, and that is why the Piltdown fraud was composed precisely of a mixture of human and ape bones.

Some time later this same Teilhard de Chardin participated in the discovery, and above all in the “interpretation,
” of “Peking Man.”
Several skulls were found of this creature, and it was the best candidate that had been found until then as the “missing link” between modern man and the apes.
Thanks to his “interpretation” (for by then he had established a reputation as one of the world’s leading paleontologists),
“Peking Man” also entered textbooks as an ancestor of man - in utter disdain of the uncontested fact that modern human bones were found in the same deposit, and to everyone without “evolutionary” prejudices it was clear that this “Peking Ape” had been used for food by human beings (for there was a hole in the base of every skull of “Peking man” by which the brains had been drawn out).

If you will examine objectively all the fossil evidence for the “evolution of man,” I believe you will find that there is no conclusive or even remotely reasonable evidence whatever for this “evolution.”
The evidence is believed to be proof for human evolution because men want to believe this;
they believe in an philosophy that requires that man evolved from ape-like creatures.
Of all the fossil “men” only Neanderthal Man and of course Cro-Magnon Man, who is simply modern man) seems to be genuine; and he is simply “Homo Sapiens,”
no different from modern man than modern men are different from each other,
a variation within one definite kind of species.
Please note that the pictures of Neanderthal Man in evolutionary textbooks are the invention of artists who have a preconceived idea of what “primitive man” must have looked like, based on evolutionary philosophy!

MORE TO READ FROM HERE....and sorry if this was too long to read.....

www.holy-transfiguration.org...

QUOTE///according to St Theophanus the Recluse, that the former reduces the spirit-soul-and-body human constitution to the animal nature with just two parts, body and soul.
He writes: "If we accept that the center of man's nature is spirit, the theory of Darwin comes crushing down by itself.
In fact, when considering the origin of man, to say that it is solely the origin of his body is not sufficient.
On the contrary, his origins as a spiritual entity in an animal body and soul should be emphasised" [16].
A person who does not have a spiritual life and denies the manifestation of spirit in himself, actually loses it and becomes like an animal.
It should be noted that the antichrist, the man of lawlessness,
will oppose and will exalt himself over everything that is called God or is worshiped (2 Th 2, 4),
will win people's favour, as is said in the Apocalypse, in the image of a beast: The whole world was astonished and followed the beast.
Men worshiped the dragon because he had given authority to the beast, and they also worshiped the beast and asked,
"Who is like the beast?
Who can make war against him? (Rev. 13: 3-4).
The theory of evolution that likens man to a beast has already won people's favour and become a scientific version of the pagan cult of totem, the animal beginning.
To create an earthly paradise is impossible.
We cannot avoid the end of the world and no one is able to save it: the heavens and the earth,
which are now, by the same word are kept in store,
reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men (2 Pet 3:7).
The transfiguration of man and the world is only possible by acquiring God's grace and overcoming our fallen nature: The Lord knoweth how to deliver the godly out of temptations,
and to reserve the unjust unto the day of judgment to be punished (2 Pet 2:9); the Lord knoweth the way of the righteous: but the way of the ungodly shall perish (Ps 1:6).
more here.....
www.creatio.orthodoxy.ru...

Sorry for the long post...



posted on Mar, 28 2005 @ 07:37 PM
link   
so...

the bible says God created animals way back then...

now, we have PROOF that new animals are being "born" in TODAYS world...

also, what happins if man starts making their OWN animals...

will we be God???





posted on Mar, 30 2005 @ 09:25 PM
link   
What happened to Sntx and jawapunk. I hate it when a good discussion turns to nothing because people disappear off the thread.


Originally posted by they see ALL
now, we have PROOF that new animals are being "born" in TODAYS world...


What PROOF do you have; new animals???? This has been stated several times, but yet to be explained.



posted on Mar, 30 2005 @ 09:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by CGBSpender
I find it amusing that people with faith, especially christians, offend people of no faith.


Are you offended by what was being discussed here?



posted on Apr, 10 2005 @ 08:13 PM
link   
Some creationists believe that the "kinds" spoke of in Genesis are not species, but what these days are Families or Genera. Example: dogkind-all dogs (wolves, foxes, all breeds of domestic dog, etc.) are descended from the original dog. When this idea is considered, it is important to note that the changes from the original dog to all dogs today is not evolution. It is not evolution because all changes have been on a horizontal plane (fur is different, tails are different, etc., but no new features (i.e. feathers, scales, hooves, etc. have appeared--that would be change on a vertical plane)) Basically, adherents of this 'kind is not equal to species' belief say that speciation, hybridizaion, etc. only result in changes in frequency of PRE-EXISTING alleles, and therefore cannot be considered evolution.



posted on Apr, 10 2005 @ 10:41 PM
link   
This is still evolution. Evolution is merely change within a species. Also, there is no such thing as these creationist 'kinds'. WHile species have (admitedly somewhate malleable) barriers, there is nothing that actually 'denotes' a kind. There is no 'kind barrier' at which 'regular' evolution is halted to a stop.



posted on Apr, 10 2005 @ 11:01 PM
link   
Intelligent design people, even the infamous evolutionist Anthony Flew, now believes in God....Anthony Flew believes in God




At age 81, after decades of insisting belief is a mistake, Antony Flew has concluded that some sort of intelligence or first cause must have created the universe. A super-intelligence is the only good explanation for the origin of life and the complexity of nature, Flew said in a telephone interview from England.


so if such a highly intelligent man, such as Mr.Flew believes in intelligent design, i think his followers should at least consider the idea of a high being, and come to the realization that there was some sort of Intelligent Design involved in the creation of the earth and the universe.




top topics



 
0
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join