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.

 

Evolution - Creation 'rabble rabble rabble'

page: 6
0
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 15 2006 @ 04:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by fennek77
Why is it so attractive of an idea to debunk God?
The idea of God, a creator is much more reasonable compared to evolution. The universe could simply be God, but given mans nature, we take that under our feet and judge 'if i can walk on it, talk about it, carry it, draw it, smell it, throw it, command it - then i am my own God for i conclude to myself'
To even think the answer is 'bang, spinning, sun-planets, chemicals, bacteria, growth, change, man' is to finish proudly having discovered after death is nothing, after man is pointless changes in the universe, and eventually it will cave in on itself leaving nothing behind.

Can you really say that man is evolution and basically the memory gives the illusion of individuals ability to recall, teach, dream, love, live, pass thru time?
God as a figure or God as laws of nature?

Im not religious, i dont sit nodding my head at scriptures handed down over such a lengthy period, which is likely altered by man to introduce hell and punishment.. Its written like the book of Law instead of the book of insight.

Conclusion: God may be real, dont ask me to draw a picture, post a photo, write an equation, debunk the field of science or on my last breath explain what heaven looks like..

Just work it out for yourself.. Why should anyone adopt anothers idea and live by it? All thats left is a drone-human, a 'broken record' preacher spitting the same sh*t we read in the news, promoting the same foolish answer that comes from a childs knowledge level.

rabble rabble rabble - topic always gets a few pages from me


Heh. Cute.

Let's get one thing straight right off the bat. Science is not out to debunk god. Never has been. It's what science has been discovering that is worrying all you believers out there. You people have so little FAITH in your god(s), that at anytime something new that is discovered that destroy's a little more of this silly god notion, you guy's throw up your arms in anger.

Get over it.

I'm assuming your a typical hipochristian. There's only your god, blah blah blah. What proof beyond your erroneous logic do you have that your god exist's? None.

Let's get another thing cleared away. NO ONE and I mean NO ONE on this planet has ever witnessed what existed prior to our observable universe. No one can even factually claim to have an answer as to what existed beyond our observable universe.

And this is by far the most idiotic thing I've ever heard a believer of god say.

"
Just work it out for yourself.. Why should anyone adopt anothers idea and live by it? All thats left is a drone-human, a 'broken record' preacher spitting the same sh*t we read in the news, promoting the same foolish answer that comes from a childs knowledge level. "

Followers of faith DO NOT work it out for themselves. They adopt what their religion of choice tells them is right. They allow to set themselve's up for intellectual laziness by proclaiming god did it without even TRYING to find alternative answers. There are no alternatives for a man of god, to even suggest such would be blasphemous, or so followers of faith are TOLD by those in control of that faith.

Man, you people just reek of being hypcrits.




posted on Aug, 15 2006 @ 04:21 PM
link   

1) Everything isnt predetermined. God knows exactly what's going to happen, and he can see history from beginning to end. But just because he knows what's going to happen we still can choose what we do, but God just already knows what choice we are going to make.

So there is no judging. There's only one way that things can happen, and he knows it. I consider that predetermination.


2) God created his angels, and some chose not to follow God, like Satan. Not following God is opposing God which is what evil is. Man brought evil upon himself.

God created man. God created the angels. God knew ahead of time, that these people would deflect from him. Therefore God created evil.


3) Well, it would be harsh for a new born to be sent to Hell. If you have been given an opportunity to learn about Jesus and accept him as your saviour but you deny you will face the penalty. 70 years is ample time to prove if you should go to heaven.

You stated that Satan chose not to follow God... therefore how would you be punished? If I, who is not a believer in God, were sent to hell by 'him', then why would I be punished by a fellow non-follower? That makes absolutely no sense.


4) Remember God is outside the universe. Humans cannot comprehend existence without a beginning and end. God was there before there was anything, he had no creator. The universe isnt eternal and God is eternal because again God is outside the universe. The universe is simpy a creation, it can be destroyed at his will, just as if i made a cake, i exist outside the cake and i could destroy it if i wanted to and i would still exist.

How do you know God was there before anything? 'He just is,' is not a viable answer. You state that you want evidence to believe in something. There is no evidence for anything which you are saying right now. What evidence do you have that the universe isn't eternal, and God is? What evidence do you have that God is outside the universe? Where is this coming from? Is this just a random thought or belief of yours, that can not be backed up by anything? Evolution can be backed up with the exception of several gaps. What you state, can not be backed up by anything, other than faith and belief, there is no hard evidence. Just because you say something is true, doesn't mean it is. That goes for whoever told you all of that mumbo-jumbo.


5) Man brought sin into the world. God didnt want violence and war. If God stopped all violence and war it would mean we had no free will. That is why he wants to take us home to heaven with him where we will live the way he designed us to live.

Going back to #1... God knows everything that has ever happened, or will happen. Why would he create a person knowing that they would not follow. Why would he create me, if he knew that I would not follow? If I don't exist yet, then I don't have a free will yet. Why would he create me knowing this turn out? 'Live the way he designed us to live,' implies that we have no free will. We don't have a choice, we will do as he wants, that is exactly what you just told me.


6) Im not sure what you mean. God designed the Universe and us for his pleasure.

What pleasure does God get out of us? What evidence do you have to support this, and how do you know?


7) God designed us this way.

Evidence. Creationists will never believe in Evolution for the lack of solid 100% evidence, even though we have 80% filled out. That is ironic however, considering the fact that they only want to believe the area which has the most evidence... and their area of belief to be true, has none...



posted on Aug, 15 2006 @ 05:26 PM
link   
first, let me say that there are some evolution/anti-ID proponents out there who seem to have a very emotional issue with the whole possibility of "g"od (or gods), immortality etc. many of these are those who tend to lean to the left politically and socially (not always mind), and who are have never studied science beyond high school levels. my experience as a physicist is that those who have studied science at a post-graduate level are much more open to the possibilty of god, eternal consciousness etc.

when it comes to the creationism (or ID) (so not the same thing) v. evolution debate, it has always stymied me why so many evolutionists (esp. among those who are not bona fide scientists) also tend to be atheist, and, wait for it, socialist!?
darwin and evolution has absolutely nothing to say about god, eternal life etc. and biology alone cannot provide the answers. one really needs to delve into the realm of theoretical physics to truly understand the universe and our place in it. my op. is that math actually provides (will provide) most of the answers.

take stephen hawking, the greatest physcist and mathematician of our time since einstein. he freely admits that god may exist and that the universe and everything in it could have been put in motion by "g"od (or other people...that's another credible theory altogether). the BigBang tells us nothing really - merely that since our visible universe appears to be expanding outwardly in all directions then it must have begun that expansion at a very compressed mass at a single point in time and space eons ago. however, most physicists believe that this is just one part of a cycle of neverending expansions and contractions which actually has no start and no end. but the "mass" is always there, that's why a black hole, while relatively small, contains plenty of mass - nothing disappears.

likewise, philosophy teaches us (as does physics too), that nothing can act without being acted upon. all motion (in its most literal sense) requires an outside force. evolution teaches us nothing about this outside force. it cannot, because still today evolutionary theory is steeped in biology alone for the most part, without taking into account the physical operations required. when we start applying principles of physics, we begin to see that evolution (at least in one sense) is compatable with a "religious" view in the sense that that view means an external force acting upon and shaping matter according to a certain physical law.

then we'd have the "law" of evolution rather than the "theory" of evolution. however, many hard core evolutionists shy of using the word law because a theory predicated upon the blind, random, and by chance evolution of everything out of nothing has no room for law, since law implies predictability, and predictability implies design, and design implied intelligence.

of course, even evolutionists are stumped when it comes to explaining the origin of matter and the forces which acted upon matter in order to spark the "process" of evolution in the first place. hence, many resort to the same blind faith belief adopted by many christian demoninations - creation ex nihilo - i.e., it all just appeared out of nothing - a void was suddenly filled with matter, energy, and light -"and God said, 'let there be light'" - quite ironic really. but not scientific i'm a afraid, just ask mr. hawking - matter and energy (or mass) cannot be created or destroyed (dalton said it years ago too) - and both evolutionists and traditional christians ignore it.

look, i have not studied evolution in any great detail, and you're probably thinking that my post doesn't really fit into the evolution v creationism debate at all, since i'm quite willing to accept a not-so-blind kind of evolution - though that's what many call ID and it is different from dictionary definitions of what 19th century creationism is.



posted on Aug, 15 2006 @ 06:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by jackvance88
of course, even evolutionists are stumped when it comes to explaining the origin of matter and the forces which acted upon matter in order to spark the "process" of evolution in the first place. hence, many resort to the same blind faith belief adopted by many christian demoninations - creation ex nihilo - i.e., it all just appeared out of nothing - a void was suddenly filled with matter, energy, and light -"and God said, 'let there be light'" - quite ironic really. but not scientific i'm a afraid, just ask mr. hawking - matter and energy (or mass) cannot be created or destroyed (dalton said it years ago too) - and both evolutionists and traditional christians ignore it.

That is quite correct. Although, you are overlooking that we really do not have the answers for those questions. At the same time, we aren't going to tell a creationist, or anyone for the matter, something we don't know. We aren't going to fill in the gaps with our personal beliefs, as a creationist often does. Evolutionists generally tend to admit when there is a gap, and they push to find out what that gap is, rather than put something that it 'could' be in there.

Another thing I should note, is that yes, evolutionists tend to be the more atheist, and liberal. The critical thinking methods and taking in logic to reality, generally tend to come to those who are like myself. All of us go by the "show me" verdict.



posted on Aug, 15 2006 @ 07:26 PM
link   
To a number of Evolutionists, God doesnt exist. To some it does.

If those few dont believe in God then they dont support the idea of having a soul.

You can not teach a person that has no soul, how it can understand creation.

If they can not understand creation from our perspective, their opinion has no valid arguement in a debate that requires those debating to actually understand both sides.

Therefore, i welcome further comments from those who can contribute in through the debate of both sides, whilst being able cross-examine and counter aspects of creation properly.

And for the last time, would anyone who is trying label me as such: Ignorant to Evolution, Preachie, Hard-core religious (im not religious, nor do i support any single faith) and basing my arguement on Faith... Please read every response

------------
Many of you keep making the point that Science is real, fact, proof, evidence and research which is justification for a closed debate.. If anything it should open debate further and i will not base my life upon such a thing which comes in the form of another persons opinion and research.. and that is Exactly where most Evolutionists gain their knowledge.
How many of you pro-evo guys are teachers, lecturers, scientists? How many have written 10,000 word papers based on at least 100 references for both creation and evolution?
Now, how many have a high-school degree, experience reading news articles, read pro-Evolution threads and then go argue against creation with that information?

--------
I respect the guys here who have provided information that has really made me think, its pushed me back a step and forced me to look from a differant point of view. This is the idea and yes its much appricated - thanks guys



posted on Aug, 15 2006 @ 07:47 PM
link   


Let's get one thing straight right off the bat. Science is not out to debunk god.
Never has been. It's what science has been discovering that is worrying all you believers out there. You people have so little FAITH in your god(s), that at anytime something new that is discovered that destroy's a little more of this silly god notion, you guy's throw up your arms in anger.

Get over it.


I keep answering these same repsonses because people fail to read every post. Alright, the fair majority of Evolutionists in this thread have been very 'clear' that God is nothing . fullstop
That to me says, the majority 'CHOOSE' to accept Evolution as a replacement for any God. Evolution is based on science. Therefore, using science in support of Evolution, whilst disgregarding any form of God/Creation etc. IS very much trying to debunk God.

I did NOT state science itself is attempting to disproove God.

FACTS: I dont follow any religion, i dont preach any bible text, i dont ignore evolution, evolution is part of nature and that created, science lets us understand nature.

Now someone who can read and respond in a constructive way tell me WHY that cant all come from a source of creation. Why not? Any Air-tight arguements?

Or should we all just stop talking about this becuase neither side can conclude the debate fully?



posted on Aug, 15 2006 @ 08:05 PM
link   
I did NOT state science itself is attempting to disproove God.


originally posted by fennek 77...in this very post.
Therefore,using science in support of Evolution, whilst disgregarding any form of God/Creation etc. IS very much trying to debunk God.


i dont preach any bible text

Originally posted by fennek77
We can proove as fact the Bible is true and its words are common place in todays society, are we forgetting this book created the growing free-world?
The bible is the word of God, Genesis 1 and 2 speak of the start and creation itself.
Evolution makes arguements that are indirect at attempting to disproove the word of God. The Bible is physical, it has a timeline, it has truth. Evolution cannot proove its own credibility as the theory's predate life capable of scripture, speech and text. This is where the Bible rules out evolution as total.



sometimes quotes speak for themselves :T




[edit on 8-15-2006 by WolfofWar]

[edit on 8-15-2006 by WolfofWar]



posted on Aug, 15 2006 @ 09:03 PM
link   

proton
I'm assuming your a typical hipochristian.

Stop your personal attacks upon other members.



posted on Aug, 15 2006 @ 09:22 PM
link   
Don't see where the personal attack is. I refuse to call it christianity. The official name is now hipochristianity. All I was doing was simply assuming that this was the faith system he follows. Regardless of all that, name one christian who isn't a hypocrit anyways. Not even Jesus himself is free from being a hypocrit, just read the good bible itself. No, I won't stop labelling it hipochristianity.



posted on Aug, 15 2006 @ 09:32 PM
link   
Label it whatever you want, stop using it to attack another member that you merely disagree with.



posted on Aug, 15 2006 @ 09:40 PM
link   
Wasn't using it in the manner your trying to suggest. As I stated, and this will be the last time I will mention this, I was assuming this was the faith system he belongs to. That faith system being hipochristianity. Now how can I state something like that, using that label if your going to assume it's a personal attack? Back off. It's not. If I have to sit here and see all these attacks against proven science, which is my belief system (that of facts), then these people can most certainly sit there and see me label there system of beliefs as hipochristianity. If I see someone acting in a true christian manner as they're supposed to by the laws of their god, then and only then will I say christian towards them. Again, my label of their belief is not a personal attack against the individual.



posted on Aug, 16 2006 @ 01:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by WolfofWar
I did NOT state science itself is attempting to disproove God.


originally posted by fennek 77...in this very post.
Therefore,using science in support of Evolution, whilst disgregarding any form of God/Creation etc. IS very much trying to debunk God.


i dont preach any bible text

Originally posted by fennek77
We can proove as fact the Bible is true and its words are common place in todays society, are we forgetting this book created the growing free-world?
The bible is the word of God, Genesis 1 and 2 speak of the start and creation itself.
Evolution makes arguements that are indirect at attempting to disproove the word of God. The Bible is physical, it has a timeline, it has truth. Evolution cannot proove its own credibility as the theory's predate life capable of scripture, speech and text. This is where the Bible rules out evolution as total.



Hmm, the first one i already explained, read my previous post. Secondly, thats not preaching, thats referencing a book.
Give up



posted on Aug, 16 2006 @ 01:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by Prot0n
Don't see where the personal attack is. I refuse to call it christianity. The official name is now hipochristianity. All I was doing was simply assuming that this was the faith system he follows. Regardless of all that, name one christian who isn't a hypocrit anyways. Not even Jesus himself is free from being a hypocrit, just read the good bible itself. No, I won't stop labelling it hipochristianity.


I DONT PRACTICE CHRISTIANITY, I DONT BELONG TO ANY RELIGION, READ MY WORDS.
And you mentioned something about how a christian should act and how i offended your beliefs? Erm, read the whole thread, again.. its all been explained and my opinion has changed slightly due to the other posters providing their perspective.. I walked in here being a smart ass on the first post and ive picked up alot thanks

[edit on 16-8-2006 by fennek77]



posted on Aug, 16 2006 @ 02:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by fennek77

Hmm, the first one i already explained, read my previous post. Secondly, thats not preaching, thats referencing a book.
Give up


Mmmh...no there is a difference. Referencing a book is one thing, proclaiming a religious book to be fact, proovable, and the word of god, is very much preaching, and not a part of the scientific process of referencing a book unbiasedly.

Next.



posted on Aug, 16 2006 @ 03:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by fennek77
To a number of Evolutionists, God doesnt exist. To some it does.

If those few dont believe in God then they dont support the idea of having a soul.

You can not teach a person that has no soul, how it can understand creation.

On the contrary! I believe in a soul. I've been a remote viewer for about a year now, and enjoy it thoroughly. The explanation for how RV works, involves the soul, or a spiritual world. Considering the mind seems to be on a completely different dimension from the rest of the physical world, I find it completely plausible through a scientific and rational mind. Although I was skeptic at first, once the blurry images came into my head, I believed.


Is it possible for a "soul" to survive with out a physical host? Who knows. Even if it can, that doesn't support the idea of a God for me.



posted on Aug, 16 2006 @ 03:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by fennek77
Now someone who can read and respond in a constructive way tell me WHY that cant all come from a source of creation. Why not? Any Air-tight arguements?

Or should we all just stop talking about this becuase neither side can conclude the debate fully?

I think a better question other than why not, is why could it be from a source of creation? You still don't answer this. There is evidence that life can be created without the use of a "God." Your simple response could be, "Well God purposely set into motion the chain of events leading to life, because he knows everything beginning to end." However, there is no evidence, supporting the fact that there is a God.

Fennek, you must ask yourself, why is this plausible? as well as why is this not plausible? Just because nobody can disprove you 100%, doesn't mean it is true, and fact. The fact that you yourself, can't prove any point in Creationism, belittles the fact that we can't disprove you, 100%. For example, Jimi Hendrix died, although his "soul" still wanders the streets of Seattle. You can't disprove what I said! You can't, try, you can't disprove it, because you don't know what happened to Jimi's soul. Now, if I were a creationist (Jimi's vagrant soul being the God aspect), I would say that I'm correct because no one can disprove my statement. On the other hand, what proof do I have to show that I am indeed, right? Other than the fact that I personally believe this is what happened to him, I have none, and therefore, my arguement means nothing.

Hope that example helped to show you what so many of us have been trying to explain to you.



And I believe that I am putting up a fair arguement. You're not going to get in a discussion with someone who believes what you believe, over something you both agree with.



posted on Aug, 16 2006 @ 05:00 AM
link   
LOl evolution and creationism go hand in hand. Really.Man evolved, Homo Sapien was created.(wink) If you still dont get it, the "creation" of man in Genesis is the "creation" of Homo Sapien, not the earliest form of man. Animals evolve based on need right? If an animal dosen't need to evolve it won't e.g. sharks etc. There exists no natural conditions which require us to be any more intelligent than neanderthal man. If an animals habitat undergoes a gradual drop in temperatures the animal will adapt/evolve to cope. There is no threat from a predator or climate change or anything in nature that would require us to be as intelligent as we are. Homo Sapien is the only thing evolution can't explain and it's because Homo Sapien was created.(genetically engineered or whateva)
Dont ask me for proof I've come to this conclusion years ago and have since reformatted and changed Pc's and thus do not have any bookmarks of sites I visited during that time. The above is a theory based on evidence and my logic please refrain from personal attacks if you do not agree with or consider my theory plausible. Thank you.


[edit on 16-8-2006 by Elijio]



posted on Aug, 16 2006 @ 05:11 AM
link   
evolution is not necessarily dictated by need. evolution is dictated by the dominant genetics of the species (which currently leave me with little hope for the human race). if someone with extra arms mates with several people, the offspring will have a possibility of carrying that gene - if they mate, so on and so forth, until the race evolves as a whole and has, in general, 4 arms.

in the wild, it's usually based on which members of the species are best qualified to mate - smarter humans were able to survive longer and thus mate more, and that's why we've got the brains we've got today.



posted on Aug, 16 2006 @ 05:21 AM
link   
That does not account for the huge leap in intelligence from nenderthal man to us, and that the smarter ones lived longer and could mate more can be said for every other species. Why can't a chimp build a PC? see...



posted on Aug, 16 2006 @ 12:52 PM
link   
Chimps are too busy struggling to survive.

Our main ascend to intelligence began when we began to walk upright, freeing our upper feet and turning them into hands, which allowed ourselves to begin to use them to build tools and objects as a substitute for natural weaponry. The spark of inquenuity of creation was a defense mechanism which spiraled outwards to our creative building processes.

When we became the dominant species on the planet, we began our intelligence progression. Without the predator and prey chain to warrior ourselves about, we allowed ourselves to begin creating homes and shelters, then tools, then better tools.

COmputers are just very very more advanced better tools.

At the end of the day we're still justbig, hairless monkeys who strive solely for procreation.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join