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.

 

Where do people on ATS stand on this?

page: 15
7
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 1 2007 @ 02:06 PM
link   
oh,and for those not agreeing with jfj123,you may argue the scientific theory,but what about accounts from ancient texts? there is plenty of evidence around the world that tell of the stars changing position,of the sun rising and setting in different places.etc.




posted on Aug, 1 2007 @ 02:06 PM
link   
6 day creation / with a good debate to with that statement...

See video on this post

www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Aug, 1 2007 @ 02:08 PM
link   
First of all, quit searching for the beginning of life because that was 3.5 billion years ago and the only evidence left is in space. You will never find the complete answer until you are dead. However, what I can offer is a solid opinion.

Life is a mystery. We are a combination of cells working in conjunction with each other to form organs, which in turn form an organism. It is my belief that humans are also like tiny cells working amoung other cells to form a larger organism, etc. and this chain keeps on moving up the ladder with absolutely no end. We were not created because we were already here, we were never really here because in the bigger picture we are actually wayyyyyyyyyyyyyyy over there! Truthfully creationism is just a big of mystery to us as it is to insects! We are not intelligent enough to comprehend our own origin, or the origin of space and time. Species who are intelligent enough to comprehend this, are not intelligent enough to comprehend beyond that of which is space and time and are confused of their own creationism. So, believe what you'd like because it is an endless cycle of yes and no.



posted on Aug, 1 2007 @ 02:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by jakyll
oh,and for those not agreeing with jfj123,you may argue the scientific theory,but what about accounts from ancient texts? there is plenty of evidence around the world that tell of the stars changing position,of the sun rising and setting in different places.etc.


Really? I have never heard of these accounts. Please post proof of their existance.



posted on Aug, 1 2007 @ 03:07 PM
link   
i will try and get some quotes for you.til then you might be interested in the controversial figure that is I.Velikovsky.i don't believe in his theories 100% but he does quote many ancient texts.
saturniancosmology.org debates this authors work.
crawford2000.co.uk is also a good site connected with this author.



posted on Aug, 1 2007 @ 03:13 PM
link   
I laugh.
Obviously a toaster did not evolve because it is a manmade thing. No one in the history of the WORLD has ever ever said a toaster evolved. You are just being ignorant now. We have solid eveidence that certain creatures did infact evolve. So it is not that strange to speculate we may have evoloved also.



posted on Aug, 1 2007 @ 03:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by Shackleford
I laugh.
Obviously a toaster did not evolve because it is a manmade thing. No one in the history of the WORLD has ever ever said a toaster evolved. You are just being ignorant now. We have solid eveidence that certain creatures did infact evolve. So it is not that strange to speculate we may have evoloved also.


What eveidence?



posted on Aug, 1 2007 @ 05:17 PM
link   
Here's some evidence to help disprove the notion of the 10,000 year old earth.


there is no need to speculate on what the strength of the earth's magnetic field was in the past, since we have a way to directly measure it. Metallic particles such as iron are partially magnetized by the earth's magnetic field and will line themselves up with the magnetic poles. By examining these particles, we can determine the strength of the magnetic field. And such examination shows that the earth's magnetic field has not been decaying steadily. Clay pottery and other archeological finds which date to about 6,500 years ago indicate a magnetic field that was about 20% weaker than today, while artifacts from just 3,000 years ago show magnetic fields that are 45% higher than today. Thus, rather than decreasing steadily since the time of creation, the earth's magnetic field has fluctuated, weaker at some times and stronger at others.

Please visit the link provided for the complete story.



In fact, when rocks on the sea floor are scientifically examined, they demonstrate a striking magnetic pattern: on each side of the mid-Atlantic rift where the earth's plates emerge from the mantle, differing "stripes" of varying magnetic intensity can be found, each the mirror image of the stripes on the other side. As each area of crust emerges and solidifies, the metallic particles within it are magnetized, and take on the strength and polarity of the magnetic field within which they emerged. As the sea floor spreads apart through plate tectonics, new areas of rock emerge and are similarly magnetized. This produces a pattern of different magnetic strengths. (Some creationists have attempted to discredit these observations by arguing that the local rocks have undergone a process of magnetic reversal, but if this were true it would produce a patchwork pattern of random reversals, not the mirror-image pattern that is actually found.)

More surprisingly, such measurements show occasions when the earth's magnetic field has dropped to virtually nothing, and re-emerges with the magnetic poles reversed--the magnetic north pole is now the south pole and vice versa. Some 171 such magnetic reversals have been found, extending back over 76 million years. (By determining the strength and polarity of the magnetic signature of particular rocks, and by comparing the resulting patterns to sea-floor patterns, the rock can be roughly dated, a method known as "paleomagnetism"). Between 1953 and 1958, such a magnetic polarity reversal was also observed directly, in the sun. During this time, the sun's magnetic dipole field decreased in strength, dropped to almost nothing for a period of several years, and re-emerged with reversed polarity.

Please visit the link provided for the complete story.



posted on Aug, 1 2007 @ 07:05 PM
link   
Just some questions regarding dating systems.

Why is there the remarkable coherence among many different dating methods for example: radioactivity, tree rings, ice cores, corals, supernovas -- from astronomy, biology, physics, geology, chemistry and archeology?



posted on Aug, 1 2007 @ 07:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
highfreq, knowing about divinity and theology doesn't make one a well educated person... knowing about various religions aside from the one that you are raised in would. having a phd in comparative religions might make you a well educated person, but not in theology and divinity.


Maybe not that alone, however, what does this have to do with the original question?



posted on Aug, 1 2007 @ 11:24 PM
link   
Is it really so hard to cross breed the bible with evolution?

I honestly cannot see where it says the Earth's age in the bible. Please help me out here creationists. And I cannot see how around 1 million years of separation didn't split the human species into many other trans human species. Please explain this to me Evolutionists

I'm being basic to you all. There is no real proof either because there is no either or, it is both. Couldn't God create and evolution be a tool much like our fingers to clay?



posted on Aug, 2 2007 @ 06:35 AM
link   
Here's my argument;
I choose to believe in christ. I do not expect you, or anyone to believe such as I do.
Furthermore, I will not be "burdened", by proving his existance, it is called faith. To have faith means that you could not,or do not know that he exists,but,you believe he does. For some that is enough, but for others they need tangible proof, that is called 'knowing',therefore, if you know,then there is no need for faith, is there? You have faith that you won't get hit by a bus tomorrow, but you never know, do you?
Believing in christ is a personal choice, like he intended it. It is sad that there is such an arguement about his existance.
The choice is yours to believe in him or not, and I do not fault anyone for not believeing, just as no one sould fault me for my beliefs.



posted on Aug, 2 2007 @ 07:07 AM
link   


I honestly cannot see where it says the Earth's age in the bible.


do the genealogy and family tree all the way from Adam to Jesus and you get about 4000 years. now go back about 6 days before adam was created since that was THE beginning.

the word "the" = definite article. there is only one 'the first day' in history.



posted on Aug, 2 2007 @ 07:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by theindependentjournal
I am wondering where ATS'rs stand on Evolution and Creation and the Age of the Earth.


God is real. God created humans. God created humans using SOME METHOD ... a method unknown to us.

The Creation myth in the Bible may or may not be true. God may have made us that way, or God may have used evolution, or God may have used aliens to seed the planet, or God may have sent life crashing down upon Earth via an asteroid ....

We won't know how God created us until we are dead and can get the answers right from GOd Himself.

I'm looking forward to it.



posted on Aug, 2 2007 @ 07:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by Methuselah
do the genealogy and family tree all the way from Adam to Jesus and you get about 4000 years. now go back about 6 days before adam was created since that was THE beginning.


but you don't have an exact age for every single person in that genealogy, and it's just a book. scientific tests are far more accurate on this issue.




the word "the" = definite article. there is only one 'the first day' in history.


um, the first day of history is the first day that people started writing



posted on Aug, 2 2007 @ 07:42 AM
link   
the family tree of jesus is flawed.it follows the line of joseph,not mary. do you see the problem there?
the date taken from this family tree also only goes back to about 4000bc.yet evidence of human life is much older than that.evidence of modern humans go back not just 1000's of years,but 100's of 1000's of years.fossilised footprints have been found in many places,such as Roccamonfina in Italy.these are dated as being made some 350,000 yrs ago!!

Gorman91 brings up an interesting point.if you believe god created everything,does that immediatly mean evolution is a myth? isn't it possible god sowed the seeds of life and then let nature take its course?

if you believe that adam and eve are the parents to all then eve must've been a walking baby factory!! it also means that incense would've been rife! now,correct me if i'm wrong,but isn't incense a sin? just think,as soon as eve's first daughter became a woman,her father would've been knockin her up!!



posted on Aug, 2 2007 @ 09:48 AM
link   
I stand with these fellows. Just a few excerpts, since they can tell it so much better than I.

"The Skeptic

I recently had an opportunity to speak on the origin of life at a major public university in Southern California. In attendance were a number of professors who are self-described agnostics. During the question period, one of the professors admitted that the evidence is compelling that the universe was indeed finite. He said that while he could not believe in God (because he couldn't see Him, or study Him scientifically) he said he did believe that someday scientists would discover a law that would explain the origin and order of the universe and its life forms.

After pointing out that he had just expressed faith - the belief in things unseen, but hoped for - I asked him if he believed that the laws of physics, which work in our space-time domain, also had a beginning. He was forced to concede that they did because they would have no place to act before the space-time domain existed.

The final blow came when I asked him if he then believed that some "law" of physics could explain the origin of the laws of physics! He saw the point: The laws of physics cannot be the cause of the laws of physics! The cause of the universe and its laws must be must be independent of the space-time domain, exactly as the Bible claimed 3,500 years earlier!"
www.khouse.org...

"The Christian worldview is an impractical, even phony, view of the Cosmos because it embraces a God who is either incapable of stopping evil and suffering, and he is therefore not omnipotent, or is unwilling to do so and therefore a devil!"

"When someone states that they do not believe in God because a good God would not allow evil, they make a fatal error in logic. First, the recognition of evil is the recognition that certain actions are "right" and certain actions are "wrong." But how do we determine what actions are morally right and morally wrong? We discern this on the basis of a moral law: a universal sense that certain states of affairs are right and others are wrong. Even most atheists will admit that certain actions are universally wrong and, conversely, universally right."

"The famous atheist Bertrand Russell once debated a Christian who asked him if he believed in right and wrong. Russell replied "of course." Then he asked him how he determined what is right and wrong. Russell replied that he determined right and wrong on the basis of his feelings. His opponent replied, "Well, in some cultures they feel it is okay to eat you, and in others they don't. Which do you prefer." The point is that social customs, attitudes, traditions or feelings cannot determine a universal sense of right and wrong."

"Let us consider the nature of love and its consequences. I cannot experience love from you unless you have the capacity to do otherwise. If you have the capacity to not love me, and you choose instead to love me, then that choice has validity. It has meaning. You cannot have a love relationship with a computer. It is pre-programmed to serve you. Love requires choice: unencumbered choice. And that's where the problem lies."
www.khouse.org...

"Is the speed of light constant?"

"The speed of light is considered an atomic constant. However Birge's recommended values for the speed of light decreased steadily until 1940, when an article written by him, entitled "The General Physical Constants, as of August 1940 with details on the velocity of light only," appeared in Reports on Progress in Physics (Vol. 8, pp.90-100, 1941). Birge began the article saying: "This paper is being written on request - and at this time on request ... a belief in any significant variability of the constants of nature is fatal to the spirit of science, as science is now understood [emphasis his]."
www.khouse.org...

Excellent article well worth scientific exploration.



posted on Aug, 2 2007 @ 10:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by Churchmouse
"The famous atheist Bertrand Russell once debated a Christian who asked him if he believed in right and wrong. Russell replied "of course." Then he asked him how he determined what is right and wrong. Russell replied that he determined right and wrong on the basis of his feelings. His opponent replied, "Well, in some cultures they feel it is okay to eat you, and in others they don't. Which do you prefer." The point is that social customs, attitudes, traditions or feelings cannot determine a universal sense of right and wrong."


Can you not see the issue with this argument?

Here he is stating there is a universal sense of right and wrong, but that some people do not agree with this sense of right and wrong, but his own sense of right and wrong is the basis of the universal right and wrong.

So, depending on this individual's sense of morality depends the universal right and wrong.

Is is wrong to eat a dog? The Koreans are quite happy to, we are not. In many western societies, people find it disgusting, Koreans probably love a medium rare dog steak


Is it wrong to eat a cow? We are happy to, the Hindus are not. Hindus likely find it disgusting, whereas I love a good medium rare beef steak


Is it right to kill a human? People do allow it, but say it is wrong and use all sort of relative justification to underpin the killing of others (i.e. bad people) to make it right.

Is it right to lie? Again, circumstances have a big influence here. I would think it OK to lie to save people from what I would consider unjustified punishment/death (e.g. saving Jews from Nazi).

Whereas I think Russell is correct, we use emotions to guide our morality. Much of this is learned through social conditioning (e.g. morality and homosexuality) and can be quite situational and relative Thus, asking Jewish kids whether a jewish bible dude was justified in killing people, or a chinese dude was justified in the same action produces different results - guess which.

However, there does seem to be some general 'universals' which seem to be exhibited regarding our actions and others (whether pushing a fat man on the railway line is justified to save the life of others), however, they are not truly universal, ask a sociopath/machiavellian about such things - all based in the brain and related to empathy and theory-of-mind systems, and readily influenced by emotion - i.e. although we could say it is wrong, we might just push Hitler on the railway line to save the life of our loved ones


Thus, there is no universal morality of not killing others, or not lying, or eating dogs, cows, monkeys, even each other. Probably the most universal moral is to treat others as one would like to be treated, but I hope a sado-masochist does not apply this to me


[edit on 2-8-2007 by melatonin]



posted on Aug, 2 2007 @ 01:38 PM
link   
I think you are right...its much bigger than most people can get their thoughts around...perhaps already known for sure to some where, how and why..and because humans are so attached to their beliefs..nothing can be truly known , yet.



posted on Aug, 2 2007 @ 04:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by Methuselah


do the genealogy and family tree all the way from Adam to Jesus and you get about 4000 years. now go back about 6 days before adam was created since that was THE beginning.

the word "the" = definite article. there is only one 'the first day' in history.


Some of those names have no dates of birth and deth. Seeing as people lived for amazing years, you cannot say that. And the 7 days of creation have never been linked to actual days. THere are plenty of gaps in the birth record though. Let us not forget that Egyptions have a vast ammount of their history going long before 4000bc. Sorry, but that is simply that. Seeing as some of these folks lived for thousands of years acording to the bible, you are wrong.



new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join