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: 16
7
<< 13  14  15    17  18  19 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 2 2007 @ 04:25 PM
link   
I believe in a creator, but I can't prove it, so I have decided to wait until he/she/it/creative force, shows up and tells me face to face, then I will most likely want he/she/it/creative force, to prove to me that, he/she/it/creative force is really the creator.

Because you know with all this modern technology, and advances in holograms, youtube, and photoshop, imagine what an unscrupulous higher being could make us believe.

and that's the truth,




posted on Aug, 2 2007 @ 04:59 PM
link   
mmonty68 wrote




posted on 2-8-2007 @ 06:35 AM

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.


I for one don't fault you in any way, shape or form for your beliefs. It's fine to believe in whatever or whoever you like as part of your faith. I think the problem begins when people try to preach their faith and beliefs as FACT and want proven sciences replaced with said unproven beliefs.



posted on Aug, 2 2007 @ 05:04 PM
link   
I'll go with number 2. The Billions of years old one

This is quite a neat little article:
The intellectual poverty of Creationism



posted on Aug, 2 2007 @ 07:25 PM
link   
Barry Setterfield of Australia came up with a study on the decrease of the speed of light, which according to Einstein was a universal constant. Stan Deyo, in his book Vindicator Scrolls, combines science and the bible history to join the time periods. It is a convincing theory, although other points in his book I don't agree with, his theory on time has some good points: if light was faster before, as it does show it has decreased, could the perception of time have been different as well, or at least change the perceptable age of things on Earth? Such as carbon dating being off the mark... who knows.

I think creation force made it all, and evolution works on micro level, inside species, to change the design of organism, but not to create new ones. The amount of complexity in the eyes, in the nervous system, etc, is understood by science, but not to the point of knowing how it came into being from a prebiotic soup, or from a fish like some still mistakingly belive today. Things can't just evolve from some lesser being, without additional "coding" added. And where would all this complex coding for all these new organisms come from if not from an intelligent designer? There has to be a plan, wether its a plan from the get go, already coded, or an incremental adjustment - there is a designer. Or you can believe that just buy chance, more complex things just happened... LOL

Evolutionists were so eager to trump the religious zombies, that they ignored the fossil records before them, and those that came after them to simply hold on to their widely accepted theory that delt a great blow to the creationists. Religion fell hard, and science was every bodies saviour. There are fossil records from the 1800s and 1900s of anatomically identical humans being found in Earths strata that was created millions, and hundreds of millions of years ago. These fossil discoveries, among other discoveries in the scientific community, have to be investigated by others to gain notoriety. But in the cases of extreme human antiquity, it is ignored, silenced, rediculed by the mainstream. There has always been a filter on knowledge. So its no wonder you have never heard of this before


People built up on an idea, and others support them. Any proof that goes against the widely accepted norm is rejected because it would cause too much damage (just like it was with the church/religion before science rationalized things out). Everything needs to be re-written, people lose their careers, blah blah... all the shelfish, egotistical reasons you can think of not to go after the truth.

Spiritual entities exist, scientists have changed their career directions because of their facination with mediums, seances, miracles, paranormal activity. It is there, but because you cant touch it, and take a sample to analyze under a microscope, most of the so called educated folk won't even look at it. It's a myth, a fairy tales, legends of a bigone age of superstitious idiots.

Ask yourself who are the real idiots. The ones making the discoveries and observations, or the ones who deny them because they choose to. Darwin made some mistakes in his original thoery, as did Einstien and many others, thats why they are theories. Others after, ran with theories and blew them up to become the facts, and they stick around today, even though its not proven. Intelligent design isn't proven either, but it is cast aside in the scientific community even though it is just as valid as another unproven theory of evolution.

They are all theories. We can't answer how things came to be, because we didn't make it come into being, we are not the creator. So don't expect any answers anytime, because its impossible to answer with our limited knowledge in this plain of existance.



posted on Aug, 3 2007 @ 04:46 AM
link   
Thank you for your gracious reply. I think that we should all be able to agree to disagree.
I do have one mind bender for you though. If god created everything, wouldn't he be made of something other than anything in our universe?...i.e. light, enegry, molasses, and so on.



posted on Aug, 3 2007 @ 09:02 AM
link   
I love your post, aZiXx, I think everything needs to be rewritten too, following science and technology closely,



posted on Aug, 3 2007 @ 09:04 AM
link   


If god created everything, wouldn't he be made of something other than anything in our universe?...


What a great question, the sad thing is it is impossible to answer any of them, but pondering these things is fun.



posted on Aug, 3 2007 @ 11:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by mmonty68
...If god created everything, wouldn't he be made of something other than anything in our universe?...i.e. light, enegry, molasses, and so on.




I dont see God/YHWH/JHVH/Elohim as the single minded entity of say the Lord as it is personified in the bible. Bible, as I see it, is interpretations by men of divine messages. The whole book is open for interpretations. I have a problem with the ego God image
. So you can see things differently, I go with what makes the most sense to me, intuition (can be very powerful). God is more of an everything. Everything is made of Gods life force-the energy where creation came from. God has less energy because it created everything. Eventually everything will return back to its source. We partook of the duality of good and evil and fell from grace, resulting in our existance in this 4 dimensional reality of 3D space (X,Y,Z) + time, with duality existing in the atoms that make us up(particle - anti-particle pairs) and keep us in perpetual conflict.

My view of things comes from a collection of my knowledge of many sources. Two of the main inspirations for the above is from Maurice Cottterell and David Sereda (who is incorrect on some of his beliefs like Global Warming).

[edit on 3-8-2007 by aZiXx]



posted on Aug, 16 2007 @ 08:25 PM
link   
ok so let me ask you this... what exactly started our calendar as far as years? how come our calendar starts around the time Jesus Christ was here?
why arent we in the year 10,000? or even 30,000? oh because thats too big a number? no its probably because Jesus Christ is real and was here about 2,000 years ago.



posted on Aug, 16 2007 @ 08:43 PM
link   
That's got to be the worst argument for YEC ever. Do you really think that no calenders existed before Jesus decided to tell people to count the natural cycles of the heavens?


Monday, 16 October, 2000, 22:27 GMT 23:27 UK
Oldest lunar calendar identified

What could be the oldest lunar calendar ever created has been identified on the walls of the famous, prehistoric caves at Lascaux in France.

The interpretation that symbolic paintings, dating back 15,000 years, show the Moon going through its different phases comes from Dr Michael Rappenglueck, of the University of Munich.

news.bbc.co.uk...

We used the BC/AD calender because we in the west decided to. The chinese have there own, I'm sure others do too. Our calender is actually based on the roman calender which was created before your waterwalking dude was meant to have been around.

[edit on 16-8-2007 by melatonin]



posted on Aug, 16 2007 @ 09:13 PM
link   
because we go off the gregorian calender that is derived from the roman julian calender which has nothing at all to do with jesus.the catholic church only made 1 major change,and that was so they could fit in easter.there are about 30 different calenders in use around the world today,all with different dates,all dating back to different times.and if your interested,the months are named after roman gods,emperors and numbers.and the days of the week are named after gods;1 roman 4 pagan;the moon and the sun



posted on Aug, 16 2007 @ 10:37 PM
link   
Yep. Thanks for this, I'll use it on forums to prove evolution.



posted on Aug, 16 2007 @ 11:34 PM
link   
Does it really matter if god made the universe 15 billion years ago or the earth 5 billion years ago? What is 7 god days, I don't know.

Does it really matter whether god popped Adam and Eve on the earth 7000 years ago or started man at the primordial goo level using the natural laws he created? Does either change that man is here?

To me a god would use the laws he created and have all the time in the universe to do it. I do not think he would resort to some cheap parlor tricks to get it done.

Just maybe Adam and Eve are nothing more than symbols for the point when man became man and was given a soul during his long evolution. With that soul he was also given the freedom of choice and a self awareness that destroyed his innocence of that of an animal thus the symbol of leaving the Garden of Eden i.e. innocence.

I really think that science and intelligent design can work hand in hand so I say yes to both answers.



posted on Aug, 16 2007 @ 11:56 PM
link   
I think animals have souls too, But i still eat them



posted on Aug, 17 2007 @ 07:10 AM
link   
"""Ask yourself who are the real idiots. The ones making the discoveries and observations, or the ones who deny them because they choose to. Darwin made some mistakes in his original thoery, as did Einstien and many others, thats why they are theories. Others after, ran with theories and blew them up to become the facts, and they stick around today, even though its not proven. Intelligent design isn't proven either, but it is cast aside in the scientific community even though it is just as valid as another unproven theory of evolution.

They are all theories. We can't answer how things came to be, because we didn't make it come into being, we are not the creator. So don't expect any answers anytime, because its impossible to answer with our limited knowledge in this plain of existance."""


I agree with you.though i think a knowledge is limited for a reason.if we knew all the answers life would be rather dull would it not?



posted on Aug, 17 2007 @ 07:23 PM
link   
No, if we knew all, we would have alot of fun in our lives. We's conquer all problems and be constantly enjoying ourselves. truley bringing truth to "heaven on Earth"



posted on Aug, 18 2007 @ 10:33 AM
link   
Assuming that ppl use the answers to get along with each other.which i highly doubt would happen....but what i ment be it being dull is,that after the initial thrill and wonder has worn off,were would you be? and yes i'm aware that in one life time we could not experiance the knowledge of everything,but just go with it for me!
once you've found the answers to the questions you're interested in,what then? i'm interested in history,not mathematics.i wouldn't care about answers to do with that subject...d'you see where i'm going?? no.me neither



posted on Aug, 18 2007 @ 10:33 AM
link   
And what would be "heaven on earth"? just curious.



[edit on 18-8-2007 by jakyll]



posted on Aug, 18 2007 @ 10:46 AM
link   
How does anyone honestly question evolution? I mean, seriously.

I can see someone questioning HOW evolution happens. But IF it happens? Come on..



posted on Aug, 20 2007 @ 03:52 AM
link   


I for one don't fault you in any way, shape or form for your beliefs. It's fine to believe in whatever or whoever you like as part of your faith. I think the problem begins when people try to preach their faith and beliefs as FACT and want proven sciences replaced with said unproven beliefs.


no the problem comes when people challenge others to prove to them their god and then reject any and all answers that are given.



How does anyone honestly question evolution? I mean, seriously.

I can see someone questioning HOW evolution happens. But IF it happens? Come on..


the question of how and if are one in the same.
like ive said before, micro evolution (variation within species/kinds) happens.
all others do not.

Cosmic, Stellar, Chemical, Organic and Macro dont happen. they cant. its theoretically impossible.



new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 13  14  15    17  18  19 >>

log in

join