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: 17
7
<< 14  15  16    18  19  20 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 20 2007 @ 08:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by Methuselah
Cosmic, Stellar, Chemical, Organic and Macro dont happen. they cant. its theoretically impossible.


Once again, they are all theoretically very possible, and probable, and most likely. Just because you don't understand the principal doesn't mean it's not true. Remember your Boyle's law misunderstanding?




posted on Aug, 20 2007 @ 07:38 PM
link   


Once again, they are all theoretically very possible, and probable, and most likely. Just because you don't understand the principal doesn't mean it's not true. Remember your Boyle's law misunderstanding?


actually I just forgot to add that charles law plays a part in this too.
and no I dont misunderstand it, I understand it very well.

most likely? why? because its the only other way to get God out of the picture?
dont deny it, if thats what you hope for just admit it already.

and no they are not possible at all. and there is no evidence supporting these at all.



posted on Aug, 20 2007 @ 08:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by theindependentjournal
1. All mankind came from Adam and Eve whom God created about 6000 years ago.

OR

2. All mankind came from a rock about 3-4.5 billion years ago.


I do not agree that it has to be one or the other. If #2 is not true, that does not automatically mean that #1 IS true. I am a very religious person, but I completely accept the science of the "Big Bang" and Evolutionary theories as valid. This is not to say that they are 100% correct (indeed, the science of Evolution has come a long way since Darwin), but they are constantly evolving and incorporating new evidence.

I think it is sad to see people interpret the Bible literally; it is a work of literature that can be read on many levels, and the base (literal) form is probably the least important way to understand it. Personally, I take the Jewish view of Genesis... a more accurate translation, from the Hebrew, of the beginning of Genesis is:



Source: Stone Edition Tanach, p. 3

In the beginning of God's creating the heavens and the earth - when the earth was astonishingly empty, with darkness upon the surface of the deep, and the Divine Presence hovered upon the surface of the waters - God said, "Let there be light," and there was light.


I think the key difference is the concept of Creation as being an ongoing process (i.e. "God's creating" rather than "God created"); it's a far more accurate translation, and certainly less in conflict with empirical science. The commentary on the translation in the Stone edition states the following to justify this translation:



Source: Stone Edition Tanach, Footnote 1:1, Page 2-3

The phrase [in Hebrew, sorry, don't have a Hebrew font on this PC] is commonly rendered In the beginning God created, which would indicate that the Torah is giving the sequence of Creation - that God created the heaven, the earth, darkness, water, light, and so on. However, Rashi and Ibn Ezra maintain that this verse cannot be chronological; our translation follows their view.


I would agree with this. Unfortunately that a common problem with Christian theology; you are often working from very poor translations of the text AND you aren't familiar with the centuries of commentary and scholarship on the text. This leads to lots of misunderstandings of what the intent of the various parts of the Bible are, and a tendency to interpret everything literally, like you were reading a history book, which the Bible is not (especially prior to Exodus!)

Now, having said all of that, I do think that the period before the "Big Bang" defies scientific explanation. I agree with Aristotle and Aquinas that there must be a "First Cause" for everything; energy, particles, matter, etc. had to come from somewhere. To me, this is sufficient evidence of Divine Creation. What happened after that is for science to discover.


[edit on 8/20/2007 by JustMe74]



posted on Aug, 21 2007 @ 10:31 AM
link   
""""Source: Stone Edition Tanach, p. 3

In the beginning of God's creating the heavens and the earth - when the earth was astonishingly empty, with darkness upon the surface of the deep, and the Divine Presence hovered upon the surface of the waters - God said, "Let there be light," and there was light.""""


Have you noticed that god created light before he even created the sun! i've always wondered how thats possible....

I like your idea that god is still creating,rather than,he just created at one time only.



posted on Aug, 21 2007 @ 12:34 PM
link   
reply to post by jakyll
 



Well, technically light has been around longer than our sun has, just not on Earth.



posted on Aug, 21 2007 @ 04:43 PM
link   
reply to post by Rasobasi420
 


obviously.what i ment was that god talks of a light that divides the day,but doesn't create the source of that light until later.



posted on Aug, 21 2007 @ 04:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by Methuselah


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.


Macroevolution does happen.

www.talkorigins.org...

Please read this.



posted on Aug, 22 2007 @ 02:26 PM
link   
One can believe in Creation, without accepting the view put forth by "Creationism"
Webster’s Third New International Dictionary (1971) defines “creation” as “the act of creating,” and “creationism” as “a doctrine or theory of creation.” The same dictionary defines “ism” as “a distinctive doctrine, cause, system, or theory—often used disparagingly.”

Creationism” has become a true “ism” because of its adoption by political pressure groups, such as the Moral Majority and a host of other fundamentalist groups.
As such, it is no longer a neutral term, but embodies extreme fundamentalist views of the Bible, such as the view that God created the earth and everything upon it in six days of 24 hours each. The word Day is used in so many different ways and has so many different meanings that to insist that is can only mean a 24 hr period is not intellectually honest.

If there is a God, and I believe there is, then he is the originator of all the physical laws. IF he is not bound by the laws of time why would he need to circumvent the very physical laws he created in order to create the earth in only 6 days. What was the rush?

A day can be any period of time he determines it to be.

When summarizing God’s creative work, Moses refers to all six creative days as one day. (Genesis 2:4) In addition, on the first creative day, “God began calling the light Day, but the darkness he called Night.” (Genesis 1:5) Here, only a portion of a 24-hour period is defined by the term “day.” Certainly, there is no basis in Scripture for arbitrarily stating that each creative day was 24 hours long.

With regard to Mans being created in Gods image; We need not assume that the word image is limited to only physical features. Although God is spoken of as having eyes, his eyes are able to see all corners of the universe & even perceive the intentions of the heart. So obviously they are not physical eyes like a mans.

Rather, perfect man would had the ability to reflect Gods qualities, such as justice, wisdom, and love,...ect. In this regard Adam & Eve were unique, different from all other creatures on the earth.







[edit on 22-8-2007 by Sparky63]

[edit on 22-8-2007 by Sparky63]



posted on Aug, 23 2007 @ 07:08 AM
link   
I find it insane that anyone would say there is no evidence for evolution and/or that it's theoretically impossible.

If you believe it's theoretically impossible, show/prove why it is not possible.

Here's a thought also, maybe god created the universe to evolve. Wouldn't that be much more of a masterpiece then simply creating a bunch of people in his image a few thousand years ago. Creating a universe to evolve with such intricacy would be something an omnipotent being would do, don't you think????

Evolution as a whole has been proven on many levels. That is the way it is... You don't have to like it but you can't change FACT.

Just because Evolution is FACT doesn't mean you still can't believe in a god.



posted on Aug, 25 2007 @ 05:00 PM
link   


Macroevolution does happen.


I wanna see it happen then. dont say it had to have happened since there is a variety of animals in the world today. I want to see it happen, I want hard evidence. if you cannot provide, this is a theory and not science and if you believe in it, this is part of your religion. how do you know it happens? because it had to happen to get all these animals? wow, talk about a leap of faith!!!! thats a very religious assumption.



Just because Evolution is FACT doesn't mean you still can't believe in a god.


yes it does actually, if you believe in the God of the bible, I AM, Jehovah... you cannot believe in both. either you believe that God made everything in six days about 6,000 years ago or you believe something else. Evolution is a religion, you have to believe it all took place. and im not saying that creation is science. I think science supports creation to a certain degree, but the fact still remains that both theories are religious. calling evolution part of science and creation religion is called slanted journalism, and thats wrong.



If you believe it's theoretically impossible, show/prove why it is not possible.


attacking creation does not prove evolution just because you dont understand the bible.

I want to know why this article along with many others says that there was nothing before the big bang. why they say that nothing made everything.
big-bang-theory.com...
it says that nothing existed. not time, space or matter or energy.

this goes against the first law of thermodynamics. you cant say that it can go against the laws of nature for some unnatural reason,... the big bang tried to explain how the universe came to be naturally without the intervention of a higher being the laws of nature govern the universe at all times.
its not a feasible theory.



Here's a thought also, maybe god created the universe to evolve. Wouldn't that be much more of a masterpiece then simply creating a bunch of people in his image a few thousand years ago. Creating a universe to evolve with such intricacy would be something an omnipotent being would do, don't you think????


this is of course your opinion and no.... I dont think God would do that... evolution required a lot of death... in fact Hitlers motives was that of evolution , he thought he was speeding up the process by getting rid of the inferior and keeping the better race(s). why would God create everything in such a state that the only way to get better was to kill off the lesser of itself? God creating everything perfect the first time is a masterpiece.. you tell me, if you made something that had many imperfections and it took multiple sessions for you to complete it, would have have felt more of an accomplishment if you made it perfect the first time or if it took many corrections? keep that answer to yourself if your gonna try to debunk the point of this paragraph.



Evolution as a whole has been proven on many levels. That is the way it is... You don't have to like it but you can't change FACT.


ive only seen hard evidence for Micro evolution, none others. the facts change when you find out that the evidence is based on lies.



posted on Aug, 26 2007 @ 09:22 AM
link   
reply to post by Methuselah
 


It is possible to believe in god and evolution.you don't know that god didn't sow the seeds of life and then sat back to watch his work grow.i know you take everything in the bible literally,but sometimes you shouldn't.your attitude is what keeps science and religion apart,just as those who believe evolution disproves god's existance.both can be used to gloryfy each other,but you have to be awake enough to see that there is plenty of evidence in the world to back up the fact that life is much much older than 6000 yrs!!
but because that is so,it doesn't mean god doesn't exist.have faith in your own intelligence and understand that the bible has been corrupted over 100's of years,and not always for the better as it was usually done by men who believed it was ok to change the words of god and jesus.

James Ussher was one of the first men to calculate the age of the earth by use of the bible.but if you read up on his methods you will find many flaws.for example,""one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day"" (2 Peter 3:8)what does that tell you!?! from 1700 onwards the king james bible started to use his chronology,and by all accounts was very different to the original.just as the hebrew scriptures are different.don't forget as well,in the ancient world time existed in different states.the romans counted down the years from the founding of their city.the persians counted upwards.there are countless events,king lists,life spans that are totaly inaccurate,and that includes the bible!



posted on Aug, 26 2007 @ 08:52 PM
link   
For those who think they can prove macro-evolution of species (i.e. creating new ones) via science, please do so. No one has been able to prove it as of yet. There are theories abound, but no proof. Nor is there any for God, not the materialistic evidence that science and the world is based on in our time. But there are those amazing Marian apparitions, Stigmatas, miracles at Lourdes, seances and mediums who sometimes produce biological materializations that leave behind imprints in clay or can be touched by others.

Do you know Darwin used observations of intentional modification of biological form through selective breeding as evidence for evolution on a larger scale? In doing so he fails to see the link between the modifier/biological form and God-The Source and humans-everything else. It takes intelligence somewhere to do the modifications suggested. And these are micro anyways, within a species, not creating new ones.

The theory of evolution is full of holes. Especially given fossil records from the 1800s-1900s of anatomically modern humans being found in earth strata dating from millions, to hundreds of millions of years old. These fossils could still be found today, I wouldn't know, you wouldn't know, and neither did many people back then, because all findings stay pretty quiet unless people make a ruckuss out of it, stir up interest. After the theory of evolution was brought in, so many people accepted it over the religious doctrine of creation, that afterwards a lot of careers were made from chosing a certain stance on evolution. When you have some archeologist or anthropologist who made a discovery that could bring down a doctrine so accepted as evolution, there are those who don't want it to be true. Some people will look at evidence and accept it even though they don't like it, while others are more sinister and egotistical and attempt to ridicule and discredit the findings or the one(s) who found it.

There are a lot of buried finds, evidence, truth, in many fields of science. I just know/believe, with the information I have gathered, that there is a supreme spirit source that everything was derived from, the pure single energy. This is also talked about in quantum mechanics, the origin of the big bang came from a sea of energy, and this is also in Vedic scriptures.

I used to believe the major doctrine, the accepted "truths". The brainwashing of the education system, academia, establishments to accept it all. Evolution was right on, chimps and humans were related from a common ancestor millions of years ago, etc... But when you learn something that's different, and it makes more sense, well for me, that is the truth. If something else comes along that makes even more sense, then that is the truth. Sometimes it takes time to accept something else, and sometimes it just needs to be presented in a different way for you to understand it for what it is


Evolution as it is currently being pushed in mainstream is not how I understand life to have been created. There needs to be something creating. Sure there can be evolution, even macro like new species, but where do these come from if not from biological modification from something, if not God or another spirit form, then at least human or alien biological forms doing modifications. We are not like Cro-magnon, not like Neanderthals, not like Astraleophitecus, or chimps. We are unique, as they were all unique from us. All biological beings on this planet share similarities in their genetic structure... and some people still use genetic similarity between chimps and humans to "prove" a relation.

They say, chance, natural selction, and self organization are the evolutionary reasons behind amino acids combining to form the first pre-biotic soup, that they say led to more complex biological forms that required more ingredients that just spontaneously appeared when needed to create more life. Does that make sense? No, not to me at least.

[edit on 26-8-2007 by aZiXx]



posted on Aug, 26 2007 @ 09:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by aZiXx
For those who think they can prove macro-evolution of species (i.e. creating new ones) via science, please do so. No one has been able to prove it as of yet. There are theories abound, but no proof.


Sure there is. The fossil record is littered with intermediate types on their way from one species to another, being an intermediate species themselves.

Archaeopteryx is the prime example.

The only reason you can't see macroevolution in action is that it moves at the geological time scale and we just don't live long enough to witness it.



posted on Aug, 26 2007 @ 10:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by MajorMalfunction

Originally posted by aZiXx
For those who think they can prove macro-evolution of species (i.e. creating new ones) via science, please do so. No one has been able to prove it as of yet. There are theories abound, but no proof.


Sure there is. The fossil record is littered with intermediate types on their way from one species to another, being an intermediate species themselves.

Archaeopteryx is the prime example.

The only reason you can't see macroevolution in action is that it moves at the geological time scale and we just don't live long enough to witness it.


Where are the actual archaeopteryx specimens???
Here's a site (non christian) with unbiased Facts about "archy". Archaeopteryx a fraud?



posted on Aug, 27 2007 @ 01:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by MajorMalfunction
The fossil record is littered with intermediate types on their way from one species to another, being an intermediate species themselves.


Well that's a new species, you may call it intermediate if you want. So how did it come into being from the dinosaur into the bird? Was it a dinosaur for millions of years, and then it was this species all of a sudden, then millions of years later it evolved into a bird? It seems like quite a big leep for a mother to give offspring of such a great difference from regular offspring.

Or is it that there are many intermediate species between major groups like dinosaurs and birds that allow for a smooth transition from one to the next? In that case, there must be more fossil record for evidence of this, unless it's just an assumption that there are more intermediates. Maybe we just haven't found fossils yet, could be, but I don't think many more will be found. Archaeopteryx lithographica would be another species among many in the great design of things that change over time. That is a type of evolution, but not in the sense of old species giving birth to new ones. That evolution is not logical from my understanding.

This is what makes most sense to me, as there is lack of scientific evidence to prove the rate of progression between one species to the other, or to explain how the evolution/transformation even happens to begin with other than just saying, "Well obviously it happens, we are here" ...


Same for humans and the previous hominid and hominoids.

[edit on 27-8-2007 by aZiXx]



posted on Aug, 27 2007 @ 06:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by aZiXx
Well that's a new species, you may call it intermediate if you want. So how did it come into being from the dinosaur into the bird? Was it a dinosaur for millions of years, and then it was this species all of a sudden, then millions of years later it evolved into a bird? It seems like quite a big leep for a mother to give offspring of such a great difference from regular offspring.


no, it's a very slow and gradual process. each generation gives slight changes until a new species is eventually distinguishable from the previous species. it's quite clear that you don't have a very good grasp of the evolutionary process.. i suggest you do some more reading up on it before you continue your criticisms.


Originally posted by Clearskies
Where are the actual archaeopteryx specimens???
Here's a site (non christian) with unbiased Facts about "archy". Archaeopteryx a fraud?


en.wikipedia.org...
read up.... your source seems to be a bit outdated.

[edit on 8/27/07 by madnessinmysoul]



posted on Aug, 27 2007 @ 07:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by aZiXx
Or is it that there are many intermediate species between major groups like dinosaurs and birds that allow for a smooth transition from one to the next? In that case, there must be more fossil record for evidence of this, unless it's just an assumption that there are more intermediates.


Usually an assumption that turns out to be correct when the fossil is found. There are plenty of intermediate species that have been projected to exist, and then their fossils discovered.



Maybe we just haven't found fossils yet, could be, but I don't think many more will be found.


Oh c'mon, we're always finding new fossils. There are millions of them out there.


Archaeopteryx lithographica would be another species among many in the great design of things that change over time. That is a type of evolution, but not in the sense of old species giving birth to new ones. That evolution is not logical from my understanding.


And you would be correct. A species won't give birth to a new species. Just the same species with a slightly longer beak or slightly more hooked toe that can reach into trees better to grab bugs. Then they'll get all of the bugs and the other short beaked birds won't get any, and die. Then the one with the longest toe gets all the chicks. Eventually, after countless generations you have a new freaky bird with a long beak and long hooked toe.

Does that make sense?

The one question that creationists can never answer me is this. Creation's stance is that every creature that is alive now has always been alive. God's not constantly throwing new animals at us out of the blue. So, if they've always been alive, why do we not have a 65 million y/o fossil record of the modern lion or tiger or bear (oh my!) (BTW, I refuse to even debate the 6,000 y/o earth theory. It's ridiculous and I won't even dignify it.)



posted on Aug, 27 2007 @ 08:03 AM
link   
I don't believe in creationism, especially in the biblical sense. But I don't think scientists have the big bang right either. I think the source is something that is beyond our comprehension just like the universe is infinite. We can't wrap our brains around it.

I think there are many big delightful discoveries to come.



posted on Aug, 27 2007 @ 08:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by nixie_nox
I don't believe in creationism, especially in the biblical sense. But I don't think scientists have the big bang right either. I think the source is something that is beyond our comprehension just like the universe is infinite. We can't wrap our brains around it.


But we can wrap our brains around it if we try.

This is the most aggravating thing about it. This whole debate is about whether or not to throw in the towel. To say "I as a human am too dumb to understand the universe, so I'll stop trying right now". We can wrap our brains around it. The clues are there for us to find, and if we learn from our mistakes, and adapt our theories, and continue to believe that we can figure it out when it's all on the table, then we can truly advance as a species. To simply say "I don't know, and I never can know" keep us in that sheep flock that limits our understanding of what's outside the gates.



posted on Aug, 27 2007 @ 09:18 AM
link   
I'd just like to throw in some links about one site in the world where the fossils are rich and evolution can practically be seen to occur in the layers:

The Burgess Shale.

Wiki Entry

One more site

There are more links within the links I provided. The Burgess Shale -- if someone actually believes that "god" put that there to test their faith, and tries to tell me that with sincerity, I will have no choice but to



new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 14  15  16    18  19  20 >>

log in

join