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: 19
7
<< 16  17  18    20  21  22 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 3 2007 @ 05:36 PM
link   
reply to post by melatonin
 


Though there is "evidence" for a "global" flood in 100's of cultures around the world,i don't think thats what created the grand canyon.coz,as any fool knows,to create something that big from water erosion would take a mighty long time!!

I look at the grand canyon,like the colossal one on mars,as a giant tear in the planet.that is the image i get when i see satellite pictures,and as our planet is quite volatile its easy to see how the canyon could be formed in such a manner.

There is evidence of people living there up to 10,000 yrs ago,so the "tear" must've happened long before then.obviously,lol.there are caves of habitation up high on the cliffs in parts of the canyon suggesting that the river was much higher than it is now.


And,this is for Clearskies,to suggest that creatures stay in the layer their supposed is just stupidity.we know through upheavel of the land that things will move.there are areas in the world were sedimentry levels have turned from horizontal to vertical! also,in countries of a wet climate,it has been known that creatures can move down several layers!




posted on Sep, 3 2007 @ 08:24 PM
link   
uh dude, I did read and understand his reply. I replied to the entire post not just what he wrote because what he replied to was, in a round about way, attempting to refute what was posted.

[edit on 3-9-2007 by Methuselah]

[edit on 3-9-2007 by Methuselah]



posted on Sep, 5 2007 @ 01:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by Methuselah


but they're never found. we have yet to find a single out of place human fossil! we haven't found any dinosaurs next to humans in the same strata.


there you go, you yourself are doing it now, claiming it to be a fluke.

they find them all the time and people get fired for presenting these or attempting to present these to the public. or they are labeled as liars.

they find them all the time and then shortly after find some way to cover it up or to provide from sort of explanation as to why its not what we think it is.

This is a bunch of BULL!

Evolution =/= Science
Evolution = Politics

Science doesnt hide findings and facts but its happening... why?



You're fired if you go against the norm. I don't see any grants coming from foundations that sponsor creation. Society has ruled that evolution is here to stay. I guess religion has failed the public for so long that the schools decided to toss it out.

Commerse and politics can oppose the study of real estate if it hinders the economy. This happened with Intel in the state of Oregon. The construction crew found something in the earth when they were preparing the foundation for the site. Those in charge believed that scedules and cost were more important than history.

[edit on 5-9-2007 by lostinspace]



posted on Sep, 5 2007 @ 05:19 PM
link   
YES! YES! YES!

someone else is seeing what I am seeing.

This entire site is about denying ignorance and people still choosing to be willingly ignorant. I cant help my fold my hands and pray for grace to continue to fall.



I guess religion has failed the public for so long that the schools decided to toss it out.


I wouldnt say that religion failed anyone. we based our country on Christianity and it got us freedom, then we decide to toss God aside. "God shed his grace on thee" dont you think that means anything?
If it werent for our forefathers (Christians), we wouldnt be a free nation.

[edit on 5-9-2007 by Methuselah]



posted on Sep, 5 2007 @ 05:30 PM
link   
Heh, guys, creation research gets a tonne of dosh. There is the pseudoscientific organisation Institute for Creation Research.

More info

Have a guess how much their revenue is?

About $4 million. Lots of Xian dupes out there.

They produce nothing but pseudoscientific crap. This is an example of their scientific behaviour...


Massimo Pigliucci has criticized ICR for claiming to be interested in research while requiring students and faculty to sign a promise that the published material will correspond to a literal interpretation of the Bible, thereby excluding facts that aren't predetermined by religious doctrine.[12] Moreover, Pigliucci notes that even within ICR "the dispensation of degrees has created internal schisms that have often resulted in the sudden dismissal of some ICR scientists."[13] For example, a 1986 thesis titled "A Classical Field theory for the Propagation of Light" was approved by Duane Gish and Thomas Barnes, but not by the third committee member Gerald Aarsdma because the thesis was based on pre-Einsteinian physics and "invoked the long dismissed existence of aether".[14] Furthermore, creationist Arleton Murray was denied a position for his belief that dinosaurs existed before humans.

en.wikipedia.org...

Thank the FSM that these guys have no input into real science.


[edit on 5-9-2007 by melatonin]



posted on Sep, 5 2007 @ 07:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Methuselah
I wouldnt say that religion failed anyone. we based our country on Christianity and it got us freedom, then we decide to toss God aside.


the treaty of tripoli explicitly states that the united states was not founded on the christian religion... and it was unanimously ratified under our second president.



"God shed his grace on thee" dont you think that means anything?
If it werent for our forefathers (Christians), we wouldnt be a free nation.


tom paine, tom jefferson, ben franklin, james buchanan?
jefferson called god a hocus-pocus fantasy
thomas paine said that christianity is an outrage to common sense
buchanan said that religious views inhibit intelligence
franklin... just take your pick with franklin.



Treat of Tripoli: Art. 11. As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.


this was made US sovereign law in 1797... only 10 years after the constitution was ratified.



posted on Sep, 6 2007 @ 12:28 PM
link   
yeah dude, you need to quit selecting the parts of history that fit your side of the story.

In God we Trust
God Shed his Grace on thee
One nation under God

Why are the 10 commandments in the courthouse?

This country was obviously based on Christianity. the more we try to put God out of the picture, the worse its gonna get.



Thank the FSM that these guys have no input into real science.


Science is science, things we can observe, test and demonstrate.
you demonstrate to me once that a something can produce something other than its kind.

and if evolution really did work, there would be different kinds of animals in the world or there would be a whole lot less.
Evolution is just as real as creation, its religious! religion does not require a God or anything to worship. Atheism does not require a god and does not require that anything be worshiped. does not carry on any kind of tradition. it simply says that we are here and we are the best therefore I am God, which is what evolution says, Evolution = Atheism.

[edit on 6-9-2007 by Methuselah]



posted on Sep, 6 2007 @ 01:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Methuselah
yeah dude, you need to quit selecting the parts of history that fit your side of the story.

In God we Trust


And you don't seem to know much about the actual history of this country



Fact Sheets: Currency & Coins
History of 'In God We Trust'

The motto IN GOD WE TRUST was placed on United States coins largely because of the increased religious sentiment existing during the Civil War. Secretary of the Treasury Salmon P. Chase received many appeals from devout persons throughout the country, urging that the United States recognize the Deity on United States coins. From Treasury Department records, it appears that the first such appeal came in a letter dated November 13, 1861.

www.treas.gov...


God Shed his Grace on thee

From America the Beautiful

en.wikipedia.org...
The words are by Katharine Lee Bates, an English professor at Wellesley College. In 1893, Bates had taken a train trip to Colorado Springs, Colorado, to teach a short summer school session at Colorado College, and several of the sights on her trip found their way into her poem:



One nation under God



www.azcentral.com...
It wasn't Thomas Jefferson or James Madison. The Pledge of Allegiance was composed in 1892 by a Baptist minister and socialist named Francis Bellamy. The original pledge written by him read: "I pledge allegiance to my flag and to the republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."

The words "my flag" were changed to "the flag of the United States of America" in the 1920s. Congress added the words "under God" in 1954, when the greatest threat to the United States was the "godless" Soviet Union.


The Founding Fathers had nothing to do with any of the "God" stuff that we associate with this country.



[edit on 6-9-2007 by Rasobasi420]

[edit on 6-9-2007 by Rasobasi420]



posted on Sep, 6 2007 @ 03:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by Methuselah
Science is science, things we can observe, test and demonstrate.
you demonstrate to me once that a something can produce something other than its kind.


Kind? Maybe you can attempt to give a scientifically coherent definition of this. I've yet to see one in all my years.

We can work from this if you like:


These, moreover, you shall detest among the birds; they are abhorrent, not to be eaten: the eagle and the vulture and the buzzard, 14and the kite and the falcon in its kind, 15every raven in its kind, 16 and the ostrich and the owl and the sea gull and the hawk in its kind, 17and the little owl and the cormorant and the great owl, 18and the white owl and the pelican and the carrion vulture, 19and the stork, the heron in its kinds, and the hoopoe, and the bat.


In this case, we have bats included with the birds. Now that is enough to have a laugh about the bible's scientific status, but that's not my point.

Bats are actually an biological order of animals (chiroptera). In this case order is a kind.

Whereas, the hoopoe is actually a biological species (Upupa Epops). So, in this case, species is kind.

Cormorant can be defined generally at the biological genus level: Phalacrocorax, but can be higher at the family level (depending). So here kind is genus or family.

Seagulls are at the family level - Laridae. So here kind is at the family level.

So, we have at least four different comparable ways to view kinds in biology. Species, Genus, Family, or Order. Completely incoherent and useless, even worse when we think that bats are meant to be a bird, heh.



and if evolution really did work, there would be different kinds of animals in the world or there would be a whole lot less.


Eh? If evolution is true, there would be more or less species?

That's a bit of a useless statement.


it simply says that we are here and we are the best therefore I am God, which is what evolution says, Evolution = Atheism.


No, it doesn't. That is your fundie indoctrination speaking.

Evolution is a scientific theory, many people of faith accept it is a valid and supported explanation of the diversity of life on earth. Where does it say in evolutionary theory that 'we are the best'. I don't think it contains any such value statements.

Meth, you do talk some piffle sometimes...

[edit on 6-9-2007 by melatonin]



posted on Sep, 6 2007 @ 04:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by Methuselah
yeah dude, you need to quit selecting the parts of history that fit your side of the story.


selecting parts of history? i'm going back to the FOUNDING of the nation. you said that america is founded on christianity, i specifically refuted that claim with a treaty written a decade after the constitution... seems like you're just ignoring the one thing i need to point out to refute your claim



In God we Trust


first added (limitedly) in 1863..... made regular in the 1950s...
www.treas.gov...



God Shed his Grace on thee


nothing governmental about that... and published in 1895...over 100 years after america
en.wikipedia.org...



One nation under God


also added in the 1950s
en.wikipedia.org...

hmmm... seems like you can't come up with anything from the same time period as the treaty of tripoli which stands as US sovereign law and was written only 10 years after the constitution...



Why are the 10 commandments in the courthouse?


good question, especially since they serve as at most a tiny partial basis for our laws.... alright, i'm going to go with the version of the 10 that protestants are more likely to use since there are several versions...

1: not a crime
2: not a crime
3: not a crime
4: not a crime
5: not a crime
6: crime, but hardly needs to be found in the 10 commandments for it to be ruled as such
7: not a crime, though it is grounds for divorce
8: crime, but doesn't need to be found in the 10....
9: only a crime in the media or on the witness stand
10: coveting is not a crime....

now, show me where this country was founded on christianity...
looks like all you can't show me something that isn't actually an ADDITION instead of a founding principle.



and if evolution really did work, there would be different kinds of animals in the world or there would be a whole lot less.


why is that?



Evolution is just as real as creation, its religious! religion does not require a God or anything to worship.


no, it just needs some sort of supernatural position and/or dogma... which evolution has none of..



Atheism does not require a god and does not require that anything be worshiped. does not carry on any kind of tradition.


atheism is a religion like my not collecting stamps is a hobby
atheism is a religion like bald is a hair colour.



it simply says that we are here and we are the best therefore I am God,


...no, that's actually quite the defamation of atheist and religious scientists supporting evolution right there (quite a few... 3-4 in 10 biologists are religious)



which is what evolution says, Evolution = Atheism.


...yes, tell that to the catholic church..



posted on Sep, 6 2007 @ 05:12 PM
link   
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
 


Dude,i think i like you


Always good to have an argument backed up with hard fact!!



posted on Sep, 6 2007 @ 07:24 PM
link   
according to my education (homeschooling, which offered me a lot of time to study history) this country was founded on Christianity. thats why we have our freedom and that is the only reason we are the most powerful country.

go ahead and kick God out, see what happens.
we took prayer out of schools, look what happened there. kids bring guns to school and shoot people these days. back when prayer and bibles were allowed in school, things were a lot better. kids would get in trouble for shooting spitballs. now they go to jail because they shot a classmate.
check out this website
www.afn.org...
maybe this will help clear some things up for you.



posted on Sep, 6 2007 @ 08:04 PM
link   
Meth, you have been lied to in so many ways.

I'm really sorry to hear you are a homeschooler. I actually guessed as much a while back. My condolences. The funny thing (or sad thing from the Xian POV) is that such fundie education can actually readily lead people to lose faith altogether, as you have a house of cards as a worldview. Not that it bothers me, of course.

You now have the opportunity to educate yourself. I'm sure the interconnecting series of tubes, called the interweb, can help you. Books are probably better though. Read lots, read often. The cognitive dissonance will be painful, but you'll survive.

And I do mean read more than what is provided by right-wing fundamentalist relations. There's a whole different world out there, one that is just a tad more logically consistent and congruent with the real-world.

[edit on 6-9-2007 by melatonin]



posted on Sep, 6 2007 @ 08:19 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 will go first and say that I believe the Bible's account of our Origin. Everywhere I look I see designs and I know that there must be a designer.


Thanks for the broad range of options to choose from. You obviously believe in creation and good for you. If it makes you happy then why not just stick to that belief instead of asking loaded questions about it? Seriously I don't think that there is any question that humans or 'mankind' as you call them "came from a rock".

Wherever humans 'came' from it is certain that we are here now and that there is strong peer-reviewed scientific evidence to suggest that we evolved from a series of ape-like creatures into our present form. There is nothing in any major religious text that actually denies this or confirms it. Nor is there, in any major religious text, an explanation of basic scientific principles ie gravity, the structure of the universe, the shape of the world etc.

This leads me to the conclusion that the major religions of this world do not exist to answer scientific questions, science does that, but that they exist to answer questions on the nature of human spiritual development (which with some exceptions they seem to do quite poorly).

Now I am not trying to attack you personally here tij but to offer some perspective on this matter, does it really impact upon a person's spiritual existence whether or not they were born from a 'rock' or created by the hand of 'god'?



posted on Sep, 6 2007 @ 08:47 PM
link   
hey Mel I forgot to mention that I learned about Evolution first because it was the only thing offered.
I learned a lot of things that are taught in the public schools simply because it was the only way to make sure I wasnt falling behind.
I was taught a lot of things that were taught in public schools.
I learned that dinosaurs ruled the earth before man appeared out of nowhere.
I learned that the earth was millions of years old. I learned that the moon was once part of the earth. I learned that the continents used to fit together like a puzzle.

then when I actually went to public school, it finally clicked that none of that stuff made sense and that evolution was the dumbest theory ever.
oh and funny how the theory changed from "man came from monkeys" to "humans and monkeys share a common ancestor"
evolution is flawed, they keep changing it and they keep lying about it.

the bible hasnt changed except through translation (you get that with anything, you always lose when you translate, thats what footnotes are for)



posted on Sep, 6 2007 @ 08:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by DisabledVet
I prefer to go with PROOF rather than a STORY.

We have the fossils....simple enough... creationists cant disprove that which exists and has been proven....


Can't it be both ways? Does god need to snap his fingers to make man, or could he have started man's journey 4 billion years in the making with planet earth and one amino acid?

The funny thing is man cannot create basic life out of nothing, and so one of the greatest mysteries of the universe is did some random chance happened that created life on earth?



posted on Sep, 6 2007 @ 08:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by JimmyBlonde

Wherever humans 'came' from it is certain that we are here now and that there is strong peer-reviewed scientific evidence to suggest that we evolved from a series of ape-like creatures into our present form. There is nothing in any major religious text that actually denies this or confirms it. Nor is there, in any major religious text, an explanation of basic scientific principles ie gravity, the structure of the universe, the shape of the world etc.



Yes there were ape like creatures but man's evolution from them is pure theory...just thought i would add that



posted on Sep, 6 2007 @ 08:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by Methuselah

the bible hasnt changed except through translation (you get that with anything, you always lose when you translate, thats what footnotes are for)



Without doubt it remains close to the original text. However people's attitudes and interpretations of said text change constantly.

You might even call this a form of 'evolution'.



posted on Sep, 6 2007 @ 09:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by Methuselah
hey Mel I forgot to mention that I learned about Evolution first because it was the only thing offered.


Glad to hear they taught you more than creationism.


then when I actually went to public school, it finally clicked that none of that stuff made sense and that evolution was the dumbest theory ever.
oh and funny how the theory changed from "man came from monkeys" to "humans and monkeys share a common ancestor"
evolution is flawed, they keep changing it and they keep lying about it.


It depends how you view it. Both can be considered to be correct. We have a common ancestor, and at one point in the past this ancestor would be classed as a proto-monkey, and later a proto-ape. However, at no point did a monkey birth a human. It's a bit like saying you came from a european (assuming you are white), at some point in the past this would be true for an ancestor of yours, but I'm sure your direct ancestor (i.e. parent) was a yank.

It is just better to say we have a common ancestor, leaves less space for misconception.

All human knowledge is flawed. We don't have absolute truth.


the bible hasnt changed except through translation


And you actually think that is a good thing comapred to science?

I also don't think it is true. Comma Johanneum. Pericope Adulterae. There's more I'm sure.

[edit on 6-9-2007 by melatonin]



posted on Sep, 6 2007 @ 10:06 PM
link   
reply to post by Xtrozero
 


All scientific knowledge is theory because it's open to change when new information comes in. What you are trying to accuse science of is being a hypothesis, which is the first steps in forming a theory.

By the logic that evolution is "only" a theory, so is gravity, thermodynamics and computers. So I suggest you shut down that theoretical box you're typing on, eat your cold dinner and tie all your furniture to the floor because gravity is "only" a theory.

Please, read the descriptions of scientific law, theory and hypothesis at this site.

When people misuse or mistake the meaning of theory when it applies to the sciences it makes me cringe in embarrassment for them.



new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 16  17  18    20  21  22 >>

log in

join