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.

 

How can you honestly believe in God.

page: 32
17
<< 29  30  31    33  34  35 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 30 2007 @ 02:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by melatonin


We don't know that the universe had a creator, or was created.



You do understand that the universe is a self replicating machine don't you?
God got those gears turning.




posted on Aug, 30 2007 @ 03:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by Conspiriology
In the 1950s, she said, scientists Stanley Miller and Harold Urey ran electricity through a soup of chemicals to show how chemicals on the early Earth could assemble themselves into the building blocks of life.

"Anyone read about it?" she asked.

"It's in our book," a student said.

Crocker said that subsequent research had shown that chemicals used in the experiment did not exist on Earth 4 billion years ago. "The experiment is irrelevant, but you still find it in your books," she said.


The same experiment has been performed in various atmospheres, and it is far from irrelevant. The exact composition of the atmosphere 4 billion years ago is still under examination, if enough hydrogen was present, then it would help form organics.

In fact, it doesn't matter, heh. Because the same chemicals actually exist in space. We don't need amino acids to have been produced on earth.

Lots of pathways exist. The didn't even need to be exposed to the atmosphere, it could have happened under the ocean, in space, under various atmospheric conditions.

Just another creationist canard. Indeed, it doesn't even speak to the theory of evolution, just abiogenesis.



Originally posted by Conspiriology
She cited another experiment, involving researcher Bernard Kettlewell, who produced pictures of variously colored peppered moths on tree trunks to show that when the moths were not well camouflaged, they were more likely to be eaten by birds -- a process of natural selection that influenced the color of the moths. "This comes from your book -- it is not actually true," Crocker said. "The experiment was falsified. He glued his moths to the trees."

Gasps and giggles burst out. Why was the experiment still in the textbook? Crocker said the authors' answer was, "because it makes the point . . . The problem with evolution is that it is all supposition -- this evolved into this -- but there is no evidence."


This is just more BS.

Kettlewell stuck the moths on the trunks for illustrative purposes. The study was done properly.

In fact, the study has just been replicated and validated.

news.independent.co.uk...

But just keep regurgitating creationist lies. I'll repeat what I said earlier. I'm sure your guy said something about not bearing false witness.

Also, why are you plagiarising? Half of that post is just a copy & paste from other creationist BS sites. At least give some reference to the original source.


he has yet to insult something a personal to people as their belief in GOD.


I try my best not to. It is your belief and you're entirely entitled to it. I think you're wrong, but I can't really prove it, so there's little point in even trying. I try to be as objective as I can, use evidence and reason, and that leads me to my position. But, other people are not me, and they can believe what they like.

What does bother me is misrepresentation of science, and especially liars for jesus, which I tend to think many creationists are. Some, like yourself, probably know no better, and just follow the arguments from others. Others spread BS to bolster a long-dead YEC position.

[edit on 30-8-2007 by melatonin]



posted on Aug, 30 2007 @ 03:18 PM
link   
reply to post by Conspiriology
 


Ok mate,take a breather,you've earned it lol.

Some scientists are just as guilty as religious people when it comes to not asking or answering questions.because to do so is to be classed as a "heretic."

I find that problem all the time with history.like the afore mentioned topics history is all about learning,about discovering new things.try and get an egyptologist to look differently at what they know and they lose it big time.history has many,many theories because it don't have all the facts.but if new evidence comes to light that will change a theory,it should not be ignored or ridiculed.people should say,well when i wrote that theory i didn't have that evidence.but now we do,we can come up with something completely different! sadly that doesn't happen.historians think there are hard and fast rules,but that can not be so when the thing you study is always changing because new discoveries come to light.same goes for science and religion.





[edit on 30-8-2007 by jakyll]



posted on Aug, 30 2007 @ 03:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by depth om
You do understand that the universe is a self replicating machine don't you?
God got those gears turning.


That's an assumption, based on no evidence.

But, if it makes you happy, then that's fine by me.



posted on Aug, 30 2007 @ 03:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by melatonin
That's an assumption, based on no evidence.

But, if it makes you happy, then that's fine by me.


Yes, that is my faith. But is the universe not constantly re-creating itself? Everything runs its course, leading way to the next iteration of its form.



posted on Aug, 30 2007 @ 03:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by AncientVoid
How can you say the easter bunny does not exist? Where's your proof? How can you see god existing when you can't see the bunny existing?


I hear this comparison so much. The Easter Bunny is proven to be an actual human imitator, and the human will admit and demonstrate to dispel the myth. There is no one imitating God in such a manner that can fool us as Children into believing it, then explains to us as we get older that it was actually they, a human, in the "God" outfit being God. Its not a reasonable comparison.

God has no form, no physical dimensions. Compare God to something with no physical dimensions.


I see this has turned into an Evolution versus Creation debate.

Try this idea on for size:

Evolution is a Creation.

It is a process which is not random, but has set values, and a set ending point, and a set starting point, and variables that affect it.

To me, as a Computer Programmer, I feel like "something" had to create Evolution. Evolution couldn't just "be the way it is and always was". To say this is equally as preposterous as saying "God is and always was" to a Non-Believer. They just don't buy it, theres no proof. And likewise, theres no proof that Evolution is not a process created by a higher intelligence for the purpose of "self upgrading life" which will reach its own peak potential -- again limited or designed by the Creator -- without the need of direct intervention by the "Creator" to make life take the necessary jumps from this form to this form. No, "Creator" is too wise for that, if indeed Creator made "everything", he'd probably make automated life systems, self upgrading to a peak point over time, with variables in place to mutate it slightly, again, all in the "program" called Evolution "God" wrote and uploads to planets like Earth after his "Terraforming" program completes its function.

Something cannot come from nothing and all the matter which exists in the Universe today could not have "generated itself" from the result of the "Big Bang", where again Primordial "whatevers" had to form out of thin air becaue back then there was NOTHING, in order to get to the point to cause a "Big Bang" which instantly creates a Universe that has gobs and gobs of matter. It is not logical, it might be partially right, but I strongly feel mankind has tooted his own horn on this one and is assuming that he knows way more than he actually does when it comes to the origins of the Universe and therefore eventual life, and thus intelligent life, and human beings via Evolution.

I could present the argument that Gravity should not exist. Why should this pull matter towards it? well because its mass is greater or blah blah blah. Okay then, why are the "rules of the cosmos" written that way, why doesnt the matter.. get pushed away instead of pulled toward, causing this Gravity? Well, because the way it is, is just the way that it is, simply put. Well then, something must've made it the way it is. Where did all these parameters come from, was the Big Bang intelligent enough to come up with the entirety of astrophysics?

Humans didnt create astrophysics, they discovered astrophysics as truth. They discovered that some ideas and theories ended up being the way it actually is through observation and the scientific method. So if its just a discovery or set of measurements and names for things if you will, then something Greater made it that way to begin with. We didnt come up with the ideas of astro physics, say "Alright, time to apply this to the Universe to make it in line with our ideas" . No, it was opposite. The ideas of the Men were in line already with the reality of the Universe, this is a discovery, not a creation. So again, who or what created the laws of astrophysics?

Stuff doesnt just "Happen". Things arent just "the way they are". This is accepting Ignorance. No, something Intelligent designed them as such. And His name starts with a capital "G".

[edit on 8/30/2007 by runetang]

[edit on 8/30/2007 by runetang]



posted on Aug, 30 2007 @ 03:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by depth om
Yes, that is my faith. But is the universe not constantly re-creating itself? Everything runs its course, leading way to the next iteration of its form.


If you're asking my opinion, I do tend to side with the cyclic theories of the universe, like Turok & Steinhardt and others


Don't see a need for a designer or creator myself. But each to their own.

[edit on 30-8-2007 by melatonin]



posted on Aug, 31 2007 @ 01:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by depth om
You're calling others fools, when you yourself display foolishness.

"It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth."

Of course spheres are 3d not circles. The men who wrote these passages weren't mathematicians. But they knew what they were explaining. That the earth is round. (almost round)

The Bible shouldn't be read as a literal picture book at all times.
It is more so a book of koans, meant to be meditated upon.


You know the person who wrote that probably took the item from the flat Earth theory. Doubt he knew what he was talking about and just assumes god created Earth like that. If he knew the Earth was a sphere then he would have told the world. When you say don't read it literally, who can't just make assumptions to fit modern ideas and facts.



posted on Aug, 31 2007 @ 01:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by depth om
You're calling others fools, when you yourself display foolishness.

"It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth."

Of course spheres are 3d not circles. The men who wrote these passages weren't mathematicians. But they knew what they were explaining. That the earth is round. (almost round)

The Bible shouldn't be read as a literal picture book at all times.
It is more so a book of koans, meant to be meditated upon.


You know the person who wrote that probably took the item from the flat Earth theory. Doubt he knew what he was talking about and just assumes god created Earth like that. If he knew the Earth was a sphere then he would have told the world. When you say don't read it literally, who can't just make assumptions to fit modern ideas and facts.


Originally posted by runetang
I hear this comparison so much. The Easter Bunny is proven to be an actual human imitator, and the human will admit and demonstrate to dispel the myth. There is no one imitating God in such a manner that can fool us as Children into believing it, then explains to us as we get older that it was actually they, a human, in the "God" outfit being God. Its not a reasonable comparison.

So you know for a fact there's no Easter bunny like the fact you know there's a god? Just beacuse we can imitate it doesn't mean it doesn't exist.



Originally posted by runetang
God has no form, no physical dimensions. Compare God to something with no physical dimensions.


Where you get your information from?


Originally posted by Clearskies
Moses saw God's back.


God's back is still god =.=... and this contradicts with the previous post which says he has no form, unless your going to say he made himself a form, etc...


Originally posted by runetang
Something cannot come from nothing and all the matter which exists in the Universe today could not have "generated itself" from the result of the "Big Bang", where again Primordial "whatevers" had to form out of thin air becaue back then there was NOTHING, in order to get to the point to cause a "Big Bang" which instantly creates a Universe that has gobs and gobs of matter. It is not logical, it might be partially right, but I strongly feel mankind has tooted his own horn on this one and is assuming that he knows way more than he actually does when it comes to the origins of the Universe and therefore eventual life, and thus intelligent life, and human beings via Evolution.


You think it's not logical to have something out of nothing? Then tell me this, if that's true then if you keep on going backwards, then there could never be a beginning in the first place. It's also not logic for god to be always there, and nothing created him.

We know alot more about this universe then what you guys assume to know about the 'afterlife'.


Originally posted by runetang
Stuff doesnt just "Happen". Things arent just "the way they are". This is accepting Ignorance. No, something Intelligent designed them as


Then how did god come about? Did he just happen to be there? That statement is flawed. Cause it goes in a loop or never ending trail...
How can't you see this statement apply to god as well?

[edit on 31-8-2007 by AncientVoid]



posted on Aug, 31 2007 @ 01:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by Conspiriology

[Yawn: yeah it's called hearsay and it does'nt surprise me in the least that you are so astounded at the most academic protocol for establishing juris prudence.

Look JACKASS,, I don't know what your beef is with either GOD or religion but I doubt you have even read the bible cover to cover. Your online persona even your avatar illustrates you have a lot of hostility towards something that doesn't even exist according to you.


wow calling people jackass, so immature. If you can't reply without restoring to language like that, then don't post at all.

Even if you read the bible cover from cover doesn't you understand it, nor is there a correct meaning anymore cause people keep on saying your not meant to read it literally.

His avatar doesn't represent hostility towards something that doesn't exist, but the people that says it exist. How could you not see that?



posted on Aug, 31 2007 @ 05:40 AM
link   
It has been said that God is Good.
I believe in Good

It has been said that God is Love
I believe in Love

It has been said that God created life
Life is

It has been said that a man came who claimed to be the son of God

He did many things that could not be explained in his time

This man told of Gods love for us and repeatedly taught in ways that were not a known way for his time.

Love, Forgiveness, Compassion, Charity, Hospitatily and Humility...

If mankind practiced this way, perhaps mankind would know a better way.

The Better way is Gods way.

I Believe in God

Amen

[edit on 31-8-2007 by HIFIGUY]



posted on Aug, 31 2007 @ 09:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by HIFIGUY
It has been said that God is Good.
I believe in Good


depends, does a good being order genocides? is a good being a misogynist?



It has been said that God is Love
I believe in Love


would love order mass rape?



It has been said that God created life
Life is


science has adequetly refuted this claim.



It has been said that a man came who claimed to be the son of God


but we don't have any real historical evidence of his existence...



He did many things that could not be explained in his time


no, it's CLAIMED that the supposed man did many things...



This man told of Gods love for us and repeatedly taught in ways that were not a known way for his time.


unless you were in china or india... buddha and confuscius had really gotten all of the same teachings of jesus minus all that stuff about god way before jesus did...



Love, Forgiveness, Compassion, Charity, Hospitatily and Humility...


yet god is slavery, pestilence, homophobia, genocide, rape, misogyny, pride, and jealousy...



If mankind practiced this way, perhaps mankind would know a better way.


humanity can have all of the above without a sky fairy



The Better way is Gods way.


the better way then involves misogyny and genocide... very nice there...



I Believe in God


you believe in a god that doesn't exist... even within your own religion... at least if you're a christian. the god you've described is a myth, just read a bible and you'll see.



posted on Aug, 31 2007 @ 12:13 PM
link   
I Believe in Good
I Believe in Love
Life is
I believe in Love, Forgiveness, Compassion, Charity, Hospitatily and Humility

You can my belief the " Spirit of Goodwill "

Peace

A reminder on what spirit means:
dictionary.reference.com...


1. the principle of conscious life; the vital principle in humans, animating the body or mediating between body and soul.
2. the incorporeal part of humans: present in spirit though absent in body.
3. the soul regarded as separating from the body at death.
4. conscious, incorporeal being, as opposed to matter: the world of spirit.
5. a supernatural, incorporeal being, esp. one inhabiting a place, object, etc., or having a particular character: evil spirits.
6. a fairy, sprite, or elf.
7. an angel or demon.
8. an attitude or principle that inspires, animates, or pervades thought, feeling, or action: the spirit of reform.
9. (initial capital letter) the divine influence as an agency working in the human heart.
10. a divine, inspiring, or animating being or influence. Num. 11:25; Is. 32:15.
11. (initial capital letter) the third person of the Trinity; Holy Spirit.
12. the soul or heart as the seat of feelings or sentiments, or as prompting to action: a man of broken spirit.
13. spirits, feelings or mood with regard to exaltation or depression: low spirits; good spirits.
14. excellent disposition or attitude in terms of vigor, courage, firmness of intent, etc.; mettle: That's the spirit!
15. temper or disposition: meek in spirit.
16. an individual as characterized by a given attitude, disposition, character, action, etc.: A few brave spirits remained to face the danger.
17. the dominant tendency or character of anything: the spirit of the age.
18. vigorous sense of membership in a group: college spirit.
19. the general meaning or intent of a statement, document, etc. (opposed to letter): the spirit of the law.
20. Chemistry. the essence or active principle of a substance as extracted in liquid form, esp. by distillation.
21. Often, spirits. a strong distilled alcoholic liquor.
22. Chiefly British. alcohol.
23. Pharmacology. a solution in alcohol of an essential or volatile principle; essence.
24. any of certain subtle fluids formerly supposed to permeate the body.
25. the Spirit, God.
–adjective 26. pertaining to something that works by burning alcoholic spirits: a spirit stove.
27. of or pertaining to spiritualist bodies or activities.
–verb (used with object) 28. to animate with fresh ardor or courage; inspirit.
29. to encourage; urge on or stir up, as to action.
30. to carry off mysteriously or secretly (often fol. by away or off): His captors spirited him away.




[edit on 31-8-2007 by HIFIGUY]



posted on Aug, 31 2007 @ 01:17 PM
link   
You're right. God is a myth to men, but true to his followers.

Who is taking advantage of me because of my belief. I am not enlightened enough to see through the "lie" of God? I believe in God, so I obviously haven't read the Bible, and I don't even know the true nature of the God I worship and depend upon. Rationalization is not logical, you who preach logic.

I know the God I worship. I know he doesn't depend upon the wisdom of something he himself created. He doesn't play by the rules of his children.

No, I don't know the reason for all his ways, but I know that when I love God by not loving my self, by using God as a compass, and a rod with which to measure... a powerful peace is established, and a mighty fear developed of the one who first moved. God is the first action having caused all others. God is not what you think, he tells you that.

A chemical and metaphysical link, Christ, served as the visual and material of what God is, immaterial. God is "not of this place". God knew that many men simply would refuse to believe in something they could not perceive with their senses, so he filled a vessel with his being, overflowing, down to earth to guide man and be a brother to those in need.

Now, the only thing separating you from Christ is time and disbelief, but time does not exist, only occurence, so focus on the occurence, Christ occured, so all you are left with is disbelief. Christians themselves do not bring people to God. We plant the seed that the Holy Spirit nurtures and devotion develops.
God is not evil, but he is to be feared. The truth will be known "in time, a time, and a time. "

Jesus said if you follow me, this is pretty much all you'll go through, people trying to hack away your foundation.








[edit on 31-8-2007 by depth om]



posted on Aug, 31 2007 @ 03:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by jakyll



lol.Ok mate,take a breather,you've earned it lol.
Some scientists are just as guilty as religious people when it comes to not asking or answering questions.because to do so is to be classed as a "heretic."


Well lol Cheers to you too Jakyll! I agree with what we can and can't say. I used to think the only two words you couldn't say in forums were "Controlled Demolition" and "Inside Job" . You were summarily called a "twoofer" and castigated like many are in JREF forums.

Here, it is intelligent design and the phrases "Dogma" come flying out of the mouths of Jackasses. The words "Metaphor" are used to attack my explanation but are used to substantiate their own. Hey ya know what,, I DON'T APOLOGIZE FOR MY DOGMATISM!
If I am a believer in Christ and his teachings I have to assume he was telling the truth else he is a liar. To suggest he didn't exist is as idiotic as Holocaust Denyers saying THAT was a lie.

I was asked or was it told that assume all evolutionist are atheist from a post that clearly uses the same quotes taken from the two self described atheists in here. Other then that I make no such assumptions. I haven't preached to anyone in here. Just making the point that their is a bigger possibility for GOD to exist then not.






I find that problem all the time with history.
I agree this too and believe me I see people like Benny hin and other quacks like that and then evanglists wonder why they are met with such skepticism. The Bible talks about the evolutionist warning of mans dabbling in astronomy getting so off the course of why we are here. The question isn't important how we got here. WE ARE HERE and where we are going what happens afterward is what they say GOD was created for, to help us deal with that fear. That couldn't be further from the truth.

The FACTS are CLEAR! Evolution is a theory NOTHING MORE. it has not proved a damn thing and has been the best excuse to ignore a loving GOD by those that ignore his obvious existence.

They say the onus for proving this fact is on the believer but deny the idea of a supernatural GOD.

I would ask,, IS THERE ANY OTHER KIND?

Proving the super natural to the natural never is easy conversely proving GOD does NOT exist is impossible. one cannot prove the non-existence of something defined as an entity beyond our own awareness.

As for evolution,, it will continue to be a theory you won't be hearing the law of evolution in the same way they use the law of gravity to deny intelligent design as foolish as that is, even that proves GOD.




“It must be significant that nearly all the evolutionary stories I learned as student…have been debunked” (Dr. Derek V. Ager, Dept. of Geology, Imperial College, London, The Nature of the Fossil Record, Proceedings of the Geological Assoc., Vol. 87, 1976, pp. 1132-1133).
I submit to Dr Derek even he doesn't already know, that anyone struggling with the idea of GOD and his own conscience his own shame or guilt will gravitate to any silly theory if it excuses him.

Fact is that dog won't hunt either.

WE get off the topic about nipples and dingles being cut off and ,,well come on Jackyll ,, it's all crap and you know it. I admit religion has been it's own worst enemy but religions have little to do with this topic when talking to atheists. I say atheists because to them it isn't the same, it isn't from the same scientific motivation.

Objectivity is out the window because they have a spiteful nature against Religion so GOD is out of the question. Having said that I realize coming from a position of faith to an atheist is folly.

The Nipple thing notwithstanding,, I WOULD LOVE TO HAVE BACK WHATEVER IT WAS THEY CUT OFF MY DINGLE WHEN I WAS BORN AND I"M A GENTILE LOL!

Major is a blithering idiot and he opened the door to that kind of dialogue NOT ME. I don't even bother to appeal to his lack of intelligence. I also won't stop using his posts as an example of the truck load of stupid that comes from an atheist who uses evolution to desguise his angst for Jesus.

If I were a scientist in the manner of dialogue you and perhaps mel is, I'd be telling the guy to back off. It's a tactical strategy that will amount to the same associations of atheism and evolution I was accused of and never committed in the general sense.

Existence of GOD? What's the problem with that?

You can't see him?

How about the past? Does it exist, did it once exist and no longer? Where did it go? Can you still see it?

Yeah IN YOUR MIND but not mine so your past didn't happen.
is that how it is? Like a song that plays in your head whenever Major masturbates his Cerebral Piano.

You won't find me saying he isn't hearing that tune because I REALLY CAN'T SAY CAN I!

That is much like the calling of GOD.

For something that doesn't exist god seems to cause quite stir with people like Major and THAT is just another reason I think GOD is after his butt lol GOD loves him. I have no idea why and if it were up to me I'd say hey let em have his disbelief. I am certain he will be asked the Dr Phil Phrase "Hows that workin for ya"

The attachement to Christianity and Intelligent Design is no reason to discount it but prejudice of Religious people will bring forth some pretty ignorant statements from Major's "Wealth of Scientific Knowledge"

Madismysoul,, since religion is so great a source of pure evil, should believers be killed? I got an idea why don't we just scrap the documents of the Constitution and freedom of religion altogether and see what happens. I submit that rapists will still rape murder will still happen and GOD will have nothing to do with it. I submit GODS explanation for it will be no longer used and we can then blame that damn evolution which should have eliminated it altogether but as the bible points out, the world will become pretty much like it's gotten.

Madismysoul posts the ignorance of a person mad at GOD
Major and Mad are made for each other

If someone is hearing voices in there head, the Bible may call that demons the Sciences may call it Schizophrenia. I don't care what you call it, HE STILL HEARS THEM. Proving he does is the determination much like it is Proving GOD exists.

It is hard to define the undefinable.

Without god is anything sacred? Has that word meaning? Is human life sacred? If so why? Perhaps human life, human mind are sacred first, then god follows? If we deny that god made man, OK then don't tell me he doesn't exist in the same sense as has been said man made gods.

If man made Gods then they exist!

I have to understand he was made! If you heard me say evolution doesn't exist because man made it sounds JUST AS DAMN STUPID!


So at least own the stupidity of that argument as idiotic as it is.

You won't find me calling anyone a heretic. The bible says there is nothing new under the sun. Nothing we can make is going to impress god in the way it impresses man. To say unequivocally GOD or as they say the concept of GOD doesn't. Then I can play that silly game too

How could we be talking so much & for so long (millenia) about something that doesn't exist? Like Justice -- man-made concept but exists, no? Like Love, it exists, but only in so far as people do. Maybe god is just . . virtual.

If justice, democracy, love, consciousness, desire, taste, experience exists, god exists.

Just how aware of what we do not know must we be before we admit we cannot make any determination about everything?

So quit saying GOD can not exist
It is just plane stupid

No no of ALL the things we can't see, GOD is the only one they deny exists. is it then I was told my quote from napoleon was dumb when the following posts afterward make patent what napoleon said.

Seems evolution has the answer to everything and everything they answer must prove GOD is NOT is BUNK! You would be better to have said you believe it by faith because it is as far fetched as they say GOD IS! They have no IDEA what happens millions of years ago! Even if you had the benefit of ancient documents testifying to it wouldn't that just serve as the same Bible you want to say is Garbage?

If you think that we can draw analogies to God from what we see in the universe. I don't see where this idea came from, and I think it's a pretty narrow view of what a possible God would be like.

If you INSIST Science brought Life into existence then let Science prove it. Well have I spoke too soon?

Apparently so

Scientists: Artificial life likely in 3 to 10 years

www.cnn.com...

After reading that it what indicates to me science and even the study of science, when it comes to creating life,, it takes these scientists to do what?

CREATE IT!

Eventually this artificial life they created will be arguing with some ignorant wannabe scientists. They'll be arguing this same point behind the guise of atheism and from the aspect of intelligent design.

It will have many of the same silliness I seen here using words to insult the faithful because the faithful somehow threaten them in a way even THEY don't understand. There will be speculation from the evolutionists of that day that will speculate how this happened billions of years ago and they can despise the believers of that creator all they want. They can try to duplicate all the things they think happened by accident to bring them to life and the place they are of that day. That will be the truth to them and anything else,, if they have the fear of free moral agency and the wages of sin they would most likely act as big a jackass as major.

I have no idea and can make no assumptions to life after death in that case. All I know for a FACT is this

That life STILL came from LIFE

No matter what,,

it REQUIRES

a Creator

- Love Con




[edit on 31-8-2007 by Conspiriology]



posted on Aug, 31 2007 @ 03:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by Conspiriology


“It must be significant that nearly all the evolutionary stories I learned as student…have been debunked” (Dr. Derek V. Ager, Dept. of Geology, Imperial College, London, The Nature of the Fossil Record, Proceedings of the Geological Assoc., Vol. 87, 1976, pp. 1132-1133).


I submit to Dr Derek even he doesn't already know, that anyone struggling with the idea of GOD and his own consciounce his own shame or guilt will gravitate to any silly theory if it excuses him.


What has been removed from that quote?

I assume that is a quotemine. I'm sure if I look hard enough I'll find exactly what the ellipses represent, and it will likely change the meaning of the quote.

Common creationist tactic.


If I were a scientist in the manner of dialogue you and perhaps mel is, I'd be telling the guy to backoff. It's a tactical strategy that will amount to the same associations of atheism and evolution I was accused of and never committed in the general sense.


I'm not MM's keeper. She can speak for herself.

I can promise you that evolution =/= atheism. Check out Ken Miller's videos on youtube - one of the most ardent critics of intelligent design creationism, and a Xian. If you are interested in scholarship, spend the time and watch....




[edit on 31-8-2007 by melatonin]



posted on Aug, 31 2007 @ 04:20 PM
link   
Off topic: anyone having a problem with the external post?

maybe I'm not using it correct keeps comming up with the tags



posted on Aug, 31 2007 @ 05:53 PM
link   
reply to post by melatonin
 


Evolution doesn't equal atheism! There are many scientists who believe in god or gods.to them science and evolution help complete the work of god,it helps them understand god.

I myself do not believe in any of the gods,past or present.But equally i do not believe that something came from nothing.At the beginning there was a spark,something that set creation in motion,and all that matters is finding the truth of that spark!

Scientists will fight against religion because of the 100's of years of oppression.they will fight religion because of the violence and acts of ignorance that have been done in god's name.but that is not god,that is man.men who felt threatened.men who thought they would lose all their power and wealth.religious men who did not want to lose control to science.people of science will fight against religion because that is what it has always done.but does that mean it should continue to do so??


Belief in god takes a leap of faith.but that faith should not be blind!

Science,along with many other subjects,are built up on many theories and few facts.why? because we don't yet know enough to turn these theories into fact.here are some notable theories....

Astronomy: Big Bang Theory
Biology: Cell theory — Evolution
Chemistry: Atomic theory — Kinetic theory of gases
Climatology: Theory of Global Climate Change (due to anthropogenic activity)
Mathematics: Catastrophe theory — Category theory — Chaos theory — Graph theory — Knot theory — Number theory — Probability theory — Set theory.
Physics: Acoustic theory — Antenna theory — General relativity — Special relativity — Theory of relativity — Quantum field theory
Planetary science: Giant impact theory.


Theory.a word that should not be forgotten in a debate.theories do not make things true.(and the same could be said about faith.)facts and evidence make things true.



posted on Aug, 31 2007 @ 06:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by jakyll
Evolution doesn't equal atheism! There are many scientists who believe in god or gods.to them science and evolution help complete the work of god,it helps them understand god.


I know.

That's why I posted the Ken Miller lecture.


Theory.a word that should not be forgotten in a debate.theories do not make things true.(and the same could be said about faith.)facts and evidence make things true.


Again, I agree.

But theories are theories because they are supported by facts/evidence.

However, they never make the state of absolute truth. Even what we call 'scientific laws' don't.



posted on Aug, 31 2007 @ 06:46 PM
link   
reply to post by melatonin
 


As you said,theories are not supposed to state the absolute truth.but over time this is what happens in too many cases.

for example.my main thing is ancient history.and many historians and archaeologists have done experiments on how ancient peoples moved heavy stone over long distances,as with the great pyramid and stonehenge.but in every test they never used a stone that was exactly equal to those used by the ancients,and they never moved them more than 20ft! and always on a bed of logs.so to them,this was how it was done.to them it was obvious,no other answer needed.and this now gets taught to people all around the world!
if someone comes out to challenge that theory they are ignored and ridiculed.but we know that the ancients had fantastic engineering machines and were capable than more than we give them give them credit for.

if your gonna experiment,do it properly.the largest stones at stonehenge come from over 20 miles away.there up to 25ft long and weigh between 20 and 30 tons.use that in a test and then see what you come up with!!


The same happens in science.usually because someone has made a lot of money and a big reputation on their "discoveries." if someone becomes an authority on a subject its very difficult trying to get people to see things differently.as i'm sure you know.sometimes its because they just can't get their head around certain ideas,especially if it goes against all their beliefs.people don't want to think that they've devoted their life to the wrong thing,or they don't want there belief challenged because they feel it will shatter under the weight of questions.they are not strong enough to even consider another point of view.



new topics

top topics



 
17
<< 29  30  31    33  34  35 >>

log in

join