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.

 

Ignorance and God

page: 10
3
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 20 2007 @ 10:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by whirlwind
You err in calling Him stupid. Please reconsider that.


Never did, i said 'if'


Originally posted by whirlwind
No, that isn't what I'm saying at all. Of couse you pray for others all the time but you should always pray in His will. He may or may not answer the prayer as He knows what needs to happen, not us. Our part would be to know if our soul was ready or not.


What's the point of praying then? If he chooses to answer or not, then why even pray? The result would be the same praying or not praying since he already made up his mind.



Originally posted by whirlwind
I'm not. An arrogant person would be one that believes he/she knows more than the One that created said person. An arrogant person would be one that called God stupid and saying that He committs the biggest sin of all...........that is arrogance!


How can you not see the 'sins' god is committing? Now that's arrogance...


Originally posted by whirlwind
You know I'm not doing any pleading at all. As I have said, He is what He is and it isn't for us to know. You may ask Him anything you wish but you may or may not be answered.


Why isn't he for us to know? Your the one worshiping something you don't know at all? Here is were the logic goes out the window...


Originally posted by whirlwind
I can back it up with spiritual events but you either can't or won't believe them. So...what would it prove? Some can back up complete fairy tales and myths with what they believe is knowledge.


There's a fine line between 'spiritual events' and the work of the mind. There's people out there that sees demons and devil every second. You think those are real?

If you believe something enough, it will come true to the believer...




posted on Sep, 20 2007 @ 11:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by whirlwind
I know they existed because the Bible states that they did and that Christ was from that family. No flesh human being was around a few million years ago - NOT ONE.


I guess you know the Earth is flat as well right?



posted on Sep, 21 2007 @ 03:07 PM
link   
reply to post by melatonin
 



Originally posted by whirlwind
Emotion is a response tendency but why do you believe it had to evolve?



Simply because the evidence suggests we evolved from simpler life-forms, so why wouldn't emotions have evolved?

We see emotions in other animals. We see how the brain has evolved over time, from the basic instinctual adaptive emotional systems in mammals (and even fish), to the complex emotion and emotion-regulating neural systems we have.

Take out the amygdala of a primate or a human, and we see very similar emotional and social deficits (i.e. Kluver-Bucy syndrome-like behaviours).


To accept that emotions evolved one would also have to accept that we "evolved from simpler life forms". Many of us don't believe there is any evidence to suggest that.

I'm not certain about emotion in animals. Instinct is one thing all living creatures seem to be endowed with but I don't know if all animals (mammals) do or do not have emotion. It certainly seems some of them do, at least to me. Dogs, cats, elephants, etc. How developed their emotions are....I don't know.

I appreciate your "Kluver-Bucy syndrome-like" reference but I have no clue what that is.......Sorry, wish I knew more about it.


..........Whirlwind



posted on Sep, 21 2007 @ 03:27 PM
link   
reply to post by AncientVoid
 



Originally posted by whirlwind
You err in calling Him stupid. Please reconsider that.

Never did, i said 'if'

Okay, I'll assume you didn't mean it as it sounded.




Originally posted by whirlwind
No, that isn't what I'm saying at all. Of couse you pray for others all the time but you should always pray in His will. He may or may not answer the prayer as He knows what needs to happen, not us. Our part would be to know if our soul was ready or not.



What's the point of praying then? If he chooses to answer or not, then why even pray? The result would be the same praying or not praying since he already made up his mind.


The same reason you talk to your father. He is part of your life. Praying doesn't just involve asking for things.




Originally posted by whirlwind
I'm not. An arrogant person would be one that believes he/she knows more than the One that created said person. An arrogant person would be one that called God stupid and saying that He committs the biggest sin of all...........that is arrogance!



How can you not see the 'sins' god is committing? Now that's arrogance...


How can you think He commits sin? It isn't for us to know the mind of God.




Originally posted by whirlwind
You know I'm not doing any pleading at all. As I have said, He is what He is and it isn't for us to know. You may ask Him anything you wish but you may or may not be answered.




Why isn't he for us to know? Your the one worshiping something you don't know at all? Here is were the logic goes out the window...


But I do know the part He allows. He wants to be part of our life but to question what He does and why isn't in that pact. We are not God.


Originally posted by whirlwind
I can back it up with spiritual events but you either can't or won't believe them. So...what would it prove? Some can back up complete fairy tales and myths with what they believe is knowledge.



There's a fine line between 'spiritual events' and the work of the mind. There's people out there that sees demons and devil every second. You think those are real?


There is a fine line there, I agree. Perhaps that is why many don't find it easy to discuss........sort of like folks that have seen UFO's and fear being laughed at. Also, it is very personal. As far as demons and the devil. Yes there are demons and yes there is a devil. Have I ever seen one? No. If I knew someone seeing one every second I would have them committed.


If you believe something enough, it will come true to the believer...



There are some very impressionable people that will fall into that category.


............Whirlwind



posted on Sep, 21 2007 @ 03:39 PM
link   
reply to post by AncientVoid
 






Originally posted by whirlwind
I know they existed because the Bible states that they did and that Christ was from that family. No flesh human being was around a few million years ago - NOT ONE.



I guess you know the Earth is flat as well right?



That remark is really beneath you.

There is no proof of any human, any time, any where, being older than 10,000-14,000 years old. Only very gullible people believe the evolutionist spiel. They trust their teachers telling them that. It is not true and there is no proof.



.............Whirlwind



posted on Sep, 21 2007 @ 03:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by whirlwind
To accept that emotions evolved one would also have to accept that we "evolved from simpler life forms". Many of us don't believe there is any evidence to suggest that.


I suppose you would. However, what you believe has no consequence on the real-world.

You can't wish away 150 years of evidence and good science, although willful ignorance is an option.


I'm not certain about emotion in animals. Instinct is one thing all living creatures seem to be endowed with but I don't know if all animals (mammals) do or do not have emotion. It certainly seems some of them do, at least to me. Dogs, cats, elephants, etc. How developed their emotions are....I don't know.


I tend to think that all mammals have emotion. Many other species do as well. Most in rudimentary form, but still able to be classed as emotion.

It appears that even rats like to have a laugh every now and again...

news.bbc.co.uk...


I appreciate your "Kluver-Bucy syndrome-like" reference but I have no clue what that is.......Sorry, wish I knew more about it.


It's a neurological syndrome that results from bilateral temporal lobectomy. That is, destruction of the temporal lobes. They contain the amygdala, which is a core region of the brain for emotion.

[edit on 21-9-2007 by melatonin]



posted on Sep, 21 2007 @ 05:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by whirlwind
There is no proof of any human, any time, any where, being older than 10,000-14,000 years old.



there is actually plenty of proof. humans have been around for about 100,000 years if i'm not mistaken. we have bones that show humans well before 14,000 years ago, they've been radiometrically dated.



Only very gullible people believe the evolutionist spiel. They trust their teachers telling them that. It is not true and there is no proof.



the thing is, that's an outright ad hom attack and an outright denial of reality. there is a mountain of evidence.

and honestly, you believe in a deity here, so you really have no reason to question people believing in something without proof.

pot kettle black etc.



posted on Sep, 21 2007 @ 05:18 PM
link   
reply to post by melatonin
 



I suppose you would. However, what you believe has no consequence on the real-world.

You can't wish away 150 years of evidence and good science, although wilfull ignorance is an option.


If what I believe doesn't have consequence then what you believe doesn't either. It isn't necessary for me to wish anything away because it isn't true. It doesn't matter that we are told it is good evidence and good science we must look at that evidence and science. To be willfully ignorant of the knowledge of God is another option.

I believed, or should say, simply accepted evolution because I was taught by people I respected. Now that I've matured and see how easily led I and others are to believe at face value what we are taught, find that it truly angers me.

I do believe that each species has within itself the ability to adapt to their surroundings. Otherwise, it could lead to extinction. However, that does not go so far as to allow one species to become another. Some evolutionist I have spoken with argue that that isn't what evolution is but I find that is certainly what is being taught.



I'm not certain about emotion in animals. Instinct is one thing all living creatures seem to be endowed with but I don't know if all animals (mammals) do or do not have emotion. It certainly seems some of them do, at least to me. Dogs, cats, elephants, etc. How developed their emotions are....I don't know.



I tend to think that all mammals have emotion. Many other species do as well. Most in rudimentary form, but still able to be classed as emotion.

It appears that even rats like to have a laugh every now and again...

news.bbc.co.uk...


As a steak lover I hope you are wrong but fear you are right. Somehow it is easier if emotions aren't involved. Thank you for the link. I haven't had a chance to go to it yet but will later tonight.



I appreciate your "Kluver-Bucy syndrome-like" reference but I have no clue what that is.......Sorry, wish I knew more about it.



It's a neurological syndrome that results from bilateral temporal lobectomy. That is, destruction of the temporal lobes. They contain the amygdala, which is a core region of the brain for emotion.


Again, thank you for that explanation. I had to laugh when I first read your paragraph today. What came to mind was the caveman ad where he looks in the camera and says.....Huh???


.........Whirlwind



posted on Sep, 21 2007 @ 05:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by whirlwind
If what I believe doesn't have consequence then what you believe doesn't either.


True, beliefs have no effect on real-world evidence.

However, real-world evidence should have an effect on beliefs. Some people fail at this though.


It isn't necessary for me to wish anything away because it isn't true. It doesn't matter that we are told it is good evidence and good science we must look at that evidence and science. To be willfully ignorant of the knowledge of God is another option.


How can anyone be willfully ignorant of a completely unsupported proposition?

Again, you can say that certain concepts just aren't true, but I'm quite sure you have little understanding of the evidence for evolution, or even any evidence that questions evolutionary theory.

Just a faith that appears to need bolstering by denial of real-world evidence. You don't just deny evolution, from your post earlier, you deny parts of geology, cosmology, paleontology, physics, chemistry etc etc.

All for a 2000 year old book of myths?



posted on Sep, 21 2007 @ 06:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by whirlwind
There is no proof of any human, any time, any where, being older than 10,000-14,000 years old. Only very gullible people believe the evolutionist spiel. They trust their teachers telling them that. It is not true and there is no proof.


There is proof. The aboriginals in Australia were the first known humans and they have found sites and data that dates back 47,000 years.

As for the Earth being flat, a simple yes or no would do, but you do the obvious thing and avoid it like a typical believer.



posted on Sep, 21 2007 @ 06:19 PM
link   
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
 


Hi Madness, I was beginning to worry about you. I'm glad to see you back.... and in great form I might add.



Originally posted by whirlwind
There is no proof of any human, any time, any where, being older than 10,000-14,000 years old.


there is actually plenty of proof. humans have been around for about 100,000 years if i'm not mistaken. we have bones that show humans well before 14,000 years ago, they've been radiometrically dated.


You have skulls and bones of apes, some extinct but none are human. Lucy, Piltdown, etc - fakes.



Only very gullible people believe the evolutionist spiel. They trust their teachers telling them that. It is not true and there is no proof.


Madness -
the thing is, that's an outright ad hom attack and an outright denial of reality. there is a mountain of evidence.

and honestly, you believe in a deity here, so you really have no reason to question people believing in something without proof.


There is no evidence. There is speculation. As I've told you before, the earth itself is millions or billions of years old - humans are not. So....proof of an ancient earth is not the same as proof of ancient humans.

I don't call it an "attack" to call someone gullible, especially since I also was included in that group.




...........Whirlwind



posted on Sep, 21 2007 @ 06:34 PM
link   
reply to post by melatonin
 






Originally posted by whirlwind
If what I believe doesn't have consequence then what you believe doesn't either.



True, beliefs have no effect on real-world evidence.

However, real-world evidence should have an effect on beliefs. Some people fail at this though.


True, evidence should have an effect.




It isn't necessary for me to wish anything away because it isn't true. It doesn't matter that we are told it is good evidence and good science we must look at that evidence and science. To be willfully ignorant of the knowledge of God is another option.



How can anyone be willfully ignorant of a completely unsupported proposition?


Proposition? Your knowledge of God or my knowledge of science, actually I should say our apparent lack of knowledge of said subjects?


Again, you can say that certain concepts just aren't true, but I'm quite sure you have little understanding of the evidence for evolution, or even any evidence that questions evolutionary theory.

Just a faith that appears to need bolstering by denial of real-world evidence. You don't just deny evolution, from your post earlier, you deny parts of geology, cosmology, paleontology, physics, chemistry etc etc.

All for a 2000 year old book of myths?




My faith is not bolstered by denial - it stands without that but I do deny evolution. Why is your lack of faith bolstered by the myth of evolution? Where did you see me deny geology, cosmology, palentology, etc., etc., etc.? If I did it wasn't intentional. I believe the earth is ancient.


The Bible is NOT a book of myths. Evolution of man from ape is.


.......Whirlwind



posted on Sep, 21 2007 @ 06:37 PM
link   
reply to post by whirlwind
 


We do have proof of human remains. Different type of human which lived long time ago who were smaller than we are today. They're called Hobbit. I'll try to find you the name of the one that i found interesting... There's loads of stuff on Google, and no these remains are not fake...


Originally posted by whirlwind
My faith is not bolstered by denial - it stands without that but I do deny evolution. Why is your lack of faith bolstered by the myth of evolution? Where did you see me deny geology, cosmology, palentology, etc., etc., etc.? If I did it wasn't intentional. I believe the earth is ancient.


There's more proof for myths than religion. Also evolution is not a myth. Have you even tried looking at the evidence? I guess not.


Originally posted by whirlwind
The Bible is NOT a book of myths. Evolution of man from ape is.


Of course not a book of myths. What makes you think it has such high rankings? It's just stories that you base your religion in, some are lies.



[edit on 21-9-2007 by AncientVoid]



posted on Sep, 21 2007 @ 06:51 PM
link   
reply to post by AncientVoid
 






Originally posted by whirlwind
There is no proof of any human, any time, any where, being older than 10,000-14,000 years old. Only very gullible people believe the evolutionist spiel. They trust their teachers telling them that. It is not true and there is no proof.




There is proof. The aboriginals in Australia were the first known humans and they have found sites and data that dates back 47,000 years.


The scientist can't seem to get their stories straight. I heard the first humans were from Africa. Their stories change constantly and they do that because they are not true.




As for the Earth being flat, a simple yes or no would do, but you do the obvious thing and avoid it like a typical believer.


You are very quick to accuse Ancient Void and I don't understand why. The question is silly. Do you really believe it is necessary for me to answer it? I haven't tried to avoid anything. I have answered questions as honestly as I'm able and the ones I can't....well, I just can't. It isn't avoiding anything to say I don't know why God did that, you must ask Him yourself. I only tell you what I believe is to be complete truth and will not give answers just to make you or I feel good or bad or wise or stupid.

So...please don't be so quick to find fault, especially since I am so very faultless and not at all arrogant, in spite of what others may think.


........Whirlwind



posted on Sep, 21 2007 @ 07:06 PM
link   
reply to post by AncientVoid
 



We do have proof of human remains. Different type of human which lived long time ago who were smaller than we are today. They're called Hobbit. I'll try to find you the name of the one that i found interesting... There's loads of stuff on Google, and no these remains are not fake...


Thank you. I would appreciate the information.




Originally posted by whirlwind
My faith is not bolstered by denial - it stands without that but I do deny evolution. Why is your lack of faith bolstered by the myth of evolution? Where did you see me deny geology, cosmology, palentology, etc., etc., etc.? If I did it wasn't intentional. I believe the earth is ancient.



There's more proof for myths than religion. Also evolution is not a myth. Have you even tried looking at the evidence? I guess not.


Evolutionist themselves can't agree on what is taught. Not long ago I commented on the poster they use to teach that shows a monkey then an ape then cave man then upright man then modern man. That is used to teach in schools but the evolutionist said, "oh but that isn't correct, no one believes that."

As far as proof of religion I have to say that I stay away from religion as much as I can. The Bible is the Word of God, whether you or others believe it or not. It is what it is.


Originally posted by whirlwind
The Bible is NOT a book of myths. Evolution of man from ape is.


Of course not a book of myths. What makes you think it has such high rankings? It's just stories that you base your religion in, some are lies.


There are no lies on the pages. There have been mistranslations from the original but there are no lies. What lies do you believe it contains?



......Whirlwind



posted on Sep, 21 2007 @ 07:10 PM
link   
reply to post by whirlwind
 


The Earth is flat? If you say there's no lies but interpret wrong, then that means the whole bible can be wrong.



posted on Sep, 21 2007 @ 07:31 PM
link   
reply to post by AncientVoid
 



The Earth is flat? If you say there's no lies but interpret wrong, then that means the whole bible can be wrong.



Okay, I completly don't understand the "The earth is flat" thing. What do you mean?

The Bible is open to interpretation but that doesn't make it wrong, the interpretation may be. When you really begin to study the most incredible thing happens. You have heard it called the "living word"? It truly is. It changes, it lives.

You can read and understand a scripture and go back to it a month later and find new and deeper meaning contained therein. I have heard that there can be 3 different meanings contained but they will NEVER conflict with each other. I have found that to be true.

The Bible is fascinating. At times easy to understand and others it is very complex. It holds lessons in it's history where it speaks of ancient times but they are also a prophecy of what will be (or what has happened since their writing). If it wasn't so enigmatic I'm afraid humans would soon tire of it. It is a lifetime letter from God to each of us.

So.....although it may hold the ability for misinterpretation it also holds absolute, straightforwardly laid out rules, warnings and teachings that cannot be misconstrued by anyone. But, they must be read by us to gain that knowledge.



.............Whirlwind



posted on Sep, 21 2007 @ 07:38 PM
link   
reply to post by whirlwind
 


The shape of the earth

ISA 40:22 It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in:

MAT 4:8 Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them;



posted on Sep, 21 2007 @ 07:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by whirlwind
You have skulls and bones of apes, some extinct but none are human. Lucy, Piltdown, etc - fakes.


...lucy wasn't a human and is far from a fake.
piltdown, yes, that was a fake. the same scientists that originally claimed it openly admitted that they had been fooled.

however, we have skeletons of homo sapien sapien that date back well before the timeframe you gave.




There is no evidence. There is speculation.


incorrect, there IS evidence.



As I've told you before, the earth itself is millions or billions of years old - humans are not. So....proof of an ancient earth is not the same as proof of ancient humans.


...um, yes but the ancient skeletons are the proof of ancient humans. and before that we have neanderthals and cro magnon man, the "hobbit" species, homo erectus, homo hablis and the austreleopithicines (i probably butchered the spelling on the last one)
there is a clear evolutionary tree that formed.

and once more, we have human skeletons that are well before the dates you mentioned

and i have looked into it, i was wrong. homo sapiens came about 130,00 years before the present day in africa, not 100,000... probably earlier, but for the sake of argument i'll say 130,000 because we have a 130,000 year old anatomically modern human skeleton
we were colonizing Eurasia and Oceania 40,000 years ago
we arrived in the Americas 10,000 years ago...
isn't that odd, you put the date of humanity's origin well after we had started colonizing continents outside of the one we started in

[edit on 9/21/07 by madnessinmysoul]

[edit on 9/21/07 by madnessinmysoul]



posted on Sep, 21 2007 @ 08:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by whirlwind
Proposition? Your knowledge of God or my knowledge of science, actually I should say our apparent lack of knowledge of said subjects?


One uses unsupported propositions based on no real evidence. One is quite the reverse.


My faith is not bolstered by denial - it stands without that but I do deny evolution. Why is your lack of faith bolstered by the myth of evolution? Where did you see me deny geology, cosmology, palentology, etc., etc., etc.? If I did it wasn't intentional. I believe the earth is ancient.


My lack of faith isn't really bolstered by evolution. Even without evolutionary theory the best answer for the origin of species would be 'don't know'.

I guess we can scrub off cosmology then, my bad. I'd love to know what standard you judge the evidence by, I'm guessing it's got little to do with scientific validity. The rest seem to still stand.

For instance:


There is no proof of any human, any time, any where, being older than 10,000-14,000 years old. Only very gullible people believe the evolutionist spiel. They trust their teachers telling them that. It is not true and there is no proof.


There's lots of evidence that homo sapiens go back much further than 14,000 years. The oldest dating thus far for modern humans is 190,000 years ago:


Stratigraphic placement and age of modern humans from Kibish, Ethiopia
Ian McDougall1, Francis H. Brown2 and John G. Fleagle3

Abstract

In 1967 the Kibish Formation in southern Ethiopia yielded hominid cranial remains identified as early anatomically modern humans, assigned to Homo sapiens 1, 2, 3, 4. However, the provenance and age of the fossils have been much debated5, 6. Here we confirm that the Omo I and Omo II hominid fossils are from similar stratigraphic levels in Member I of the Kibish Formation, despite the view that Omo I is more modern in appearance than Omo II1, 2, 3. 40Ar/39Ar ages on feldspar crystals from pumice clasts within a tuff in Member I below the hominid levels place an older limit of 198 14 kyr (weighted mean age 196 2 kyr) on the hominids. A younger age limit of 104 7 kyr is provided by feldspars from pumice clasts in a Member III tuff. Geological evidence indicates rapid deposition of each member of the Kibish Formation. Isotopic ages on the Kibish Formation correspond to ages of Mediterranean sapropels, which reflect increased flow of the Nile River, and necessarily increased flow of the Omo River. Thus the 40Ar/39Ar age measurements, together with the sapropel correlations, indicate that the hominid fossils have an age close to the older limit. Our preferred estimate of the age of the Kibish hominids is 195 5 kyr, making them the earliest well-dated anatomically modern humans yet described.


Now, are you going to deny these well-dated fossils? They used a bit of good old geology, chemisty and physics to date them. So, rather than there being no proof, there is lots. Indeed, there are many other specimens dating much older than 14,000 years. We have evidence of modern humans in Israel around 100,000 years ago, in china around 40,000 years ago, europe about 35,000 years ago, maybe even earlier. In australia, we can date humans around 40,000 years ago, and perhaps in north america by then.


The Bible is NOT a book of myths. Evolution of man from ape is.


Myths are unsupported. Evolution of humans from an earlier proto-ape is another well-supported claim. If your knowledge of the evidence of the historical existence of humans is comparable to that for evolution, you may well have some gaps to fill.

[edit on 21-9-2007 by melatonin]



new topics

top topics



 
3
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join