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.

 

Religious Extremists Taking Over ATS?

page: 10
4
<< 7  8  9    11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 28 2007 @ 01:34 PM
link   
reply to post by MajorMalfunction
 


Not so!


Evolution Theory: Things evolve into a state of improvement or into superior species. This cannot be duplicated or observed by science.

Thermodynamics Law: All things are in a constant state of decay. This can be duplicated by putting an apple on your counter or a beetle in a jar. Both will decay.

Gravity: Labeled a theory, yes, but can be verified and tested through science and magnetic fields.

reply to post by madnessinmysoul
 


You may be right! Sorry! Still new here and learning all the rules.




posted on Dec, 28 2007 @ 01:36 PM
link   

I dare you. Watch it with an open mind, if you are able.


Deal! And I dare you to read this article (HERE) with an open mind if you are able.



posted on Dec, 28 2007 @ 02:11 PM
link   
reply to post by MajorMalfunction
 


Just finished watching the video. Here are my thoughts.

It first talks about how science has found cures for many diseases. Great! I love science and medicine and it is actually part of my profession. But how does this have anything to do with God? It also credits science to prolonging the human life span. This is most certainly true! However, looking through antiquity we can see that the Jews lived on average about 30 years longer than their Gentile counterparts. Why? Because modern science is just now finding out about things the Jews already knew to prolong their life. Eating certain healthy foods while prohibiting the unhealthy foods, microorganisms, the law of quarantine, and sanitization procedures. So, Hurray modern science! You are finally catching up with what God told us centuries ago.


Scientists were able to tamper with DNA, genes, and cells? Good for them! Maybe they can cure more diseases. But if you believe in the Nephilim as being what they were believed to be (personally the issue remains unsolved to me to be honest) this was done in history. Still though, so we are now discovering the intricate design of life. That's great! That just shows, in my opinion, more evidence for a divine creator and not chance evolution.

As to the people being interviewed in the beginning of the video, I noticed they had differing views (as was pointed out in the video). Why is that supposed to surprise anyone? Many declared Christians don't believe in Biblical inerrancy (I am not one of them). There are even movements such as Christian atheism and theistic evolution. Good for them but again, you have a skeptic over here. I can't believe what they tell me.

Technological developments? Already foreseen in the revolution of knowledge. Also, it is interesting to note the references to nuclear war in the Old Testament. Ezekiel, for example, talks of warfare in the end times that has the ability to melt the flesh off the body before the bones even hit the ground. Nothing like this existed in his day but of course we now have the neuron bomb that is capable of this as we rapidly approach the end of this age.

In conclusion, thanks to this video (set to my favorite type of music). You rock and my faith just got strengthened even more.

Science rocks and is an incredible testimony to the Divine.



posted on Dec, 28 2007 @ 02:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by AshleyD

Science rocks and is an incredible testimony to the Divine.




Evolution is part of science. Unlike the bible, one cannot take parts of science and reject others.

Evolution is a fact, with evidence. The bible is a fairytale with no evidence.

Divinity has nothing to do with science, it's all man-discovered, man-made.

BTW, when you say the second law of thermodynamics precludes evolution, I believe you are saying that because you believe the earth is a closed system.

It isn't. It receives energy from outside, from the sun.

If such misrepresentations of scientific fact and the scientific method weren't causing so much trouble in the world right now, I'd have to laugh at how naive a statement that is. I've seen it on the board over and over again.

Nobody who took a real science class and understood thermodynamics would make such a naive statement, which led me to say you need to take some actual science classes, not taught by the likes of Hovind the Tax Fraud.

No personal offense meant. I just can't let a ludicrous misrepresentation or misunderstanding of scientific fact go without mention.



posted on Dec, 28 2007 @ 02:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by MajorMalfunction

Evolution is a fact, with evidence. The bible is a fairytale with no evidence.


I have to respectfully disagree. Evolution is a theory and is contradicted by other physical laws (more on this in a moment). Meanwhile, the Bible has provided ample evidence of its truth through history, prophecy, science, and expositional theology.


Divinity has nothing to do with science, it's all man-discovered, man-made.


Man made? Man made humans? Man made gravity? Man made physics? Man made evolution? If these are all apart of science, then this cannot be so. But I'm just teasing you and am pretty sure that is now what you mean.
But to get to the point, we did not make science, we discovered it.


BTW, when you say the second law of thermodynamics precludes evolution, I believe you are saying that because you believe the earth is a closed system.

It isn't. It receives energy from outside, from the sun.


No, earth is not a closed system. Energy and matter is a closed system. Matter changes form and atrophies but energy is constant. The sun, the earth, life, and even the speed of light is decreasing in power.


Nobody who took a real science class and understood thermodynamics would make such a naive statement, which led me to say you need to take some actual science classes


You gave me my rebuttal in advance.



No personal offense meant. I just can't let a ludicrous misrepresentation or misunderstanding of scientific fact go without mention.


Not at all! I'm enjoying talking with you. We can't learn anything new if we are never exposed to the opposing view. Kudos to you!

[edit on 12/28/2007 by AshleyD]



posted on Dec, 28 2007 @ 05:08 PM
link   
I am at a loss to understand how this pertains to Faith. By this..I mean all this "scientific " stuff.

These conversations always seem to degenerate into debates on "evolution."

THe most disturbing thing to me is that so many non beleivers tend to look at the Word with a scientific eye.

This scientific eye..indicates to me that the religion of these unbelievers is in fact science. They seem to be very devout in this faith.

I say this because the Word is not written as a scientific treatise. Surely intresting things can be read in it but it is not based on science. It is based on Faith.

I cannot understand why unbelievers are so threatened by this. I also find it strange that unbelievers would try to measure the Word by a scientific yardstick. Now that is to me strange behavior.

I too am not against science. Science has surely put us in better cars..homes, clothes, etc etc etc. The place where I can tell that science has failed is that it has not made us better people. Science seems to have made many of us better consumers..not necessarily better people.

However...I constantly see this religious dogma bantered or offered up by the faithful as proof of evolution. As stated concerning the first and second laws of Thermodynamics...I am not certain how this demonstrates evolution. I am sure it is a demonstration of science...but it seems to be the yardstick as to how evolution is demonstrated.

Not being well schooled in science or thermodynamics I am hoping someone on this board can clear this up for me as to how these Laws demonstrate evolution...or the theory of evolution. I say this in view of how this seems to be some kind of yardstick in how everything in these types of debates is measured. Explainations from non believers as well as believers would be welcome here as I am not particulary savy in this area.

While I have a great respect for science and the developments science has made...I am not into science as a religion. Nor am I a priest of the same.

Nevertheless an explaination of how the first and or second laws of thermodynamics demonstrates evolution would be welcome..in laymans terms of course.

Thanks,
Orangetom

[edit on 28-12-2007 by orangetom1999]



posted on Dec, 28 2007 @ 11:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by orangetom1999
However...I constantly see this religious dogma bantered or offered up by the faithful as proof of evolution. As stated concerning the first and second laws of Thermodynamics...I am not certain how this demonstrates evolution. I am sure it is a demonstration of science...but it seems to be the yardstick as to how evolution is demonstrated.

Not being well schooled in science or thermodynamics I am hoping someone on this board can clear this up for me as to how these Laws demonstrate evolution...or the theory of evolution.


The second law of thermodynamics does not verify, prove, or compliment the theory of evolution. Just the opposite- the law offers a direct contradiction to the theory of evolution. In other words, both are mutually exclusive. The theory of evolution basically states things (left to their own accord) get better with time while the second law of thermodynamics state things (left to their own accord) get progressively worse with time. They both cannot be true and only one, thermodynamics, can be scientifically proven.

Today we believe (and know) the sun is at the center of our galaxy whereas many ancients believed in the earth being at the center of our galaxy. Only one point can be true. Same with evolution and physics. They both assert completely opposite systems.

However let's ignore this very obvious fact for a moment and see what we can duplicate. If we have ten apples, we know that in 10 years they will have completely decayed if we leave them outside in a field. This is second law of thermodynamics in essence. Left alone (no cryogenic freezers allowed
), all things decay. Or we can theorize that in 250 million years if these apples are left alone (no tampering by scientists
) they will evolve into a different species of fruit that is more nutritious, can tolerate climate changes better, and last longer before they decay. What seems more logical and can be duplicated in a lab? Obviously the decay and not the progression. Same thing with other organic things on the evolution chain such as plants and animals.

To my knowledge, nothing in the fossil record substantiates the theory of evolution, the laws of physics contradict the theory, and nearly all finds that have been presented as evidence have later been shown to be false upon closer scrutiny (like the skeleton of the supposed missing link was actually a composite of pig teeth or orangutan bones).

Now of course none of this proves a Divine Creator nor does it prove that this supposed Divine Creator is the Judeo-Christian God (which of course I believe based on other evidence but this is just to make a point). But it does, from an unbiased point of view, cast suspicion on inorganic matter later converting to organic matter which later converted into complex and intelligent organisms.

Sorry to have confused you. I didn't realize my previous comments came across as saying physics and evolution compliment each other. My goal was to show the contradiction.



posted on Dec, 28 2007 @ 11:33 PM
link   
AshleyD, physics pertains to the makeup and laws of material bodies. Evolution is a biological theory.. Biology and physics do not go hand in hand.



posted on Dec, 28 2007 @ 11:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by AshleyD
Science rocks and is an incredible testimony to the Divine.


AMEN to that Sister!



posted on Dec, 29 2007 @ 12:00 AM
link   
reply to post by SpeakerofTruth
 


Correct but both biology and physics relate to science. Both also tie into one another. Taking religion completely out of the equation, we're still left with two scientifically contradicting assertions albeit in separate fields.



posted on Dec, 29 2007 @ 12:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by orangetom1999
I am at a loss to understand how this pertains to Faith. By this..I mean all this "scientific " stuff.


Ive spent alot of time in this thread, and its just occured to me that your right lol.

Atheists in the Faith thread?

Where on the tree of belief is that? That they believe they might be able to sway some minds here? Do they have faith in themselves in that respect?


Peace

[edit on 29-12-2007 by HIFIGUY]



posted on Dec, 29 2007 @ 12:05 AM
link   
Well, as a believer in God, I have to say that I have never really understood the evolution-creationist debate. To me, even if evolution is true, which it may be, I don't see where that disproves a creator... I honestly don't see what the debate stems from.



posted on Dec, 29 2007 @ 12:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by HIFIGUY
Ive spent alot of time in this thread, and its just occured to me that your right lol.

Atheists in the Faith thread?

Where on the tree of belief is that? That they believe they might be able to sway some minds here? Do they have faith in themselves in that respect?


It's my belief that not only can "Religious" people be pegged as Extremists, but Atheists oftentimes exhibit the same exact behavior. I've noticed that some here on ATS will go to each and every "Christian" thread and put in their 2 cents. I can only surmise that it's because they hope to sway the beliefs of believers in some way shape or form. To "break them" so to speak. From my point of view, that's Extremist behavior.

[edit on 29-12-2007 by ReginaAdonnaAaron]



posted on Dec, 29 2007 @ 12:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by SpeakerofTruth
Well, as a believer in God, I have to say that I have never really understood the evolution-creationist debate. To me, even if evolution is true, which it may be, I don't see where that disproves a creator... I honestly don't see what the debate stems from.


Me neither! I honestly could not care less and don't believe various forms of evolution would cancel out the existence of God. He does have a hand in all things, after all. However, saying that complex organisms and systems came to be from oblivion without an intelligent creator as its source is where my skepticism comes into play.

I think it has something to do with one's previous theological beliefs or lack thereof. Most religions would be blown apart if our existence was proven beyond a shadow of a doubt to occur by chance and that no god existed while proof of a deity via intelligent design or creation would make the unbeliever accountable to a higher power instead of our own standards.


[edit on 12/29/2007 by AshleyD]



posted on Dec, 29 2007 @ 12:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by ReginaAdonnaAaron
I've noticed that some here on ATS will go to each and every "Christian" thread and put in their 2 cents. I can only surmise that it's because they hope to sway the beliefs of believers in some way shape or form. To "break them" so to speak. From my point of view, that's Extremist behavior.


I agree with you. Then of course, lets say that this forum was all believers.

There would be those directing and pointing out the more correct teaching according to their perspective. That potentially could create a rift.

I suppose it could be argued to what degree we should practive universal love for our fellow man.

My aspiration, is the height of love that anyone would exhibit to their children or own family member.

There is only one True perspective, and that is that of Jesus Christ himself as the voice of the Father.
It is through study, meditation and reflection of his teachings, that we may understand his way.

Peace

[edit on 29-12-2007 by HIFIGUY]



posted on Dec, 29 2007 @ 12:26 AM
link   
reply to post by HIFIGUY
 


"what if..."

~Ducky~



posted on Dec, 29 2007 @ 12:30 AM
link   
reply to post by MajorMalfunction
 


Allo MM!!

I just had a question after reading the above post. It is true that to accept science one has to accept ALL scientific theories (or even facts for that matter) I have yet to see how this to could lead to further advances in science.

I personally always thought EVERY aspect of science should be questioned within reason. It is how far you take that questioning that leads to crazy Ra type sun gods, because of lack of ability to understand the concepts of the science; as your science is so primitive that there is no feasible explanation within your realm of comprehension.

to clarify on the particular subject I am an agnostic, in faith and science. I believe something is there, and it's something we should seek/know... BUT I don't know if I accept EVERYTHING about ANY particular subject... Darwin's theory of Evolution is still questionable to me. FEASIBLE? ABSOLUTELY! but... isn't this where the term missing link comes from?

Sorry for such an intricate question, but I noticed you may have been thinking with your heart more than your mind (understandable in a heated thread) And I respect you enough to try and point that out.

please don't
or me over this. My mind is tired and the proper language to avoid offense may not have been available to me at this time, plus... its time for me to go get :w:


Coven OUT!



posted on Dec, 29 2007 @ 12:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by HIFIGUY
I agree with you. Then of course, lets say that this forum was all believers.

There would be those directing and pointing out the more correct teaching according to their perspective. That potentially could create a rift.

I suppose it could be argued to what degree we should practice universal love for our fellow man.


And I agree with YOU.


And you're right, it would be that way and is that way on other forums. That's why I, as a rule, do not debate the Scriptures. In fact, I stay away from all forms of debate as much as possible - Jesus didn't debate what He knew to be truth - so I follow His example. It's hard sometimes, because I used to love debate, but it's all part of letting the Holy Spirit do it's job. If someone's heart isn't open to hearing what you have to say to them or teach them, it's tossing pearls to swine anyway.

But yes, practice universal love. Sometimes that means knowing when to NOT speak.


P.S. Amen to your last couple sentences there too...

[edit on 29-12-2007 by ReginaAdonnaAaron]



posted on Dec, 29 2007 @ 12:39 AM
link   
reply to post by ReginaAdonnaAaron
 


You hit it right on the head!

When to listen; when to speak.

There's an ol' saying from my neck of the woods:

If WE were meant to speak, more than we hear...
...we'd have TWO mouths, and only one ear.


I mean this with the utmost respect Regina.

1.listen
2.observe
3.take note
4.speak later

Repeat the 4 steps....continually.

~Ducky~



posted on Dec, 29 2007 @ 12:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by TheDuckster
1.listen
2.observe
3.take note
4.speak later


And after speaking...should you decide to speak, if they don't accept what you have to say...

5.shake dust

If anyone will not welcome you or listen to your words, shake the dust off your feet when you leave that house or town. Matthew 10:14



new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 7  8  9    11 >>

log in

join