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.

 

Is There A Conspiracy Of Atheists To Overthrow Christianity?

page: 22
10
<< 19  20  21    23  24  25 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 10 2008 @ 12:41 PM
link   
reply to post by sizzle
 


1: i NEVER claimed to be a part of the knights of malta.... i claimed to live in malta, which i currently do

2: initial membership? um....the initial membership of the knights of malta was a list of people several hundred years ago...
oh, and there's no evidence to substantiate that's a true member list

3: there is absolutely no evidence that this oath is really that of the knights of malta, the knights of saint john, the knights hospitaliers, or whatever you want to call them.




posted on Feb, 10 2008 @ 12:42 PM
link   
Actually, science and religion do mix, and you can't have one without the other. Science cannot answer all the questions related to our existence, nor can religion answer all the questions of science. At some point, you have to come to the realization that we don't know and never will know everything, not in my lifetime anyway. So, you make a choice. In my choice each one amplifies the other.



posted on Feb, 10 2008 @ 01:11 PM
link   
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
 


I think you better have another look at these names before you say that they are hundreds of years old.


General Allavena
George W. Anderson
James Jesus Angelton
Julian Allason
Roberto Alejos Arzu
Grandmaster, Prince Andrew Willoughby Ninian Bertie (cousin of QEII)
(Former Prime Minister) Tony Blair
Elmer Bobst
Charles Joseph Bonaparte
Prince Valerio Borghese
Dr. Barry Bradley
Nicholas Brady
Monsignor Mario Brini
Pat Buchanan
James Buckley
William F. Buckley, Jr.
Precott Bush, Jr.
Frank Capra
William Casey
Gustavo Cisneros
(Cardinal) Terence Cooke
Gerald Coughlin
Cartha DeLoach
Giscard d'Estaing
Bill Donovan
Allen Dulles
Avery Dulles
(Archbishop) Edward Egan
(Count) Franz Egon
John Farrell
Francis D. Flanagan
Flynn
Licio Gelli
Reinhard Gehlen
Sir John Gorman CVO
Thomas K. Gorman
J. Peter Grace
Lord Guthrie of Craigiebank
Gen. Alexander Haig
Cyril Hamilton
Otto von Hapsburg
William Randolph Hearst
(Baron) Conrad Hilton
Heinrich Himmler
J. Edgar Hoover
Lee Iococca
Joseph Kennedy
(Senator) Ted Kennedy
Bowie Kuhn
Joseph P. Larkin
Louis Lehrman
General de Lorenzo
Clara Booth Luce (Dame)
Henry Luce
George MacDonald
Avro Manhattan
Alexandre de Marenches
John McCone
Thomas Melady
Sir Stewart Menzies
(Prince) Angelo di Mojana
Thomas S. Monaghan
Thomas 'Tip' O'Neill
Francis (Frank) V. Ortiz
Fra Giancarlo Pallavicini
Fra Hubert Pallavicini
Franz von Papen
Baron Luigi Parrilli
Juan Peron
Harold A.R. 'Kim' Philby
John J. Raskob
(President) Ronald E. Reagan
John Charles Reynolds
George Rocca
David Rockefeller
General Giuseppe Santovito
Phyllis Schlafly (Dame)
Walter Schellenburg
Frank Shakespeare
Martin F. Shea
Clay Shaw
William Simon
Frank Sinatra
Joseph Schmitz
Cardinal Francis Spellman
Francix X. Stankard
Steve Stavros
Myron Taylor
Admiral Giovanni Torrinsi
(Prince) Anton Turkul
Canon Edward West
William Wilson



posted on Feb, 10 2008 @ 01:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by sizzle
If your answers are yes, then you must realize, that here is where Einstein became convinced that there had to be a Master Creator.

..a source proving that would be greatly appreciated.

Would also like to add that since the discovery of DNA in recent years, further studies and testing has pretty much proven that evolution would be an impossibility,

No it hasn't.. in fact you are the only person I've seen claim such a thing. Studies in genetics continue to prove TOE.. in fact just a couple of days ago I saw on the news that [DNA] scientiists believe all blue eyed people share a common ancestor. Blue eyes are a genetic mutation.. as is light skin.

because it would cause horrible mutations.

Why would it cause horrible mutations? Do you have a source on this? It's evolution.. not devolution. Are you perhaps talking about the horrible birth defects that some people are occasionally born with..?

But yet, so many ppl still cling to the hope that they belong to the monkey family.


Genetically we are related to monkeys and to other primates. That DNA you think proves evolution impossible proved this beyond a doubt some time ago.

I will see if I can find a link on that, as I was just reading about it.
Also, it wasn't too long ago, that the NY Times published an article about a fossil skeleton that they uncovered, which also dashed the hopes of evolution.

One article on one skeleton did all that?
I think you should probably back that up as well..

I'm wondering.. what on earth has this got to do with overthowing christianity? All I see is you trying to do now is attack/discredit a valid scientific field/group which seems somewhat hypoctical as you've already accused atheists of doing the same thing. So does that mean you're trying to overthrow TOE along with other creationalists? Knowingly trying to spread bad propoganda would indeed qualify you as a conspirator.
You keep telling people to post on topic yet you keep changing it and still haven't answered my original query. Which atheist groups [specifically] are conspiring?

[edit on 10-2-2008 by riley]



posted on Feb, 10 2008 @ 01:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by sizzle
Skyshow,
That's exactly why I steer away from Churches that spew so much man-made doctrine. It's confusing and leads ppl away from the original teachings and gives overall Christianity a bad rap.

It's Christianity that gives Christianity a bad rap. Have you read your own bible? It spews hatred, intolerance, and racism among other things. You can argue all day and night that Christianity is a religion about love, but in the end, if I don't believe in Your God then I will burn in Your Hell.




Originally posted by sizzle
I see in another post, that someone has inferred that Christians and science do not mix. I beg to differ.
Would everyone agree that Einstein is a scientist?
Is everyone familiar with the Theory of Relativity?
If your answers are yes, then you must realize, that here is where Einstein became convinced that there had to be a Master Creator.

Einstein wasn't even Christian, his heritage was Judaism. And he stated himself that he does not believe in a personal God.




Originally posted by sizzle
And if you say, "Well, that was only a theory!"
Then you have to admit that what Darwin had, was only a theory.

A Scientific Theory is completely different than the theory you are talking about. Scientific Theory is as far as anything in science can be proven.
www.talkorigins.org...




Originally posted by sizzle
Would also like to add that since the discovery of DNA in recent years, further studies and testing has pretty much proven that evolution would be an impossibility, because it would cause horrible mutations. But yet, so many ppl still cling to the hope that they belong to the monkey family.

Humans share a common ancestor with chimpanzees, not monkeys. DNA replication results in genetic mutation every once in a while, through natural selection the beneficial mutations create new and stronger species. I don't understand, have any fundamentalist Christians passed high school Biology Class?



posted on Feb, 10 2008 @ 01:45 PM
link   
Anyone can correct this comment (in fact I would welcome it in case I have something wrong so I would not repeat it at a later time) but I'm sick of being accused as being ignorant for not accepting "science." Our origins and evolution are explained through the following. I will be using Wikipedia for links due to its ease of use and its favor to evolution although I'm sure we all know Wikipedia is not always known for its accuracy. So, our origins (the universe included) are explained by:

Cosmic Evolution (HERE).
Chemical Evolution (HERE).
Celestial Body Evolution (Can't find a link for this one).
Organic Evolution (Organic matter from inorganic matter HERE).
Macroevolution (HERE).
Microevolution (HERE).

So out of all of those things, the only that is observable, verifiable by the scientific method, and has been proven beyond all doubt is microevolution. Please forgive me if I do not consider the full theory of evolution and the origin of all existence as solid science. I don't have enough "faith" to believe this. It's mostly supposition.

[edit on 2/10/2008 by AshleyD]



posted on Feb, 10 2008 @ 01:46 PM
link   
reply to post by riley
 


Hi riley!
I stated in my post, that I would be looking for that link to support my statement. Am doing so now.
And it was thanks to you, that we have decided to expand this discussion to widen our field of discussion here. It was you who opened my eyes to the need to do that.
So just be patient, and I will see if I can find that link. Hope you are having a great day.



posted on Feb, 10 2008 @ 01:55 PM
link   
reply to post by riley
 


If you would like scientific answers to all your questions you can review the following website:

www.reasons.org

You'll have to study it yourself I'm afraid as it is very large and requires lengthly reading. There are tremendous advances in science which diffute all the claims you've made.

No harm intended. You can believe what you want to...not pressing you one way or the other, bu I think you'll find these articles quite fascinating. There's lots of astrophysical science here as well as biology, genetic, celluar, etc.



posted on Feb, 10 2008 @ 01:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by AshleyD
Anyone can correct this comment (in fact I would welcome it in case I have something wrong so I would not repeat it at a later time)...
So out of all of those things, the only that is observable, verifiable by the scientific method, and has been proven beyond all doubt is microevolution.


All are observable by the scientific method. You just appear to not understand what this means in science. It doesn't mean that we must have a big-bang happen in the lab. It just means the evidence must be observable. And in all the cases above, it is (ABE: except abiogenesis at this point, but we can see parts of possible pathways).

In science, what I do is generally look around me, look at data and stuff, use a bit of nous and sometimes intuition, and make specific falsifiable hypotheses. Then I test them. This doesn't have to involve creating a new universe in the lab, just testing logically consistent predictions which follow from the hypotheses against the real-world.

The more evidence we find that supports a particular hypothesis, the more we see these hypotheses as verified. When hypotheses become very general, explaining lots of different predictions and phenomena observed in nature, continuously showing their validity and reliability, they are viewed as theories.

And theories are cool. Producing more and more hypotheses, questions, and data - directing research.

ABE: lets not turn this into an evolution/origins science thread, there's a whole subforum for that.

[edit on 10-2-2008 by melatonin]



posted on Feb, 10 2008 @ 02:02 PM
link   
reply to post by idle_rocker
 


Thank you IR,
I just remembered
where that reference was that riley asked for.
Now I'll go and see if I can copy and paste a section, as it is quite lengthy.



posted on Feb, 10 2008 @ 02:06 PM
link   
Okay, here it is:


Can the Genetic Code Evolve?

Other scientific work questions the likelihood that the genetic code evolved. In 1968 Nobel Laureate Francis Crick, in a classic paper, convincingly argued that the genetic code could not have undergone significant evolution.22 The rationale for Crick's position is easy to understand. Any change in codon assignment leads to changes in amino acids in every polypeptide made by the cell. This wholesale change in polypeptide sequences would result in large numbers of defective proteins. Nearly any conceivable change to the genetic code would be lethal to the cell.

Even if the genetic code could change gradually over time to yield a set of rules that allowed for maximum error-minimization capacity, is there enough time for this process to occur? Biophysicist Hubert Yockey has addressed this question.23 He calculates that natural selection would have to explore 1.40 x 1070 different genetic codes to hit upon the universal genetic code found in nature. Yockey estimates the maximum time available for the code to originate as 6.3 x 1015 seconds. Put simply, natural selection lacks adequate time to find the universal genetic code. It would have to evaluate about 1054 codes per second.
www.reasons.org...



posted on Feb, 10 2008 @ 02:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by melatonin
All are observable by the scientific method. You just appear to not understand what this means in science. It doesn't mean that we must have a big-bang happen in the lab.


I understand that. I don't expect Scientists to create a universe in a lab before I believe it!


Anyways, before we take this thread totally off topic let me clarify. This is an entire forum to discuss creationism vs. evolution and since it has been done to death, I'd like to point something out. Many Christians do not believe evolution would debunk the faith. We can't put God in a box to say, "God isn't capable of designing His creation using evolution." We toyed with this concept in my "Theistic Evolution" thread so there's no point in rehashing it here.

Evolution and creation are not necessarily mutually exclusive. We don't deny it just because we think it conflicts (although some do). We question it because it is shaky. It consists of a few proven facts, much speculation, some theories, several hypotheses, some guesswork, and nuggets of evidence. But no, I'm sorry. I'm simply not convinced. That doesn't make us ignorant- that makes us skeptical. Surely that can be understood.



posted on Feb, 10 2008 @ 02:14 PM
link   
Allow me to say this. It is not my intention or desire for Creation vs Evolution to become the theme of this thread. One Post-er made specific references that ALL Christians were pretty much anti-science (so-to-speak0)and this was just one of the areas that came into play on explanation.
I would be happy for this subject to change at anytime, as we at present have no absolute proof of either theory.
So we could argue till the cows come home and get nowhere.

[edit on 10-2-2008 by sizzle]



posted on Feb, 10 2008 @ 02:17 PM
link   
Yockey just uses the same old naff abiogenesis-style calculations that Crick did - tornado in a junkyard rubbish.

Who cares...we don't expect the genetic code to just jump into existence in one step, it would not be a pure chance process where all atoms come together in one step to give DNA. That's a strawman view of abiogenesis.

As an aside, Yockey is actually an agnostic. Not that it makes his calculation any more worthwhile.


Originally posted by AshleyD
But no, I'm sorry. I'm simply not convinced. That doesn't make us ignorant- that makes us skeptical. Surely that can be understood.


You're not sceptical because you understand the science and the intricacies of the scientific issues. You just don't like it because it don't have enough god in it.

I can accept that. Indeed, I don't really care, it's your problem, not mine. As you said, there need not be any issues between science and religion - as long as you plop your faith on top of the real-world findings. As science will win a fight on real-world grounds every time.

[edit on 10-2-2008 by melatonin]



posted on Feb, 10 2008 @ 02:56 PM
link   
reply to post by melatonin
 

It is wise to wait before you put your cart before the horse. There is plenty of data to suggest there was not enough "time" for evolution to take place. (unless, of course the evolution phenomena was created outside of time)... evolution in your sense of the word anyway. There is obviously some form of evolution, although it is probably more in the way living things mutate to adapt to changing environments, which in itself is a form of evolution. That does not, however, negate the fact that a single point of "singularity" set the world in motion and controls every aspect of its being. Like a well-oiled machine which is only tampered with when it breaks down.

Sorry a little off topic there.



posted on Feb, 10 2008 @ 04:21 PM
link   
reply to post by sizzle
 


still a completely unsourced list...

anyway, back on topic...

the premise is that there is a conspiracy of atheists to overthrow christianity...

well, can anyone demonstrate that there is any group of atheists large enough to pull this off?



posted on Feb, 10 2008 @ 04:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by idle_rocker
It is wise to wait before you put your cart before the horse. There is plenty of data to suggest there was not enough "time" for evolution to take place.


Only if you're a YECer


How long would it need? These sort of claims are just silly. I guess it's someone playing with numbers without the appropriate licence. But go on, surprise me, I'm waiting in suspenders...



posted on Feb, 10 2008 @ 04:24 PM
link   
Are you interested in creating one or something?

I meant a conspiracy to overthrow Christianity. Why would you want to do that anyway? Aren't we all supposed to live together and play nicely?

[edit on 10-2-2008 by idle_rocker]



posted on Feb, 10 2008 @ 04:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheB1ueSoldier

Skyshow,
That's exactly why I steer away from Churches that spew so much man-made doctrine. It's confusing and leads ppl away from the original teachings and gives overall Christianity a bad rap.


It's Christianity that gives Christianity a bad rap. Have you read your own bible? It spews hatred, intolerance, and racism among other things. You can argue all day and night that Christianity is a religion about love, but in the end, if I don't believe in Your God then I will burn in Your Hell.

I believe that a lot of what you are alluding to here is contained in the Old Testament teachings. Christianity begins in the New Testament. Although Christians do not do away with the O.T. because of it's value of history, prophecy, promises, etc. But since you did not provide specifics as to exactly what you are referring to, it is hard for me to specifically address your charges here.



Originally posted by sizzle
I see in another post, that someone has inferred that Christians and science do not mix. I beg to differ.
Would everyone agree that Einstein is a scientist?
Is everyone familiar with the Theory of Relativity?
If your answers are yes, then you must realize, that here is where Einstein became convinced that there had to be a Master Creator.


Einstein wasn't even Christian, his heritage was Judaism. And he stated himself that he does not believe in a personal God.

Nowhere in my statement here, did I say that Einstein was a Christian, or ever became one. I said that he became convinced that there was a Master Creator, after his Theory of Relativity.

Originally posted by sizzle
Would also like to add that since the discovery of DNA in recent years, further studies and testing has pretty much proven that evolution would be an impossibility, because it would cause horrible mutations. But yet, so many ppl still cling to the hope that they belong to the monkey family.


Humans share a common ancestor with chimpanzees, not monkeys. DNA replication results in genetic mutation every once in a while, through natural selection the beneficial mutations create new and stronger species. I don't understand, have any fundamentalist Christians passed high school Biology Class?

Correct me if I am wrong, please. But are not monkeys in the chimpanzee family?
And in answer to your final question, I don't really consider myself in a box of fundamentalist Christianity, but I can answer that I made straight A's in Biology.



posted on Feb, 10 2008 @ 09:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by idle_rocker
reply to post by riley
 


If you would like scientific answers to all your questions you can review the following website:

www.reasons.org

You'll have to study it yourself I'm afraid as it is very large and requires lengthly reading. There are tremendous advances in science which diffute all the claims you've made.

Sheer propoganda. The google tag says "reasons to believe" so their agenda is clear. Obviously it's a religious site not an objective science site so does not qualify as a credible scientifically source.

The last time I went through it was full of lies- I doubt it's changed. I also did not make the claimes so it's not up to me to back them up.

[edit on 10-2-2008 by riley]



new topics

top topics



 
10
<< 19  20  21    23  24  25 >>

log in

join