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.

 

Are Atheists Air Brushing History?

page: 53
24
<< 50  51  52    54  55  56 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 25 2008 @ 09:01 PM
link   
reply to post by undo
 



Ok I was scanning it. It's long though but what i am seeing th evidence of imported goods etc. for Solomons time seems to be 330 years or so off... so is what you're getting at, the fact the calenders are rigged so they don't match the way they should? So it actually is evidence of Solomons kingdom?




posted on Mar, 25 2008 @ 09:56 PM
link   
reply to post by Bigwhammy
 


Something like that. He has several books out that look really interesting, including the one that pdf file is about, called A Test of Time

and a few others

Pharoahs and Kings: A Biblical Quest
Legend: The Genesis of Civilisation
The Lost Testament: From Eden to Exile



posted on Mar, 25 2008 @ 10:35 PM
link   
This post is in response to Riley who demanded that I post a back-up to my claim that the reasons.org website promotes an old-earth creationist model. This particular article is written by an astro-physicist. I think this is ample evidence to prove the website I quoted, is far from being young-earth proponents.

Since I was tired last evening and had to go to bed, I had no time to research and find the article, but here it is, condensed for space and for copyright reasons:
reasons.org


Before addressing those supposed conflicts, several remarks about the day-age view warrant a response. First, *name snipped* claims the Bible gives abundant evidence the creation "days" are to be understood as 24-hour days. Many notable Christians disagree. There is no scriptural or hermeneutical requirement the creation "days" must be interpreted as 24-hour time periods. Indeed, because the Bible does not say exactly how old the earth is, a diversity of views on the "days" of Genesis has always been completely acceptable in the church.3

*snip*

Third, *name snipped* states the day-age view is based on the false assumption science has proven long ages, pointing to young-earth articles contesting radiometric dating, light travel time and other things. The evidence for an old earth is overwhelming and incontrovertible. Multitudes of dating methods-both radiometric and non-radiometric-present a consistent picture, ***indicating the earth's age is best measured in millions or billions of years, not thousands of years.5***

*snip*

It should also be noted that Genesis 1 does not describe the establishment of calendar days on Earth until the fourth creation "day." Although the light-dark cycle began on the first "day," it was not until the fourth "day" God commanded the Sun, Moon and stars to become visible to mark days, seasons and years.15 This is a strong point against the young-earth view that the creation "days" were normal days. At least the first three "days," preceded God's establishment of calendar days.

*snip*

It should also be added that, according to the young-earth model, God created all land the animals -- both living and extinct -- in a 24-hour period. Thus, they would have all been on the Earth simultaneously. The narrative of sixth "day" does not support that view. The Hebrew terms clearly do not encompass all the land animals and the verb usage (yatsar) suggests a creative process of longer than 24 hours.
www.reasons.org/apologetics

reasons.org

I hope this dispels any *rumour* that I am quoting *false* sources of the age of the universe. I know this is off-topic, but since I was asked this question, I would like to reply. If the Mods find this unreasonable, I will certainly understand. Anyone interested in the entire article, feel free to u2u me and I will give you the entire *lengthy* link to the article.

I_R

[edit by Cuhail to fix source links]

[edit on 3/25/2008 by Cuhail]

[edit on 3/25/08 by idle_rocker]



posted on Mar, 25 2008 @ 10:55 PM
link   
Thank you Cuhail. I'm still ateachin myself to do all this postin. I never learnt no codin.



posted on Mar, 25 2008 @ 11:12 PM
link   
reply to post by AshleyD
 


Thing is even the Salem Witch trials weren't done for "purely" religious reasons.
Ever read or seen the play "The Crucible"?
It was more about petty BS and people using accusations of witchcraft to open up land they wanted.......



posted on Mar, 26 2008 @ 12:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by idle_rocker
This post is in response to Riley who demanded that I post a back-up to my claim that the reasons.org website promotes an old-earth creationist model.



I never said they didn't. I said they are 'open to' the idea.. not supportive of it.

They had an article on their front page about a research project into a young earth creation as well as their old age beliefs. I even quoted it.
Originally I asked you for objective scientific evidence that 'new research' had proven a "higher order" creator. You responded by telling me to go though the site myself and buy their dvd.

I had also explained why a christian site dedicated to proving the existence of god was not scientfically objective.

I am sincerely grateful that you went to all that effort to back up your claims that that site promotes an old earth idea. There seems to have been a misunderstanding here however as they were not the claims I was originally talking about [underlined*]:


Originally posted by riley

Originally posted by idle_rocker
I beg to differ with you on the separation of science and religion. *All you have to do is read the recent scientific findings to see there was definitely a higher order being who created this universe. If you don't believe me, read for yourself at www.reasons.org.

Reasons.org is a religious christian site with a clear agenda.. they even seem to be open to the 'sientific theory' of a young earth.


Could you please post these "scientific findings" from an actual objective [and scientific] source?


..and here is where I first explained that I never said they supported it. They have however proved that they are willing to give it a fair hearing which effects their credibilty. If they are so against Young earth theory.. why post anything on it at all without condemning it? There's no half-way fence sitting when you are talking scientific fact.


Originally posted by riley

Originally posted by idle_rocker
Actually they do not believe in the young earth theory. They believe in the big bang and the millions of years old age of the universe. How do you get that from their website?

Indeed there is an article on the front page about a research project [?] looking into it. I said 'open to' the theory, not supportive of it.. though the author of the article doesn't dicount it.
In any case that shows they're not that credible scientifically if they are willing to give it some acknowledgment as though a 'young earth' is possible.

www.reasons.org...
Do the RATE Findings Negate Mainstream Science?
By Greg Moore

Young-earth creationists are touting a research project they call Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth, or RATE. They describe the RATE findings as astounding, successful beyond all expectation and history in the making.1 Why are they so ecstatic? They claim RATE researchers have uncovered powerful evidence that confirms the Earth is young and demonstrates the old earth model is not supported by empirical science.2

This is a remarkable claim. Do the RATE findings invalidate the mainstream view of Earth history? Most of the issues the RATE team examined are technical, making it difficult for laypeople to evaluate the significance of their work. This paper attempts to provide a balanced assessment of the project so Christians can decide for themselves what the RATE findings contribute to the age of the earth debate.



I've visited it often.

Again:

To me it looks like a propoganda site for ID so could you please post these 'scientific findings' from objective scientific sources? That site is called "Reasons to believe" so obviously all findings on that site are going to find god..


I have underlined this again so you can understand why I do not consider their articles unbiased. It is a christian site that uses science.. not a science site.


I hope this dispels any *rumour* that I am quoting *false* sources of the age of the universe.

I hope you now realise that I did not accuse you of doing that.. but again that does not make it a scientific source. If the science is legit you should be able to quote a source that is not religiously biased.

Yes this if offtopic. If you decide to post scientific sources/evidence etc. perhaps you could do so in an origins thread. One of these maybe?
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...

[edit on 26-3-2008 by riley]



posted on Mar, 26 2008 @ 12:39 AM
link   
reply to post by riley
 





I had also explained why a christian site dedicated to proving the existence of god was not scientfically objective.


What makes you think that anyone is truly scientifically objective about anything? Everyone has a position they start from on these subjects, including you. How is an atheist site dedicated to proving the non-existence of god, religiously objective? Do you see the futility of that kind of thinking?
You can't expect anyone to be truly objective about anything, this far into the game. You can only look at the evidence and decide if you find it convincing or the very least, thought provoking.



posted on Mar, 26 2008 @ 12:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by undo
reply to post by riley
 





I had also explained why a christian site dedicated to proving the existence of god was not scientfically objective.


What makes you think that anyone is truly scientifically objective about anything?


A good scientist would form an objective theory and conclusion by looking at all the scientfic evidence available. He/she does not start with a conclusion and then try make the evidence support it.. especially one thats based on theology or superstition.


[edit on 26-3-2008 by riley]



posted on Mar, 26 2008 @ 12:59 AM
link   


A good scientist would form an objective theory and conclusion by looking at all the scientfic evidence available. He/she does not start with a conclusion and then try make the evidence support it.. especially one thats based on theology or superstition.


The problem with that thinking is that it is based on a supposition that theology is merely a superstition. Let's look at what it also is, for a moment, if you don't mind.

We all agree that christian and judaic theology is from books and personal anecdotal experiences. The books are historical documents, describing past events. These people had experiences, first hand accounts, just as we have experiences in our lives today, while doing things like studying, eating, fighting, etc. We call it history or news, but its all the same banana. The only difference is, you believe those events which lead to those ancient texts, were fabrications, imaginations, and falsehoods. But you believe that for partially invalid reasons. Not totally invalid reasons, mind you, because I understand God can't be tested empirically unless you experience him for yourself. Rather, I'm referring to the foundation of the belief that the texts of the ancient past were fabrications.

As a scientist, do you honestly believe, that for 4000 years, millions, perhaps billions of people imagined what they witnessed and documented, and for the next 2000 years, imagined what they experienced and wrote about? Do you really believe that?



posted on Mar, 26 2008 @ 01:16 AM
link   
Part of the problem is based in the changing of the guard, as it were.
Before Jesus, the Temple was THE site for visitation.
After Jesus, the individual became the Temple.
The Shekhinah no longer resided behind the veil,
in the holy of holies, but in the believer.
The Temple/Church building, became unnecessary
as the believer became the church building. The only
reason for gathering together was for friendship and
camaraderie, uplifting each other, that kinda thing.

So when people said, "God doesn't interact with people
like it describes in the old testament", they were not
understanding what the coming of Jesus represented.
Naturally, there was no longer empirical evidence because
the evidence was now in the believer.

A difficult proposition for a scientist.

[edit on 26-3-2008 by undo]



posted on Mar, 26 2008 @ 02:09 AM
link   
Dawkins on the half shell... served by Dr John Lennox
the entire debate for you listening pleasure.

Google Video Link


[edit on 3/26/2008 by Bigwhammy]

[edit on 3/26/2008 by Bigwhammy]



posted on Mar, 26 2008 @ 03:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by Bigwhammy
Dawkins on the half shell... served by Dr John Lennox
the entire debate for you listening pleasure.

Google Video Link


[edit on 3/26/2008 by Bigwhammy]

[edit on 3/26/2008 by Bigwhammy]


Yeah Lennox cleaned his clock and put many of the "postulates" Dumbkins has to rest. I just came back from Arizona State as you know Whammy and you wouldn't believe the resentment many in Science have towards that guy for infusing his Atheism into Science and now their is such a "Atheopolitical" blow back" from inhibiting research into areas of Science where the world view isn't really predicated on the Scientific method,, they complain that it is run by Atheists with a a smothering over protection of their Religion Evolution. Professor Mizzi was there telling me it has been "holding Science back since that idiot fake scientist Darwin" infected science with it. btw he is also an Atheist.

Here let me rub it in like an atheist because frankly THEY GOT IT COMIN

Lennox CRUSHES this guy using a logic so "elegant" so "perfect and simple" is the logic of the man Lennox. His ideas and proofs are like a "sinewy bridge" connecting that which is well intentioned to being well understood. I winced in embarrassment for Mr Dawkin's as he groped for an answer while Lennox leaves Dawkins choking on the dust of his own regrets.




- Con




[edit on 26-3-2008 by Conspiriology]



posted on Mar, 26 2008 @ 04:03 AM
link   
reply to post by Conspiriology
 


Lennox on the fine tuning of the universe



posted on Mar, 26 2008 @ 04:03 AM
link   
I'd say it goes the other way. The world's largest religious groups have 'airbrushed' history to cover their own atrocities for hundreds of years and they continue to do so today whenever they occur.

The fact that Atheists have been essentially opressed by religious folk and remained a minority in history really left them little room to commit any atrocities, at least on the scale that religions have.

That's my opinion anyway.



posted on Mar, 26 2008 @ 04:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by melatonin

Originally posted by undo
The problem is, it's not ALWAYS pseudoscience, merely science that's controversial. (notice I said not "ALWAYS"). You have to admit it is our prediliction to over-react to things we disagree with, at least initially, and
if "experts" don't agree with the idea, then it has a snow ball's chance in hellof making any headway.


Not at all. It's no more than a negative argument against evolution. It can be philosophy, it can be religious 'theory'. But until IDers actually do some proper science, then it remains pseudoscience.

Thus far for ID:

Number of scientific articles testing an ID hypothesis = 0
Number of popular books written = many
Number of school textbooks = two or three
Number of films = 1
Number of press-releases = too many to mention
Number of court cases lost for attempting to ram ID creationism into schools = 1

It's just creationism in a cheap tux. That's not to say it can't be science, they just need to actually try to do some. I've yet to see a proper scientific ID hypothesis which wasn't a negative argument against evolution. When you say goddidit, it can answer anything. Why x? Godwanteditthatway! Why y? Godwanteditthatway! Vacuous and useless in science.

Bad science. Bad theology, from what I hear. You don't need evidence, have faith



You have just described Evolution, needs no grounds for to defend its evidence for if anyone does they are relegated to the absurd creationist whether they are or not, evolutionists use some of the most asinine tactics to keep the NAS as homogenously full of like minded yes men. They all say it's science when it is religion of Atheism in the guise of Science and when ever they give it enough time , given enough time given enough time given enough time,, it is "postulated" many of the tenets of evolution will come true.

Until then however,,,

have faith


- Con

[edit on 26-3-2008 by Conspiriology]



posted on Mar, 26 2008 @ 04:14 AM
link   
I will apologize in advance for posting before reading the entire thread, will read the rest later when I get home from work

[QUOTE]
Certainly Mel. In fact I will let Dr. Dawkins do the honor of saying it with his very own lips. This film is called "The Root of All Evil" it's about all religion. [/QUOTE]

Richard Dawkins strongly contested the name but Channel 4 didn't want to change it, you would know that if you had read his book, I don't understand how you can claim to know what his point of view is when you don't know all the facts yourself??

[QUOTE]This is because when God is eliminated it really only leaves Darwinism and materialism as a world view.[/QUOTE]

This one really made me laugh, I'm an atheist. I am skeptical about Darwinism and his theory of evolution. But materialism, don't make me laugh!! I care very very little for material possessions, I care more about my welfare and that of those around me than I do about how many items of clothing I own or what furniture I have in my house.

My world view is that the world is one amazing place, full of things I will never truly understand. I believe everyone should be treated equally and I fail to get my head around people who enjoy killing and hurting each other.

Now this is where I'm confused, because I'm an atheist, I get these opinions and points of view from my life experience and from how I was raised, but according to you without religion there is only Materialism and Darwinism. Think I'm living proof your wrong and I'm sure you can find thousands of other people with a similar point of view



posted on Mar, 26 2008 @ 04:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by Duality
I'd say it goes the other way. The world's largest religious groups have 'airbrushed' history to cover their own atrocities for hundreds of years and they continue to do so today whenever they occur.

The fact that Atheists have been essentially opressed by religious folk and remained a minority in history really left them little room to commit any atrocities, at least on the scale that religions have.

That's my opinion anyway.


How has religion oppressed you,, Atheists always playing the "victim" of Religion Yet so many others I know who have been ex-communicated from Church etc,, seem to have no feelings of being oppressed what so ever.

- Con



posted on Mar, 26 2008 @ 04:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by cleggy88
TBut materialism, don't make me laugh!! I care very very little for material possessions, I care more about my welfare and that of those around me than I do about how many items of clothing I own or what furniture I have in my house.


I don't think you don't understand what materialism means in the philosophic sense. It's not about your taste in furniture.


The philosophy of materialism holds that the only thing that can be truly proven to exist is matter, and is considered a form of physicalism. Fundamentally, all things are composed of material and all phenomena are the result of material interactions; therefore, matter is the only substance

link







[edit on 3/26/2008 by Bigwhammy]



posted on Mar, 26 2008 @ 04:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by cleggy88

This one really made me laugh, I'm an atheist. I am skeptical about Darwinism and his theory of evolution. But materialism, don't make me laugh!! I care very very little for material possessions, I care more about my welfare and that of those around me than I do about how many items of clothing I own or what furniture I have in my house.



I think you have it ,, ummm how you say,, well

WRONG.

The materialism they are talking about isn't the same as what you are trying to change it into

silly strawmen might try that but ,, I really think this was a genuine mis interpretation on your part and not an attempt to rewrite a debate much less the meaning and context.

- Con

[edit on 26-3-2008 by Conspiriology]



posted on Mar, 26 2008 @ 04:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by Bigwhammy


I don't think you don't understand what materialism means in the philosophic sense. It's not about your taste in furniture.
[
[edit on 3/26/2008 by Bigwhammy]


Damn whammy couldn't you have waited till i was done typing LOL you post hog!

Star Hog!

lol

- Con




top topics



 
24
<< 50  51  52    54  55  56 >>

log in

join