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.

 

Why creation?

page: 8
5
<< 5  6  7    9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 21 2008 @ 05:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by Good Wolf
reply to post by JPhish
 


Don't be stupid. Even a child can understand that if God exits then the realm of chance is one that god governs. To say that chance requires the absence of God is inane. The majority of christians AND "evolutionists" disagree with you.

Terms have not even been defined and you're already resorting to calling me stupid. Very nice.


I never said that God would not govern "chance". I was using the word chance synonymously with evolutions current idea that "random mutations facilitate evolution." Because this is the only situation where "chance" is applicable to evolution, i thought this was obvious. But i guess not!

In a world where God exists these mutations would cease to be random and instead have intent. Therefore if you are a TRUE Christian you can not be a TRUE Evolutionist.

[edit on 10/21/2008 by JPhish]




posted on Oct, 21 2008 @ 07:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by JPhish
In a world where God exists these mutations would cease to be random and instead have intent. Therefore if you are a TRUE Christian you can not be a TRUE Evolutionist.


Balderdash! Being a 'TRUE' Christian is the acceptance and adherence to the New Testament, and the belief that Jesus is the true Messiah. It has absolutely nothing to do with the literal acceptance of the Old Testament. Jesus himself had problems with the Torah and the Jewish faith. By your interpretation, one must be a good Jew and a good Christian in order to be a 'TRUE' Christian. The Catholic Church has openly accepted evolution, and they are the oldest Christian denomination on the planet, by over 1,000 years. It also has more followers than all other Christian denominations combined. And before you start slamming the Catholics as not being 'TRUE' Christians, let's check what the definition of 'Christian' really is; "of, pertaining to, believing in, or belonging to the religion based on the teachings of Jesus Christ". Yep, they most certainly are Christians!

Now, I imagine that you are going to tell me that only people of your particular denomination are 'TRUE' Christians, but you can save it. It's crap and you know it. In fact, a case could be made that all denominations that have since split off from the original Christian Church, the Catholic Church, are merely Christian cults. I personally would not say that, I would reserve that distinction for the 'Holy Roller' denominations, which quite clearly exhibit cultish behavior, such as the Pentacostals, the Jahovah's Witnesses, the Mormons, and the like.

It amazes me that so many 'TRUE' Christians are so conservative and closed minded, when the Christian faith was established by the most Liberal Jew that has ever walked the planet! Jesus said to 'love thy neighbor as thyself', and also 'let he who is without sin cast the first stone'. Well, it has been my experience that when discussing evolution, Creationists show nothing but hatred towards evolutionists and try to 'stone' the crap out of them. If you truly had the 'Mind of Christ', you would debate such an issue calmly and rationally, with all the facts and with an open mind.

I would also point out that you are defending a book that is not even your book. The Old Testament, more accurately, The Torah belongs to the Jewish people and I have yet to see even one Jew on these forums defending the Creation Myth. Instead of defending a myth that is not even yours, you might want to spend that time reading the book that is yours, The New Testament, which is based on the life of the Founder of your religion. I see many Christian preachers interpreting the book that is not theirs, but I have never seen a Rabbi trying to interpret your book. As far as who is a 'TRUE' Christian, the only one who can answer that is Jesus himself, and unless you are the second coming, you are not qualified in any way to decide who is and who is not a 'TRUE' Christian!



posted on Oct, 21 2008 @ 09:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by JaxonRoberts

Originally posted by JPhish
Creationists show nothing but hatred towards evolutionists and try to 'stone' the crap out of them. If you truly had the 'Mind of Christ', you would debate such an issue calmly and rationally, with all the facts and with an open mind.

Not true. but, in threads like this, its gonna happen. The frustrating problem arises on the creationist side when we are asked for proof. and then actually try it...errr, There are "clues" but you can connect the dots into an infinite way to interpret anything the way you want, but there isn't proof. evolutionist "hate" faith (at least the popular ones) and that faith destroys and distorts, but those statements do not take in enough consideration. Faith, and believing before knowing, are very powerful. it is quite obvious man kind "knows" very little,yet the majority of historiy's numerous accomplishments, feats, and discoveries arose out of what we imagined possible, yet could not proove. (to imagine possible is to believe it can happen, to believe it can happen, is to have faith until it does). No one can take in account for everthing, so we use faith to fill in the gaps until we can.



posted on Oct, 21 2008 @ 10:24 PM
link   
reply to post by juveous
 


Not true. You are confusing evolutionists with aetheists. While all aetheists are evolutionists, not all evolutionists are aetheists. While I will agree with the fact that aetheists use evolution to attack those who have faith, they should not be lumped together with all evolutionists. I have a deep faith in the divine, but I am still an evolutionist. I will never attack someone's faith, but I will debate their belief in creation and their misuse of information provided by the theory of evolution. It has been my experience though that creationists will attack and villify anyone who questions the 'Seven Days' myth, and automatically consider them to be 'Godless'. Sure, there are some holes in evolution, but there is not one single theory out there that points in another direction at this time. On the other hand, there is not one piece of credible scientific evidence that points to the creation myth. I feel this is because to think anything other than creation is possible somehow denies the existance of God, which is totally not true. In fact, it points to an even more Divine Being, as it would be much more magnificent for such a being to create all of this just by causing The Big Bang and then letting nature take it's course. To me, the difference between such a Being and the traditional Biblical concept of God is the same as the difference between Criss Angel and the Biblical God. One is just a Divine Magician and the other is a Being so complex and beyond us that we cannot even comprehend such an Entity.



posted on Oct, 22 2008 @ 12:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by Anonymous ATS
reply to post by Good Wolf
 


How can someone study macro-evolution? I thought macro evolution took millions of years to take place. if so, then it is indeed just speculation and imagination to come up with those explanations on that site. or do you believe that human scientists are infallible?


Any form of selective breeding is just that. You have a dog? One of the many breeds? Well Dogs evolved from wolves. Some dogs have experience speciation now like Great Dames and Chihuahuas. THAT IS MACRO EVOLUTION. Small cat families and large cat families. Lions and Tigers and Bears, Oh my. Horses, Zebras.

The point is that with divergent evolution (where one things evolves in various directions) when we find the common ancestor for all the current animals then we can SEE the macro.


you can say evolution has nothing against God all you like but it doesn't change the fact that it does. The Bible says God created living things according to their kinds, therefore no evolution.


Tool, "The Bible says so" shows that you can't discern between doctrine and deity. Why don't you start think for yourself rather than giving that privilege up to some book written by men?!


i have displayed no Hypocrisy at all. I just don't believe science fiction no matter how inteligent or well qualified the storey teller. if evolution was a fact, it could be demonstrated, and it has not. I have seen no real scientifix evidence that any creature has ever evolved into a different creature. All experiments i have read about have started with a class of creature, e.g. fruit fly, and ended with the same class of creature by their own definition. Surely these scientists could demonstrate evolution better than that.


This is like a blind man saying "I cannot see the wall therefore it is not there." I said you were being hypocritical because you have already decided that evolution is bunk. THAT PRECONCEIVED CONCLUSION IS YOUR HYPOCRISY! You were the one talking about open mindedness in the sight of your own hypocrisy.


are you sure all plant life would have died in the flood? where is the scientific experimentation to show this? Is it not the case that seeds can remain dorment until such time when conditions are favourable for them to grow?


Locally there have been several small floods. The river rose about 4 feet meaning that the water started flowing over the treeline and even on the riverside road. Decimation! All the trees had to be re-rooted (even they didn't all survive) the road got all torn up, people had gotten caught and drowned. And that was a TINY flood.

Plus I'd like to know where the water came from that flooded the world? And even more strangely, where did it go?



posted on Oct, 22 2008 @ 04:00 AM
link   
reply to post by Good Wolf
 


Hmmmm I can see I am going to have to write a thread on this so called flood in the near future but I may be condemned as a Heretic....

But I will write an article on it anyway, there is so much mis information on this especially by the churches.

There will be a few surprises...



posted on Oct, 22 2008 @ 04:17 AM
link   
reply to post by The Matrix Traveller
 


What camp are you in? evolution, theistic evolution or creation?

[edit on 10/22/2008 by Good Wolf]



posted on Oct, 22 2008 @ 08:10 AM
link   
Most theists don't want the house of cards to crumble.
I used to be a devout theist, but now am agnostic primarily because I dropped the belief that the bible had to be right. If the bible is correct, it will stand up to the test of time AND argument. This has to be promoted, because otherwise you could end up believing in fairies or magic or something.

These links, while humorous, tend to infuriate those that believe. They choose to take genesis literally to the n'th degree, but choose to ignore the other weird, evil and depraved things in the bible:

www.cracked.com...
www.cracked.com...

That's really why I stopped believing in the whole thing, people involved in it won't even TALK about how absurd some of the bible is, that it may be subject to the same chinese whispers, that the bible as originally written is different than it is today... yadda yadda.

Other things they don't like:
- God is childish, killing those who don't do what he wants. Why not just prevent their births or wait for them to die? He obviously knew this was going to happen, why bother?
- If god is omniscient, he shouldn't be jealous
- If we go to heaven, do we have free will (i.e. can we sin)? If not, are we just robots?
- Why no miracles now like there were back then? Why were they so special?

The last thing that got me going when I was young was simply:
Why is it so hard to believe that evolution may have been caused by god, by snapping his fingers billions of years ago, then sitting back and knowing what would happen. That seems like a far more majestic plan than manipulating everything.
Not one christian I have ever talked to actually listens to this argument. They are so far with their head up their *** in dogma to even contemplate their absurd explanation for reality may be incorrect, despite mounting evidence.

I have a psychic prediction (lol) : in 100 years, people who don't believe in evolution are considered as nutty and insane as the ones who think the world is flat right now are.



posted on Oct, 22 2008 @ 09:51 AM
link   
reply to post by benjiskylar
 


Good one, skylar. I know what you mean, Im in that ex-devout boat too.



posted on Oct, 22 2008 @ 05:37 PM
link   
reply to post by JaxonRoberts
 


:shk: You're totally misinterpreting what i said and missing the point. I don't even know what you're talking about it's so off base. This has nothing to do with christians or jews or any other theistic religion. This has to do with believing in a god. If one believes in a God that governs the universe; one can not believe in the current evolutionary theory which relies on RANDOM mutations to facilitate change within in a species.

[edit on 10/22/2008 by JPhish]



posted on Oct, 22 2008 @ 05:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by JPhish
reply to post by JaxonRoberts
 


:shk: You're totally misinterpreting what i said and missing the point. I don't even know what you're talking about it's so off base. This has nothing to do with christians or jews or any other theistic religion.


I was responding to the quoted statement that you made, which is in my post. I did not misrepresent anything. Perhaps you misrepresented you thoughts.


This has to do with believing in a god. If one believes in a God that governs the universe; one can not believe in the current evolutionary theory which relies on RANDOM mutations to facilitate change within in a species.


Untrue. I covered this quite handily in my original post. You think of God as no more than a Divine Magician, I see a being of infinitely more complexity. Apparently it is beyond your comprehension. Unlike yourself, I do not try to 'humanize' the Divine Creator.



posted on Oct, 22 2008 @ 11:35 PM
link   
reply to post by JPhish
 


I thought we'd gotten, phish, but obviously not.

Random. Why? Because science has not been able to proved that a God is or isn't jimmying with the system. So unless the theory changes somehow to explicitly rule out God, "there is no conflict".

Evolution is a natural process, it can occur by itself. Which means that God could have created the universe and stepped back and let the universe do what it will. Truly Random mutations would occur but it still does not rule out God.

It says "random" because that's all they have ever seen them act like and they appear of happen by their lonesome. The wording of evolution is no reason a person with faith should have a problem. Get over it.



posted on Oct, 23 2008 @ 04:11 AM
link   
reply to post by Good Wolf
 


dog breeding as an example of macro-evolution? Even richard dawkins does not point to that. he admits that macro evolution takes millions of years to occur and can not be observed. I think he knows and understands evolution a bit more than you, or do you think otherwise?

Yes i believe in a book written thousands of years ago by different men, claiming to be inspired by God. You believe text books and internet pages written by men who keep changing thier minds as to the details of thier beliefs. Again, do you think that human scientists are infallible? is the current theory of evolution that you base your beliefs upon written in stone and will never change, or is it possible for future scientists to come along and blow current thinking into pieces? What would you do if real scientific experimentation advanced to the point that it could prove evolution is impossible? would you believe it or blindly stick to your belief? You could ask me the same question and i say that if science had proven evolution to be fact i would change my belief.

Following on from that, I do have an open mind. I have decided that evolution is bunk because real science has shown it to be so. For years scientists have tried to create life and evolve things in the laboratory by trying as many scenarios as they can think of. The results have been pitifull. Real science has already proved that nature on its own cannot create life and evolve with different environmental conditions. The only way to create life is for someone to manipulate elements needed and put them together in the correct way, which if i am correct, they still haven't managed to do. Why so hard to reproduce what dumb unknowing nature consistantly churns out all over the planet?

Who was talking about trees? I asked if it was possible or not for seeds to lay dormant until such time as conditions are favourable for them to grow. please reference reputable scientific experimentation that proves this to be impossible. Logic according to good wolf is not good enough for me, sorry.



posted on Oct, 23 2008 @ 08:51 AM
link   
reply to post by Good Wolf
 


God if he exists DOESNT WANT TO BE FOUND via proof, it would defeat the whole purpose of faith. What we can verify is that if he exists, he certainly has kept his word, at least SINCE the new testament, sending his son to the death and wiping out historical evidence, faking a flood etc etc...

Nothing in the bible will turn out to be verifiable. Just like the flood. Like jesus himself. There just ARE no historical records of supposedly critical moments in the bible, except for the bible itself. It's the point. If it was verifiable, it would consitute PROOF which would go against the bible.

The best thing we could do is find the ark. It would prove god doesn't exist, as we would no longer require faith.

I don't see why most christians dont get this!



posted on Oct, 24 2008 @ 02:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by Good Wolf

Originally posted by jpm1602
Understood good wolf. There is more than enough room for evolution AND God in our current genre.

Nice avatar by the way. You got any sisters? lol


It's funny you should mention it, because I had the wolf in your avatar as my avatar on another forum.


The other thing I shouldda mentioned is that these same creationists deny evolution purely because they don't understand it. I've seen so many misconceptions on here that I'm stunned. Case in point- the idea that evolution tries to answer the question of where did life come from in the first place.

ERR!


Very good point and I would go along with your thought and in fact why can't those who can't accept evolution realise that The True Mind had to evolve in order to produce Life I mean the Life force as in Consciousness....

So you can't get away from the fact that what produced God (I don't in the human understand as it is full of false understanding as humankind does Not understand God The "Word" or God The Life or Light of Man ) had to evolve first to great God.

See "The True Mind" being Life or "The Light of Man" had to Evolve first, before it could create.

And I challenge anyone to prove me wrong on this.

Just because the Roman collection of Hebrew and Greek Writing, does not mention "the Evolution of The True Mind" or "Life of God" didn't take place in the beginning, does Not mean to say it did Not take place in fact...

I can in fact show how this happened but most Religious people especially of Roman doctrine, would accuse me of heresy !!! LOL..



posted on Oct, 24 2008 @ 10:21 AM
link   
reply to post by Good Wolf
 


i have replied a couple of times but for some reason my posts are not getting through. i hope this one does.

anyway, selective breeding as an example of macro evolution? even dick dawkins doesn't say that. He says it takes millions of years for evolution to take place and i think he understands it a bit better than you, or do you disagree? I ask again, how can you study something that takes millions of years to occur?

I do think for myself. I have studied the bible and believe it. I have studied science and believe real science, just not science fiction. i think some people can be intimidated by scientists and think because they say something it must be true. well i only believe them when they have proven it. How could they prove evolution? well for a start if they could have got those fruit flies to evolve into something other than a fly after all those generations, then that would have done it. they couldn't do it because it is impossible. they never will do it because it cannot be done, not unless they start tampering with the dna manually.

about having preconceived ideas. you are wrong, if they could show evolution taking place ina scenario like i stated above then i would believe it. I ask you, how many times will they need to fail before you start to have doubts? I realise you really want evolution to be true, but when exactly will you start to ask why they can't get anything to evolve into something else? it is supposed to be a mindless natural Phenomena, why can't so called clever scientists repeat it?

about the flood: you still haven't referenced any scientific experimentation proving that it is impossible for plant life seeds (not trees), to lay dormant after a flood event until such time as favourable conditions occur for them to grow. I am sorry but your opinion that it is unlikely is irrelevant.



posted on Oct, 24 2008 @ 10:30 AM
link   
reply to post by benjiskylar
 


If the bible described evolution and genetics in a fairly approachable way before people would've worked it out for themselves, would lend itself to the bible being true. BUT There are a lot of things in there that have been ruled out by science, ie you can't cure blindness by throwing spitty dirt into someones eyes.

[edit on 10/24/2008 by Good Wolf]



posted on Oct, 24 2008 @ 11:06 AM
link   
What gets me about this thread is that everyone on the evolution side refuses to provide any facts or repeatable science to prove their point. It is also surprising that they also refuse to accept the FACT that not one Scientist out there believes in Evolution as fact. In fact all the scientists, no matter their field, absolutely denounce the theory. I don't want to start posting those scientists declarations as there are over 10,000 of them but I guess I may be forced to do that very thing. There is no one in this thread that can produce any evidence in support of their theory, the reason of course is that no one in science can. it is an interesting position for those few scientists that may advocate some type of evolution never show any proof from their discipline. That is to say if you ask a molecular Biologist for proof he will say there is no proof in his discipline but that the geologists have it, ask the geologists for their proof and they claim they have none but the paleontologists have it ask the paleontologists for it and they claim they have no proof but it can be found in the astrophysics discipline, ask the astrophysicist and he will say that the proof is in the molecular biologists discipline. You see they all believe that someone else has the proof but when asked not one discipline claims to have he proof. The fossil record shows no intermediate fossils and all fossils appear fully developed and in great abundance instantly, in fact the fossil record clearly is flawed when things turn up alive and well that they claimed went extinct some 4 billion to 65 million years ago. The fossil record shows human footprints in the same strata as the dinosaurs footprints are found. In one case they found a human shod foot that smashed a trilobite. The theory died long ago and it's the big secret amongst scientists today to not discuss the facts that no one has any proof of evolution. There are no missing links, there is no geological column as shown in books found anywhere in the world but it is still used as fact in textbooks Textbooks still try to sell evolution with known fallacies such as the supposed evolution of the horse which was disproved in 1874. They claim that evolution would make simpler creatures into more complex and larger ones, yet the fossil record shows just the opposite. The fossil record shows that the earlier creatures, both those still alive and those gone extinct were bigger in the past and more complicated. Take the trilobites eyes, the eyes of the trilobite are the most complex eyes ever found in any creature or fossil, yet some still claim trilobites as precursors to more complex creatures. Funny thing about those trilobites that died out according to the evolutionists some 600 million years ago are found still alive and thriving in the oceans today. Half of the so called index fossils have been pulled from the list as they have been found still alive and they are identical to those found in the fossil record, so over 600 million years there was no evolution of that one creature? This example shows true in the fossil record for every so called index fossil. There are many scientists that admit that it appears from the fossil record and the REAL geological column that around 4300 years ago something catastrophic happened to the planet, they have surmised from the evidence that it had to be a worldwide flood, that only a worldwide flood could lay down the vegetation and animals in the amounts they are found in he fossil record. The fossil record today has over 250,000 species and over 100,000,000 fossils categorized and not one is an intermediary fossil.

The last thing I want to bring up is the racism needed to believe in evolution, Darwin's book was not called the origin of species. It was called the preservation of favored races also, this is why quigly was sent to Australia to shoot thousands of aboriginal Australians, boiling their heads and sending the best specimens to museums for their so called evolution of man displays. This is why American Indians were called savages and slaughtered by the thousands, this is why Hitler had his own hit list of lower evolved creatures, and if evolution were true then Hitler would be correct, by taking out the so called lower evolved kinds from the gene pool would make evolution move quicker. Why in over 150 years of study has not one creature ever evolved into another? why is there no evidence of evolution today. In fact if evolution were true there could be no stable species, we would have millions of kinds of creatures all in some part of their evolution in becoming something better and bigger, yet all the evidence shows stable kinds appearing fully developed and exactly as their living counterparts are today.

The reason I think people try to hold on to this flawed crapola theory is the other deduction one must come too if evolution is not true. GOD CREATED and if GOD CREATED what is their responsibility to that Creator? In a world of if it feels good do it we don't want no Creator giving us rules of behavior nor do we want to accept that we have a duty to our Creator to follow his rules.

Now which one of you evolutionists in this thread will say what evolution demands? Which one of you will say that Australian Aborigines are less than evolved or less human than you are, how about the Jews? how about africans, asians? which race of humans would you call the lower form?

I bet no one will answer this part of the logical procession and tell us which humans are lower than the others, just my opinion that they don't have the guts to stand on their theory and claim it as it should be. It's easy to talk about it and claim it true but let's see which one of you evolutionists will agree with Hitler and name the lower Human races. The only two other possible answers to how everything got here is God Created or Alien life forms seeded, anything else requires imagination and acute blindness to the facts.

And no I won't argue against Aliens seeded, I don't know how everything got here, I believe in the GOD Created version but I can not prove it or disprove Alien Seeding, but Evolution has been thoroughly vetted and shown lacking.



posted on Oct, 24 2008 @ 11:48 AM
link   
I would type in my laughter but it'd be a waste of time.

So first of all I wanna look at this:


Originally posted by theindependentjournal
Now which one of you evolutionists in this thread will say what evolution demands? Which one of you will say that Australian Aborigines are less than evolved or less human than you are, how about the Jews? how about africans, asians? which race of humans would you call the lower form?

I bet no one will answer this part of the logical procession and tell us which humans are lower than the others, just my opinion that they don't have the guts to stand on their theory and claim it as it should be. It's easy to talk about it and claim it true but let's see which one of you evolutionists will agree with Hitler and name the lower Human races.


None of us "evolutionists" have to agree with Hitler and proclaim that some peoples are better or worse than others. This is a creationist misrepresentation that I've seen before. To equate evolution with Hitler.

There is a mile between evolution and eugenics. Eugenics is the use of evolutionary principles to an evil end - the justification of killing people, racism and the imposing of people's rights and freedoms. That is not part of evolution. It's the equivalent of using atomic theory to make Abombs to kill many many people but that doesn't make atomic theory evil.

Let us look again at Hitler. He wrote a book called 'Mein Kampf', or My Battle/My Struggle in English. At times he draws on a book called 'On the Jews and their Lies' as some of his inspiration of anti-Jewishnesses. That particular book was of course written by Martin Luther, the father of the Protestant faith.

Hitler claimed to be doing the work of God, the Christian God.

Now you know how people can equate Hitler with just about any philosophy.



But this thread is not about evidence or proving to anybody the validity and factuality of evolution to anyone. It's about why someone would think that the creation myth is the truth as apposed to what science has found.

It is in essence a Religion vs Science discussion from a psychological view point.



[edit on 10/24/2008 by Good Wolf]



posted on Oct, 24 2008 @ 12:21 PM
link   
reply to post by JaxonRoberts
 


Evolution is not a fact, there are so many things we are learning now, that if Darwin had this information then, he would have thought differently . Do you believe that man stepped on the moon. Look into cosmic dust accumulation on the moon, and then decide if the moon is as old as evolution states. Also ask NASA if the moon is loosing orbit from the earth and how much is measured each year,and then ask yourself why the moon is still in orbit If evolution is a fact, the moon would have broke the earths gravity long ago...




top topics



 
5
<< 5  6  7    9 >>

log in

join