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.

 

Surely this will silence a lot of you...

page: 3
5
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 15 2008 @ 07:18 AM
link   
I blame it all on that sneaky talking snake in the Garden of Eden.

Man , how did God not fore-see that causing trouble.




posted on Sep, 15 2008 @ 07:21 AM
link   
reply to post by 666Azrael666
 


Now hang on just a minute. The pope has authority because so many are Catholics, plain and simple. You may not follow the catholic pope as an authority, but my point is that he is one example of how most Christians are evolutionists and most evolutionists are Christians. Most of the western world understands that a literal interpretation of genesis is silly.

On Abiogenesis, I said get a scientific based book because Abiogenesis is a science so only a scientific book will explain and portray it properly.


I heard a lot of creationists claim Abiogenesis as silly and that life just plain did not come from a mud puddle, despite the fact that that is not what Abiogenesis says. In fact I've only read one book that says we came from dirt, 'The Holy Bible'.

[edit on 9/15/2008 by Good Wolf]



posted on Sep, 15 2008 @ 07:28 AM
link   
reply to post by Good Wolf
 


Still missing the point.

1-why do all these catholics follow the pope in the first place? Why did they ever begin to put faith in this man to be God's official spokesman? What biblical precident set it up? I am not asking why people listen to him today specifically, why did the pope ever get the power he had.

2-Again, that is my point. It is not in the bible so creationism is a little farther out the window isn't it.

At this point, I am not at all sure what your point is.



posted on Sep, 15 2008 @ 07:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by 666Azrael666
1-why do all these catholics follow the pope in the first place? Why did they ever begin to put faith in this man to be God's official spokesman? What biblical precident set it up? I am not asking why people listen to him today specifically, why did the pope ever get the power he had.


That doesn't have anything to do with the thread.


2-Again, that is my point. It is not in the bible so creationism is a little farther out the window isn't it.

At this point, I am not at all sure what your point is.


Sorry, I'm lost. Are you siding with creationists or were you just being sarcastic? Cos if you're siding with evolution, I must apologise.


Edit: Of course your not arguing from a creationist stand, you had 666 in you username. Ah. I'm sorry, I totally misunderstood what you where saying. I feel a little sily now.


[edit on 9/15/2008 by Good Wolf]



posted on Sep, 15 2008 @ 08:06 AM
link   
Is this so shocking?
After the Church of England cow-towed to the holy church for the reformation and wanted to reunite all churches under the Pope?
Just more 'falling away' from the tenents of Godliness and Faith while following the roman church's lead.

Even many evolutionists are glad that Darwinism isn't taught as Darwin himself believed..
Newscientist

Darwin's other mistakes are more trivial. For instance, in one edition of Origin of Species, Darwin enthused about "Eozoon canadense", which had been identified as a primordial microorganism by others but whose "fossils" turned out to be nothing more than mineral formations.

Darwin also thought the dog was a hybrid of several wild ancestors whereas chickens had only one ancestor. Actually, it turns out the the opposite is true. He also suggested the lung evolved from the swimbladder of fish, whereas nowadays it appears the reverse is true.

Some biologists are now calling for a revision of the modern synthesis to take into account of how new findings have changed our view of, for instance, the nature of genes, the origin of sex, epigenetic inheritance, levels of selection and speciation. Such a revision, however, would merely formally recognise what biologists have already learned in recent decades.



So what have they learned? In a sentence, that while the concept of evolution by natural selection proposed by Darwin was simple, over the Earth's 4-billion-year history it has led to incredibly complex and often unexpected consequences


Not to mention his racism and don't dismiss it with the "Everybody was doing it", clause!
Favoured races


Eugenics is a moral commitment not a racial affiliation and any "race" that adopted a eugenic program could, given sufficient time, evolve into and become the next more highly evolved species above Homo-Sapiens. It is our hope that all "races" will accept that moral responsibility and accomplish that objective, but it can not be accomplished within the political, philosophical and religious milieu of the 20th century.


*'Origin of Species', Charles Darwin.



posted on Sep, 15 2008 @ 08:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by Clearskies

Even many evolutionists are glad that Darwinism isn't taught as Darwin himself believed..



could that be that most people who are evolutionists understand that science is constantly trying to improve its self

we dont have all the answers but we are getting there slowly

so if somthing was a bit wrong and got corrected then the correction should be taught



Eugenics comes from selective breeding it is not a natural process like evolution and was known about for thousands of years before Darwin was even born

it requires a guiding hand to pick and choose who breeds to promote a certain characteristic

Eugenics is why we have the many species of dogs chickens cows etc we created through our meddaling in thier breeding cycles not by nature



and that quote showing how racist he is says " any race given time could breed them selves to be a super race, and that we hope all races should make themselves the best they can be, but politics religeon etc prevent this"

he is saying ALL people of the earth should use eugenics to become the ultimate that homo-sapien can be, he gives no specific race no specifics about what are the traits that we should keep or destroy, hardly sentiments of the racist mind. all people of the world should try and be better then they already are

now the views of racists work differently let look at some of thier views, nazi view: we (white tall blond hair blue eyes) are the supperior ones everyone else must die,

bible (old testament): everyone not a jew must burn in hell
(new testament): everyone not a christian including jews must burn in hell

now if you want real sexism and rascism on a grand scale lets go read the bible

[edit on 15/9/08 by noobfun]



posted on Sep, 15 2008 @ 08:49 AM
link   
reply to post by noobfun
 


I don't think clearskies meant that as an argument from a creationist perspective, but you make good points.

Science is a self correcting process, continually being refined when ever new evidence is found. Since absolute truth is out of the reach of humans, accuracy is the name of the game.

As they say, "listen to those who seek truth, doubt those that find it"



posted on Sep, 15 2008 @ 09:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by Good Wolf
I don't think clearskies meant that as an argument from a creationist perspective, but you make good points.






Just more 'falling away' from the tenents of Godliness and Faith while following the roman church's lead.


i dunno this seems a "look at them turning from god not like me and mine"

this would indicate a more hardline christian view

then jumping into show how darwin was wrong (by todays understanding)and racist ........... id have to say all signs say creationist

i may be wrong on this and if i am ill admit it,

am i wrong clearskies?



[edit on 15/9/08 by noobfun]

[edit on 15/9/08 by noobfun]



posted on Sep, 15 2008 @ 09:25 AM
link   
It doesn't read that way in my head. All he seemed to have done is put up an example how the theory of evolution has evolved since it's early days. It's good info that should be said.

Which is exactly why it didn't sound to be counter-evolution.

Then again his signature seems to suggest a christian view.




Ether way, if it was an argument against evolution then it's fairly crummy.



[edit on 9/15/2008 by Good Wolf]



posted on Sep, 15 2008 @ 09:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by noobfun


Eugenics comes from selective breeding it is not a natural process like evolution and was known about for thousands of years before Darwin was even born


The word 'Eugenics' (from the greek) and the movement was started by Darwin's cousin;



it requires a guiding hand to pick and choose who breeds to promote a certain characteristic
Eugenics is why we have the many species of dogs chickens cows etc we created through our meddaling in thier breeding cycles not by nature


Eugenics is about HUMANS, not chickens and dogs.




and that quote showing how racist he is says " any race given time could breed them selves to be a super race, and that we hope all races should make themselves the best they can be, but politics religeon etc prevent this"
he is saying ALL people of the earth should use eugenics to become the ultimate that homo-sapien can be, he gives no specific race no specifics about what are the traits that we should keep or destroy, hardly sentiments of the racist mind. all people of the world should try and be better then they already are


Well, what do you make of this?

"At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilized races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes, as Professor Schaaffhausen has remarked, will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilized state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as now between the Negro or Australian and the gorilla."


"A most important obstacle in civilized countries to an increase in the number of men of a superior class has been strongly insisted on by Mr. Greg and Mr. Galton, namely, the fact that the very poor and reckless, who are often degraded by vice, almost invariably marry early, whilst the careful and frugal, who are generally otherwise virtuous, marry late in life, so that they may be able to support themselves and their children in comfort. . .Those who marry early produce within a given period not only a greater number of generations, but, as shown by Dr. Duncan they produce many more children. Thus the reckless, degraded, and often vicious members of society, tend to increase at a quicker rate than the provident and generally virtuous members. Or as Mr. Greg puts the case: 'The careless, squalid, unaspiring Irishman multiplies like rabbits..."


The racism of Charles Darwin

What about his sexism?
The truth about Darwin and social Darwinism


bible (old testament): everyone not a jew must burn in hell
(new testament): everyone not a christian including jews must burn in hell


Everyone who loves G-d will NOT burn in hell.
But, so many love the darkness, instead.


now if you want real sexism and rascism on a grand scale lets go read the bible

I do believe women are physically weaker than men, in general,
but, the Bible had laws to protect women as it does today.
The Hebrews weren't allowed to mistreat or divorce their wives (common practice with the other cultures!)
While Jesus tells us to submit to our husbands, (gasp!) He told our husbands to love us as their own flesh......

Don't forget the Hebrew judge; Deborah.

I'm a WOMAN, hence the title Mrs. in my name. lol



[edit on 15-9-2008 by Clearskies]



posted on Sep, 15 2008 @ 09:54 AM
link   
I'm reading what you're bringing up, clearskies and I'm thinking so what?

Darwin was a racist!

Who cares?!

That's not what this thread is about and I can't decide if you're using it as ammo against evolution cos it really doesn't apply. Maybe you're trying to say that Darwin wasn't a good guy. Still doesn't relate, but I see what you're saying (he gets more respect than is due) and that's all well and good but his name is synonymous with the theory of evolution which is a great treasure to science.



posted on Sep, 15 2008 @ 10:29 AM
link   
This isnt going to silence me anymore than when alot of churchs accepted gay marriage. I do take a literal interpretation of Genesis. I dont preach to people, but my beliefs are mine nonetheless and are no more foolish than any atheists. I see order and structure throughout the universe and that screems to me intelegent design.
Its not that science proves that there is a God, Its's God proves there is science. If it wasnt for his laws, statues and commandments there would be chao's. The sun rises when it is told to. So predictable that we set our time and calander by it. That screams to me design!



posted on Sep, 15 2008 @ 10:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by HooHaa
The sun rises when it is told to. So predictable that we set our time and calander by it. That screams to me design!

The sun (as in the star) gives life to us not the other way around.
I'm not even sure if your post is serious.. you make it sound like you think it revolves around the earth..



posted on Sep, 15 2008 @ 10:48 AM
link   
reply to post by Clearskies
 


your cousin kills someone does that make you a killer?

your cousin calls someone a (insert rascist comment of choice) does that make you a racist?

your cousin believes in islam does that make you muslim?

phone your cousin tell them i said they have no understanding of what they are talking about and are looking like a complete ass


Eugenics an idealism that uses selective breeding** to breed in or breed out certain charachteristics into the human race


Galton defined his new word this way: "Eugenics is the study of agencies under social control that may improve or impair the racial qualities of future generations, whether physically or mentally."


social control means in the hands of men, not nature which is what darwinism is explaining

lets use the nazi blue eyed blonds as an example

a) everyone not tall blue eyed and blond should be killed or forcably not allowed to breed, over time all traits of skin, eye, height and hair will be bred out with the exception of occasional genetic throw backs

outcome = people get taller bluer of eye and blonder of hair

now lets run eugenics with evolution instead of selective breeding

b)everyone not tall blue eyed and blond should be killed or forcably not allowed to breed, we then stick groups of these breeders in challenging enviroments and leave them for thousands of years

outcome = dark skin gives a person greater resistance to heatstroke, meaning in hot climates people with a slightly darker skin have more chance of survival and mating that tiny genetic differance gets bred into the population and so the people's skin gradually darkense to cope with the enviroment

in other areas of the globe in ice fields and jungles flat plains minute genetic differances that give some individuals a better chance of survival become inbreed and magnified over time adapting them from the original blue eyed blond into what ever is genetically available (in genetic diferances or mutations that happen in the situation/time) and best for the enviroment


if eugenics were used with darwinism it would create differance in mankind the complete opposite of eugenics principles


you quote doesnt show darwin was rascist

it shows his cousin started a movement that was racist and used ancient animal breeding techniques to create its ideal version of the human bieng


theres a whole thread highlighting sexism in the bible, they are better versed then me in it so i will let you prove/disprove in there with them

im sure there is also a thread around here showing the many racist comments of the bible again you cant take those up in there

** selective breeding en.wikipedia.org... its wiki admitedly but they cant get it to far wrong on a simpleish subject

[edit on 15/9/08 by noobfun]



posted on Sep, 15 2008 @ 11:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by Good Wolf

I can't decide if you're using it as ammo against evolution cos it really doesn't apply


when has that ever made a differance?



. Maybe you're trying to say that Darwin wasn't a good guy. Still doesn't relate,


if Darwins evil (in this case by association) then i can call it all satans work in my ignorance and wave my pitchfork (as they are waving thier pitchfork at the satanists of the CofE and catholosism for not believing the litteral word of Genesis)


Everyone who loves G-d will NOT burn in hell.
But, so many love the darkness, instead.
another example of your not the right sort of christians so your evil

evil darwin made catholics and the CofE evil and they are all evil together. burn in hell satan lovers ..........

i feel like the Oracle from the matrix* ..... did it hapen becasue i pointed it out, or did i point it out becasue i knew it was comming

*well except im not an older black lady who is baking cookies, although cookies would be good about now




[edit on 15/9/08 by noobfun]

[edit on 15/9/08 by noobfun]



posted on Sep, 15 2008 @ 11:22 AM
link   
reply to post by noobfun
 


Alright noobfun, lets not get personal now. He did happen to bring some good information (earlier).



posted on Sep, 15 2008 @ 03:59 PM
link   
I think a lot of these modern priests are failing to read the scriptures properly and study them. It seems once they become a bit foregetful of what the Bible actually says and they try and use modern science to gain new followers into thinking the Church has found some new Biblical meaning through wisdom when its just their false opinions.

As 2Peter states many false teaching happenned then and do still now, is that not Wisdom standing the test of time?



posted on Sep, 15 2008 @ 04:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by CaptainG0705
external source



The Church of England will concede in a statement that it was over-defensive and over-emotional in dismissing Darwin's ideas. It will call "anti-evolutionary fervour" an "indictment" on the Church".

The bold move is certain to dismay sections of the Church that believe in creationism and regard Darwin's views as directly opposed to traditional Christian teaching.

The apology, which has been written by the Rev Dr Malcolm Brown, the Church's director of mission and public affairs, says that Christians, in their response to Darwin's theory of natural selection, repeated the mistakes they made in doubting Galileo's astronomy in the 17th century.

"The statement will read: Charles Darwin: 200 years from your birth, the Church of England owes you an apology for misunderstanding you and, by getting our first reaction wrong, encouraging others to misunderstand you still. We try to practise the old virtues of 'faith seeking understanding' and hope that makes some amends."

Opposition to evolutionary theories is still "a litmus test of faithfulness" for some Christian movements, the Church will admit. It will say that such attitudes owe much to a fear of perceived threats to Christianity.

The comments are included on a Church of England website promoting the views of Charles Darwin to be launched on Monday.






Oh yeah..the Church of England, like it has anything to do with Evangelicals...
Firstly, I will agree as a Christian that the Church has been ignorant to certain parts of Darwinism and has misinterpreted part of the theory. But that does not mean that we'll throw our hands up and accept it either, even though I know scientists love to shut us up because their word always "has more truth and evidence supporting it." We believe what we believe and that is that we cannot change the words of the Bible to accommodate Darwin. Sure, you can try to shut us up, but that won't change our Faith, something wonderful that Darwinist preachers can never understand. You can laugh all you want.



posted on Sep, 15 2008 @ 04:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by The time lord
I think a lot of these modern priests are failing to read the scriptures properly and study them. It seems once they become a bit foregetful of what the Bible actually says and they try and use modern science to gain new followers into thinking the Church has found some new Biblical meaning through wisdom when its just their false opinions.

As 2Peter states many false teaching happenned then and do still now, is that not Wisdom standing the test of time?

THANK YOU!! I agree 100%. The Truth will prevail regardless of what science throws out there.



posted on Sep, 15 2008 @ 04:32 PM
link   
Trouble is that just about very religious person I've ever spoken to all say that it is impossible to understand or believe the Bible unless it is read “in the spirit of the holy ghost”.

In other words, you must already assume its truth before you read it, and you have to read it through filters of faith because it certainly isn’t compelling on its own without those blinders on. If it doesn’t make sense, then you’ve got to convince yourself that you must not understand it properly, and you’ve just got to try to make yourself believe it anyway somehow.

Frustrating, at the least.




top topics



 
5
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join