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 do people laugh at creationists?

page: 9
6
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 24 2008 @ 04:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by AshleyD

Originally posted by TruthParadox
Well doesn't evolution negate God?


No. It looks like that is what we are being programmed to believe, though. I explained this all above.


I was 'programmed' from birth to believe in God. I used my own logic and reason to unprogram myself.






Originally posted by AshleyD
LOL. Christians DO believe animals regressed over time, we believe all of creation has regressed over time. We also believe this degeneration accelerated after the flood. Also, I do not believe that necessarily means snakes could talk- or all animals. But instead was Satan who appeared as a serpent, who was a beautiful creature. Some scholars do not believe serpent is the same as what we know a snake to be. But instead, was some creature described as a serpent.


I know you believe that people regressed over time. My point was that God changed the snake in an instant and NOT over time. He said something to the effect of 'from now on you will crawl on your belly'. That means that he instantly changed the snake and did not use de-evolution. This proves nothing, but I do question why he would spend millions of years tinkering with evolution when later he simply zap something the way he wishes.


Originally posted by AshleyD

To top it off, God said that he created men before he created women. The human race could not have evolved through millions of years without females, as they would have no way to reproduce.


Ya think?!
However, it looks like it was only a very short time after Adam was created that Eve was created. Hint: Adam also didn't have offspring until Eve came into the picture. You seem to think the Genesis account shows man being created and then women being created ages later. This is not so.


Huh? My point was that humans couldn't have evolved INTO humans WITHOUT a female. I am not saying that Eve was created ages later, I'm saying that Adam's forfathers (or formonkies as the case may be) had no way of love making without a female counter part, therefor they had no way of evolving. You can't evolve unless you can reproduce, obviously.
You seem to think that I am talking about the evolution from the state of humans from Adam and Eve to this day. I am not.


Originally posted by AshleyD
LOL. See, you have been programmed. The STRINGENT interpretation of Genesis is incorrect to you, therefore ALL creation hypotheses must be wrong, Therefore, only secular explanations are to be considered.



The book which is said to be inspired by God is wrong. Either God does not exist or else the people that wrote it down did not know enough. If it's the latter, then it is not the perfect word of God. If it is not the perfect word of God, then what else in the Bible is false? I'm throwing the baby out with the bathwater because the bathwater is actually acid that has eaten through the baby, and the baby is no more than a corpse.




posted on Sep, 24 2008 @ 04:14 PM
link   
reply to post by TruthParadox
 


Which is saying that the only 'God' is the one in the Bible. Two thirds of the worlds population are not Christian and therefore do not believe in the Christian 'God'. Are they 'Godless'? No they are not. They just do not believe what Christians believe. To think that Christians have a monopoly on the Divine is ludicrous. Would you call Mahatma Ghandi evil just because he was Hindu? Would you call Mohamed evil just because he believed in Allah? Would you call the Dali Lama evil just because he is a Buddist? It is a very myopic view. If you cannot respect the beliefs of others, you cannot expect others to respect yours. Now don't get me wrong, there's room for debate on reasons why you believe what you believe. But to claim that we mere mortals, on any side of the issue, have all the answers to such a HUGE subject as to the true nature of divinity is truly egocentric to the Nth degree!

ED. After rereading your post I have to add the following. Evolution does not negate the Christian 'God' either. It just negates the literal view of The Old Testament, which was written by the Jewish people in ancient times, and not the existance of Divinity. Sorry about getting off your point, as I am involved in many such debates and sometimes get a little confused as to which one I am actually debating at the time.

[edit on 24-9-2008 by JaxonRoberts]



posted on Sep, 24 2008 @ 04:18 PM
link   
reply to post by TruthParadox
 


nope it doesnt

evolution negates the creationist view of god and by creationist im using the very strictest sense here the 6day poof cloud of smoke animals appear as they still are today

the rest all depends on your belief and how you interpret the bible, those 6 days could be god days which could be billions of real years it could describe god changing the animals by choice (intelegnet design) or letting evolution run riot on them

the 6 days become an analogy, the garden of eden snake doom become an analogy, gods simplified storys for shephereds and fishermen and assorted none sciencey types

evolution doesnt care or deal with any of it

it simply says when you have life on earth that is breeding as soon as any mutation or change occurs thats when evolution kicks in before that point it doesnt really care it leave that for bio-agenises to sort out

as we cant really prove bio-agenesis then we cant disprove god made it and let evolution do his work

even if/when we can prove bio-agenesis it still doesnt discount god because god set it up so it could happen

argue what you can with the evidence you have, to jump from wild conclusion to wild conclusion is what we leave for the funddies they a) make them selves look silly b) give us more to laugh at

'evolution doesnt disprove god' anymore then, 'darwin bieng racist disproves evolution' and yes we have had THAT conversation



posted on Sep, 24 2008 @ 04:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by JaxonRoberts
Which is saying that the only 'God' is the one in the Bible.


But that IS the God I'm discussing. I stated SEVERAL times "the God in the BIBLE". I'm NOT talking about other gods.


Originally posted by JaxonRoberts
To think that Christians have a monopoly on the Divine is ludicrous.


You're putting words in my mouth. I never said that.


Originally posted by JaxonRoberts
Would you call Mahatma Ghandi evil just because he was Hindu? Would you call Mohamed evil just because he believed in Allah? Would you call the Dali Lama evil just because he is a Buddist? It is a very myopic view.


I never called ANYONE evil.



Originally posted by JaxonRoberts
If you cannot respect the beliefs of others, you cannot expect others to respect yours.


Where did I say that I don't respect other's beliefs?


Originally posted by JaxonRoberts
But to claim that we mere mortals, on any side of the issue, have all the answers to such a HUGE subject as to the true nature of divinity is truly egocentric to the Nth degree!


Putting more words in my mouth. Reread my post. Again, I was talking about God AS WRITTEN IN THE BIBLE.

Here is a quote from my last post:


My argument is regarding God as described in the Bible.


I'm starting to wonder if you read my post or if you were replying to me, because we are literally on two different pages here.



posted on Sep, 24 2008 @ 04:40 PM
link   
reply to post by TruthParadox
 


Please read edit to my original post.



posted on Sep, 24 2008 @ 04:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by TruthParadox
I was 'programmed' from birth to believe in God. I used my own logic and reason to unprogram myself.


Funny how that works. It worked the opposite for me.
I was raised in a Bible believing family but was not a believer until adulthood. Logic, reason, and a few supernatural chain of events changed it all. We can always know if God does exist but we can never, ever be certain He does not.

I hate this analogy because there truly is nothing comparable to God however let's take aliens as a comparison. I can be very outspoken and skeptical about the existence of aliens. But you can bet the ranch my mind would be changed the moment I have a close encounter of the third kind. So, it is impossible for me to be taken seriously if I run around stating with authority aliens do not exist, and I base this conclusion on logic and reason- nor could I EVER be sure I was correct. But I can be darn sure they do exist after an encounter.

So I typically brush off those who claim God does not exist or who state they are certain He does not exist. You don't know, you can't know. But we can know He does. Psst. I know He does.


So you deprogrammed yourself. Um. Good for you, I guess? Not me- I got with 'the program' and became a believer.



I know you believe that people regressed over time. My point was that God changed the snake in an instant and NOT over time. He said something to the effect of 'from now on you will crawl on your belly'. That means that he instantly changed the snake and did not use de-evolution. This proves nothing, but I do question why he would spend millions of years tinkering with evolution when later he simply zap something the way he wishes.


But that is the interesting thing- look closely at the wording of Genesis itself. Why does He call into existence inorganic objects (light, the planets, water, etc) but then the terminology TOTALLY changes with ALL organic things. Look very closely. Inorganic- spoken into existence. Organic- the language infers they are all produced out of pre-existing things and not spoken into existence. Things that make you go, 'Hm... Interesting.'



Originally posted by AshleyD
Huh? My point was that humans couldn't have evolved INTO humans WITHOUT a female. I am not saying that Eve was created ages later, I'm saying that Adam's forfathers (or formonkies as the case may be) had no way of love making without a female counter part, therefor they had no way of evolving. You can't evolve unless you can reproduce, obviously.
You seem to think that I am talking about the evolution from the state of humans from Adam and Eve to this day. I am not.


This would bring us into the debate about the human links but I'm really uninterested in going there at the moment because I'm not entirely sure it's even important with what I'm learning. Species before modern humans actually don't appear to contradict the Genesis account if what I am learning is correct. NOT that I am convinced of the human links- in fact I feel many of them are shams- which is why I don't want to get into it. It would be a LONG debate about ALL the intermediate species which I'm simply uninterested in doing ATM. As one example so I don't sound like I'm trying to avoid the issue is this: I was watching a NOVA clip about Lucy. The scientists actually sanded down her hip bone which resulted in it being more 'human-like' and less 'ape-like.' The hysterical thing is, they weren't excusing it, hiding it, or trying to explain it away. They were PROUD of their accomplishment. lol that is one of many examples. Some more were listed in my 'The gullibility of evolutionists' thread. Either way, I'm not sure it's a relevant issue and I remain very skeptical about the intermediaries enough as it is.


Originally posted by AshleyD
The book which is said to be inspired by God is wrong. Either God does not exist or else the people that wrote it down did not know enough. If it's the latter, then it is not the perfect word of God. If it is not the perfect word of God, then what else in the Bible is false? I'm throwing the baby out with the bathwater because the bathwater is actually acid that has eaten through the baby, and the baby is no more than a corpse.


It's definitely inspired. No doubt about it in my mind any longer. However, you seem to be blaming God for human misunderstanding. For instance, the Jews of antiquity didn't grasp the correct interpretation of the Messianic prophecies. They couldn't figure out the alleged contradiction of the suffering servant vs. the glorious savior could both be correct. The Bible wasn't wrong- THEY were. He came once and is coming again while they believed (and some still believe) He is only coming once. I think all the debate concerning the rapture timing will go down the same way. That again would make human view wrong- not the Bible.

One of the hundreds of end time prophecies we see being fulfilled in our time is a warning that pertains to creation. It says in the last days people will forget God is responsible for creation. That seems to be a huge clue what God's main focus on the point: That He is the creator. So I don't fight the evolution-kills-your-God crowd anymore. I know it is only another sign my Savior's return is imminent. However, the point relevant to this topic is the denial of the creator and not a misunderstanding of Genesis. And if anything is being misunderstood, then that is human error- not the Bible's error. I'm sure the Bible has it right, even if we don't get it yet.



posted on Sep, 24 2008 @ 04:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by noobfun
reply to post by TruthParadox
 


nope it doesnt

evolution negates the creationist view of god and by creationist im using the very strictest sense here the 6day poof cloud of smoke animals appear as they still are today

the rest all depends on your belief and how you interpret the bible, those 6 days could be god days which could be billions of real years it could describe god changing the animals by choice (intelegnet design) or letting evolution run riot on them


Again, I am talking about the words in the Old Testament, NOT the assumption of those words.

God said that he created men before he created women. The human race could not have evolved through millions of years without females, as they would have no way to reproduce.

How does that NOT go against evolution? The Bible CLEARLY states that he created Adam and THEN created Eve. Adam had never seen a female before, Eve was the first. Which means that apes could not have evolved into humans according to the Bible because there were NO FEMALES.

Also, you stated that the 6 days could have been "God days". This is EXACTLY what I mean when I say that you have to assume and NOT take it literally in order to believe in the story of creation AND evolution. I clearly stated that for those that assume, evolution does NOT negate their BELIEF. I was merely saying that evolution DOES negate the Bible's description of creation and therefor the Bible's description of God.



posted on Sep, 24 2008 @ 04:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by TruthParadox


But that IS the God I'm discussing. I stated SEVERAL times "the God in the BIBLE". I'm NOT talking about other gods.


but the mistake your making is assuming all people see the same god of the bible in the same way

not everyone see's it in the literal sense your defining your argument to

a strict funddie creationist yes but not everyone is one of those thank god (which i dont believe in but never figured a none religeous alternative that sounded right)

this is what we are saying evolutioin disproves 6 days poof animals appear thinking but thats it and that is a smallish(but the loudest) group within christianity



posted on Sep, 24 2008 @ 04:58 PM
link   
reply to post by TruthParadox
 


TP that is a silly objection to me. Whether God made Adam and Eve as modern humans, made Adam and Eve as the ancestors of modern humans who would later evolve, or let evolution run it's course then made Adam and Eve to be 'special fully evolved humans' after evolution has been running it's course for eons, it is still very clear males and females were created at the same time, or at least in very close proximity. Male and females were created at the same time.

In the book I am currently reading, it shows how the Bible clearly says Genesis 1 says male and female were created at the same time. The author then theorizes that Genesis 2 is referring to the creation of the garden where Adam and Eve, unique creations, were later created. So let's say Genesis 1 is talking about some primitive male female creation and Genesis 2 is Adam and Eve specific (I don't know because I am not done reading). I don't understand what your contradiction is. Looks like male and female were either made exactly at the same time or woman (Eve) was made shortly after man (Adam).

What am I missing you are trying to say? Either way, according to Genesis, we have man and woman existing at the same time, therefore able to reproduce.

[edit on 9/24/2008 by AshleyD]



posted on Sep, 24 2008 @ 05:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by TruthParadox

Again, I am talking about the words in the Old Testament, NOT the assumption of those words.

God said that he created men before he created women. The human race could not have evolved through millions of years without females, as they would have no way to reproduce.
it also says same day so if he made them right after each other they could then go run along and evolve together

or it could be a dumbed down analogy of asexual/sexual reproduction, first there was thing(god says male but he is a bit sexist) then from asexual we get sexual reproduction and women pops up


Also, you stated that the 6 days could have been "God days". This is EXACTLY what I mean when I say that you have to assume and NOT take it literally in order to believe in the story of creation AND evolution.
the bible says its the word of god it says it shouldnt be messed about with no where does it say it is exact by human time scales

which is why you can opt for either literal or interpreted, you can even swan between them


its all about interpretation which god doesnt dis-allow

p.s. if your gonan go with the talking snake labour pains etc the question to ask is

if pain in childbirth was a curse from god why did he curse the animals as well, they feel pain during birth mammals especially so why did god curse animals becasue of mans actions?

you can then follow that with a why did god kill all the animals in the flood, he could ahve just wiped the bad people away without the flood, does god really hate animals that much?

look your argung with an atheist a GDI'ist and a (sorry Jax dont know your stand on this) and all 3 of us are telling you the same

if it did disprove god id be there with you agreeing i an atheist if it disproves god i gotta agree with it or change my stance on the subject


[edit on 24/9/08 by noobfun]



posted on Sep, 24 2008 @ 05:07 PM
link   
The Genesis creation story is a very romanticised and artistic explanation of our existence, evolution is the scientific explanation of the same.

When are people going to wake up and realise that our society, on so many levels, is artificially divided to keep us from knowing our real potential?

Who's side you on? Which is your flock? Who is your leader?

Divide and Conquer

anok



posted on Sep, 24 2008 @ 05:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by noobfun
if pain in childbirth was a curse from god why did he curse the animals as well, they feel pain during birth mammals especially so why did god curse animals becasue of mans actions?


We're told all of creation is under the curse of the fall and that it cries out to be restored. Humans, animals, and plants. Nature is tripped out, in essence. Kind of like well why do WE have to suffer for what Adam and Eve did? Well, we are told that is exactly how the 'capillary action' of sin works.



posted on Sep, 24 2008 @ 05:46 PM
link   
reply to post by AshleyD
 

the last answer i was given to that question went along the lines did the animal tell yo it hurt?no so your lieing and cant prove it

i was staggered at that an animal can only show pain by actually saying oww that hurts ... hahaha

remind me not to pull the easy ones out around you again lol



posted on Sep, 24 2008 @ 05:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by AshleyD
We can always know if God does exist but we can never, ever be certain He does not.


You really can't know if God exists or not for the simple fact that you are not omnipotent and are not above or equal to the entity you claim exists. You have no way of knowing that you are not just experiencing your mind playing tricks on you. You have no way of knowing if it's God you're feeling. For all you know, we could be in the matrix right now, and somone has a program running which makes you think that you know God exists. For all you know, the Devil could be God, and the Bible could be propaganda from an alien to make you think that the Devil is evil because his race is waring with the Devil's.


Originally posted by AshleyD
But you can bet the ranch my mind would be changed the moment I have a close encounter of the third kind.


But you fail to see that you still COULD and in fact most likely WOULD be wrong. You see, most if not all alien abductions are due to SP (Sleep Paralasys). So much is unknown about the mind, yet you trust all the experiences you can not prove.

Example: When I was a kid, I knew that there were monsters under my bed because I could feel them. I knew 100% that they were there. It didn't start out as 100%, it started as a 'maybe', and then the more thought I put into it, the more it grew.
This is faith. It's the paradoxal nature of the mind. Whatever you believe to be true will become true in your mind if you give it time.


Originally posted by AshleyD
So I typically brush off those who claim God does not exist or who state they are certain He does not exist. You don't know, you can't know. But we can know He does. Psst. I know He does.


You think you know. All I know is that the idea of God is extremely contradictory. A creator that judges his creation for the way he made us. That's the biggest and most obvious contradiction to me. And the funny thing is I never even saw that when I was a Christian. There are just so many contradictions concerning God, some in the text and some in the idea itself. This is how I know that the God as portrayed in the Bible does not exist. God gave us logic and knew that we would use logic, and yet people like me who base our decisions on logic are sent to Hell. This does not disprove God, it merely proves that he is evil, or at least by human perception he is evil. Yet he knew what our perception was going to be when he created us. So why would he create me to use logic which would allow me to percieve that he is evil when he is not? Why would a perfect omnipotent God create a flawed world? He contradicts himself in doing so. Why would an infinite being create anything if he is already infinite? He contradicts himself in doing so. Why would God create Satan if he knew what Satan would become? Either he wanted Satan to send the world into turmoil or he is not omnipotent. If he is not omnipotent, then the Bibles account of him is false. If he created Satan to be evil, then God is evil. Pure evil can not come from pure good.
It's so simple, yet Christians will never see these things because perspective blinds you. You've already decided in your mind that the Bible is right, therefor no matter what I say against it, I am wrong.



posted on Sep, 24 2008 @ 05:59 PM
link   
reply to post by TruthParadox
 


you havnt disproved god though just offered an alternative theory

and this has nothing to do with evolution

your trying to disprove somthing that cant be proven/disproved

waste of time and words, stick to the provable show them the evidence not feed them your truth



posted on Sep, 24 2008 @ 06:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by AshleyD
TP that is a silly objection to me. Whether God made Adam and Eve as modern humans, made Adam and Eve as the ancestors of modern humans who would later evolve, or let evolution run it's course then made Adam and Eve to be 'special fully evolved humans' after evolution has been running it's course for eons, it is still very clear males and females were created at the same time, or at least in very close proximity. Male and females were created at the same time.


The point of evolution is to describe how humans came to be. This is the whole point I am discussing. You are essentially saying that God did not create us with evolution, but zapped us into humans and then let evolution run it's course. I am debating that the evolution from a non human being to a human being is not possible given the literal scenario presented in the Old Testament. This is a fact given the text in black and white in the Bible. Not an argument against assumption, perspective, or opinion.
Again, to be very clear, when talking about evolution I am talking about the evolution of man - from ape (or what have you) into man.



Originally posted by AshleyD
What am I missing you are trying to say? Either way, according to Genesis, we have man and woman existing at the same time, therefore able to reproduce.


I am not talking about humans reproducing. I'll state very clearly where I'm coming from.
1) Evolution states that humans evolved from apes.
2) The Bible states that God created Adam and then created Eve from Adam.
3) Apes could not have evolved to become Adam and Eve because the Bible clearly says that God created women from Adam. So how did the apes evolve into humans when they had no female counterpart?

I think we're on two different pages.
You seem to be saying that evolution does not negate the Bible, yet you are conveniently ignoring the main point that evolution states, which is that humans evolved from apes.



posted on Sep, 24 2008 @ 06:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by TruthParadox

The point of evolution is to describe how humans came to be. This is the whole point I am discussing. You are essentially saying that God did not create us with evolution, but zapped us into humans and then let evolution run it's course. I am debating that the evolution from a non human being to a human being is not possible given the literal scenario presented in the Old Testament. This is a fact given the text in black and white in the Bible. Not an argument against assumption, perspective, or opinion.
Again, to be very clear, when talking about evolution I am talking about the evolution of man - from ape (or what have you) into man.


dont beleieve the literal translation so there fore your point means nothing to me





I am not talking about humans reproducing. I'll state very clearly where I'm coming from.
i dont care your trying to tell me my beliefs are wrong why should i care where your comming from do you care where i am?

and its an analogy again so you just misinterpretinmg it on purpose

just playing devils advocate .... your trying to nail a ghost to the floor boards



[edit on 24/9/08 by noobfun]



posted on Sep, 24 2008 @ 06:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by noobfun
it also says same day so if he made them right after each other they could then go run along and evolve together


Great, but evolution states that apes evolved to humans. This is impossible as before humans (according to the Bible), there was no female counterpart. How then, could the apes have evolved into humans?
They could not.
Therefor what I said stands.
Evolution negates the story of creation given NO assumption but only relying on the words.
Most people know this to be true already.
Why do you think that Christians have such a cow when evolution is discussed?
sigh...




Originally posted by noobfun
which is why you can opt for either literal or interpreted, you can even swan between them


its all about interpretation which god doesnt dis-allow


But I am NOT arguing against the assumption or against the belief. I am arguing against the words in the New Testament which is contradicted by ape evolving into man. How many times must I repeat myself...



Originally posted by noobfun
look your argung with an atheist a GDI'ist and a (sorry Jax dont know your stand on this) and all 3 of us are telling you the same

if it did disprove god id be there with you agreeing i an atheist if it disproves god i gotta agree with it or change my stance on the subject


I NEVER said it disproves God. I said that it negates the Bible's description of God. It contradicts it. Read my previous post to Ashley and tell me how it's possible for evolution and the black and white text given in the Old Testament.



posted on Sep, 24 2008 @ 06:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by noobfun
you havnt disproved god though just offered an alternative theory


I never said I disproved God, you said that. I said that I know that the God dipicted in the Bible can not be accurate unless he is a contradictory God.



Originally posted by noobfun
your trying to disprove somthing that cant be proven/disproved


No I'm not. I'm stating the very logical reason why I do not believe in the God described in the Bible.



Originally posted by noobfun
waste of time and words, stick to the provable show them the evidence not feed them your truth


What evidence? There is no evidence against God. I can not disprove God. I can, however, logically asses that the description of God in the Bible is contradictory. A perfect omnipotent being can not contradict itself, therefor either the Bible's account of God is wrong or God does not exist. If the account of God is wrong, then what in the Bible is right? I'm left with no reason to believe in God and many reasons to not believe in God so the conclusion I draw is that God does not exist.

If you can challenge my logic then do so.



Originally posted by noobfun
dont beleieve the literal translation so there fore your point means nothing to me


Then why are you commenting? I stated very clearly that I am debating the literal black and white text located in the front of the Bible in a book known as Genesis.
Why do people continue to ignore my words?



Originally posted by noobfun
i dont care your trying to tell me my beliefs are wrong why should i care where your comming from do you care where i am?


I thought you said you were an atheist...
Anyway, what I stated is based on logic.
If you can disprove the logic then do so.
If you can't disprove the logic (which seems to be the case), then why do you reply saying I'm wrong but without saying why?

I'll say it again.



I am not talking about humans reproducing. I'll state very clearly where I'm coming from.
1) Evolution states that humans evolved from apes.
2) The Bible states that God created Adam and then created Eve from Adam.
3) Apes could not have evolved to become Adam and Eve because the Bible clearly says that God created women from Adam. So how did the apes evolve into humans when they had no female counterpart?



Originally posted by noobfun
and its an analogy again so you just misinterpretinmg it on purpose


It's not an analogy. It's clear cut logic.



posted on Sep, 24 2008 @ 06:42 PM
link   
reply to post by TruthParadox
 


Screw the bible mate, it's all a lie, creationist control against evolutionary education. They are the tyrants mate, and don't waste your life with books pertaining to be Holy, but they invented the word and they are cruel and ugly.



new topics




 
6
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join