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.

 

Proof god exist's with no proof he doesn't

page: 6
0
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 27 2008 @ 09:36 PM
link   
Exactly...these laws go far beyond and far before the bible

-Kyo




posted on Oct, 27 2008 @ 10:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Icarus Rising
reply to post by noobfun
 


Atheists attack the Bible because it is the inspired Word of God handed down to men via the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. Genesis especially, because if they can undo Creation and The Fall, there is no need for a Savior.


Ah, my dear one. Don't you think it's time to quit clinging to anything that tears us apart and look around at what's happening and understand that we, as a race, must make some decisions?

I mean, as far as I'm concerned, you are most assuredly accorded the right to hold those beliefs, but when you come on, using that as a reason to break apart humanity, you are either gaining from the situation, or you don't know any better.

Let me tell you, that I have my beliefs, and any who seek them from me are welcome to them, and from time to time, I do share. But when I share, I hold no - zero, zip, nada, nil - expectations of any others NECESSARILY believing as I do.

And that is where I see that you are failing to measure up on the Golden Rule. You not only believe ill of us, you are insisting that we believe as you do.

And I'm pretty damned sure that if I felt you had to believe as I do, and came on to attack "the heathen," which was you... You wouldn't think I was behaving...very nice.

So I tell you what. Unless you have something you can hand over instead of make threats with, speculation is fully in order on all ideas presented.


Evolution is the lie propagated for this purpose.


May I? Rephrase...?

"In my opinion, evolution is the lie propagated for this purpose."

Thank you.

[edit on 10/27/2008 by Amaterasu]



posted on Oct, 27 2008 @ 10:53 PM
link   
reply to post by Amaterasu
 




And that is where I see that you are failing to measure up on the Golden Rule. You not only believe ill of us, you are insisting that we believe as you do.


That is your assumption, not my intent. I am simply stating my beliefs, as I have said elsewhere in the thread.



posted on Oct, 27 2008 @ 11:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by Icarus Rising
I am simply stating my beliefs, as I have said elsewhere in the thread.


Your also saying that ours are wrong, as exemplified by you stating that "blood clotting could not evolve" as if it's a mater of fact.



posted on Oct, 27 2008 @ 11:06 PM
link   
reply to post by Amaterasu
 


I'm siding with Icarus on this one.

Nowhere in our debate has he demanded that we take his side, or stated he thinks ill of people who have a different view than himself.

He has been defending his beliefs to the best of his ability.

In all honesty, if you enter a thread with a title all but challenging readers to disprove the existence of god, you're going to hear the religious point of view too.

Icarus and I had a heated debate for quite a while, and he conducted himself professionally.



posted on Oct, 27 2008 @ 11:07 PM
link   
reply to post by Good Wolf
 


While he did state that, he was stating his opinion, as there can be no right and wrong in a religious debate.

I stand by my assertion that Icarus conducted himself fairly in our discussion.



posted on Oct, 27 2008 @ 11:22 PM
link   
reply to post by nj2day
 


Hey, thanks for the support.

To be fair, I do come on strong and quote a lot of Scripture. I carry the conviction of my beliefs. My experience of God in my life has been so powerful in the last four years, it comes right through in my posts.

Amaterasu has a point in that we are all in this together, and there are enough issues dividing us these days. I'm not trying to increase that divide, I'm trying to bridge it. Of course, I think Christ is the bridge.

Good Wolf and I have gone several rounds on another thread he started not long ago.

I want to thank you guys for being willing to engage in discourse on this subject, and I hope we have all come out of it a little wiser for the effort. I know I have.

[edit on 28-10-2008 by Icarus Rising]



posted on Oct, 28 2008 @ 05:33 AM
link   



posted on Oct, 28 2008 @ 08:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by nj2day
reply to post by Amaterasu
 


I'm siding with Icarus on this one.


Fair enough. I admit that I perhaps failed to read far enough to determine that his thrust was merely to espouse his point of view, and that I assumed that his words were driven in the same fashion that so many who believe as he does are.

To Icarus:

Accept my apologies, I ask. It was my assumptions here that lead me to my comments, and I take responsibility.

Thank you both for pointing out my failure.



posted on Oct, 28 2008 @ 08:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by Icarus Rising
, and I hope we have all come out of it a little wiser for the effort. I know I have.


glad to see you found those evolution of blood clotting url's i left ya ^_^



posted on Oct, 28 2008 @ 11:04 AM
link   
reply to post by noobfun
 


I looked them over, thanks. Seemed to be a bit of a whitewash. The elements were present, but how did they come together as they needed to in such precise order and location and timing to produce such a crucial function? Random chance? An accident of evolution? Your accident is my miracle then. And miracles are God's department. He suspends the natural expectation of things that His awesome will be done accordingly. That is a statement of my belief. God is the Creator and Director of the universe.



posted on Oct, 28 2008 @ 11:12 AM
link   
reply to post by Icarus Rising
 


Don't forget that natural selection from a genetic standpoint is effectively 'trial and error'. Remember what Edison said about making the light bulb. "I didn't fail to make a working lightbulb 2000 times, I discovered 2000 ways not to make a lightbulb.



posted on Oct, 28 2008 @ 11:25 AM
link   
reply to post by Good Wolf
 




Don't forget that natural selection from a genetic standpoint is effectively 'trial and error'.


'Trial and error' and 'random chance' seem like the same thing to me. I don't believe in luck, chance, or coincidence. So, I disagree. I believe the trial is directed by someone who doesn't make errors. It is we who have difficulty learning our lessons and are often found in error.



posted on Oct, 28 2008 @ 11:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by Icarus Rising
'Trial and error' and 'random chance' seem like the same thing to me.


Are you joking?!
Trial and error is successive attempts at an objective until a solution is found.Random chance is the just that, random.

A change is made, if it's beneficial it stays.


I don't believe in luck, chance, or coincidence. So, I disagree. I believe the trial is directed by someone who doesn't make errors.


Well on the assumption that he does exist, studying his creation we find it replete with trial and error. Evolution is a natural process, it can work all by it's lonesome and doesn't require the divine- it has trial and error in place instead.

[edit on 10/28/2008 by Good Wolf]



posted on Oct, 28 2008 @ 11:42 AM
link   
reply to post by Amaterasu
 


I don't think you are wrong or in need of correction at all. On the contrary, you are entitled to your impressions, opinions, and beliefs by the same measure we all are. I'm convicted today of how abrasive and inflammatory some (many?) of my posts are. It is important to be calm and considerate in conversation in order to communicate. Thanks for your honest assessment, and the soul searching it inspired.

I'm not saying I can stop being Quip Snidely all at once, but I do expect to make gradual progress.



posted on Oct, 28 2008 @ 11:46 AM
link   
reply to post by Good Wolf
 




successive attempts at an objective until a solution is found.


Ok. How is the objective determined? Who sets the goals? Why is there a solution?



posted on Oct, 28 2008 @ 11:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by Icarus Rising
Ok. How is the objective determined?

Trial and error is an analogue. The objective is further and more effective functionality or more simply just whatever helps the individual reproduce as much as it can.

Who sets the goals?
You can believe God does if you like, but that's speculation. Science depicts the behavior of evolution as blind and aimless.

Why is there a solution?
I'm not sure I understand this particular question. All life does is to continue itself so the answer could be to avoid extinction. But now you are getting into philosophy.

[edit on 10/28/2008 by Good Wolf]



posted on Oct, 28 2008 @ 02:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Icarus Rising
How is the objective determined? Who sets the goals? Why is there a solution?


the goal is simple one set by all life ..reproduce

that is the determining goal the ole objective

if somthing stops a creature from reproducing it dies out

if say a green bug lves in lush grassland it will be well camoflaged even in this population yo will find colour variance you will get various shades of green

now if that bugspreads into surrounding enviroments or eco change alters the enviroment to brown the darker greens are better able to blend in then the normal shade variance continues .. lighter green des darker green survives so the colour gets darker and darker

throw into te mix rando colour mutations that occur in most animals should a white or cream random apper is going to die a black or brown dimorphic change will aid survival (this occured in the grassand too but the brown and white and black were easy to spot so didnt breed

we now have from a simple green bug and its natural colour variation a much darker group of bugs breeding and with breding with the surviving colour dimorphics the olour changes even more

thats a simple how a green bug changes to fit thier envioment, now other changes that could have happened .. a jaw change allowing access to new foods etc that creature begins off on the route to become a new species

now we have the original green bugs in rich grassland a darker/black or brown varient of the same bug and th new jawed version is a sub species which given enough change will no longer be able to breed with the other 2 so we have a new species


the goal is to breed the control factor is survivability

there isnt always a solution, when theres a situation there isnt a solutin for yet then there is no life

nothing lives at the center of the antartic becasue thier is no solution to the cold and lack of food as yet but we know when it was in a better position on the earth life thrived there

given enough time continental drift will move it from the pole and into a more lfe freindly enviroment and then life will begin to repopulate and it will all begin again



posted on Oct, 28 2008 @ 03:11 PM
link   
are we reviving this again today


fun fun


Icarus and Noob, do either of you guys participate in the debate forums?

This could make a good debate topic... if the mods allow it.



posted on Oct, 28 2008 @ 03:36 PM
link   
reply to post by nj2day
 

noooooooo no no i stay away

i like to have a bit of fun and tease sometimes .... unless they are really being moronic then the sarcasm lets fly

it tends to get frowned on in proper debates ^_^

that and they would bitch about my lack of spell checking (doesnt help some posts are made at sisters and this wireless keyboard ofte doesnt add the letter unless you punch the button) [like the beleding missing N above]



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join