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.

 

"Biblical Contradictions!" or "Do You Believe In God?"

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 28 2004 @ 04:41 PM
link   
Hello All!

I found this online, and thought it intersting. Yes, it's large, but so are the implications. At what point do you stop questioning, and actually believe? Since this type of debate could go on forever for some people, I thought we might as well get the "larger contradictions" out in the open. Then if you don't see one you have found, just post it.

Bottom Line:

1. I BELIEVE IN GOD!
2. The theory of evolution is crap!
3. You might say "You are crazy to believe there is a God!", but science proves you are even crazier not to believe!

Anyway, God bless you all, and have fun!

SevenAngels

Sorry, to large, so here is a link to read it at:

debate.org.uk...

[Edited on 28-4-2004 by SevenAngels]




posted on Apr, 28 2004 @ 04:46 PM
link   
Had to delete, see link above.

SevenAngels

[Edited on 28-4-2004 by SevenAngels]



posted on Apr, 28 2004 @ 04:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by SevenAngels
Bottom Line:

1. I BELIEVE IN GOD!
2. The theory of evolution is crap!
3. You might say "You are crazy to believe there is a God!", but science proves you are even crazier not to believe!


The other white meat:
1. I DO NOT BELIEVE IN THE EXISTENCE OF GOD!
2. The theory of creation is illogical and irrational.
3. You might say "You are crazy to believe there is a God!", but science does not prove that you are even crazier not to believe!

And your proof about science and god is........? What, because the bible says so?



posted on Apr, 28 2004 @ 04:49 PM
link   
Had to delete, see link above.

SevenAngels

[Edited on 28-4-2004 by SevenAngels]



posted on Apr, 28 2004 @ 04:50 PM
link   
Had to delete, see link above.

SevenAngels

[Edited on 28-4-2004 by SevenAngels]



posted on Apr, 28 2004 @ 05:02 PM
link   
Jonna-

Here is something from Michael Comberiate for you to look at. Can you prove the "Theory of Evolution" is correct? No, you can not. But please enlighten me if you can, it is a "Theory"-

SevenAngels

Is Evolution really Good Science?

The "theory" of evolution is frequently taught as though it were an established scientific fact. It is also misunderstood as an explanation for the origins of life from pre-existing non-life. Actually, evolution is a process of change over time based on random events that have a net positive effect, ie that tend to generate more complex structures and life forms. Do not confuse this with "horizontal" evolution, by which animals or plants can be bred to produce different varieties within the same kind. This is an established and scientifically verifiable fact. The original concept of "vertical" evolution depended on accidental mutations to generate more sophisticated beings, which could survive better than their predecessors. For this to happen quickly has always been considered absurd.

However, this theory depends on enormous spans of time so that minute steps can be taken very slowly, driven by random events not intelligence. Unfortunately there is a clear lack of hard evidence that this has or even can happen. Some key observable facts are:

- Natural selection only eliminates varieties;
- We have no examples of any process as yet that can produce new genetic material.
- We have no fossils that show the missing links between animal kinds.
- Even the simplest organisms are incredibly complex and cannot be derived from simple forms, so this means that all organisms have been complex from the beginning. Fact is that wherever cells are found, they are extremely complex. There is no evidence of a simple cell anywhere.
- All evolution models begin with a big Question Mark. We have absolutely no scientific evidence that life can come from non-life regardless of how much time we allow.
- We have absolutely no scientific evidence for how the first non-life arose or where the "Big" in the Big Bang came from. ["First there was nothing, and then it exploded" just doesn't fit the scientific method any better than saying "God did it"]
- The second Law of Thermodynamics states that Entropy increases, ie the natural course of a system left on its own is to go from a state of order to one of disorder. [If you see a movie of a splattered egg on the floor rising up into its perfect shell and resting on the kitchen counter, you know immediately that the movie is being played in reverse.]

All theories involving evolution by mutation are totally unscientific. These are the real facts and all a scientist has to do to prove that evolution is scientific, is to produce evidence that these facts are incorrect. Let's expand on some of these a bit, for the record:

1. Genetics research indicates that no new genes have been produced.

· What is claimed to be evidence for evolution is the fact that every organism has parents and there was a time when no life existed. Hence, life should have come from non-life.
· The science of genetics shows that such change is impossible.
· Main argument is that small mutations occur in the reproduction cells and are retained by natural selection. They say that these mutations accumulate and over time cause a species to gradually change into another species.
· All labs have never produced improvements through mutations. All mutations are neutral or harmful. Natural processes will attempt to correct any mutation in the next reproduction.
· The varieties come from recombination. From the mixing of genes during sexual reproduction. Organisms adapted to a set of conditions re-concentrate into an environment that has these conditions. By interbreeding they will form a different "variety" of the same species.
· If by accident a population is isolated, some features may concentrate in that population and give it a distinct appearance, which we call "genetic drift".
· These varieties do not indicate evolution. Some genes have been sorted out and the remaining population is impoverished, with fewer genes. No new genes have been formed. No new genetic information has been created.
· By selection and isolation, we obtain new varieties of the existing plants and animals. We select those we find useful, but these populations are restricted in the genetic pool and are dependent on the conditions we have legislated. Without our control they will either die out or return to their wild state.
· Natural or unnatural mixing of genes does not produce new genes. There is no process (isolation, selection, breeding, or mutation) known to science that will produce new genes.
· Evolutionists cannot provide any ideas on how new genetic information can be produced by mutation or time. They are unwilling to accept the fact that genes contain such a mass of information that they could not arise from chance events.

o The simplest living organism is so vastly more complicated that any non-living molecular structure, that the gap is too difficult to leap in a single, accidental step.
o Never in the past could there have been a "simple" organism. The very complex DNA, RNA, and protein replicating system in the cell must have been perfect from the start, or life systems could not exist.
o Every microscopic cell is so precisely programmed that an intelligence must have created it.

2. Some believe that fossils indicate that life evolves from non-life, but this is not supported by the paleontological evidence.

· The theory is that something triggered a primordial soup to create a living cell; that cells gathered into more complex organisms and eventually evolved into man
· All forms of life from blue-green algae to man appear abruptly in the fossil record without any evidence of links.
· There are no known examples of the missing links. All fossils found to date are either: Man or Ape, Fake or Mistake.
· If evolution were a fact, the evidence would be in great abundance and clearly irrefutable. Museums would be full of missing link fossils. All evidence to date is very far from conclusive
· The evidence of man evolving from Apes is totally without supporting evidence.
· Both have existed "as is" from the beginning.
· Evolution by mutation over time is mythology. If it were a science it would agree with the observable evidence.

3. The First Law of Thermodynamics is often called the Law of Conservation of Energy. It states that energy (including matter) cannot be created or destroyed; it only changes form according to the formula, E = m c2. Hence matter can change into energy and vice verse, but no "new" energy is created. This natural law of science excludes creation of something out of nothing by any natural process.

4. The Second Law of Thermodynamics states that the energy available for useful work is decreasing. It means that systems will naturally tend to get more disordered and chaotic if left uncontrolled by some energy source. This too flys in the face of Evolution by Random Mutations and Time to Increasingly More Complex Forms.

5. Where Creation Theory has an intelligent being as the source of this universe, the evolutionist attributes it to "time". God cannot do it, but time can. Faith is required in each case.

Horizontal Evolution is a term for the kind of adaptation we can see all around us. The mixing and recombination of genes during sexual reproduction causes varieties of organisms. Organisms adapted to a set of conditions re-concentrate into an environment that has these conditions. Each environment encourages a particular variety of the same species to survive and reproduce and discourages others. Eventually that environment has naturally selected a particular variety and suppressed the others – i.e. genetic drift. We clearly observe this result at the macroscopic level as a variety within a particular “species”*. These varieties indicate adaptation at the species level, but do not indicate evolution at the genetic level. This is evidenced by the fact that you can reverse the process by changing the environment appropriately, as long as you have not totally purged the species of all but a single variety. No new genes have been formed. No new genetic information has been created. It is merely that the genetic building blocks are designed to combine in numerous ways to produce many varieties each having different survival characteristics. As long as they continue to produce varieties the organisms they produce will continue to survive in some form.

However, those organisms are all of the same “kind” * even though they contain many varieties. I’m using that term to indicate that sexual reproduction within the same kind can produce offspring, whether or not that offspring is fertile itself. Consider the vast variety of dogs as seen by their macroscopic characteristics, yet they are all dogs – ie of the same “kind”. All the varieties of dogs could have come from a single pair, yet you’ll never get a cat by this same adaptation process we call “horizontal evolution”.

This natural form of adaptation is not a process, which will explain origins, because it does not explain the appearance of different “Kinds”. For that we would need to show that “vertical evolution” is possible, i.e. to change from one kind to a different kind over time, due to random mutations. Random mutations have never been shown to create new kinds.

So, what is witnessed is an inherent ability of certain kinds of living organisms to adapt to a changing environment without becoming a new "kind " of organism. Each kind of organism has a particular kind of gene that does not change during the adaptation process. For example, some humans are less sensitive to the toxics in our environment than other humans, so they have a greater likelihood of surviving. However both groups are still human. The survivors of some epidemic could be called a new breed of humans, but you would not feel compelled to say that are no longer human. They all have the same genes, while a chimpanzee has different genes, even though their DNA are 98% identical. This genetic difference precludes any offspring from cross-breeding and that’s why it is not human but is a totally different kind.

Therefore, in order to prove vertical evolution we would need to see evidence of one kind of genetic material recombining to form a different kind of genetic material. We’ve never seen that even in lab experiments. All we find are fossils with peculiar characteristics indicating yet another variety or perhaps another species. Nothing in the fossil record has ever bridged the gap between kinds. A whale with legs is still a whale and not a horse in the making. The whale with legs is a variation that adapted to a peculiar environment (eg crawling on the ocean floor or such to find food), but it was still a whale and it could never breed with a horse.

Here’s another example, in my opinion. If a dog cannot breed with a cat and produce a fertile offspring, then it is not a cat, even if it looks more like a cat than a dog. This is presuming that it still can breed with other dogs and produce a fertile offspring. Now if this is true, then how are we ever going to see one of these new canine species ever actually switch over to where the opposite is true, ie where it can only breed successfully with felines and no longer with canines?

_________

* Think of a “Species” as an interbreeding group of animals that can produce fertile offspring under normal conditions and are reproductively isolated from other such units. Different “Kinds” cannot produce any offspring by cross-breeding. All the different domesticated dogs (Collies, poodles, Great Danes, etc) are different varieties of the same species. Coyotes and wolves are each different species, but all three of these species are of the same “kind”.

31 October 2001



posted on Apr, 28 2004 @ 05:13 PM
link   
1. Dont post whole articles or wtvr without a link from where you got it.
2. That is WAY too much to read...wanna give us the gist of it??

I agree with Jonna...I Dont Belive in God and the theory of evolution is logical and rational.



posted on Apr, 28 2004 @ 06:27 PM
link   
SevenAngels,.. please supply a link. and then edit the posts..So if people want to read more they can,


Asala



posted on Apr, 29 2004 @ 07:11 AM
link   
Regarding Evolution.

Let us look at some practical lessons that we have learned in life. Something that most of us may have actually experienced.


Has anyone in here had an infection. Maybe an absessed tooth (I don't know if I spelled that right). The treatment for something like this is an anti-biotic.

Now, when you are instructed to take anti-biotics, you are told: "Take this medication for X amount of time, even if the symptoms disappear".

Does anyone know why this is? Well, I am sure some of you do. I will explain it anyway. If you are told to take an anti-biotic to kill a bacterial infection for 10 days, and you take them for 6 and stop due to the disapearance of symptoms, there are a couple possible outcomes.

First possible outcome is that you killed all the bacteria and it is over. This is the most likely scenerio.

Second is that you killed nearly all, but not 100% of the bacteria and the symptoms still went away. This is possible due to slight variations of living creatures when they are born. For instance, sometimes, people have children that are smarter or stronger than normal. It just happens, In this case, some bacteria were just a little stronger than normal...more resistant to the anti-biotic.

What can happen because of this is important. Now, after 6 days, you have only a tiny amount of bacteria left. The problem is that it is only the bacteria that was strong enough to survive large doses of the anti-biotic in the first place. All that is left to reproduce is this stronger bacteria. So, sometimes when you stop taking these anti-biotics before your given timeframe is up, you can create a super strain of bacteria in your own body that is nearly immune to the anti-biotic that you were taking. This is fact. Doctors HAVE TO TAKE THIS INTO ACCOUNT because it is real. Its not opinion.

If there is an animal that lives in the wild, that can handle a certain temperature range, and it suddenly gets below that temperature range, it will likely die. As a matter of fact, the only ones that could sustain this life for any length of time would be those more equipped to handle the temperature. The rare animals that have this quality will be the only ones to reproduce, thus making it more likely that the offspring of these animals will all share these qualities per the norm rather than the exception.

This is reality, plain and simple. I thought you were a little more accepting at first Sevenangels. You dismiss these arguments as nonsense due to your religion. As others have told me that my knowledge is crap and garbage, you have taken the same stance. Discriminatory, and derogatory. This is why I have such issues with christianity. I have faith where I need it. People who study evolution must feel like some of the people used to when Christians were trying to kill them for saying the Earth wasnt the center of the universe.

Question Seven, Where did the Pug come from?

There is a crab off of the shore of Japan, I will try to get its name. It has the face of a king or emperor on it. How did that get there? (I will find the name of the crab out eventually here)

Evolution does not rule out the possibility of a creater. It only makes your faith more valid. Because without evolution....there is no faith.



[Edited on 4/29/2004 by Seapeople]



posted on Apr, 30 2004 @ 03:27 AM
link   
I believe in the theory of evolution but I also believe in God.
Why must one always have to profess to following the Biblical creation theory if one has a belief in God?

The Bible is a book. It was written by men who gave a creation theory their best shot without the science that we have today.
Just because the Bible says that everything was created in 7 days doesn't mean that it was but this doesn't disprove God.
There are hundreds of contradictions in the Bible, but these are contradictions created by man.



posted on Apr, 30 2004 @ 12:48 PM
link   
People of the Sea-

I was having a hard day when I posted this, and really felt the need to RANT and vent, as many do on this website! Basically, a good friend of mine was talking to me about evolution, and trying to get me to accept it as a way to show that there is no God.

Maybe I should have said "I do not believe that mankind "Evolved" from other species, such as a chimpanzee.”

I believe in horizontal evolution within the same species, but not vertical evolution. When I pressed my friend to show me the proof of vertical evolution, he could not. What I am saying is that we are taught in school that the "Theory" of evolution is correct and based on scientific fact. Then they see one way, and will not look another. I really do try to look and question everything, (which is hard to do when you are not that smart to begin with!) but it bothers me when people try to use the theory of evolution to prove that there is no God. There is NO PROOF of this! Please READ my above post. And someone, please show me where there is proof of the "Missing Link"? So far, Man has not found any!

Noun: theory 'theeuree
1. A well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world; an organized system of accepted knowledge that applies in a variety of circumstances to explain a specific set of phenomena
2. A tentative theory about the natural world; a concept that is not yet verified but that if true would explain certain facts or phenomena
3. A belief that can guide behavior

You see where I am coming from? I am not discounting evolution; we have seen creatures "evolve" over time. I read of an experiment where a group of scientist placed a whole bunch of flying insects (of the blood sucking variety) in a large tank. They fed them, and over time, slowly lowered the oxygen level in the tank. After many generations, the insects began to develop EXTRA pairs of wings! They did this so that they could still try to fly in an environment that had a lack of air for there normal set of wings to function in. You see, they evolved and adapted to their environment. But I see this evolution as a type of horizontal evolution.

1. Genetics research indicates that no new genes have been produced.

· What is claimed to be evidence for evolution is the fact that every organism has parents and there was a time when no life existed. Hence, life should have come from non-life.
· The science of genetics shows that such change is impossible.
· Main argument is that small mutations occur in the reproduction cells and are retained by natural selection. They say that these mutations accumulate and over time cause a species to gradually change into another species.
· All labs have never produced improvements through mutations. All mutations are neutral or harmful. Natural processes will attempt to correct any mutation in the next reproduction.
· The varieties come from recombination. From the mixing of genes during sexual reproduction. Organisms adapted to a set of conditions re-concentrate into an environment that has these conditions. By interbreeding they will form a different "variety" of the same species.
· If by accident a population is isolated, some features may concentrate in that population and give it a distinct appearance, which we call "genetic drift".
· These varieties do not indicate evolution. Some genes have been sorted out and the remaining population is impoverished, with fewer genes. No new genes have been formed. No new genetic information has been created.
· By selection and isolation, we obtain new varieties of the existing plants and animals. We select those we find useful, but these populations are restricted in the genetic pool and are dependent on the conditions we have legislated. Without our control they will either die out or return to their wild state.
· Natural or unnatural mixing of genes does not produce new genes. There is no process (isolation, selection, breeding, or mutation) known to science that will produce new genes.
· Evolutionists cannot provide any ideas on how new genetic information can be produced by mutation or time. They are unwilling to accept the fact that genes contain such a mass of information that they could not arise from chance events.

o The simplest living organism is so vastly more complicated that any non-living molecular structure, that the gap is too difficult to leap in a single, accidental step.
o Never in the past could there have been a "simple" organism. The very complex DNA, RNA, and protein replicating system in the cell must have been perfect from the start, or life systems could not exist.
o Every microscopic cell is so precisely programmed that an intelligence must have created it.

There are, and have been MANY famous scientist who have believed in a God. One that pops into my head is Einstein. The more one knows, the less one knows.

I guess what makes me MAD, is that people will accept that we came from nothing, then evolved from a primordial soup into what we are today, and believe this as the way it is, and then discount the existence of any God based upon what they have "observed". How could something come from nothing? It COULD NOT have! It had to have been created in some way.

Well, hope you all have a fun weekend- I am going fishing!

SevenAngels



posted on Apr, 30 2004 @ 04:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jonna

Originally posted by SevenAngels
Bottom Line:

1. I BELIEVE IN GOD!
2. The theory of evolution is crap!
3. You might say "You are crazy to believe there is a God!", but science proves you are even crazier not to believe!


The other white meat:
1. I DO NOT BELIEVE IN THE EXISTENCE OF GOD!
2. The theory of creation is illogical and irrational.
3. You might say "You are crazy to believe there is a God!", but science does not prove that you are even crazier not to believe!

And your proof about science and god is........? What, because the bible says so?


Have you read A Brief History of Time by Stephen Hawkings?
it was written in 1988 when one of the smartest persons to have ever walked the earth concluded that evolution could not have happened and there had to be some form of a higher power.



posted on Apr, 30 2004 @ 06:08 PM
link   
Yes, I read that book, it was very enlightening. Here is a quote from an article by Brendan Miniter from the "American Enterprise Online" (also, here is the link to the full article-www.taemag.com...):

The scientific community should recall that most of the founders of modern science believed in God, albeit often unconventionally. To Copernicus, Kepler, Newton, Boyle, Bacon, Pasteur, and Einstein, science was not simply contradictory to religion.
Nicolaus Copernicus (1473-1543) developed the theory that the sun was at the center of the universe and the Earth spins on its axis. He believed his model of the universe demonstrated the wisdom of God’s layout: “At rest in the middle of everything is the sun. For in this most beautiful temple, who would place this lamp in another or better position?”
Johannes Kepler (1571-1630) carried on Copernicus’s work and calculated the orbit of the planets. Kepler began his studies with the intention of becoming a theologian but switched to astronomy when he realized Copernicus was right about the placement of the sun. “I believe this,” Kepler noted, “because I have constantly prayed to God that I might succeed if what Copernicus had said was true.” “For a long time I wanted to become a theologian,” Kepler wrote to a friend, “for a long time I was restless. Now, however, behold how through my effort God is being celebrated through astronomy.”
To Kepler, the mechanics of nature did not negate God; rather they were His tune in a grand melody. “Man can play through,” Kepler wrote about the mechanics of nature, to “the delight of God, the Supreme Artist, by calling forth that very sweet pleasure of the music that imitates God.” Kepler even compared his discoveries to the birth of Christ. “I am writing the book—to be read now or by posterity, it matters not. It can wait a century for a reader, as God himself has waited 6,000 years for a witness.”
Sir Isaac Newton (1642-1727) formulated the laws of gravity and motion and the elements of differential calculus, and found no contradiction between faith and science. He thought science’s scope should be limited to the provable: “We are to admit no more causes of natural things than such as are both true and sufficient to explain their appearances.” Newton, who lived before philosophy and science split into two disciplines, believed scientists should follow empirical evidence and not be afraid to see the hand of God in their conclusions. “All sound and true philosophy is founded on the appearance of things; and if this phenomena inevitably draws us against our wills, to such principles as most clearly manifest to us the most excellent council and supreme dominion of the All-Wise and Almighty Being, they are not therefore to be laid aside because some men may perhaps dislike them.” Nor did Newton believe that scientists could find a place in time or in nature devoid of God: “He endures forever; and is present everywhere, by existing always and everywhere, He constitutes duration and space.”
Religious-minded founders of modern science were not limited to physics and astronomy. Robert Boyle (1627-1691), the founder of modern chemistry, began every day with a prayer and spent all of his income from lands in Ireland as a good Christian (two-thirds went to help the poor and support the Protestant church, one-third to spreading Christianity among American Indians). Boyle devoted many of his later writings to arguing that modern science was not atheistic, nor would mechanics replace God. He was in awe of the beauty of nature: “When I study the book of nature…I find myself often times reduced to exclaim with the psalmist, ‘How manifold are thy works, O Lord, in wisdom hast thou made them all!’”

I find it interesting that some of the greatest scientific minds in history, many who were also persecuted by the church for there views and findings, still believed in God, don't you? The more they learned, the more they believed in a God.

SevenAngels



posted on Apr, 30 2004 @ 06:38 PM
link   
thats a great site from the first post, it went straight into favorites once i unblocked it from norton.



posted on May, 5 2004 @ 01:39 AM
link   
Sevenangels,

I accept your argument on horizontal and vertical evolution. You see, when you aregue it that way, you have a leg to stand on. It is fact that evolution occurs at least in that aspect, though I feel that it has to occur to a greater extent. The second part is a logical conclusion that I come to, where as I can see where your argument may stand.

In either case, evolution does occur, and we see it every day. Admitting that is essential to establish credibility in my opinion. I am pleasantly suprised at your response. I still would argue that we evolved vertically, but I accept that we cannot prove that.



posted on Aug, 23 2007 @ 04:15 PM
link   
Just as a recap of Bio 101 for anyone who is unfortunate enough to be reading this garbage.

Vertical Evolution - Adaptation within the same species. It gets the name from the Evolutionary "family tree", which is VERTICAL.

Horizontal Evolution - Cross species evolution, as in from species to species...as in across...as in horizontal, get it?

Now I will not judge you for mixing the two up, I did however laugh at how you gave a perfect example of vertical evolution in that species of insects and then called it horizontal. I would like to point out that the evolution of man is primarily VERTICAL EVOLUTION, not much cross species stuff in there. So by saying that you agree with the kind of single species evolution (which is actualy vertical) you are saying that you accept the evolution of humans.

Ps. One example of cross species evolution is Streptococcus pnemoniae aquiring antibiotic resistance through Horizontal gene transfer from Escherichia coli (also from Bio 101 I beleive) - in lamens terms, that's why sometimes a perscription wont work to clear up strep-throat!!




top topics



 
0

log in

join