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.

 

Genesis’ Young Earth, Stars, Michael J. Fox and the DeLorean…“All Aboard!”

page: 3
9
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 20 2009 @ 07:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by grapesofraft
reply to post by OldThinker
 


Actually with no Sun the temperature would have been so cold as to kill the seeds almost instantly.


Friend, great queston, in this a "frame of reference" vantage point????

who's to assume COLDNESS was a reality back then? OT's asking you to set aside what we SEE/FEEL/THINK now....

And think through the deorean scenerio, OT set forth? OK?




posted on Jul, 20 2009 @ 07:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by LucidDreamer85
reply to post by OldThinker
 


I think the Bible refers to Terraforming the Earth actually and would explain why you believe what you do because of what it says..........

What bible do you believe every word of though?

The king James that was re-written......or the original bible that differs from the one you read?


LD, ok...really...

Are you implying an omnipotent, omniscience, omnipresent deity can't PRESERVE his intented message? Any evidence to back that up?

pls see.... www.youtube.com...

I dare any open skeptic to watch this and deny!!!!b]

OT's not ready (willing) to do that....



posted on Jul, 20 2009 @ 08:02 PM
link   
reply to post by OldThinker
 


Ok I thought through it.. Why would God need to create things with apparent age? Just to trick us? That would make God a deciever and we know that God is not a deciever. That title is left for the leader of the other side.



posted on Jul, 20 2009 @ 08:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by grapesofraft
reply to post by OldThinker
 


Ok I thought through it.. Why would God need to create things with apparent age? Just to trick us? That would make God a deciever and we know that God is not a deciever. That title is left for the leader of the other side.



G, its only a trick, if you listen/agree/are fooled by the inverse point of view...and who's that author?

Brother, I am not here to debate you....partically you...my friend...just here to challnge you to think.....

Here's a challenge, k? Ask your bride, share with her my posts/point of view...give it a few weeks...and get back with me...

Also, did you have a chance to view my last video/youtube post? I think you both will enjoy...please look it over, ok?

OT



posted on Jul, 20 2009 @ 08:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by OldThinker


..............This would explain the travel time for the star’s light, etc…

........................


I just wanted to re-iterate the point.....

How fast does LIGHT travel????? See here for details: www.youtube.com...



posted on Jul, 20 2009 @ 08:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by LucidDreamer85
So now I ask you......which one is true and which one is false?




Granted....GRAMMAR is an issue...but is INTENT? If interested please see/review....here.... www.abovetopsecret.com...


The scripture says, "LET HIM (or her) WHO HAS EARS, HEAR..."

LD, friend, are you listening???


OT prayin for ya! Phil 1:3



posted on Jul, 20 2009 @ 09:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by JaxonRoberts
........I would point out that just because one does not believe the story of Creation to be true, this does not make one an atheist......



check accepted....

you are correct....if I came across that way, I apologize, not OT's intent JR, ok?

OT sleepy....cu tomorrow!



posted on Jul, 20 2009 @ 09:42 PM
link   
1) Is OT stretching here with the apparent age theory?
2) Have you ever thought of this option?
3) Has the author of the scriptures made it confusing?
4) Was the universe created in 6 ‘real days’?
5) Does modern science got it backwards?
6) What did you think of the video?

I think your theory could be possible. A sufficiently Intelligent Civilization COULD in theory be capable of planetary creation and then teleporting it into place.

Heck Scientists mention the possibility of looking for the "Footprint" of other advanced civilizations by searching for "Dyson Spheres".

en.wikipedia.org...

For OUR current level of Technology it seems impossible BUT for a Intelligence that Evolved to our current level of technology say a Million years before Humans or say a BILLION years ago anything could technically be possible.

Our Science Fiction imagines things like Matter Replicators and Matter Teleporters, Inter Dimensional Travel across VAST distances instantly. Our Science Fiction (some will call it Science) imagines things like Alternate and Parallel Dimensions and Time Travel.

What is to say that A Being could not have Existed in another dimension or Universe that existed and evolved for Billions of years and mastered control over matter enough to create Universes and to Create Worlds?

I just have a Problem with a God that is Infinite. There technically HAS to be a limit to a God's powers.

The Author of nearly EVERY religious book has made it confusing


I PERSONALLY do not believe the Universe was created but I will admit it COULD be a possibility.

I liked the Video.

I do not like for Science to be given credit to the God of the Bible. The Bible has no mention of the Scientific method and therefore (in my opinion) I do not feel that the Bible should be allowed to take ANY credit for ANY of the achievements of Science (good or bad).

Science does not have it backwards. Religion does (in my opinion).



posted on Jul, 20 2009 @ 10:12 PM
link   
I did not like the second video OT. If you want to see a REAL picture of what Laminin looks like here is a link.

flux.aps.org...

No religious spin added to it. Just the pure gorgeous beautiful electric chill hair raising experience of Scientific Discovery.



posted on Jul, 20 2009 @ 10:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by TurkeyBurgers
...I liked the Video.

I do not like for Science to be given credit to the God of the Bible. The Bible has no mention of the Scientific method and therefore (in my opinion) I do not feel that the Bible should be allowed to take ANY credit for ANY of the achievements of Science (good or bad).

Science does not have it backwards. Religion does (in my opinion).


TB, thank you for taking the time to see the youtube!

Isn't truth, truth? No matter its source... Maybe the Bible is the source of some truth? I dunno? The apostle Paul has said, there is a link...see Romans 1:20... For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse."

Notice the terms, "creation", "clearly seen" and "what has been made"

Also there are many many endorsed scientists who think there is a link.... for example....

Fred Hoyle (British astrophysicist): "A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature. The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question." (2)

George Ellis (British astrophysicist): "Amazing fine tuning occurs in the laws that make this [complexity] possible. Realization of the complexity of what is accomplished makes it very difficult not to use the word 'miraculous' without taking a stand as to the ontological status of the word." (3)

Paul Davies (British astrophysicist): "There is for me powerful evidence that there is something going on behind it all....It seems as though somebody has fine-tuned nature’s numbers to make the Universe....The impression of design is overwhelming". (4)

Paul Davies: "The laws [of physics] ... seem to be the product of exceedingly ingenious design... The universe must have a purpose". (5)

Alan Sandage (winner of the Crawford prize in astronomy): "I find it quite improbable that such order came out of chaos. There has to be some organizing principle. God to me is a mystery but is the explanation for the miracle of existence, why there is something instead of nothing." (6)

John O'Keefe (astronomer at NASA): "We are, by astronomical standards, a pampered, cosseted, cherished group of creatures.. .. If the Universe had not been made with the most exacting precision we could never have come into existence. It is my view that these circumstances indicate the universe was created for man to live in." (7)

George Greenstein (astronomer): "As we survey all the evidence, the thought insistently arises that some supernatural agency - or, rather, Agency - must be involved. Is it possible that suddenly, without intending to, we have stumbled upon scientific proof of the existence of a Supreme Being? Was it God who stepped in and so providentially crafted the cosmos for our benefit?" (8)

Arthur Eddington (astrophysicist): "The idea of a universal mind or Logos would be, I think, a fairly plausible inference from the present state of scientific theory." (9)

Arno Penzias (Nobel prize in physics): "Astronomy leads us to a unique event, a universe which was created out of nothing, one with the very delicate balance needed to provide exactly the conditions required to permit life, and one which has an underlying (one might say 'supernatural') plan." (10)

Roger Penrose (mathematician and author): "I would say the universe has a purpose. It's not there just somehow by chance." (11)

Tony Rothman (physicist): "When confronted with the order and beauty of the universe and the strange coincidences of nature, it's very tempting to take the leap of faith from science into religion. I am sure many physicists want to. I only wish they would admit it." (12)

Vera Kistiakowsky (MIT physicist): "The exquisite order displayed by our scientific understanding of the physical world calls for the divine." (13)

Robert Jastrow (self-proclaimed agnostic): "For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries." (14)

Stephen Hawking (British astrophysicist): "Then we shall… be able to take part in the discussion of the question of why it is that we and the universe exist. If we find the answer to that, it would be the ultimate triumph of human reason - for then we would know the mind of God." (15)

Frank Tipler (Professor of Mathematical Physics): "When I began my career as a cosmologist some twenty years ago, I was a convinced atheist. I never in my wildest dreams imagined that one day I would be writing a book purporting to show that the central claims of Judeo-Christian theology are in fact true, that these claims are straightforward deductions of the laws of physics as we now understand them. I have been forced into these conclusions by the inexorable logic of my own special branch of physics." (16) Note: Tipler since has actually converted to Christianity, hence his latest book, The Physics Of Christianity.

Alexander Polyakov (Soviet mathematician): "We know that nature is described by the best of all possible mathematics because God created it."(17)

Ed Harrison (cosmologist): "Here is the cosmological proof of the existence of God – the design argument of Paley – updated and refurbished. The fine tuning of the universe provides prima facie evidence of deistic design. Take your choice: blind chance that requires multitudes of universes or design that requires only one.... Many scientists, when they admit their views, incline toward the teleological or design argument." (18)

Edward Milne (British cosmologist): "As to the cause of the Universe, in context of expansion, that is left for the reader to insert, but our picture is incomplete without Him [God]." (19)

Barry Parker (cosmologist): "Who created these laws? There is no question but that a God will always be needed." (20)

Drs. Zehavi, and Dekel (cosmologists): "This type of universe, however, seems to require a degree of fine tuning of the initial conditions that is in apparent conflict with 'common wisdom'." (21)

Arthur L. Schawlow (Professor of Physics at Stanford University, 1981 Nobel Prize in physics): "It seems to me that when confronted with the marvels of life and the universe, one must ask why and not just how. The only possible answers are religious. . . . I find a need for God in the universe and in my own life." (22)

Henry "Fritz" Schaefer (Graham Perdue Professor of Chemistry and director of the Center for Computational Quantum Chemistry at the University of Georgia): "The significance and joy in my science comes in those occasional moments of discovering something new and saying to myself, 'So that's how God did it.' My goal is to understand a little corner of God's plan." (23)

Wernher von Braun (Pioneer rocket engineer) "I find it as difficult to understand a scientist who does not acknowledge the presence of a superior rationality behind the existence of the universe as it is to comprehend a theologian who would deny the advances of science." (24)

Carl Woese (microbiologist from the University of Illinois) "Life in Universe - rare or unique? I walk both sides of that street. One day I can say that given the 100 billion stars in our galaxy and the 100 billion or more galaxies, there have to be some planets that formed and evolved in ways very, very like the Earth has, and so would contain microbial life at least. There are other days when I say that the anthropic principal, which makes this universe a special one out of an uncountably large number of universes, may not apply only to that aspect of nature we define in the realm of physics, but may extend to chemistry and biology. In that case life on Earth could be entirely unique." (25)

Antony Flew (Professor of Philosophy, former atheist, author, and debater) "It now seems to me that the findings of more than fifty years of Deoxyribonucleic acid: the chemical inside the nucleus of a cell that carries the genetic instructions for making living organisms.DNA research have provided materials for a new and enormously powerful argument to design." (26)

Frank Tipler (Professor of Mathematical Physics): "From the perspective of the latest physical theories, Christianity is not a mere religion, but an experimentally testable science." (27)


source: www.godandscience.org...

Your thoughts friend?

OT



posted on Jul, 20 2009 @ 10:18 PM
link   
reply to post by TurkeyBurgers
 



TB, thx for looking at the second...I'll see you tomorrow...late here
OT



posted on Jul, 20 2009 @ 10:50 PM
link   
Those are profound quotes from Great thinkers.

I myself do not believe in Chance or Random or Chaos. I think everything has an explanation. Just because Science has not figured the answer out to a question is not a reason to explain it with mysticism. We just need more variables, better tests and testing methods and better equipment.


That is what has gotten us into so much trouble for so many Centuries.
Answering the unknown with the unknown.

The second that a Human says "I have no explanation!" is the very second that we should continue to press on even further to explore the answer.

"I don't know" is an acceptable answer but it is not the final answer.
"I don't know" is the spark of exploration. The light that guides the Scientist into the realm of the unexplored!


Arthur Eddington (astrophysicist): "The idea of a universal mind or Logos would be, I think, a fairly plausible inference from the present state of scientific theory."

It is plausible.

I like your Wernher Von Braun quote "I find it as difficult to understand a scientist who does not acknowledge the presence of a superior rationality behind the existence of the universe as it is to comprehend a theologian who would deny the advances of science."

Here is another cool quote of his

"I have learned to use the word "impossible" with the greatest caution."
Wernher Von Braun



posted on Jul, 21 2009 @ 01:12 AM
link   
reply to post by OldThinker
 


Now here's a thought !


Source: Genesis 1: Verse 1- In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.


Note the order....

First The Heaven then the Earth !


2 Now the earth was formless and empty,


The Earth has No form ie Now Shape ie No Dimension at this Stage !

And Empty because it had No shape in other words No Dimension !

Besides we are reading about the forming of The Heaven and Not the Earth here !

We are Not even talking about the Universe at this stage of the writing.

But rather we are Reading about The Creation of the Heaven the Earth and Universe appear in!


darkness was over the surface of the deep,


The Face of The Deep is Not the Sea or any other waters of the Earth because at this stage of the writing, the Earth has No Form, ie No Shape or Dimension!

The Face of the Deep is just that, a Face or Plane, that the Heaven was about to be formed in!


and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.


In the majority of the different translations the word Hover is Not used but rather the word used is "Moved", which is Not the same as hover!

Quote:-


And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters


Waters is a "bastardisation" of the writings and should read the face of the Deep.

In "The Gospel of Thomas" it is Written....


39. Jesus said,

“The Pharisees and the Scribes
have taken The Keys of Knowledge
and Hidden Them.

They themselves have NOT entered,
nor have they allowed to enter
those who wish to."


And in verse 50 :-


“What is the sign of your Father in you?”

say to them,

It is Movement and Repose.”



3 And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light. 4 God saw that the light was good, and He separated the light from the darkness.


The Components of Darkness or greyness, is Black and White.


5 God called the light "day," and the darkness he called "night." And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day.


In most of the many different translations it is written...

Quote from verse 5:-


And the Evening and the Morning were the first Day.


Note from, Evening to Morning.

But on Earth, the Day is the Light and is between the Morning and Evening, Not between Evening and Morning!

This Period is Called the Night on Earth, Not the Day!


6 And God said, "Let there be an expanse between the waters to separate water from water."


In most, of the many different translations, the words used were "The Firmament"

Quote from verse 6.


And God said let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the Waters.


The meaning of the word "firmament" has changed over the years and does Not mean the same as it originally did!

Note this is Not the Sea or any other waters of the Earth as the Earth at this stage of the writing has No form, ie Shape or Dimension and the Heaven is still being Created for the Earth and universe to appear in!


7 So God made the expanse and separated the water under the expanse from the water above it. And it was so. 8 God called the expanse "sky." And there was evening, and there was morning—the second day.


No he did certainly Not call the firmament sky!

In most of the many different translations it is written!

Quote:-


And God called the firmament Heaven. And the Evening and the Morning were the Second Day.


Again the period between the Evening and Morning is Not and has nothing at all, to do with the Earth, but instead The Creation of The Heaven, as is written in the order of Creation, according to the First Book of Moses called Genesis, in The first Verse!

God Created The Heaven and the Earth.

First Heaven then the Earth!


9 And God said, "Let the water under the sky


No the word Sky was Not used but instead...

Quote from verse 9 :-


And God said, "Let the water under the Heaven..... etc


As is in Verse 1.


In the beginning God Created the Heaven and The Earth



be gathered to one place, and let dry ground appear." And it was so. 10 God called the dry ground "land," and the gathered waters he called "seas." And God saw that it was good.


Now the dry land has been formed ( from the face of the Deep ) and the seas also were Created from the Face of the deep.

People must read what is written and Not assume!

If the bible is worth reading, then read it, as it is, and Not as you want it read!

In saying all this I am Not saying the Bible is totally worthless but you are only taking a few of the Christian writings in fact only the small group of writings that were originality written in Greek and a few Hebrew text which the Roman church compiled!

Jesus never made any mention at all of the development of The Roman church or any other denominations, sects or of Roman doctrine.

Why ???

But He did say when would leave the wicked one would come and Deceive the Whole Earth, Not some of the Earth but The Whole Earth.

This was the formation of the Roman church!

The Christians fled the area, in fear for their lives, and did Not want to be fed to the Lions or Murdered by the Romans.

The Roman Church is Part of the Government, of the holy Roman empire!

The Romans burnt Jerusalem and ploughed it into the Ground, after they Murdered Jesus.

Why ???

Perhaps they were terrified of the First Resurrection, that took place on the Death and Resurrection of Jesus and the saints that slept in the ground ???

[edit on 21-7-2009 by The Matrix Traveller]



posted on Jul, 21 2009 @ 01:16 AM
link   
reply to post by OldThinker
 


Those quotes are great oldthinker,enjoyed reading the thread so far




posted on Jul, 21 2009 @ 03:30 AM
link   
Hi again O.T.

You'll find the unedited original version of those quoted Genesis passages in the Sumerian Tablets, where the first book of the Torah and the Bible came from when the Hebrews left Sumer.

The reason I said unedited is because the greater amount of information on the genesis of our solar system was left out in the Bible Genesis. So to get a fuller picture it is more effective to return to the original scripts where the inferior edited version came from.

While I don't necessarily agree with everything Sitchin has had to say on ancient Sumer, he is the foremost Jewish scholar on this subject. I on the other hand have only studied my mentors work from deciphering the tablets for the British Museum along with Sitchin at the time.

My point being, friend, is that what you read in Genesis is only a tiny fraction of the original, and in some places you will find passages word for word with the original, as well as a lot of other interesting stuff that science is finally starting to prove in recent times.

Now back to the advertised topic.......




posted on Jul, 21 2009 @ 04:52 AM
link   
Hey OT:

You DON'T have to add a bunch of periods at the end of every sentence. It does nothing but distract people from what you're saying. It's "Example." not "Example.... Example....". Please for the sake of "God" stop doing that.

BTW Genesis is completely made up and unscientific. I GUARANTEE you that if you spent as much time learning about what science currently knows and can prove, as you do trying to find new information to support Genesis, you would have such a different view on things. How about you go to an actual scientific forum, and ask them questions there, rather than on this forum where science is hardly the standard. That is what I would do (and did do) if you really want to find the truth. I hope that is your goal, to find the truth, rather than to twist and bend the world's current knowledge to fit what you hope is the truth.

[edit on 7/21/2009 by Simply Aware]



posted on Jul, 21 2009 @ 05:25 AM
link   
Realy fasinating. more coincidenses ?





posted on Jul, 21 2009 @ 05:44 AM
link   
reply to post by OldThinker
 


This article is about the same trees , but dates are sligtly diffrent, but, no where near millions...

The one I read it sayd 4900 +- 1000 as to the insurtenty of the dating method...

Like I saw another poster sayd: Terraforming the planet, it is about what I try to say also, cause, even if the sun was there, but the waters above was thick enough, the light wouldnt come in, and I figure it had to be heat under this 'sphere', like a greenhouse..

Moon came later, did Enlil park his 'worldship' there ??
God traveled to the heavens above, in the koran, Allah also went up and down to the heavens, this is what Nasa do on a rugular basis.

A friend of my at work is a muslim , and he told me that Allah also created atleast two other worlds, is this Nibiru and one more ?



posted on Jul, 21 2009 @ 08:11 AM
link   
reply to post by OldThinker
 


I'm pretty sure that by now everyone on ATS knows about the biggest known stars. This knowledge is hardly life changing. I've been into cosmology since I was a child and the unimaginable size of the cosmos and it's contents are something that helped me to the conclusion that we are absolutely meaningless. Anyone who doesn't realise that nature is completely indifferent to us is a pathetically near sighted.

Moreover, why do you even bother? Every time you come on here, you peddle stuff like this and no one listens, they just argue with you because you present opinions as facts and admittedly biased, one-sided arguments as proof. You consistently offer noting of value in these threads.

Don't even get ne started about the so-called "logic" of the old testament.



posted on Jul, 21 2009 @ 10:05 AM
link   
What about the dinosaurs?



new topics

top topics



 
9
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join