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.

 

Creationist Conundrum: For Genesis to be true, God would have to be the Great Deceiver (Satan)!

page: 6
11
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 26 2009 @ 04:39 AM
link   
Originally posted by JaxonRoberts

I really didn't want to give you the pleasure of debating with me. However, here I go anyways...


If Genesis and the Bible are truly the 'Infallible Word of God', i.e. the ABSOLUTE TRUTH, then God is intentionally deceiving us by leaving evidence to the contrary in His Creation, the Earth and the Universe in which it resides. By Biblical standards, the Earth (and the whole Universe itself) are only 6,000 years old (give or take a century or two). Meanwhile, the physical evidence says quite a different story. It points to a Universe that is over 13 BILLION years old, and Earth that is over 4 BILLION years old, and that mankind is over 100,000 years old... Quite a difference!


By human time estimates, the bible somehow claims the Earth is only 6000 years old. However, as you stated, the bible is a lineage of Adam. What doesn't make sense is how you can assert that because Adam's lineage dates back to 6,000 years, that somehow makes earth and the Universe 6,000 years old as well. As others have said here, 1 day is not exactly 1 day per the bible. Alternately, it says, "my way is not your way". That could be said to apply to "my way of dating, is not the same as your way of dating". Therefore, 1 day could be 1 EVOLUTIONARY DAY. That is, 1"day" of "creation", could be millions and millions of "years" of evolution. All we can do is speculate. To imply that you have it all figured it out is to be the most arrogant person I have ever met.


Now if the Bible is correct and all of the physical evidence (let's just leave the origin of life and the diversity of species out of this one, shall we?) is false, then God is deceiving us... lying to us... leading us away from the Truth... Hmm, I seem to remember that being the purview of Satan, Lucifer, the Devil, the Serpent, or whatever name you wish to use for that entity... I don't care how you slice it, it is the equivalent of holding up an apple and stating, "THIS IS AN ORANGE!!!"


Again, what physical evidence? I believe the physical evidence, just as anything really, all depends on how you USE it. I equate the evidence to an ideology. It's just a tool placed in one's hands. It's up to you to decide which side of the fence you end up placing that evidence on(this really only applies to origins evidence). You clearly place it on the side of evolution. While I, on the other hand, place it on the side of "evolutionary creation", or what some might call "intelligent design".


[edit on 26-12-2009 by Agree2Disagree]




posted on Dec, 26 2009 @ 08:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by troubleshooter
reply to post by troubleshooter
 


A scientist can accept that micro-evolution is a fact because it is observable and reproducible...
...but a scientist can not affirm this process as origin because it is not open to scientific enquiry.

It can be 'believed' but not scientifically investigated...
...it may fit your worldview or you 'philosophy of science'...
...but it is not science until observed and/or reproduced...
...and if that could be achieved there would be no more ground for argument.


History cannot be reproduced too, and still is considered science and its findings are considered facts. Theory doesnt need to be reproducible to be scientific, if it obviously cannot be because object of its study happened in the past. All it needs in EVIDENCE which supports it and absence of evidence to the contrary. This is true for evolution.

[edit on 26-12-2009 by Maslo]



posted on Dec, 26 2009 @ 09:58 AM
link   
reply to post by passenger
 
---you have that wrong----adam did die---that is what god was talking about--he didnt say immediatey---this is taking things out of context--twisting truth for personal gain-----also you could not have read the bible for it sure doesnt say the world is 6000 years old--another out of context fact not understood because you didnt read the whole book to find the real timeline------



posted on Dec, 26 2009 @ 10:01 AM
link   
trouble shooter----thanks for explaining micro-evolution to a athiest--they are as shallow as micro-evolution---life always was and always will be---



posted on Dec, 26 2009 @ 01:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by troubleshooter
Questioning Flawed Conclusions...


Originally posted by JaxonRoberts
Now if the Bible is correct and all of the physical evidence (let's just leave the origin of life and the diversity of species out of this one, shall we?) is false, then God is deceiving us... lying to us... leading us away from the Truth... Hmm, I seem to remember that being the purview of Satan, Lucifer, the Devil, the Serpent, or whatever name you wish to use for that entity... I don't care how you slice it, it is the equivalent of holding up an apple and stating, "THIS IS AN ORANGE!!!"

Flawed conclusion based on flawed assumptions have no value.



So, since there is absolutely ZERO evidence supporting the Creation Myth, and it must be taken on Faith alone, why would the Creator intentionally try to deceive His children, whom He proclaims to love??? (This out to be good!)

Btw regarding origins I am an agnostic...
...because no theory of origins is based on 'gnosis' (knowledge).

Are these the best arguments you got?



Umm, dude... You seem to be missing the point that I'm on the same side as you are! I find these assumptions made by New Earth Creationists utter tripe and full of holes, i.e. EXTREMELY flawed conclusions! I suggest staying far away from team debates as you seem to have a proclivity for arguing against those who are of the same mindset as you...



posted on Dec, 26 2009 @ 01:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by Agree2Disagree
Originally posted by JaxonRoberts

I really didn't want to give you the pleasure of debating with me. However, here I go anyways...


Assuming that this will be a pleasure...


By human time estimates, the bible somehow claims the Earth is only 6000 years old. However, as you stated, the bible is a lineage of Adam. What doesn't make sense is how you can assert that because Adam's lineage dates back to 6,000 years, that somehow makes earth and the Universe 6,000 years old as well. As others have said here, 1 day is not exactly 1 day per the bible. Alternately, it says, "my way is not your way". That could be said to apply to "my way of dating, is not the same as your way of dating". Therefore, 1 day could be 1 EVOLUTIONARY DAY. That is, 1"day" of "creation", could be millions and millions of "years" of evolution. All we can do is speculate. To imply that you have it all figured it out is to be the most arrogant person I have ever met.


Arrogance is to make the assumption that a day is more (or less) of a day than a day just so that it fits your 'data'. But let's continue on to the second part of your little 'arguement', shall we...


Again, what physical evidence? I believe the physical evidence, just as anything really, all depends on how you USE it. I equate the evidence to an ideology. It's just a tool placed in one's hands. It's up to you to decide which side of the fence you end up placing that evidence on(this really only applies to origins evidence). You clearly place it on the side of evolution. While I, on the other hand, place it on the side of "evolutionary creation", or what some might call "intelligent design".


Since you have stipulated in your first 'argument' that Adam lived 6,000 years ago, and since he was the first human, then all of the human remains dating back more than 6,000 years are 'false' evidence placed here by the almighty merely to deceive us and cast doubt. So the original assumption still stands: The God of Genesis is the Great Deceiver!

Nice tapdance, but seriously....

[edit on 26-12-2009 by JaxonRoberts]



posted on Dec, 26 2009 @ 01:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by troubleshooter

Originally posted by rusethorcain
reply to post by troubleshooter
 


So you are admitting it is TRUE but only question it's origin. Then we agree. Evolution is not a theory as a layman uses the word theory. Evolution itself is a fact. This can be denied with all manner of argument but it will not change a thing.

A scientist can accept that micro-evolution is a fact because it is observable and reproducible...
...but a scientist can not affirm this process as origin because it is not open to scientific enquiry.

It can be 'believed' but not scientifically investigated...
...it may fit your worldview or you 'philosophy of science'...
...but it is not science until observed and/or reproduced...
...and if that could be achieved there would be no more ground for argument.



Whatever fits your world view? This is sort of a silly thing to follow.
I follow the scientists and let the theologians trail up the rear. If they happen to coincide I think I have a possible reason for existence.
Otherwise it is only speculation on both our parts.
Except evolution which is a proven fact. I can't believe there are still people on this planet that need more convincing....but alas we are a backward species and sometimes we devolve.
Cheers!



posted on Dec, 27 2009 @ 11:49 PM
link   
reply to post by JaxonRoberts
 


I'd say that your comments are very interesting considering the word "Bible" contains the words LIE, BILE and BIB. Wow, that tells me that someone (elitetist) was bitter (bile) about something so they decide to spoon feed (bib) a massive lie (lie) to humanity. Hmmm......



posted on Dec, 28 2009 @ 12:04 AM
link   
I'm responding to my initial post because it just occurred to me that what I just posted sounded alot like the friction between God and Satan. So Satan and his followers (devils) are bitter about God's creation (there was a creation of a paticular group beings (Hue-man) thru genetic engineering/manipulation. However, the creations were created to evolve). Apparently, Satan didn't like that God's creations were to love and honor him (actually it should them instead of him - The Hebrew Torah states that Elohim, which is plural mean more than one, created man (beings) in their image and their likeness. Hmmmm......



posted on Dec, 28 2009 @ 12:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by JaxonRoberts
reply to post by downisreallyup
 


I just love all of the sidestepping of issues here. The Old Testament most certainly does give the lineage of Adam right down to Jesus Himself. Thus a rough timeline and estimation of age is possible from the time of Adam to the present, PERIOD!


I said there is no time frame regarding the creation itself, and there are two different accounts given in the Bible, and they are NOT contradictory, as some erroneously assert. My point is saying this is not to sidestep at all, but to merely point out that you can't tell how much time occurred between "In the beginning..." and chaper 2, verse 5. Then for the "formation" account, there is no time frame given.

You are sloppy in your exegesis of the Bible. You have not separated the events accurately, and are coming to erroneous conclusions. Yes, you can estimate the time frame of historical accounts based on genealogies, but there was much happening with creation before Adam came around, and the "seven days" is part of the CREATION/DESIGNING/ARCHITECTURE phrase, which is not to be included in the overall time frames. Adam's life starts from the formation in dust, and that occurs later, AFTER the creation. Just because you are not familiar with this concept, don't conclude that you are correct. I have studied these things in the original language for over 30 years, so you really should consider what I'm saying here

So, would you please try to read a person's comments more carefully? I don't write things sloppily and I do try and take my time to use the correct words for the occasion. I would appreciate you taking the time to understand my words, and to not assert that I said something different than what I said.


[edit on 28-12-2009 by downisreallyup]



posted on Dec, 28 2009 @ 01:13 AM
link   
reply to post by metamagic
 





... They do seem to be a uniquely American cultural phenomenon ...


No such luck. They are rampant in Australia too.



posted on Dec, 28 2009 @ 01:55 AM
link   
reply to post by JaxonRoberts
 





I suggest rereading Genesis. It gives the complete lineage of Adam (and in some cases ages). This isn't some number I came up with, it's the number that New Earth Creationists love to throw about...


...and it is interesting that even those people who are 'vitally' interested in this lineage can't even interpret it correctly.

It has been recognized as a secret code, describing important astronomical information, for over a hundred years. And that information has been similarly encoded in very many mythological structures from the Iclandic Eddas to the Hindu Puranas to the Chaldean Marduk writings by Berossos. Berossos version of outlandish long lives for pas kings eventually gave rise to to the Biblical account.

Joseph Campbell's description of the numerology is here. Other descriptions can be found on the web.

Basically it comes down to a rather convoluted encoding of the secret that 72 years is 1 degree of the zodiac, thus the complete precession is 25920 years. A realization that the earth is much older than a couple of thousand years (at time the Bible was written) is required to imagine a cycle of that length.



posted on Dec, 28 2009 @ 02:57 AM
link   
reply to post by JaxonRoberts
 





Since you have stipulated in your first 'argument' that Adam lived 6,000 years ago, and since he was the first human, then all of the human remains dating back more than 6,000 years are 'false' evidence placed here by the almighty merely to deceive us and cast doubt. So the original assumption still stands: The God of Genesis is the Great Deceiver!


I'm in general agreement with your side of the argument on this, but I think you are going a bit heavy on the dogmatism. But then so are many of your responders; challenging you on the 6000 year figure is silly, they know where it comes from and what your 'angle' is.

It is really only Young Earth Creationist's (YEC) that buy that 6000 years since the creation junk. They've been brainwashed, something that Baptism, a powerful psychological tool, was invented to help cure, but it seems to have lost its relevance in the last thousand years or so.

It is impossible for a YEC to reconcile their beliefs with the world as it exists, and so can never trust science or logic. A scientist who claims to be a YEC is lying about one or the other.

There are many people, Christians, Jews, Muslims and others who believe in Creation by a supernatural God but not in the silly 6000 year period. The . of "The Human Genome Project" is (was?) an acknowledged evangelical Christian and a creationist and managed an extremely useful scientific project. But he doesn't believe in a 6000 year old creation and could not possibly have done his job if he did. He also give powerful lectures countering the silly YEC claims and objections with science.

Having said all that, and getting back to your topic, I find it possible to imagine someone could insist that the world is 6000 years old, but that God made it in such a way that it LOOKED like it was 13.7 Billion years old. If God can do anything, he/she/it can do that. Non-YEC believers can see the obvious perverseness of a god that would do that, but it should be within the purview of an omnipotent god. It would also seem unfair to me that such an entity, so foreign to our mentation that we can't even properly conceive of its difference to us, could have any attribute assigned at all, whether it be love, playfulness, or perverseness.

But if that is the angle taken by the YEC believers, then they must follow it through. God built the world the way it is and gave us the mind to study it. If he made it look 13.7 billion years old, then who are we, mere mortals, to doubt His/Her/Its plan, especially when He/She/It told us to become masters of the world. So if God made it look like evolution happens, then don't we have an obligation to learn all about it?

So the question I want answered by the YEC crowd is this: why do you insist that your love for God requires you to deny the glory of His/Her/Its creation?

It is, after all, much more useful (from both a psychological and worshipful point of view) to embrace the world as God has given it to you and work within His/Her/Its plan than it is to continue to reject the plan He/She/It has laid out for you.

Which is a more satisfying question to have answered:

1) "Evolution couldn't happen; what good is half an eye?"

2) "God is wonderful, what is the evolutionary path He/She/It implied when He/She/It created the eye?"

[edit on 28/12/2009 by rnaa]

[edit on 28/12/2009 by rnaa]



posted on Dec, 28 2009 @ 08:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by rnaa
So the question I want answered by the YEC crowd is this: why do you insist that your love for God requires you to deny the glory of His creation?

It is, after all, much more useful to embrace the world as God has given it to you and work within His plan than it is to continue to reject the plan He has laid out for you.

Which is a more satisfying question to have answered:

1) "Evolution couldn't happen; what good is half an eye?"

2) "God is wonderful, what is the evolutionary path He implied when He created the eye?" [cleaned on 28/12/2009 by Shane]


Now, here's positive questioning in respects to the issue at hand which doesn't throw dirt into the faces of what people believe. You should learn something from this JaxonRoberts.

And it is an excellent line of questioning rnaa.

If we truely look at the premise set forth by Young Creationist's the balance of GOD Word, becomes nulified, since, as has been previously noted, there is ample evidence scripturally that express, this is the second earth age. It has been expressed what a day may and can mean. Satan and his fall occured long before the Account from Genesis 1:3 and on. This is Scriptural.

But as I did note previously, I do appreciate the efforts and dedication exhibited by those who do seek to "FIND" the evidence to support their view. In this case, there is no difference. They certainly are looking at what they can, and from the Optics of Prespective, they do see what they wish.

Unfortunately, they neglect the "Balance" of the Text, inorder to answer 1 insignifigant and truely not that difficult question about the Genesis Account.

I am certain they are even unaware, that the Verse's they are using actually tell them this is the Second Earth Age, or Recreation Account.


Genesis 1:28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.


But again rnaa. Thanks for bringing civility into the questioning, and maybe due to this line of query, we could work on building a post which offers the considerations YEC may have, along with the explainations that Science and the Bible actually indicate have occured.

It is never a bad thing if people are given a chance to express and view their opinions, regardless if others understand them or not. It is within the realm of Debate and Discussion to present and consider all things prior to dismissing one notion over another. Unlike the intentions of the O.P.

A closed mind is a serious thing to waste.


Ciao

Shane



posted on Dec, 29 2009 @ 09:04 PM
link   
reply to post by JaxonRoberts

 



There are many things which we don't presently understand--the apparent age of the earth and how it could conform to the Biblical account. However, there is a great deal to be understood about the universe before we can say that "science stands in contradiction to the Bible".



posted on Jan, 8 2010 @ 08:28 AM
link   
In case it hasn't been mentioned:

Isaiah 45:7

I form the light and create darkness, I bring prosperity and create disaster; I, the LORD, do all these things.



According to this scripture, God is the Yin/Yang so to speak.


Edit: bible.cc... For more translations

[edit on 8-1-2010 by scratchmane]



posted on Jan, 8 2010 @ 12:45 PM
link   
Evolutionary Theory is a scam.
Nothing more than a new "white mans" religion.
All Darwinism does is let white people feel advanced than the rest of the world.
Line up a bunch of monkey skulls and all of a sudden black people came from monkeys and evolved into super white men over time.

You know not even the elite and the top Jews believe in evolution?

There is still no proof of Evolution. Evolution is the deceiver, just another scam by the Illuminati devils.

The Bible however is still flawlessly predicting the future.
The Bible still has more answers than science to this day, but how many people actually read and understand the Bible?

Adam and Eve were not the only people living at the time, and no it wasn't a snake screwing with Eves . it was a man, the first wicked man.

The separation of Light matter from Dark matter is how galaxies are made. (according to science)

Eve was made from Adams rib.
Today in science, when cloning a human, the best possible part of the body to use for cloning is the rib tissue.

How is it the Bible and Science agree exactly the time the first white man / Esau / Edomites was born?
en.wikipedia.org... (fixed albino race)

We don't all come out of Africa, thats a lie, all races and nations lived in the middle east at first.
Now science "so called" oldest skull is found in South America? They can't make up their mind. I also heard carbon dating is just a huge scam.

Not to mention the hundreds of old drawings and pictures of people drawing dinosaurs, drawings of people killing dinosaurs and writing stories about it, they were called dragons. (example beowolf the real story he is a dinosaur slayer, when they conquered new lands some caves had dinosaurs that bothered people.)

If dinosaurs lived 65 million years ago how did all these people like the Egyptians and Inuits draw perfect brontosaurs and stegosaurus ect.

Every big time Hollywood director knows the Bible, same with Freemasons, Top Jews and the Elite, everything they do is Biblical prophecy.



posted on Jan, 8 2010 @ 01:02 PM
link   
Oh yeah also here are a ton of artifacts that prove the Bible is real history. (not that these artifacts prove creation)




The science of archeology has done much to confirm Biblical history and help us to understand the customs, culture and circumstances in Bible times. It has authenticated the ancient books of the Old and New Testament in many ways. It has shown the uniqueness of the Bible in its overwhelming accuracy compared to all other ancient writings. Proof of the Bible is not dependent on archaeology or any other scientific evidence. The Bible has the capacity to defend itself, and to give its positive message to those who seek God through its pages. Nevertheless, archaeology has done a great deal to restore confidence in the Bible as the revealed Word of God. It has thrown a great deal of light on previously obscure passages, and has helped us to understand customs, culture, and background in many ways that seemed most unlikely to our fathers in a previous generation.



posted on Jan, 8 2010 @ 03:01 PM
link   
reply to post by EndOfTheWorld7
 





Evolutionary Theory is a scam. Nothing more than a new "white mans" religion. All Darwinism does is let white people feel advanced than the rest of the world. Line up a bunch of monkey skulls and all of a sudden black people came from monkeys and evolved into super white men over time.


Evolution does not state that white, or any other race is somehow superior. What are you talking about?




The separation of Light matter from Dark matter is how galaxies are made. (according to science)


It could also reffer to matter - radiation decoupling some hundred thousands of years after the big bang, or simply igniting of the Sun - separation of night and day.
It is all just speculations...




Not to mention the hundreds of old drawings and pictures of people drawing dinosaurs, drawings of people killing dinosaurs and writing stories about it, they were called dragons. (example beowolf the real story he is a dinosaur slayer, when they conquered new lands some caves had dinosaurs that bothered people.) If dinosaurs lived 65 million years ago how did all these people like the Egyptians and Inuits draw perfect brontosaurs and stegosaurus ect.


Evidence please.
People in the past were aware of dinosaur fossils and the belief that those were the remnants of dragons was pretty widespread.



posted on Jan, 8 2010 @ 03:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by Maslo

Evolution does not state that white, or any other race is somehow superior. What are you talking about?


I take it you haven't read the book by Charles Darwin called The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life.

Yes the book says white people are a advanced race and black people are ape like animals.

"At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilized races of man will certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world...The break between man and his nearest allies will be then wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilized state...and some Ape as low as a Baboon, instead of as now between the Negro or Australian and the Gorilla."

Charles Darwin, 1890



Evidence please.
People in the past were aware of dinosaur fossils and the belief that those were the remnants of dragons was pretty widespread.


I have loads of pictures from books and the net of peoples drawings and talking about dinosaurs as dragons, and no they were not fairy tale bed time stories.
That Evidence you gotta go look around for yourself, It's easy to find I rather not post it here.



new topics

top topics



 
11
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join