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

page: 7
11
<< 4  5  6   >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 8 2010 @ 03:27 PM
link   
reply to post by scratchmane
 


OK, all that passage does is further prove my point. So now the God of Christianity is also responsible for all of the disasters here on Earth! Nice Guy, that God of yours!!!

reply to post by EndOfTheWorld7
 


OK, you have ANY evidence or source material to back that load of horse crap up with??? If not, please go preach your nonsense somewhere else... We here at ATS like actual evidence, data and source material, not just the rambling opinion of some Religitard who thinks he/she knows EVERYTHING without any sort of facts to back them up!

NEXT!




posted on Jan, 8 2010 @ 04:26 PM
link   
reply to post by JaxonRoberts
 


Gee your a real people person arnt you?

So where is your evidence for this?


Originally posted by JaxonRoberts 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


You started the topic with no evidence of your claims and you expect evidence from others?

Start by your claim of the Universe being 13 Billion years old.
That alone should keep you busy for a few lifetimes with that "horse crap".
Do you have some old object with the date 13 Billion B.C on it?

As for my claims of the Bible predicting time, that would require you to do actual reading of the Bible and a study of history, not something I'm up for posting here.

But however I'll post one "childsplay" prediction made in the Bible for those of us with simple minds.

Rev 14:9
And he causeth all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and bond, to receive a mark in their right hand, or in their foreheads.

Now that should be easy enough to figure out, if you don't know, RFID microchips are best implanted in the right hands or the forehead to work best, and thats where they implant it.

As for my first post about Eve being made from Adams rib, is it really that hard to Google search human cloning? anyone that knows even a little bit about cloning knows that the rib is the best part to use.

For the simple minded who want lab coats to do the thinking for them, lining up a bunch of monkey skulls from big to small is good enough evidence of evolution.



posted on Jan, 8 2010 @ 04:38 PM
link   
reply to post by JaxonRoberts
 


We live in a constant dance in between destruction and life. If there was to be no Order or no Life (Charity), we would instantly vanish into the Void. So while God is responsible for all Life and Order, when we are left to return to the Void from which we came, it is not by a cruel and unjust hand that God rules by. Do you understand? You think that you are able to condemn God for being the Author of all things, but instead, you should be thankful for the grace that is expressed by every single aspect of the universe that defies death/Void. Cut off your hand and what will the result be? And yet, God is long suffering towards all things in many ways, not cutting off as men would cut off, and the dance of our lives continues despite our animal nature being one of destruction. If OrderCharity chooses to withdraw themselves from something and send it to it's natural demise, who is a creature, while having such a great need to be sustained, that they are able to condemn the Creators? You live a falsely rich life if you do not understand the riches poured out on to you.



posted on Jan, 9 2010 @ 12:56 AM
link   
reply to post by EndOfTheWorld7
 


It's this thing called 'common knowledge'. All of the numbers I gave are considered scientific fact amongst those with an education. These are numbers one would find in any science textbook. I guess you've never read one... Didn't need none of that there book learnin', did ya?

You say things like:


Originally posted by EndOfTheWorld7
The separation of Light matter from Dark matter is how galaxies are made. (according to science)

(Really??? Where did any scientist ever say such a thing???)

and...


Originally posted by EndOfTheWorld7
I also heard carbon dating is just a huge scam.

(Really??? From whom??? Carl, the guy who changes your oil maybe???)

and...


Originally posted by EndOfTheWorld7
If dinosaurs lived 65 million years ago how did all these people like the Egyptians and Inuits draw perfect brontosaurs and stegosaurus ect.

(Care to share with the rest of the class where this comes from???)

and, well the whole post was just pure Fundie crap from start to finish. So, while I only gave information that is common knowledge, you spewed forth nothing but Fundie propoganda, so yes, I'm calling you out! Source it, or shut the hell up, cuz we both know that it's just religitard tripe!



posted on Jan, 9 2010 @ 01:09 AM
link   
reply to post by EndOfTheWorld7
 





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.


Clearly you haven't either. "Origin of Species" says nothing of the sort, in fact Darwin steered clear of commenting on mankind in that book altogether, knowing that the theory was controversial enough without bringing man into the picture. It was his opponents that brought mankind into the argument.

That Darwin was a racist is nasty propaganda perpetrated by perverted, evil souled hypocrites, whose sole purpose is to deny the beauty of the universe they claim was created by the God they profess to worship, or alternatively by perverted, evil souled hypocrites who seek a justification for their own racist, filthy, minds.

That Darwin lived a privileged life in a society that held a general belief that the white European held a privileged, superior position relative to the other peoples of the world, cannot be denied. And that he consistently and repeatedly discussed the fallacy of this supposed superiority is equally undeniable.

Please review this definitive essay: The Mis-portrayal of Darwin as a Racist



Various popular beliefs about humans during the 1800s included the beliefs that:

* Whites, Blacks, American Indians, and Asians are all different species
* The races are static and created by God, and should thus never be mixed
* There are superior and inferior races and the superior whites have the right to dominate the inferior blacks and Indians
* There are distinct delineations between the races
* Different races are not related to each other
* Interbreeding of races leads to degeneration
* God originally created civilization and whites have stayed true to God, thus maintaining civilization, but the darker races have degenerated and lost civilization as they have become more savage and further from the word of God
* Darker races are descendants of Canaan (Ham's Curse), the darker their skin the more inherently sinful they are

How, then, do Darwin's views compare to the existing views on race during his own time?

Darwin's View of Race

In contrast to the existing views on race, Darwin showed that:

* People cannot be classified as different species
* All races are related and have a common ancestry
* All people come from "savage" origins
* The different races have much more in common than was widely believed
* The mental capabilities of all races are virtually the same and there is greater variation within races than between races
* Different races of people can interbreed and there is no concern for ill effects
* Culture, not biology, accounted for the greatest differences between the races
* Races are not distinct, but rather they blend together




"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



That MISQUOTE is from the book "The Descent of Man, and Selection in Relation to Sex", published in 1871. Clearly you haven't read that either because you got the date wrong and completely misunderstood the context. In fact, I'll go so far as to say you probably lifted the quotation from one of the propaganda sites perpetrated by perverted, evil souled hypocrites, whose sole purpose is to deny the beauty of the universe they claim was created by the God they profess to worship.

Please review this essay: Myth 7: Darwin thought that Australian aborigines were closer to apes than to Europeans

The full quotation, before being hacked by those perverts in order slander Darwin is:



The great break in the organic chain between man and his nearest allies, which cannot be bridged over by any extinct or living species, has often been advanced as a grave objection to the belief that man is descended from some lower form; but this objection will not appear of much weight to those who, convinced by general reasons, believe in the general principle of evolution. Breaks incessantly occur in all parts of the series, some being wide, sharp and defined, others less so in various degrees; as between the orang and its nearest allies—between the Tarsius and the other Lemuridæ [JSW: Tarsiers and Lemurs]—between the elephant and in a more striking manner between the Ornithorhynchus [JSW: platypus] or Echidna, and other mammals. But all these breaks depend merely on the number of related forms which have become extinct. At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate and replace throughout the world the savage races. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes, as Professor Schaaffhausen has remarked, will no doubt be exterminated. The break will then be rendered wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilised state, as we may hope, than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as at present between the negro or Australian and the gorilla.


He is specifically discussing why we should not expect to see a continuous chain of "missing links" from one species to the other; in direct contrast to the Larmarkian view that we should expect to see all the links. You may notice that this is still a bone of contention between science and anti-science.

He is clearly saying that as 'savage' races die out or are assimilated into the 'superior' races (another widely held assumption at the time), and the great apes likewise die out, we will have less of a living record of evolutionary diversity. That is, at that future time there will be a larger 'break' between mankind's nearest relatives than there is now, simply because our currently closest relatives will have gone extinct.

That he seems to refer to Negroes and Australian Aborigines as closer to the gorilla than the Caucasian is to the baboon, is an unfortunate turn of phrase, and one which I can find no precedence for anywhere else in Darwin's work. As Wilkins says in the linked essay, it does seem to be unnecessary and perhaps stems from a 'cultural' racism not a 'biological' one. In short he is a European and a product of his time.

You really should try to come to discussions with more than one-eyed, cut-and-pasted B.S. propaganda lies to support your position. Especially without checking them for veracity and coherence. I realize this may be difficult, because you don't seem to have a position that could withstand that sort of a filter, so I'll leave the resolution of that dilemma to you.





new topics

top topics
 
11
<< 4  5  6   >>

log in

join