Academics fight rise of creationism at universities

reply to post by octotom

You are really going to rationalize this. First off, it does not say when they had the "nameless" children. You are pointing me to the genealogy of "first man" and there is nothing said about any daughters until AFTER Seth. Adam was already 130 years old by then.

Side Note: this dude Adam at the age or 130 had the mojo to knock up his (really) old lady. Where I sign up for that pill.

Come on man, at least get creative and tell me the Adam and Lilith story.
It is one of my favorites.

Cain’s wife is not even worth her name dropped ? maybe she talked in church so they stoned her to death or some other godly thing.

@alienesque
"Gods Law" is perfect, it does not need to ever change or bend, modern day Christians seem to forget this. They should all own slaves and be throwing rocks at people that work some overtime on a Sunday. It says so right in your book, look it up.


[edit on 30-1-2010 by nophun]

reply to post by nophun


it's readers digest version of the events,
and that's all i'll say about that!

[edit on 30-1-2010 by undo]

The Book of Jasher and the Book of Enoch are both referenced in the canonical text.

Both contain information that addresses many of the questions some of us got tossed out of Sunday school for insisting upon answers to!

reply to post by john124


When did I criticize science? I didn't. I said that science teaches that the universe had a beginning. That is the most viable scientific theory for the start of everything. Yes, there are "eternal universe" theories floating around, but they're not taken seriously.

If I was a religious man, there's one thing I'd be praying for now.

"God, can you please help me. I am sick and tired of the religious nutters on ATS, the fundamentalists. Please can you help them with their mental illness?"

Seriously people, get a grip.

Parallex.

reply to post by john124

Six, seven, or 23 days, it's still all nonsense.

Forgive me for correcting someone when they were in error. Nonsense it is to some, just like the notion that there is no God is to others?

Then why create the sun?

Because God wanted to?

So, somehow god created all of these billions of years older stars on the same day as the sun was created,

It's called apparent age.

yet god could magically shine light using some unknown process before then,

I never said it was a magical process. If a being shines forth light, then he shines forth light. You act as if there aren't creatures on Earth today that don't give off light...

and god lives outside of time yet his creation is measured in days when time can stand still for him?

You're aware that the Bible is written from a human perspective, right? And God being outside of his creation doesn't mean that his creation wouldn't have time.

What about the other part of the EM spectrum, could god fart x-rays using his magic?

Yes, God would "fart" them out.

He would have created them just like everything else, obviously. What a dumb question.

reply to post by nophun

First off, it does not say when they had the "nameless" children.

What are you talking about? Who else would have had said children?

You are pointing me to the genealogy of "first man" and there is nothing said about any daughters until AFTER Seth.

The verse says nothing about the other kids coming after Seth. It simply says that Adam had other kids. That's all. Seth is mentioned because, if you read a little further, the genealogy continues through Seth's line.

"Gods Law" is perfect, it does not need to ever change or bend, modern day Christians seem to forget this. They should all own slaves and be throwing rocks at people that work some overtime on a Sunday. It says so right in your book, look it up.

You're right, God's Law doesn't change. But, naturally, you leave out the part about Christ freeing us from the Law and becoming the law for us.

And, God never commanded the Israelites to own slaves. He did give guidelines on how to treat slaves if they were acquired (and even in this, it must be remembered that slavery was different back then; it wasn't like we Americans tend to think of.)

[edit on 1/30/2010 by octotom]

The Book of Jasher is referenced in the bible, but is "missing".

The Book of Enoch is considered "fake" (ironic I know) by most churches.

Basically, all books get picked by the different churches and these two books never made the cut.

I am not going to argue with you about Adam and Eves children .. you believe she was still popping them out at 130+ ... enough said.


"He would have created them just like everything else, obviously. What a dumb question. "


Obviously
You and your type are funny
I will return the laugh to you .

www.youtube.com...

[edit on 30-1-2010 by nophun]

octo,

run, flee, escape. they will suck you in and insult you for the next 50 pages, call you all kinds of horrid things, and when it's over, absolutely nothing will have changed!

Originally posted by octotom
reply to post by fatdad

 

Think what you will, but that is what the Bible teaches; God is eternally existent. He simply has always existed and always will. Thus, God is beyond time.

An eternally existent being has no need for a creator.

something cannot always exist..its like saying i have always been here \ was never created and will always be here... it makes no sense....

on the eighth day god created dinosaurs...

[edit on 30-1-2010 by fatdad]

reply to post by nophun

The Book of Jasher is referenced in the bible, but is "missing".

It apparently wouldn't have much more than what we already have. Here are the two references to it in the Bible; Joshua 10.13 and 2 Samuel 1.18:

And the sun stood still, and the moon stopped, until the nation took vengeance on their enemies. Is this not written in the Book of Jashar? The sun stopped in the midst of heaven and did not hurry to set for about a whole day.

and he said it should be taught to the people of Judah; behold, it is written in the Book of Jashar. He said:

The Book of Enoch is considered "fake" (ironic I know) by most churches.

Fake might be a bit strong. It was a book written during the intertestamental period, by someone using Enoch's name, who happened to live quite a bit before. This was common in this era. If you're going to knock it's not being in the Bible though, you should talk to the Jews about that because they're the ones that assembled the Old Testament canon. (They rejected it, by the way, because it was written falsely under Enoch's name.)

Basically, all books get picked by the different churches and these two books never made the cut.

If you really sat down and studied how the Bible came to be, you'd see that this conspiratorial idea that is put forth simply doesn't hold water, especially for the New Testament. The books of the New Testament that are so often said to have been "rejected" by the church didn't even exist until centuries after Christ (with the possible exception of Thomas). The early church virtually accepted what we call the New Testament in it's entirety (minus a handful of books [2/3John, 2 Peter, and others]) universally, without question. (Canonicity wasn't even discussed at a church council until the five or six hundreds; at which point Christianity had largely already settled on the New Testament canon.)

reply to post by fatdad


now this is a worthy topic! i love theoretical physics. my favorite science it is.
wasn't it einstein that said that mass/gravity and speed are intimately tied to time?

here's a great video by dr. michio!

reply to post by undo


Yeah, I was pretty much on my way out now. There is only so much that one can do, on either side, of these things before we start to see the same trees, again and again.

WTH do I care what is said in that book I was just pointing out some info on the two books because another member brought them up.

If you are trying to tell me the Christian biblical canon is not just hand pick stories by the church at the time your nuts.

I am not arguing this crap, COME ON! A 600 year old man built a boat big enough for 2 of every animal could fit .. bite me

reply to post by fatdad


it all came from a series of giant black holes/wormholes.



what's on the other side me wonders! the singularity. what the heck is that?

oh and this part of the same show, explains that they have found evidence for active and inactive blackholes at the center of many galaxies, leading them to believe the galaxies may have been created by them. i think that's reallllly interesting

( this one you have to go to youtube to see, but it's part of the same show as the one above, just with more info on the subject of other galaxies theoretically being created by blackholes)




[edit on 30-1-2010 by undo]

Originally posted by fatdad

Originally posted by octotom
reply to post by alienesque

 

if everything needs a creator then so does the creator

Not if the creator is beyond time.

the creator is beyond time..

that has to be the lamest excuse for not answering a question.... i worship the god who created god -who created god =infinate..

God is beyond time, because he created time. There are many things that we don't know and never will while on this Earth. God has hidden many, many mysteries from us.

reply to post by Jim Scott


Very well said.

This is the sad truth for the current state of affairs in the US, apparently the UK as well.

What can you expect though, in a society where a winner/loser, us/them warring style philosophy is fostered starting in pre-school. Creating division amongst children, until they grow up and join sports teams, create sides in low-level classroom politics, etc. All while the government and media have a constant need to portray a new "Enemy", foreign or domestic. Perpetual fear and anxiety, with the only known solution being, "Only one can come on top." It is a fallacy.

This is why our courts make rulings then overrule said rulings at a later date, rather than revising them for the sake of coexistence. Nope, it's one or the other, only one can win, all else will lose.

Ouroboros:



While not being the true nature of this symbol, I find it is the most fitting imagery to describe what this all means.




[edit on 30-1-2010 by SyphonX]

Originally posted by john124
reply to post by RadiatorOfTheLight

 

Is this an attack against a belief that is different than the traditional theory by Darwin?

Religion and science are completely different. Science is evidence based, whilst religious beliefs are based on faith.

[edit on 30-1-2010 by john124]

Tell me what you've learned by using the scientific method and I'll tell you that you've got quite a bit of faith.

You only know your own perception. You assume to believe that everyone else experiences things the same way you do. This is vanity.

Enjoy.

Well since most of the people on this thread are bashing the Creationist side and ridiculing their side, I thought it would be a good idea to bring up a question regarding Darwin's theory of evolution. No, I'm not going to quote any religious text or go on spouting that God did this or that, but I don't buy into Darwin's theory being the end all be all gospel of life on this planet either. Since nobody has brought this up though, how does Darwin's theory explain the Cambrian Explosion of life 530 million years ago. I have yet to read a logical response from Darwinists about how his theory or natural selection explains the sudden surge of life that was created then. If you want your theory to be considered for being the truth, then you have to explain everything, and his theory at the moment doesn't explain this. I do find it funny that people claim to be better than the religious people when it comes to their thinking because they use logic and reasoning to come up with their answers, but have you considered that maybe what you consider logical and reasonable is actually the complete opposite? I have no opinion either way what theory is actually correct when it comes to the mysteries of the universe, but I'm not fooling myself by believing that science alone or faith alone have all the answers or any belief system that we have currently for that matter. We live on a tiny grain of sand in a HUGE desert of sand and you want to talk about logical thinking and understanding the universe based off of that very limited perspective, it's actually quite laughable. I admire the people trying to figure out all of this and I agree that science slowly but surely is finding more and more answers, but please don't dismiss another's view just because they choose to think outside the box, that alone is quite illogical. I don't wish to offend anybody here, but for people claiming to be very rational thinkers, I see nothing but closed-mindedness and hatred for different beliefs. I can almost assure you that within a hundred years all of the "beliefs" that you consider to be the end all be all truth are going to be proven wrong by somebody and people in the future will look back and wonder how people could be so stupid for believing that nothing can travel faster than light or the laws of physics are consistent throughout the universe or even that there is only one universe (just examples). Please don't put shackles on your mind by thinking that anything at all is impossible.

[edit on 30-1-2010 by Sirius20]