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.

 

Science and Biblical Creation

page: 3
1
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 7 2010 @ 08:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by Methuselah
reply to post by iterationzero
 


what im saying is that everything we observe/test/demonstrate supports exactly what the bible says.
the bible said that the creatures and beasts, and fowl, and creatures and creep around the earth (bugs) will bring forth after their kind and that is all we have ever observed. and that is all you are bringing to the table as well. events that actually support the bible.
they do support one small part of darwinian evolution but not the whole thing.
and what makes you think that micro can turn into macro evolution? you think millions of years will make it happen.

check out this video pls and really open your mind.


[edit on 7-9-2010 by Methuselah]


You posted the same nonsense video in another thread...a thread where people already explained to you why your interpretation of micro/macro-evolution is simply wrong. Go to Wikipedia, do a search for "macroevolution", and read the section that discusses why creationists misinterpret the term.




posted on Sep, 8 2010 @ 09:50 AM
link   
ok i read all the posts and read the replies and i think the problem on this thread is the definitions we are presenting. now i will admit that i am at fault for defining terms myself or using pre-defined terms by someone else and not a standard definition.

overall from what ive read... everything you guys have shown me is in direct support of what the bible teaches.
'speciation' or however you spell that as defined earlier in this thread supports the bible. and if i understand this right, speciation = macro evolution which is not what im saying but apparently its what you are saying.
if you are defining macro evolution as speciation. species evolving far enough apart to where they are not longer inter-fertile... thats exactly what i believe in and is in direct support of what the bible teaches along with knowledge gained by observation, testing, demonstrating.

so lets just take care of this issue before moving on to the next. id like to have a real discussion (i know you are attempting a real discussion) i was want to reiterate that i am here for legit conversation and discussion. just putting that out there so you all dont think im out here to try to waste your time.

ok so lets go over what we have defined here as micro/macro evolution speciation and the scientific evidence that supports or does not support these terms.

and the video wasnt bogus or nonsense, it was actually put together by a journalist... someone with many information sources and knowledge themselves. but thats another story. lets handle the issue at hand.



posted on Sep, 8 2010 @ 11:24 AM
link   
reply to post by Methuselah
 


Well, the first example he uses by quoting an experiment from 1953 has been proven wrong. And I'm still not exactly sure how what we posted supports the bible? The bible uses Genesis, and we know for a fact that's not what happened...man wasn't just created in its current form as the bible claims.



posted on Sep, 8 2010 @ 03:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by MrXYZ
reply to post by Methuselah
 


Well, the first example he uses by quoting an experiment from 1953 has been proven wrong. And I'm still not exactly sure how what we posted supports the bible? The bible uses Genesis, and we know for a fact that's not what happened...man wasn't just created in its current form as the bible claims.


yes the bible uses Genesis... and Genesis says that organisms will bring forth after their kind...
and if you are wondering what a 'kind' is... it is those that can bring forth...
like a golden retriever and a mastiff, or a horse and a zebra... those are examples of the same 'kind'
species is different, i understand that. you can have different species of finches.. but they are all still finches and they probably all have a common ancestor that was nothing but a finch...
Genesis says that they will bring forth after their kind and that is all we observe. solid evidence from Genesis on that statement is it not?
you claim that man wasnt formed from the dust of the ground like Genesis says... explain how you know that for sure... because as far as i know we are the only ones who actually know how to use our brains to create, invent, organize all that. thats how our civilization got here today because of how God built us. not because of how chance brought us along... i would imagine there being tons more creatures being able communicate on such an organized level as we do... with written communication, oral communications etc. why are we the only 'animal' that is ashamed of being naked in front of everyone else? uhm, well Genesis points that out in the first few chapters. Evolution doesnt answer why we are the only ones ashamed to be naked.
There are lots of things Genesis can answer if you just read and compare to scientific principles and what you observe through science. it really isnt hard...
you keep saying 'the evidence is sooo great' but i still have yet to see evidence that is contrary to what the bible teaches that hasnt been proven wrong or a hoax or a straight up lie... all i have seen and heard is examples of what i already believe in and that is your version of macro evolution... which is actually the creationists definition of micro evolution... speciation but limited.
a dog will always produce a dog-like offspring every single time... it doenst change what kind of animal it is... and if it generations branch off so far that some 'species' are no longer inter-fertile... thats in support of the Creation, not evolution. I agree that it happens but that process will not turn bacteria into every living thing we see today.

i really think that the belief that this process will do that is a very long rabbit trail that will never end.
and i do admit, it takes faith the believe in the God the bible. and to believe in the parts that require belief. but when scientific evidence (knowledge gained by testing, observing, demonstrating, hypothesizing, etc) speaks on its own, it is very interesting the knowledge you gain, the information you gain, the information you find in what you are observing (information already existing in what you find... wow) is overwhelming



posted on Sep, 8 2010 @ 04:07 PM
link   
This probably summarizes best why Genesis got it wrong





posted on Sep, 9 2010 @ 09:32 AM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 


wow really?

a comedian to give a scientific explanation?
haha and if you read along with him he is making stuff up.
this guy is a real joke and using the straw-man technique...
i will admit i did chuckle a little. but at the same time its a serious issue.



posted on Sep, 9 2010 @ 10:02 AM
link   
reply to post by Methuselah
 


Then please enlighten me as where he misquoted the bible



posted on Sep, 9 2010 @ 01:15 PM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 


now i really should not have to enlighten you when you can simply read along and see that he just throws things around. but i will...
right after he gets done blabbering about how God made light, he says something along the lines of "he called the light day and the darkness night uhm, thats chapter 1 he did all those things... chapter 2 he made swarmy things that swarmeth, creepy things that creepeth..." and there is nothing in Chapter 2 that has to do with those two things... chapter 2 summarizes day 6 and 7 and thereafter. nothing before...

its amazing how he can mock the bible when he doesnt take the time to actually read the entire thing and understand what took place.

and i hope you do know that God didnt place the snake there as a 'bad snake'... the snake was Lucifer the fallen angel who fell from Gods grace. Read the book of Ezekiel for that answer.

im done translating an already easily interpretable bible for you.



posted on Sep, 9 2010 @ 01:26 PM
link   
reply to post by Methuselah
 


So you believe there really was a talking snake?



posted on Sep, 9 2010 @ 02:31 PM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 


If Lucifer was just one step under God (he couldnt be equal to God since Lucifer was created by God and God is above all of his created) im sure he could come in the form of a snake with talking abilities. Why not?
There is another story in the where a man was beating his donkey and God gave the donkey the ability to talk to his master to told him to quit beating him. Balamm i think was his name. i cant recall exact details.
But yes, Satan (Luficer) has powers above and beyond this world. He can only use what God allows him to... like how he had to ask God for permission to torture Job. (read book of Job).

Since I believe that God can make the world in six days by his Word, and is above and beyond his creation. Why would i not believe that his fallen angel (now his opponent) would come to Eve in the Garden of Eden?
Lucifer was full of pride because of his riches, power and beauty...

sorry for the long explanation of why, but yes i do believe he came and spoke to her.



posted on Sep, 20 2010 @ 09:43 PM
link   
reply to post by Quadrivium
 


Hi, Just a thought, but if the days and nights were not actually days, but longer, then all of life would have died during an extended period of darkness.
Second, your belief that the Earth is older, is accurate, as is backed up by the new SDH translation of Genesis
www.thechronicleproject.org...
This also has answers to just about every other question you have.
The length of time before Cain killed Abel was many years. Cain married one of the hundreds of sisters that Adam and Eve had at that time. If they were new genetically, the inbreeding was not a problem like now.
Adam and eve did not begin to age until they ate from the tree and began to fear. Fear causes death, because all sin comes from fear, example:

Greed = fear of not having enough

Give the stuff there a shot, it answered huge questions for me, which is why I've been plugging it so hard.



posted on Sep, 21 2010 @ 12:35 AM
link   
reply to post by shoulda taken the blue pi
 


Thanks,
I did check their site a while back when I saw one of your "plugs" in a different thread.
It did not format correctly on my black berry though (mostly what I use now-a-days for ATSing).
What little I did read was interesting though.
The questions I asked in the OP were more or less just put there to make people think.
Like this- IF the days were longer in the beginning then the nights would have been longer also. Could this have lead to migration and the ice ages?
Lol it is kinda funny when you think about it.
God gave us just enough info to help us to have faith and believe.
And just enough for those with a hardened heart not to believe. Like I said in the OP - there is a lot that God told us in His Word but sometimes we have to look at what is not written as well.
You are right that Adam and Eve did not age until they ate of the tree of the knowledge of Good and Evil. And that is also when they were cast out of the Garden.
So how long were they in the Garden before they ate of the tree?
The bible does not say and I honestly do not think they started counting the years of their lives until they were cast out. But as I said before the bible does not say, so I haven't a clue. All I can do is look at what's written.
And by what's written I can not believe in the "young earth" theory because of what's not written, lol.




top topics



 
1
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join