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.

 

Debunk evolution once and for all

page: 35
13
<< 32  33  34    36  37  38 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 10 2010 @ 09:59 PM
link   
I personally believe there are high beings out there that can communicate with us, but those are extremely old spirits. they dud not create us, we just happened and they eventually gained a higher level of consciousness basically. The main mistake you make in your "chart" (if thats what you want to call it) is a huge mistake, because in essence you're saying human beings in their own right are gods. Doesn't the all mighty "god" say that there can be no other gods. Do your homework man, study some religion, something, if believing in an giant man in outer space with a beard keeps you safe, cool, but quit trying to say evolution isn't real take a look around you, evolution is everywhere, evolution is basically a mutation that works, and nature improves on it everyday.

One last thing, quit trying to force your religion on everybody aren't Christians supposed understanding and all that other good stuff? The truth about Christianity is that it's a evolution of Judaism, so basically you're a jew, you worship a jew and you follow a jew's "teachings" (if thats what they really are). To put it blunt and straight to the point, you're a jew.




posted on Sep, 10 2010 @ 10:59 PM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 


Video #1
Majority opinion doesnt make anything asbolute truth.
the popes authority doesnt override Gods...
He just blabs on and on about how one is wrong and how one is right.
and he totally uses the term evolution as a package deal and integrates it into science.
he also admits that science only deals with things that can be demonstrated and tested and observed -- which evolution still doesnt not fall into taht category since we cannot observe a bacteria evolving into anything other than a bacteria or any thing else evolving into anything else other than its kind. never observed, never demonstrated therefore not scientific.
with his same logic i can debunk the oort cloud since no one has ever seen it and the burden of proof to prove its not existence it put on the creationist which is pure BS.
Gods Word tells us exaclty how he did it and if you just read the bible you can see why it made everything in the order me made it in. its simple, its based on eye witness accounts and quoted by Jesus and some of his apostles 4000 years later.

Video #2
The fossil record doesnt exist anywhere in the world.
all history requires faith!
contradictions in the bible? where?
I like how he threw carbon dating in there even though anyone with a brain knows carbon dating doesnt work at all!
again popular vote doesnt make anything right.
God inspired the Word which means to breathe in...
and most everyone reads the bible and does not understand it because they pick out what they want and twist it to what they want to comprehend. take a look at 2 Thessalonians Chapter 2.
and we know that book of mormon is wrong because the book itself and the rest of the doctrine directly contradict the bible it claims to be a companion to.

Video #3
there is such thing as absolute truth... to deny that is absolutely retarded.
wow the bible does say that there was no death before the fall... learn to read!
funny how he puts God in a box and totally misquotes the bible or quotes out of context.
look up the definition of firmament from the bible. and again he misquotes the bible.
he makes many more assumptions about days and nights.

Video #4-15
I actually just stopped watching because this guy is full of lots of crap.
some of what he did say i agreed with, but the context i did not.
yes there are lots of people in the world who have screwed things up and totally used religion to justify their beliefs.
and he skipped through scriptural errors very quickly and i would bet that those findings are also out of context.
the first 4 videos doesnt change the truth based on this deliberate context distortion and the rest of the videos cant do it either. just becuase he can flip context of events.

Read the book and understand it. you cant just pick at it and expect to gain knowledge/wisdom.
thats just like being married, you cant just pick at your spouse the parts you like or understand. you have to dive in and study, learn, etc.

If this is your argument for creationism being wrong than you are believing a lie just as the bible predicted people like you would.

oh and by the way, since there are many examples of radiometric dating giving wrong results, how do we know it is ever correct? thats like developing a method to cure aids, giving it to your patients and not curing any one of them. you claim it works, but it only works if you give it to someone you have not confirmed has aids.

I still see nothing disproving the bible from a scientific standpoint.
I can point out things about your theory again if you would like. like all the lies being taught in schools as if they were true when they are in fact not true.

also its funny how Darwin only had a degree in Theology, he was never a scientist or held a degree in any sort of science, none! so how is he qualified to even pose such a theory? you claim that the list i gave you had scientists in fields that didnt relate to evolution, so based on the logic how can Darwin or Charles Lyell (the guy who invented the geologic column back before radiometric dating was invented) have authority in the field of science to pose such a theory? Charles Darwin = a preacher/theology... Charles Lyell = Lawyer/Law... according to your logic they are both not qualified to make such implications or pose such ideas amoung anyone or any field of science since they are not qualified. you mean to tell me that they took a stab in the dark and were pretty much on the money? the technology that supposedly verifies their accuracy wasnt even around yet... it was all made up out of the clear blue sky.

we have witnessed some predictions we can make from Genesis... We have witnessed 1 prediction we can make from evolution (speciation & variations) but the rest for both theories are based on faith. get it through your head or show me hard evidence!



posted on Sep, 11 2010 @ 06:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by Methuselah
reply to post by MrXYZ

Your arguments amount to: "The Bible is correct because the Bible is correct."


also its funny how Darwin only had a degree in Theology, he was never a scientist or held a degree in any sort of science, none! so how is he qualified to even pose such a theory?

Way to misrepresent Darwin's education! But then again, I've come to expect that from you. Darwin started at medical school, got involved in natural history and did his own research. Had it been the modern university system, his work would have been in the area of biology, primarily botany, and would have warranted a Bachelor's degree. Because he was skipping out on his med classes, his father pulled him out and sent him to Christ's Church to start on becoming an Anglican parson. He never stopped doing research into natural history while he was there and working on getting his BA.

OK, I've vetted Darwin. Feel free to do that for the 800 names on your list.


edit on 11/9/2010 by iterationzero because: quote tag fail.



posted on Sep, 11 2010 @ 09:00 AM
link   
reply to post by Methuselah
 


Heh, you're like OldThinker...it's pointless to discuss facts with you because you don't want to hear them and prefer to be a blind sheep.

Again, in over 150 years, the theory of evolution hasn't been debunked, which is amazing. And no fossil record? ARE YOU BLIND?? We have THOUSANDS of fossils, every one of which supports evolution. And in recent years we also have gene technology to back up the theory, and guess what, it does. We know for a FACT speciation happens, scientifically it's not really debatable...only creationists continue to behave like:



And you doubt carbon dating? You doubting gravity too, right...people should call it "intelligent falling", right? What's most hilarious is that "your" theory is this: God inspired the Word which means to breathe in...

You fail to provide any proof for that!! I figured you'd stop watching, sometimes the truth hurts just too much, right? And nothing disproves the bible? ARE YOU KIDDING ME??!!! What about the flood covering the whole world? We know that didn't happen...amongst of a ton of other things.

If being a blind sheep makes you happy, then by all means. I just hope you're not one of the people who are in favor of teaching your BELIEF In science classes.

I mean, you believe there was no life before 30k years ago...yet we have found fossils that are 505 million years old!! That's not "a little off", that's "OMFG YOU ARE SO INCREDIBLY WRONG" off.





edit on 11-9-2010 by MrXYZ because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 11 2010 @ 02:01 PM
link   
its obvious that you you have a very slanted view of the world. you believe in many things that are thrown out of context or distorted by preconceived ideas. for example, you automatically assume that the earth cant be young due to the assumption that the dating methods that date the earth are correct. (which they are not, tons of examples out there show they do not work) but they are ignored because James Hutton and Charles Lyell and Charles Darwin all came up with this general idea that never gets debunked (well gee i wonder why it never gets debunked) because it changes all the time. Gods Word has never changed it has yet to fail any scientific test. I know that there are parts that cant be scientifically proven or supported which is totally fine with me. but there are parts that can be theorized with the support of scientific principles and scientific laws. i have no problem accepting the fact that it cannot be proven... that being said i know just as well as you do that nothing in science is ever proven with an absolute truth just greatly supported with the evidence and logic behind it. again i have not problem with that.
back to the carbon dating. do you even know how carbon dating works? i have researched this concept and asked college teachers about this concept and get the same answer from every source. "yes thats how its supposed to work..." and then a compromise "but thats why its only accurate up to X amount of years" which is not how science works. if it doesnt work or if there is a flaw in the mechanics of the method, it will not work especially if you have a preconceived idea like 'the earth is billions of years old, therefore if we find something in the dirt that charles lyell says is millions of years old and our carbon dating says its only 2k years old, our reading has to be false because we already know that charles lyell was right.' and thats exactly what happens, you just admitted to it in this last post.

Fossils only prove that something died. thats about all you can prove from a fossil. you know it had parents, but you dont know that it produced anything other than its kind. if you find a fossilized bird in the ground, you know that it died, you know that it had parents, (which you dont know what they looked like or where they died) and you also dont know that it produced any offspring that lived (there are some cases where the anatomy changes during the course of reproduction... example: humans, hips widen on a female during pregnancy).
what else can you learn from fossils... pretty much nothing. you know that is was once alive, and you know it had parents... everything else that fossil is pure assumption and if i am wrong... please state the correct answer instead of just telling me that im making up crap.

the videos were about 5% interested and there other 95% was just a waste of my time... so the short answer is: it was a waste of my time. and i told you earlier that some of the stuff he was saying was true (to an extent, but that extent doesnt go very far) after he stated his facts he totally distorted them as if he had some sort of god-like expertise on the matter... sarcastically misrepresented and distorted the facts. which is why it decided to not even bother watching the rest because that means i would have 11 more paragraphs to put in my response to you (which you provided no response to my rebuttals.. who is side-stepping now?) which i did not want to do since it would be wasting my time since you didnt even reply to my first 4... so why would i watch the rest and provide answers only to waste my time? thats not logical.

Oh and Darwin... way to give him waaaay too much credit.
his medical school started an he never finished because of his disinterest. which means he didnt really pay attention... which mean NO BACHELOR DEGREE.. althought im sure material was worthy of such a degree. but he never excelled in that class.
worked for his father during 1 summer as an assistant doctor (doesnt mean he actually earned any Dr title or actually knew what he was doing. was an assistant and nothing more).
thereafter went to Cambridge where he got his degree in natural theology...
so it looks to me that he did a few odd jobs here and there and then got a real degree from an accredited school.
so how can he develop a theory when the classes he needed to be knowledgeable in there areas didnt even interest him at all. this of course is based on your logic since the evolutionists seem to think that the theory of evolution & abiogenesis has everything to do with the medical field and as so nicely put it, biology.

My response has never been "the bible is correct because the bible is correct" if thats what you gather... you arent paying attention at all which means you must have A.D.D or something like it.

i actually would teach my belief in science class. thats what happening right now on your side of things... evolution is being taught in the classroom and all of it (except for the parts which i have told you are observable) is a belief based on assumptions that have never been tested, demonstrated or observed.
can you observe abiogenesis? have we ever demonstrated it? yeah we test it all the time but we never getting supporting results for it. the evidence actually points towards a creator for abiogenesis doesnt it?
have we ever observed plants or animals producing offspring that is different than its own kind? no we have not. we have observed for example: species of birds that grow so far apart generation after generation that the species are no longer able to reproduce. yes thats scientific and yes that part of this process called evolution and yes that part of what Genesis says would happen. Genesis says that animals would bring forth after their kind thats exactly what we observe today and in your so-called fossil record.

you honestly believe you think you can falsify the flood. well if you were to actually read the bible you find that it is scientifically possible for this event to occur. yes there are assumptions made (ie God established the earth upon the seas and upon the floods) which means he made the earth the mostly flat land and water under the crust of the earth. Canopy theory is based on an assumption too but it uses scientific principles and laws to support the its hypothesis.
you have to learn to read & comprehend before you say that its dumb and false. just by your statements i can tell that you didnt read and did not comprehend the message given... and its probably because you have this preconceived idea that evolution IS science when it is not (with the exception of what i wrote earlier, micro evolution/speciation). oh and i never said speciation from a scientific view point if arguable, but the science behind genetics does not point to life evolving from non-living material nor does it point to life as we know it today evolving from single celled organisms.

A quote from Darwin himself "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down."
and uhm there are plenty of examples that we have observed this... making theory break down or not legit.

From the biblical point of view, we dont just stop at the conclusion that God did it and thats our answer. We study and try to understand what God did and how he did it... In the past we have been wrong... went back and read his Word and learned that were didnt read enough and thats why we came to wrong conclusions. Gods Word is easily understandable if we would just read it and comprehend it instead of just reading and going 'oh well we know thats not true because we already know by other assumptions that its not'

anywho thats my post and if you really want to boil down to why you cling to this evolutionary philosophy its because it frees you from being accountable for your actions. in all actuality thats what the answer is even if you dont want to admit it...how do I come to that conclusion? because i have only interviewed a handful of people who have admitted to that reasoning which means that scientifically ( and based your your assumption method you use in your evolutionary/darwinistic hyptothesis) that all people must be this way since we are all of the same Genome which means we are composed of 99.9999% of exactly the same chemicals (some variations here and there but we can just take a leap and assume just like darwin did) causing us all to use this reasoning.
but then i would again expect those who are evolved a little more or on the flip side have not evolved far enough yet to compromise their beliefs with that of the evolution theory that calls for millions and billions of years in order to make everything we see today.... even though that calls the god of their belief a liar and stupid i have to compromise because going against this science of evolution (wihch it is not science but the media calls it that so i guess i can call it that now also) makes me look like im just a religious freak even though i have not thoroughly studied either topic to fully comprehend how the scientific principles apply to both hypothesis' and then come to a conclusion. that makes way too much sense so ill take the easy way out.

There is no scientific evidence for evolution that is based on concrete logic or concrete scientific cross referencing. its always based on preconceived ideas or assumptions that are claimed to be facts when they simply are not! funny how the evolutionist never compare and contrast, they assume evidences are invalid because their other contrary evidences that are based on their preconceived ideas.
do the science and see where is leads, it will point you in one direction... to the absolute truth.

Do the math and talk to the converted scientists or professors and find out why they converted over (or read their testimonies or watch a video where you can hear it straight from their own mouth... its not because they arent educated and its not because they dont understand the theory/process... its because its very clear where the evidence points to.



posted on Sep, 11 2010 @ 02:55 PM
link   
If evolution is false, there is a proof.

Simply explain how God originated...

Once you've accomplished that, I will believe any argument that states
God created everything I can perceive.



posted on Sep, 11 2010 @ 03:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by Methuselah
for example, you automatically assume that the earth cant be young due to the assumption that the dating methods that date the earth are correct. (which they are not, tons of examples out there show they do not work)

Yeah, I know... all those independent dating methods that agree with each to margins of error that are statistically insignificant must be wrong. But they're only wrong if you assume, without evidence other than your literal interpretation of Genesis, that the Earth is young. That's how science works - you draw a conclusion based on the evidence. The way your logic works is that you've already decided on your conclusion, a literal interpretation of Genesis from which stems, in your estimation, a young Earth, and you'll conveniently ignore any facts which don't fit into that conclusion.


Gods Word has never changed it has yet to fail any scientific test.

Because what you claim to be the word of God is untestable.


but there are parts that can be theorized with the support of scientific principles and scientific laws.

Only based on your allegorical interpretations.


which is not how science works.

This being something you're an expert in, obviously. This is exactly how science works. Every method of testing anything has some kind of limitation. So scientists work within those test methods and are constantly working on refining those test methods and gaining a better understanding of the principles behind them.


what else can you learn from fossils... pretty much nothing. you know that is was once alive, and you know it had parents... everything else that fossil is pure assumption and if i am wrong... please state the correct answer instead of just telling me that im making up crap.

I'll do both. You're just making up crap. You are aware that DNA has been gathered from resin fossils, that cell structures are observable in more traditional types of fossils, etc.?


which you provided no response to my rebuttals.. who is side-stepping now?

I think you're mixing up who you're replying to. I never posted any vids, but I definitely accused you of side-stepping. Most recent example: I've asked you to vet the list you provided, but you haven't.


his medical school started an he never finished because of his disinterest. which means he didnt really pay attention... which mean NO BACHELOR DEGREE.. althought im sure material was worthy of such a degree. but he never excelled in that class.

I agree. But what was he wasting his time on? The study of natural history, which encompasses the fields of geology and biology.


so it looks to me that he did a few odd jobs here and there and then got a real degree from an accredited school.

Yeah, but it also looks to you like canopy theory is correct because your literal interpretation of Genesis says it must be. But canopy theory has been refuted to the point where most creationists don't acknowledge it's validity.


so how can he develop a theory when the classes he needed to be knowledgeable in there areas didnt even interest him at all.

As before, you've misrepresented Darwin's activities in school. He wasn't interested in medicine, he was interested in biology, or what was called natural history at the time.


My response has never been "the bible is correct because the bible is correct" if thats what you gather... you arent paying attention at all which means you must have A.D.D or something like it.

Not at all. You've already decided that a literal interpretation of Genesis must be correct, so you either try to mash the evidence into things like canopy theory (a brief aside, calling it canopy "theory" is inordinately kind; canopy hypothesis would be more accurate) or just write it off.


evolution is being taught in the classroom and all of it (except for the parts which i have told you are observable) is a belief based on assumptions that have never been tested, demonstrated or observed.

Worthy of some laughs, right there. "Evolution! It's all a lie! Except for... you know... the parts which we've observed! But the rest of it must be a lie!"


can you observe abiogenesis? have we ever demonstrated it? yeah we test it all the time but we never getting supporting results for it.

Seriously, I could for replies to your posts by cutting and pasting what's already been stated to you: abiogenesis is not evolution, evolution is not abiogenesis. And what do you mean by "we never get supporting results for it"?


have we ever observed plants or animals producing offspring that is different than its own kind? no we have not. we have observed for example: species of birds that grow so far apart generation after generation that the species are no longer able to reproduce. yes thats scientific and yes that part of this process called evolution and yes that part of what Genesis says would happen. Genesis says that animals would bring forth after their kind thats exactly what we observe today and in your so-called fossil record.

So even though we can observe speciation to that degree, and transitional species are observable in the fossil record, evolution is wrong?


yes there are assumptions made (ie God established the earth upon the seas and upon the floods) which means he made the earth the mostly flat land and water under the crust of the earth. Canopy theory is based on an assumption too but it uses scientific principles and laws to support the its hypothesis.

Assumptions that are untestable and unverifiable. Canopy theory is scientific? Really? You're so fond of calculations - calculate how much water would be required to cover the mountains of the Earth to the requisite depth. Then calculate what the atmospheric pressure would have been under a canopy of that much water. The partial pressure is so high that the temperature of the Earth would have exceeded the boiling point of water.


but the science behind genetics does not point to life evolving from non-living material nor does it point to life as we know it today evolving from single celled organisms.

No argument here on the first point - genetics wouldn't be able to comment on abiogenesis as such, because there was no genetic material present; abiogenesis would be more in the realm of organic synthesis and biochemistry. But the science does point to life as we know it today evolving from single-celled organisms. Sorry if you want to put blinders on and ignore that, but that's where the science leads us.


A quote from Darwin himself "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down." and uhm there are plenty of examples that we have observed this... making theory break down or not legit.

Irreducible complexity has been debunked and debunked and debunked. The standard bearer for irreducible complexity, Michael Behe and his book "Darwin's Black Box", got soundly thrashed in the Kitzmiller case in 2005. But by all means, keep using that as an example.


anywho thats my post and if you really want to boil down to why you cling to this evolutionary philosophy its because it frees you from being accountable for your actions. in all actuality thats what the answer is even if you dont want to admit it.

Actually, it makes me more accountable for my actions. I don't have the easy way out of saying "God made me this way." Evolution means I feel like I have a responsibility to try and make my world and my species better, because I believe it can get better.

Past that point, your paragraph becomes a mostly unintelligible mash of barely-punctuated run-on sentence. So, with, I'll take my leave of our discussion. If you find that in the future you can make your points more lucidly and coherently, I'd be happy to re-engage. Be well!



posted on Sep, 11 2010 @ 03:36 PM
link   
humans did have outside help....the surrounding world. life forms evolve in order to survive, and they would not be able to evolve if they didnt have any dangers are difficulties surrounding them. its slightly different with computers, but that they advanced because the newer version was better and the older version eventually "died out." sorry, but you didnt prove anything



posted on Sep, 11 2010 @ 03:56 PM
link   
reply to post by oozyism
 


That is just plain wrong. There is no similarity between the development of computers and the evolution of life on earth. Computers do not reproduce sexually. The argument is based on an anthro-centric fallacy - the same solipsism that created the nonsense of organised religion.

If there is a supreme entity of some sort, evolution is a great invention and wonderful way to create life. There isn't though, which makes it even more beautiful.



posted on Sep, 11 2010 @ 04:33 PM
link   
reply to post by iterationzero
 


Nice answer, but sadly useless. You can list all the facts you want, those people will never accept it because their brainwashed minds can't deal with facts if it goes against their worldview
You might just as well tell someone from 10AC that the earth is round, he won't believe you. According to them, anything that contradicts the bible (or their interpretation of it) MUST be wrong.

The funny thing is, most of us never said "there's no god", and there's always a (arguably small) chance that a devine deity used evolution to produce us...but they're so hellbent on the assumption that evolution contradicts god, no amount of logic and facts will ever convince them otherwise. Surprisingly, in the Christian world, the US is a leader when it comes to defying logic in terms of evolution. According to Gallup, only 48% of believers even get the definition right (methusa obv doesn't), and while the same study showed that only 5% of scientists disbelieve evolution, the majority of the population does. It's baffling.



Of that 2005 study, only Turkey has more evolution deniers...and it's a country where the majority is Muslim.


edit on 11-9-2010 by MrXYZ because: (no reason given)




edit on 11-9-2010 by MrXYZ because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 11 2010 @ 04:59 PM
link   
Only two things Involved....

a. "Biological Robotics" and "Environment"... That which is being "Experienced...
And....
b. "Awareness" or LIFE, which is Experiencing the "Biological Robotics" and "Environmement"...



posted on Sep, 11 2010 @ 05:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by The Matrix Traveller
Only two things Involved....

a. "Biological Robotics" and "Environment"... That which is being "Experienced...
And....
b. "Awareness" or LIFE, which is Experiencing the "Biological Robotics" and "Environmement"...


We're talking about science...not philosophy



posted on Sep, 11 2010 @ 05:25 PM
link   
This post is by just another religious believer who thinks that his/her belief is factual truth.
Sorry to disappoint but what you talk about is only your belief and just because you believe something to be true, does not actually make it true.
Religious belief turned into the "gospel truth" is what is destroying this earth and the people on it.

Fundamental Christians in huge american auditoriums are just as responsible for terrorism as the fundamentalist Imams of Islam and then there are the Orthodox Jews.
And remember terrorism is espoused by its perpetrators are "doing God's/Allah's or Jehovah's work.

If there is a supreme god who created everything, as religious believers constantly tell us, why did he not make sure we all believe in him in the same way? Can someone answer that, without reverting to Christian, Islamic or Judaic dogma?



posted on Sep, 11 2010 @ 06:23 PM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 


It is Science.... (Mechanics) Nothing religious or of Philosophy in "Biological Robotics"...

You write it off as Philosophy... That is your Freedom of choice.



posted on Sep, 11 2010 @ 08:15 PM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 


Despite what you say the Fact still remains...

Only 2 things Involved....

a. "Biological Robotics" and "Environment"... That which is being "Experienced...
And....
b. "Awareness" or LIFE, which is Experiencing the "Biological Robotics" and "Environment"...



posted on Sep, 12 2010 @ 04:39 PM
link   
Oozyism, let me rephrase your brilliant opening statement:
I'm sick of religious and any anti-Enlightenment, or anti-science movement who revolve all their arguments around a warped understanding of "God".

"God takes the idea of evolution as an insult to him."
Is that what He told you?

This kind of crap is why I find myself getting more and more hostile to organized religion.
People like you who reject 19th century basic biological science have NO BUSINESS on schoolboards, in public office, or in any serious level of responsibility, and I do my best to see that they don't.



posted on Sep, 12 2010 @ 07:37 PM
link   
reply to post by iterationzero
 


yeah i was just mimicking the thought process of an evolutionary process... i figured you would use natural selection to make sense of it all...

ill read your post and reply to it with reasoning and logic. and there are many assumptions you are making that do make the canopy theory and flood sound impossible. but they are based on assumptions i would be glad to discuss.

but i will reply to this post right now.


Originally posted by rival
If evolution is false, there is a proof.

Simply explain how God originated...

Once you've accomplished that, I will believe any argument that states
God created everything I can perceive.


If i could explain him and his entirety... so basically if i could squeeze him into your brain... if the infinite-eternal God of the universe could be fully understood... that means that he wouldnt be God.

God is eternal (which is something we as humans have a very hard time wrapping out minds around).

you see your question assumes that God is stuck in the time/space continuum just like we are.
he existed before the beginning of time and space - Genesis 1:1 "in the beginning (time begins here) God created the heaven (space begins with time)... and the earth.

to help you better understand how big God is compared to our brains id like for you to read this statement. and comprehend it and analyze it and extract the logical point being made.

"Attempting to fit God inside the boundaries of human comprehension would be like introducing a three-dimensional being to a two-dimensional being, expecting the lesser of the two to fully comprehend the other."

im not saying that God has or is X-number of dimensions im just trying to give you an example you can understand because i know that you are at least that smart. (no sarcasm and all due respect intended in that last statement)

So the question to your request... how would you go about introducing a 3-dimensional (this will represent God) being to a 2-dimensional or even a 1-dimensional being (this will be us humans) with the result that the lesser will fully comprehend the other? this is of course an analogy not the reality...


edit on 12-9-2010 by Methuselah because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 12 2010 @ 07:50 PM
link   
reply to post by Sailor Sam
 


well here is what happens of the years.
people start to doubt and then they start to throw their own interpretations on Gods Word.
they begin to put their own spin on things.

God gave us everything we would ever need to know him. Its up to us to get to know him for He will not dwell with the wicked.

If you use logic to understand why God just doesnt show himself and prove us all wrong you will come to understand that yeah that may happen this generation and we all may believe. but next generation didnt witness it and probably would not believe... especially since we have so many distractions to detour us from God.

Moses led Gods people out of Egypt and showed himself many times... they had the proof right there! and they still chose to complain or not believe and ultimately ended up building a golden calf.... i mean what kind of people would have the proof right in front of them and still not believe? its happened in history... what makes you think it wouldnt happen today? (full circle)

[edit]
and i want to add this...
any Christian who claims they are doing Gods work by destructive means is a liar and a fraud.
Jesus said to get people saved not murder them. he said to Love not hate, any christian who does not attempt to do these but attempts by means of destruction is wrong and will be judged.
The bible does not say to destroy but to preserve with love and His Word.
We can see many examples of this in the New Testament... Peter, Timothy, Paul etc...

Now for Islam... thats a different story because if im not mistaken their book does say to kill anyone who does not convert.
LINKY



edit on 12-9-2010 by Methuselah because: added info



posted on Sep, 12 2010 @ 09:35 PM
link   
reply to post by Methuselah
 


Not that much more aggressive than the bible




Deuteronomy 22:22 "If a man is found sleeping with another man's wife, both the man who slept with her and the woman must die."

Leviticus 20:10 "If a man commits adultery with another man's wife--with the wife of his neighbor--both the adulterer and the adulteress must be put to death."




He that blasphemeth the name of the LORD, he shall surely be put to death, and all the congregation shall certainly stone him. -- Leviticus 24:16





He that smiteth his father, or his mother, shall be surely put to death. -- Exodus 21:15
He that curseth his father, or his mother, shall surely be put to death. -- Exodus 21:17
For every one that curseth his father or his mother shall be surely put to death: he hath cursed his father or his mother; his blood shall be upon him. -- Leviticus 20:9




If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them. -- Leviticus 20:13





And the man that lieth with his father's wife hath uncovered his father's nakedness: both of them shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them. -- Leviticus 20:11




If a damsel that is a virgin be betrothed unto an husband, and a man find her in the city, and lie with her; Then ye shall bring them both out unto the gate of that city, and ye shall stone them with stones that they die; the damsel, because she cried not, being in the city; and the man, because he hath humbled his neighbour's wife: so thou shalt put away evil from among you. -- Deuteronomy 22:23-24




If any man take a wife, and go in unto her, and hate her ... and say, I took this woman, and when I came to her, I found her not a maid: Then shall the father of the damsel, and her mother, take and bring forth the tokens of the damsel's virginity unto the elders of the city in the gate.... But if this thing be true, and the tokens of virginity be not found for the damsel: Then they shall bring out the damsel to the door of her father's house, and the men of her city shall stone her with stones that she die: because she hath wrought folly in Israel, to play the whore in her father's house: so shalt thou put evil away from among you.-- Deuteronomy 22:13-22



There's tons more


Of course most are clever enough to realize that rules from over 2000 years ago don't necessarily apply anymore today. Just like most Muslims realize that they don't have to kill all infidels.



posted on Sep, 12 2010 @ 11:29 PM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 


well you do realize that you are talking about the old testament where they were under the law and not the grace of God. there is a difference. and notice that when something like that happened or the mention of that happened it only happened once on almost all occasions and that was simply to get a point across.
The teachings from the old testament definitely have rules that coincide with the teachings of Jesus Christ. The consequences have not changed "For the wages of sin is death..." Romans 6:23 but the method of atonement has.
There are things that God does not like. There are examples in the bible to make it clear and obvious to us that the commandments should be followed and not ignored.

It seems that people are missing the point of the message trying to be made. basically its not ok to do these things. and no matter what religion you are does it make logical sense that these things are considered horribly sinful?

I still see a huge difference between the two religions and the rules.
Bible Old Testament says: Here are the rules if you break them here are the consequences.
Muslim Quran says if they do not convert kill them...

and im sure you thought about this, but what if we actually did hold our country to these standards? the standards of the bible... do you think we would have as many issues with crimes or STDs or parents still in high school? it only takes 1 example to set the course straight. and thats what these pieces of scripture are meant to do. set the example, set the standard so Gods people would not violate them because they are to understand the importance of keeping His law and His Word.



new topics

top topics



 
13
<< 32  33  34    36  37  38 >>

log in

join