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.

 

So, explain THIS, bilbical scholars (prove to me, it's not all hogwash)

page: 4
13
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 15 2010 @ 07:19 AM
link   
reply to post by SquirrelNutz
 


Show me the science that proves what the age of the sun is as compared to the earth.

Show me beyond the shadow of a doubt that the sun is older than the earth.

You'll notice that the creation story does not say, "The earth does -not- revolve around the greater light!"

It just simply says that Earth, came directly before-hand.

And there is no proof to say that it wasn't.

Unless you know a 5 billion year old vampire from a galaxy far, far away?

We make a lot of assumptions to claim that no vegetation could survive on earth without the sun - especially considering God had already created the light called Day and the darkness called Night the very first day - as proof that the sun is not the original source of light.

But... you guys got it all figured out. I dare argue against 5 billion year old men and women.




posted on Sep, 15 2010 @ 07:42 AM
link   
let me put this into the simplist terms i can think of.

there is a cell. a single one cell micro-organism. it is the only one. just one little cell.

alone sucks. can we exert enough empathy to agree on this?

one cell, first mitosis, first division. what happened?
____________________________________________

go stand in front of someone, face to face.
each of you raise your right hands.
notice they are on opposite sides.

go stand in front of a mirror.
raise your right hand.
notice that both right hands are on the same side.
____________________________________________

now back to the first single cell organism, that split itself in two.

how did those two cells, being identical and the same copies of eachother, know which way the message was being recieved and which way the message was being sent?

how much experience at communication did the first cell have with others outside of itself?

two cells, that are identical and the same, clones of eachother.
there was no prior need, nor necessity, nor experience talking with another, whatsoever.

does the single cell organisms read the message from left to right, or from right to left?
was the message sent with the intentions of being read left to right, or from right to left?
was the message sent from left to right or from right to left?
was the cell recieving the message reading it from left to right, or from right to left?

fast forward through millions if not billions of years of evolution into the macro-organisms we are today. when was that paradox in intracellular and interpersonal communications fixed?
_________________________________________________

Questions and Answers:

Q: What were the name of the pyramids when the ancient egyptians built them? What are the original names for the oldest standing structures on the face of the planet?
A: MER

Q: What are the first three symbols that we have placed closest to the brightest object in our skies?
A: MER

Q: What is the king of the beasts, king of the jungle, and what does it say?
A: Me ROAR

Q: What does the oldest standing structures on the face of the planet, the first three symbols next to the brightest thing in the skies, and the king of the jungle have in common?

Q: What is the type of sleep we have when we are dreaming, where do we go when we dream?
A: REM



So, explain THIS, biblical scholars (prove to me, it's not all hogwash)



how many bible scholars are posting on this thread?

how many members are 100% convinced that literacy is only from left to right?

i'm no bible scholar, but i think i know a few things, and i choose to share them. how many generations need to hear from these holy books before they become engrained upon our very dna?
_______________________________________________________________

one of you did elohim (elohim as in a verb)

one you did elohim

one = l
you = u
did = did
elohim = elohim

l u did eloh im [mirror] mi hole bib u l

mi hole bib u l
mi hole bibul
my holy bibul
my holy bible

these are just some observations, maybe related,
et



edit on 15-9-2010 by Esoteric Teacher because:
..... of course, i could be wrong.
, but none of you are going to convince me i am wrong by yourselves



posted on Sep, 15 2010 @ 08:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by Chamberf=6

I hope you aren't serious in your word games.



"I love word games"
-God (played by Morgan Freeman, in Evan Almighty)


yes, i just used a comical movie as a reference




edit on 15-9-2010 by Esoteric Teacher because: because i changed something




posted on Sep, 15 2010 @ 09:56 AM
link   
reply to post by SquirrelNutz
 


evolution is false....because if it was true....mothers would have a 3rd arm....


if your die-hard humanist than it not worth trying to convince....in humanism man is his own god... it is the lie that has been preached since the garden of eden....



posted on Sep, 15 2010 @ 09:57 AM
link   
Let us for just one second dismiss God as an allmight creator making this Earth by divine fingersnapping and lets pretend this only happend some thousands of years ago..

Let us make it real simple and call this magical event an Global catastrophy, the whole Earth is shrouded in thick ash, no light from any where, one day it cleares up, the Sun starts to shine thru , and the Moon, then the stars shineth thru, behold, Earth is no longer without form , and void, with ruined cities and no birds fly... Ofcourse not, there have probably just been a massive cataclysm, And Lord ChemBreather gaveth thee Light !!

something along those lines.. Or Not !!!



posted on Sep, 15 2010 @ 10:01 AM
link   
reply to post by TarzanBeta
 


yup...

they based their facts and figures on "Best Guess" theories....there is no way to prove this... their "Faith" in those numbers....which are all backed up with equations and whatnot that are based on other theories.... this equates to the "Building your house on Sand" fallacy. ....



posted on Sep, 15 2010 @ 10:02 AM
link   
If creationism is true,
how come creationist males
are missing a brain
instead of missing a rib?



posted on Sep, 15 2010 @ 10:02 AM
link   
Well first of all you must understand that the Torah was handed down in it's entirety directly from G-d, Man/Womankind did not write the first five books of the Bible....to insinuate this indicates your lack of information about the scriptures. The 2nd thing you must understand is that the interpretation has been handed down through the centuries and the orthodox interpretation is much different than what the common person would think that it is. Find yourself a completely orthodox Rabbi in Israel and ask them for the answers...you might be surprised what you learn about the Bible and it's interpretation.



posted on Sep, 15 2010 @ 10:03 AM
link   
reply to post by ChemBreather
 


yup breathing in deep from those chemicals....today aren't ya... LOL!



posted on Sep, 15 2010 @ 10:06 AM
link   
reply to post by Tom Jones
 


Actually i like the karite jews better...they are sola-OT no talmud...and no oral Torah

but that is my preferences though....not for everyone i guess..



posted on Sep, 15 2010 @ 10:13 AM
link   
reply to post by tspark
 


LOL , sure am..


But I seriously dont think it is anything more than peoples interpretations on factual events, twisted, added to and removed some, and made it sound All good ..

It isnt about the creation of the universe, it is about Earth, surly it isnt describing the very first million years when earth was molten lava, there is no place to stand, so he had to be up in his spaceship atleast..That is obvious.



posted on Sep, 15 2010 @ 10:29 AM
link   
reply to post by SquirrelNutz
 

Albert Einstein wrote: "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."
While not a creationist, I do have concerns about the glaring holes in evolution. There are simply to many jumps in evolution to state that it is hard scientific fact. In true scientific study, every factor can be documented, explained and verified. There are no magical, unexplainable jumps.
You could not announce, publish, promote or even so much as whisper a cure for cancer unless absolutely everything in your research was absolutely verifiable and you could duplicate the entire process with the exact same results. That's how the method works.
However, evolution doesn't meet this criteria. It can't. Therefore it will always be categorized as a theory and not fact. When you take that into consideration, it means that belief in evolution is an act of faith, just like the creationists believing the Bible. Neither holds up to the scientific methods' burden of proof.
That all being said, I do believe in intelligent design. I don't know who or what the designer was/is. But since I can't prove that there is or isn't a designer, then I guess I will rely on faith.



posted on Sep, 15 2010 @ 10:41 AM
link   
reply to post by ready4thefall
 


I guess I should specify that my belief in intelligent design does NOT mean that I think that the world was created in 6 days by some sort of psychokinesis.
I think there are parts of evolution that are strongly supported by facts, but by no means does it explain the entire process from primordial soup to today.
Besides, I've never understood the jump from primates to humans. I've studied enough that it fills me with more questions on that particular point. I understand the genetic similarities fully. But our DNA is close to a LOT of other mammals as well. We know from the fossil record/DNA that sometimes what seems to be a line of ancestry turns out to be completely wrong. The more I learn - the more I question.



posted on Sep, 15 2010 @ 10:43 AM
link   
My friends,

I still fail to see how anyone can dispute the creation "story" as an untruth. I also fail to see how anyone can claim that the creation story is the Whole Truth.

Who is so naive to think they can know the Whole Truth of creation? This planet has been around long before man was conceived upon it. It was around long before writing was put to parchment or stone. It has been around far longer than our best science could ever reveal. To have the Whole Truth, you must have ALL the facts. None of us are capable of knowing ALL the facts.

However, the creation story is the truth. It is one Man's truth of what he perceived as told to him by God. Yes, by God. God is everything. He is all around us, and within us. We hear him with our ears, and perceive him with our eyes, and comprehend him with our mind. God is the Whole of existence. So, whoever wrote the creation story wrote the truth as he perceived it. Sure, it does not have to be our Truth. No one can know our Truth, for it is within us. All we can do is share it the best we are capable of.

We would learn much more as a species if we shared our Truths without judgement, Shared our Truths with Love, and lived our Truths in peace.

When you discount ones version of the Truth, you only set yourself up for the same treatment (Judgement) upon your own.

With Love,

Your Brother



posted on Sep, 15 2010 @ 10:49 AM
link   
When the Bible was written, most people thought that the earth was flat, with heaven up above and Hades down below, and the sun and everything else moving around it. From a "common sense", non-scientific point of view, that's what it looks like, which is one reason Conpernicus and Galileo got ridiculed and suppressed.

Would ET have landed and explained to these ancient people how things really worked? Well, maybe they did with some of them, but this was a time when most people couldn't even read and write. Their knowledge was extremely limited, their lives nasty, brutish and short, and except for the elite, they did not know much, Nor did the technology exist to widely disseminate any knowledge before the invention of the printing press, which it turn sparked more people to learn to read and write because there was a lot more material to read.



posted on Sep, 15 2010 @ 10:58 AM
link   
reply to post by tspark
 


Hey tspark, you really need to bone up on your material for debating Creationism Vs. Evolution. You are relying on some extremely antique arguments. To discount the entire field of mathematics because it is based upon postulates which by definition are "best guesses" you also pull the rug out from under your own set of ideals by proxy because they too are based on "best guesses" or faith. When a guess is validated over, and over again it doesn't take long to assume with relative confidence that the guess was correct.

The biggest issue I have with the Creation Vs Evolution debate is that everyone assumes that someone has to "win" and someone has to "loose." The brighter mind realizes that it is perfectly plausible that evolution is a function of creation. The design includes near infinite adaptability. Generations of stacked tolerance to create a new organism perfectly compensated for its environment.

Back in the day evolutionists said the diversity we see today is the result of millions of years of subtle change. So creationists countered with the young universe theory. Basically there hasn't been enough time for all this to happen. They doggedly defended this fallacy for nearly a century. Can you blame a logical, intelligent mind for blowing them off? Most of the strongest, and most current proofs for creation have come from evolutionists that thought outside the box, and weren't focused on disproving creation, or intelligent design they were simply, and truly non-biased. Most people are so focused on making the other side look stupid that they shoot their own stance full of holes.

This is why so many creationists sound like rubes. They try to find evidence that something doesn't happen, or exist that very well does. Confirmation bias abounds on both sides, but I think more so in the creationist's camp. This seriously erodes credibility. There are fabulously convincing arguments for creation, but most people ignore them because the learning curve is steep, and they have to get back to american idol, and Oprah. Evolution happened, happens, and will happen for the forseeable future. It is not however proof that it isn't by design. What more brilliant design than one that self regulates, procreates, and adapts?

To the secular mind you cannot simply referrence scripture. It may be your source, but to truly debate with credibilty, and unbiased sources you cannot use a text that is a reference unto itself. It falls to the same fallacy that you blame the realm of science for falling to. The difference is that science deals with the observable, and quantifiable. Scripture deals with absolutes. I am not saying I believe scripture to be wrong, but it is not a widely accepted source for cosmological debate. Basically because it says "I have authority, because I said so." If you cannot accept that on faith it becomes irrelevant as a source. There are plenty of other source if you dig. May I suggest starting your reading with Dr. Hugh Ross. You will have to give up some old schools of thought, and entrenched paradigms, but its nothing that will change your faith or belief in God. If anything if you truly listen, and pay attention it will open your eyes a little wider to just how much bigger He must be than you originally could concieve. Evolution is a masterpiece created by ultimate intelligence.



posted on Sep, 15 2010 @ 11:21 AM
link   
I wonder why atheist's obsess about religion? Why can't you just be the bigger person (as most claim to be) an move on? Just pointing out an odd observation. For disliking religion most seem to dwell in it an awful lot



edit on 15-9-2010 by brutalsun because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 15 2010 @ 02:09 PM
link   
reply to post by brutalsun
 



I wonder why atheist's obsess about religion? Why can't you just be the bigger person (as most claim to be) an move on? Just pointing out an odd observation. For disliking religion most seem to dwell in it an awful lot


Because Non-atheists won't stop talking about the word of (a) God, how the rest of us are going to hell, and how lost we are without recognizing/ackowledging God's grace.

More importantly, and the reason it's especially pertinent to 'us', is because politicians use religion as a platform in this country to appeal to voters, sell ideas, and make critical decisions that affect OUR lives. [that's why we (have to) spend so much time on it]

How about being the bigger person, yourselves, and doing some actual research & adaptation, instead of ramming ancient, stale, outdated, and unverifiable (and much disprovable) dogma down eveyone's throats(?). We'd prefer our lives be governed by logic, reason, and empirical data, Thank you.





edit on 9/15/2010 by SquirrelNutz because: Spelling / Grammar



posted on Sep, 15 2010 @ 02:24 PM
link   
Causality- cause = effect. It's a chain reaction. So what cause effected the creation of "god" so that "he" could "create the universe?"


edit on 15-9-2010 by Zoodie because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 15 2010 @ 02:30 PM
link   
reply to post by SquirrelNutz
 


Okay, I'm butting in again here. I really think you need to read this:www.abovetopsecret.com...

I'm telling you, this could truly clear up a lot of your worries.



new topics

top topics



 
13
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join