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.

 

Cosmogony, Abiogenesis, & Evolution

page: 4
3
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 23 2010 @ 11:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sinter Klaas
reply to post by Kailassa
 


and even if it is directly from the quoted words of Jesus.

It's kind of impossible o quote someone at a time there was nobody around that even knew the guy in person isn't it ?

Agreed.

What I'm saying is these words are presented in the Bible, which Christians believe to be the word of God, as the quoted words of Jesus. - And "Christians" even dismiss these words if they don't suit their world view.

For example, Matthew 25: 31-46 tells of Jesus coming back to divide the "sheep" from the "goats".
(Btw, goats are much more interesting, intelligent creatures.)
We often hear about this passage, about how the non-believers will be thrown into hell for eternity.
But that's made up crap. What Jesus is reported to have said is that all who did not take care of the needy will be thrown into hell, and all who did will join Jesus in heaven. There is not one word there about needing to believe or have any kind of faith or religious practice, only charity.

- And now watch the "Christians" come out and attempt to spin it.


So if Jesus is the son of God, and if the bible is the word of God, a lot of atheists are going to be surprised by finding themselves in heaven, and a lot of Christians are going to be wondering why they're burning up in hell.




Btw, I try to avoid belief, if you're wondering what my stance on the above is. I don't see the point.
But I do love some passages of the bible.




posted on Nov, 23 2010 @ 11:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by MrXYZ

Originally posted by Sinter Klaas
reply to post by Kailassa
 


and even if it is directly from the quoted words of Jesus.

It's kind of impossible o quote someone at a time there was nobody around that even knew the guy in person isn't it ?

That's the other fun fact. A lot of those stories weren't written when stuff happened. There's a good chance they got spread around by worth of mouth until people decided to write it all down.

You know that game where you sit in a circle and the first person whispers something to the person to the right...and then it goes all the way around, and in the end the whatever you whispered got butchered along the way? Same thing could very well happened to the bible. People loooooooove to exaggerate, especially if it helps them come to power (aka church).


Well yes, it's not only a question of whether or not peoples' recollections and preserved stories were correct, but there was also a huge political agenda behind the construction of the new testament.

I believe there was a similar political agenda in the construction of the old testament. It was a means to knit together a bunch of people into a managable group and to convince the rest of the world this group was special, had rights above all others, and was licenced by god to kill whoever stood in their way. This would explain the proud accounts of so many bloody genocides committed at the behest of their "god".



posted on Nov, 24 2010 @ 12:08 AM
link   
reply to post by Kailassa
 


This is interesting, evolutionists teaching the Bible to a Christian. Interesting indeed.
Anyway I'd like to chime in since this is one my favorite Bible subjects and science subjects. I would like to help you guys if you don't mind cuz, I see some mistakes in your understanding of the Bible.

Here let me quote you.
You said:

If you don't know your Bible, you may believe the created light was the sun, but this account clearly states the sun was not created until day four. So this is some magical light which separates day from night, and which does not come from the sun. I guess God must have set up some ginormous floodlights.


I think madness said the same thing. But anyway, before I explain where you made mistakes, let me please ask you three (Kaila, madness, Mrxyz) this question:

What is the difference between the word "LIGHT" in v3 and 14?

ty,
edmc2



posted on Nov, 24 2010 @ 12:28 AM
link   
Madness made a nice writeup about that on the last 2 pages.

Anyway, I recommend anyone who believes we're "special" and everything was made for us to watch the following video. The good bit starts at 1:40 into the video.



We are made from the 4th most common element in the universe!!!



posted on Nov, 24 2010 @ 12:37 AM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 


lol that guy stole the words right out of my mouth.

hearing someone that understands is a very rare, and energizing thing.



posted on Nov, 24 2010 @ 12:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by Wertdagf
reply to post by MrXYZ
 


lol that guy stole the words right out of my mouth.

hearing someone that understands is a very rare, and energizing thing.


He's also making a VERY good point about why religion isn't suited to attacking science.



Now watch the following video and tell me if you see any similarities between what happened in the 12th century and what's going on in the US right now given that so many ppl seem to be ignorant towards science.



THAT's why I'm posting here! I truly believe logic, rationality, and scientific method is the way for us to progress as a species. I have NOTHING against religion, but it should NOT stand in the way of science given that it isn't based on logic/rationality. They can co-exist, but if religion tries to fight science and facts, I WILL stand up and join science in denying ignorance.

If someone on here posts that humans have only been on earth for 6035 years, I will point out how silly that claim is. And I will do the same when people post about dinosaurs being on the arch, or some crazy world wide flood that covered all land. All that stuff is based on pseudo-science and just shows the public education system is failing.
edit on 24-11-2010 by MrXYZ because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 24 2010 @ 12:57 AM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 


Think about a time where the greatest technology is at the fingertips of every person...

At that time could you allow freedom of religion? Think really hard about it..... There are millions of people who have been living their whole lives for false promises with a finger on the button.



posted on Nov, 24 2010 @ 01:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by Wertdagf
reply to post by MrXYZ
 


Think about a time where the greatest technology is at the fingertips of every person...

At that time could you allow freedom of religion? Think really hard about it..... There are millions of people who have been living their whole lives for false promises with a finger on the button.


I don't believe that religion will be the same by the time we get so technologically advanced that every muppet could take down everyone else. In fact, I don't think that will ever happen.

Right now, there's still way too many people taking the bible literally. I mean, we have people asking questions like "is Obama the devil", or "if we come from monkeys, why are there still monkeys", "why aren't there any trees older than 10k years? is that because of the flood?", and so on...

Science shows us that all those questions are silly because they don't represent reality. They show a lack of knowledge....but sadly it's what people use to form their opinions. Some people twist those opinions in such a way, they can justify pretty much anything, no matter how illogical/cruel/stupid it is. An example for that are the Al Kaida fighters, or the crazy fundamentalist who killed that poor abortion doctor in the US.

Now, if you look back in time, a few hundred years ago people thought comets were a sign of god. We now know better. And the same will happen with all the things people use to justify cruelty in the name of religion.

Some religions have already moved that way...and example of this is Buddhism, probably the religion that 'gets along" with science best.

Like the Dalai Lama said when asked about what happens when science contradicts doctrine (he believes new evidence and science overrides static doctrines and that people should be flexible): "Is no problem!" (a bit like Yoda from Star Wars)



I truly believe that many Western religions, especially all those who focus on a "personal god" will eventually move in that direction. It obviously won't happen overnight, but over time, facts/evidence/reality will prevail. And it doesn't have to be a problem for religion as the Dalai Lama very eloquently said.

By the way, I'm not a buddhist, but I've read extensively about Buddhism (and most other religions) and believe it's one of the religions best "suited" for our modern world. And that will stay that way until other religions such as Christianity stop taking things so literally.

I want people like the one in the following video to SHUT UP and stop being retards!!



And it's not only atheists pointing out pseudo-science, I know a lot of Christians who get mad when they hear blunder like dinosaurs on the arch.

Here's a video of Frank Schaeffer, one of the founders of the religious right in the US...and even HE calls fundamentalists crazy!!




edit on 24-11-2010 by MrXYZ because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 24 2010 @ 01:25 AM
link   
reply to post by edmc^2
 


Originally postet by edmc^2
This is interesting, evolutionists teaching the Bible to a Christian. Interesting indeed. Anyway I'd like to chime in since this is one my favorite Bible subjects and science subjects. I would like to help you guys if you don't mind cuz, I see some mistakes in your understanding of the Bible.

Being an atheist or evolutionist or whatever name someone calls himself (or is named by others) says nothing about his/her ability to read the bible or any other book...
"We" are just not so likely to jump to conclusions... we want to know where others are satisfied with belief.
I respect your freedom to exercise religion and to believe whatever you want to - as long as you, if you whish to debate with me, respect the scientific method.



posted on Nov, 24 2010 @ 01:29 AM
link   
I am not one to say this is this or that is that. Is it not strange a thought of BEINGS. We may be the only real thing in are own space . Why is it people think? The simple answer is we actually are alone in this universe. Can anyone say different? There are no facts and all the science cannot prove anything or disaprove anything. It is all theory right? If you truly get down to your inner thoughts whether it be a sole or light or religion it really matters only to yourself . True existance is a BEINGS moment in time or no time at any given time. Straight line or a roller coaster going up and down. We all end up at the same place here on EARTH. We don't leave or get to a higher plane because we are allready there. Trust in your gut right! Science is a man made guess if I'm not mistaken. So we comunicate as best we can. We try to figure it out . Does the final resolution get us anywhere different? How many people with any thoughts of getting somewhere else has come back and said this is where we go too ? Could our own knowledge be keeping us from BEING! I ask everyone to try and live now, not past, present or future. Then apply your science to life as it is. These our only my thoughts . I never achieved any schooling of higher learning and taught myself how to use a computer by hitting the keys. Does that make me a lesser of a BEING? Sorry about the rant it is a long life we live for some of us.



posted on Nov, 24 2010 @ 01:36 AM
link   
Here's an interesting documentary about how Buddhism and science fits together. Notice how during the entire documentary, the word "god" or "creator" isn't mentioned once!

The concept of "interconnectivity" is interesting as you can relate it to quantum physics and the fact that we know everything around us consists of base elements. Every life form for example is largely based on carbon.




Now before the creationists in here start calling me a Buddhist, I'm not, lol. I'm just showing that religion doesn't have to be contradictory to science if it is FLEXIBLE enough and people don't take things literally. Nothing should override reality...because reality is awesome!



posted on Nov, 24 2010 @ 01:41 AM
link   
reply to post by thorg
 


A lack of knowledge isn't a crime. I have no clue about a lot of things. What is a horrible thing to do is to be ignorant enough to ignore evidence and facts, just because it goes against your worldview.

I know I and others can come over as condescending sometimes. It's not that we look down on people who have a lack of knowledge...as I would hope a dancing instructor wouldn't look down on me when I fall a hundred times trying to move "graciously". But what grinds our gears is ignorance. If someone comes on here and says that humans have only been on the earth 6035 years, and you take the time and compile a long post showing irrefutable evidence that this statement is total hogwash...and the only answer you get is "you are a troll, I'm gonna ignore you now", it's frustrating. It's frustrating because you know that person gets to vote, and he'll vote based not on rational thought, but pure blind belief. Like the guys voting against microchips because they are the "mark of the beast".

The mantra of this site is "deny ignorance"...and we're just trying to live up to that mantra.



posted on Nov, 24 2010 @ 02:14 AM
link   
To learn and gain is a desire that I have. Only the elite seem to be able to comunicate to each other. The very existance of this universe is something that is so massive. Each person exist and I am not a troll. Understanding something and trying to comunicate is a very hard thing to do sometimes. How does a simple person gain more knowledge trying to get in the mix?



posted on Nov, 24 2010 @ 02:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by thorg
To learn and gain is a desire that I have. Only the elite seem to be able to comunicate to each other. The very existance of this universe is something that is so massive. Each person exist and I am not a troll. Understanding something and trying to comunicate is a very hard thing to do sometimes. How does a simple person gain more knowledge trying to get in the mix?


Knowledge is power...just look at the unemployment statistics. The ones with the highest level of education have the smallest unemployment rate.

I actually like Wikipedia a lot for general information. Sure, everyone can add stuff, but it'll get deleted if you don't quote your sources properly. You can also click on the links of the sources and read the actual articles. Above all, keep an open mind and try to look at evidence an information in an unbiased, objective way.

I applaud anyone who truly wants to learn more about the world


If you want to know more about science, the following links have great educational videos...they're quite addictive because they present facts in an interesting way.

Sixty Symbols

Fora TV

And the best for last, TED...the platform offering the most inspiring speeches:

TED Youtube Channel

TED Website

As for other good youtube channels:

Potholer54 has an excellent series about evolution and the universe according to what science knows today. LINK

Thunderfoot is hated by creationists like almost no other person on youtube, lol. He made an excellent series about it, and backs up every single claim he makes with facts. For some people this should be an eye-opening experience. LINK


edit on 24-11-2010 by MrXYZ because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 24 2010 @ 04:55 AM
link   
reply to post by Blue_Jay33
 


I am not trolling, I am looking for some sort of legitimate response aside from assertions that I'm trolling and using straw man arguments.

Please, point out exactly where I am wrong, please show me the error in my reasoning. I don't see how the Sun can show up on the 4th day but still exist prior to the 4th day in the Bible.

A trolling post wouldn't go into any level of detail, it wouldn't bother to quote the first 19 verses of the Bible, and it wouldn't bother to ask for a proper response.

I'm simply showing you that you are wrong. If you would like to assert that you are right or that I am wrong you must prove it. Simply calling me a troll does nothing to counter my points. It actually shows that you have nothing to add.

Hell, I've dealt with trolls. My response tends to be: Dismantle argument, accuse of trolling because of repeatedly dismantled argument being restated.

It would seem that you are the trolling one on here because...well...you've not added anything to the discourse when people disagree with you, you just say that they are wrong and you are right.



posted on Nov, 24 2010 @ 05:14 AM
link   
reply to post by edmc^2
 


The difference between light in those verses? I thought I already differentiated the two...I guess I'll recourse to Hebrew then.

Because, you know, a troll often researches and posts sources when people object to claims.
I started out here then I used the handy-dandy "C" button to get the Hebrew words.

In Genesis verse 3 the word for light is: 'owr
From here


Part of Speech: feminine noun

Biblical Usage:
1) light
a) light of day
b) light of heavenly luminaries (moon, sun, stars)
c) day-break, dawn, morning light
d) daylight
e) lightning
f) light of lamp
g) light of life
h) light of prosperity
i) light of instruction
j) light of face (fig.)
k) Jehovah as Israel's light


Usage of this word as 'the sun' is restrained to only a single passage in the whole Bible, and it isn't Genesis.


2Sa 23:4 And [he shall be] as the light of the morning, [when] the sun riseth, [even] a morning without clouds; [as] the tender grass [springing] out of the earth by clear shining after rain.


In each case in Genesis when the 'sun' is referenced as a light the word ma'owr is used.
From here


Part of Speech: masculine noun

Biblical usage: 1) light, luminary


So an entirely different word is used between the two, that's what the difference is. Hell, one is a masculine noun and the other is a feminine noun.

But I guess Blue_Jay33 is right, I'm just a troll.



posted on Nov, 24 2010 @ 12:25 PM
link   
Moved question here: www.abovetopsecret.com...
edit on 24-11-2010 by edmc^2 because: move question to another thread



posted on Nov, 24 2010 @ 01:07 PM
link   
reply to post by edmc^2
 

You are still trying to weasel out of the fact that the bible clearly states god created the sun on day four.

I'm sorry the bible's inaccuracy is so upsetting to your beliefs you have to try and make out it's saying something different.

I already know your belief, "Einstein".
You are about to claim that:
Day 1 god created the sun but there was this enormous thick fog covering the earth so no light could get through.
Later that day god thinned the mist so the light could get through.
Day 4 he puffed that mist right away so the sun could be seen.
Moses, who was supposed to be inspired by an all-knowing god finally wrote, in the day 4 list, that god created the sun and moon, but he didn't really mean they were created then, he meant they'd been created at the beginning and just became visible day 4.

The lengths creationists will go to, trying to twist the words of the bible to fit science in one area, while closing their eyes and ears to science in another area, are hilarious.
What's wrong? Don't you actually beieve the bible at all? You prefer to believe something else and then try to make out the bible agrees with you?
You are making a pathetic display of hypocritical cowardice.

It's also a dangerous tactic, if the bible is the word of god.

Revelation 22:18-19 -
If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.

You are adding to Genesis by making a diminishing fog an integral part of the account, despite no biblical author having mentioned it.

Either trust the bible or don't.



posted on Nov, 24 2010 @ 08:28 PM
link   
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
 


I have a confession to make, I was researching this out, and found to my utter astonishment that many Christian scholars do in fact believe the sun was created on the forth day after grass!
They think the light before that was divine light directly from God himself.
I have never believed that. Now I am starting to understand the frustration and disdain of the atheistic evolutionary perceptive towards the fundamentalist Christians.

But I am going to post one last time on this point. This is not the perspective of most, but I found a quote that supports my personal belief.

SCOFIELD REFERENCE NOTES


The new beginning - the first day: light diffused
Let there be light Neither here nor in verses 14-18 is an original creative act implied. A different word is used. The sense is, made to appear; made visible. The sun and moon were created "in the beginning." The "light" of course came from the sun, but the vapour diffused the light. Later the sun appeared in an unclouded sky.


Of course the sun and moon were in outer space long before this first “day,” but their light did not reach the surface of the earth for an earthly observer to see. Now, light evidently came to be visible on earth on this first “day.”

The light came in a gradual process, extending over a long period of time, not instantaneously as when you turn on an electric light bulb. The Genesis rendering by translator J. W. Watts reflects this when it says: “And gradually light came into existence.” (A Distinctive Translation of Genesis) This light was from the sun, but the sun itself could not be seen through the overcast. Hence, the light that reached earth was “light diffused.”

Let luminaries come to be in the expanse of the heavens to make a division between the day and the night; and they must serve as signs and for seasons and for days and years. And they must serve as luminaries in the expanse of the heavens to shine upon the earth.’ And it came to be so. And God proceeded to make the two great luminaries, the greater luminary for dominating the day and the lesser luminary for dominating the night, and also the stars.”—Genesis 1:14-16; Psalm 136:7-9.

Previously, on the first “day,” the expression “Let light come to be” was used. The Hebrew word there used for “light” is ’ohr, meaning light in a general sense. But on the fourth “day,” the Hebrew word changes to ma‧’ohr′, which means the source of the light. Rotherham, in a footnote on “Luminaries” in the Emphasised Bible, says: “In ver. 3, ’ôr [’ohr], light diffused.” Then he goes on to show that the Hebrew word ma‧’ohr′ in verse 14 means something “affording light.” On the first “day” diffused light evidently penetrated the swaddling bands, but the sources of that light could not have been seen by an earthly observer because of the cloud layers still enveloping the earth. Now, on this fourth “day,” things apparently changed.

An atmosphere initially rich in carbon dioxide may have caused an earth-wide hot climate. But the lush growth of vegetation during the third and fourth creative periods would absorb some of this heat-retaining blanket of carbon dioxide. The vegetation, in turn, would release oxygen—a requirement for animal life.

Now, had there been an earthly observer, he would be able to discern the sun, moon and stars.

That is my personal belief in detail on this account, you can say it's wrong, you can say the bible doesn't teach it, however I have adequately shown why I think it does. So my belief is firm, and I am not wasting anymore time on this portion of the discussion. As it is truly an exercise in pure futility.



posted on Nov, 24 2010 @ 11:42 PM
link   
Blue_Jay, as you have made it clear you just want to make statements of belief and ignore, or label as trolls, those who disagree with you, discussion of these issues has moved to
www.abovetopsecret.com...



new topics




 
3
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join