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.

 

Evolution compatible with Creation?

page: 7
3
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 25 2010 @ 07:57 PM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 



The video's a good example out evolution...however, one small difference. This time it was us who directly intervened and created those new breeds. Most of the time it's a natural process.


I think the video shows that the genetic variation is already in the fox to begin with.

Changes are exposed quickly because of the selective breeding, but they already exist inside the animal.

These animals are not adapting but their layers are being exposed, to show what is inside of them.

The same applies to humans, and everything according to it's kind.
edit on 25-11-2010 by dusty1 because: (no reason given)




posted on Nov, 25 2010 @ 08:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by dusty1

Originally posted by MrXYZ
Look, the bible says slavery is ok

Please show me that quote in the Bible.

Try Ephesians 6:5-9

More here



posted on Nov, 25 2010 @ 08:59 PM
link   
reply to post by dusty1
 


You must not have much respect for Israelite fathers... I think most fathers naturally love their daughters.

In all cultures other than modern Western ones, the demands of society trump those of the individual. In patriarchal, male-dominated societies such as the ancient Hebrews', women and daughters are inferior beings, lacking rights and accounted as nothing more than chattels.

Your assumption reveals a great deal of ignorance not only of history but of contemporary culture in many parts of the world. Currently, the world is missing 700 million women (the statistic is from the Economist) due to sexually selective abortion and infanticide. Forced marriage and child marriage are as common as dirt in the world today and always have been. So is the rape of daughters by fathers--here are a few statistics about child abuse relating to America. In most other countries, the situation is far worse.

Your sentimental view of father-daughter relations is not borne out by the facts. In cultures where it is the law that the rapist marry the victim, you may be sure that the law is obeyed.


Rapists deserve to die.

I see you are a believer in capital punishment. So much for 'thou shalt not kill', eh?



edit on 25/11/10 by Astyanax because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 25 2010 @ 10:12 PM
link   
reply to post by Astyanax
 



women and daughters are inferior beings, lacking rights and accounted as nothing more than chattels


Nice try. Please read Proverbs chapter 31. Your ignorance of Hebrew women is truly great.


Your sentimental view of father-daughter relations is not borne out by the facts.


Any man who doesn't love his daughter, and would abuse her, is a good for nothing man.



I see you are a believer in capital punishment. So much for 'thou shalt not kill', eh?


The Bible is clear that rapists under the Mosaic Law were to be put to death. Deal with it.

I guess you think rapists should go unpunished.

I disagree.



posted on Nov, 25 2010 @ 10:20 PM
link   
reply to post by dusty1
 


Ok, let's make this very simple. Do you believe slavery is condoned in the bible or not?

If the answer is no, I would like you to show me how the 3 main passages I quoted are NOT slavery. Imo they are VERY CLEARLY slavery...but you're welcome to prove me wrong. I just think the passages speak for themselves.



posted on Nov, 25 2010 @ 10:24 PM
link   
reply to post by dusty1
 


Nice try. Please read Proverbs chapter 31. Your ignorance of Hebrew women is truly great.

Nice try indeed. The woman described in that chapter is nothing but the obedient slave and chattel of her husband. It proves my point, not yours.

Your foolish, sentimental assertions about the universality of father-daughter love are not borne out by the facts and statistics. They are simply mush.



posted on Nov, 25 2010 @ 10:41 PM
link   
reply to post by Astyanax
 




the woman described in that chapter is nothing but the obedient slave and chattel of her husband. It proves my point, not yours.



Proverbs Chapter 31 vs 11-31

The verses describe this woman as being of great value, she handles the financial affairs of her household, she buys goods and surveys and purchases land. She is involved in charitable giving. Her husband is a man to be respected, because she has the respect of the tribe. She is known as a hard worker. She is known for her wisdom and kindness.

You might want to read that chapter again.






edit on 25-11-2010 by dusty1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 25 2010 @ 11:54 PM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 






Do you believe slavery is condoned in the bible or not?


So this starts with the Bible supposedly lying about killing slaves, and then escalated to advocating sex slaves and rape, then saying slavery is ok, and now, well......... to condoning slavery?


Do I condone slavery? No.

Did God invent slavery? No.

Was slavery part of God's original purpose for humans? No.

Did the Bible regulate slavery, which was common among the nations, and implement laws to protect slaves from abuse? Yes.

Did the Romans have slaves? Yes.

Were Christians supposed to revolt against there masters? No.

Were the slaves in Israel chained around the neck and whipped while they picked cotton? No.

Did slaves hold positions of stature? Yes.

This is God's purpose for humans.

Isaiah 65:21, 22

"And they shall build houses, and inhabit them; and they shall plant vineyards, and eat the fruit of them. They shall not build, and another inhabit; they shall not plant, and another eat: for as the days of a tree are the days of my people, and mine elect shall long enjoy the work of their hands."


You really seem concerned about the slavery thing.

I am sure you know that slavery exists all over the world today.

What are you personally doing about it?



posted on Nov, 26 2010 @ 01:55 AM
link   
reply to post by dusty1
 


she handles the financial affairs of her household

Meaning what? She handles the housekeeping money. However, her own property rights are limited; her legal status is subsumed in her husband's at marriage. At his death, she does not inherit any of his property apart from her own marriage-portion; it passes to his sons. See here. Also, more generally, see Inheritance Rights of Women under Jewish and Islamic law; and you'll find a summary of the main points here.


she buys goods and surveys and purchases land. She is involved in charitable giving.

Meaning what? That she goes shopping and gives alms to beggars, and is allowed the freedom to buy a kitchen-garden or small vineyard, which she (next verse) plants with her own hands, developing biceps (verse after that) in the process. What empowerment!

Perhaps you should acquaint yourself with some real history, rather than the Bible-study-class version. It's a fascinating subject, I assure you--though sadly, no more supportive of Judaeo-Christian mythology than science is.


edit on 26/11/10 by Astyanax because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 26 2010 @ 02:01 AM
link   
reply to post by dusty1
 

You can wriggle all you like. The truth is that the Bible not only condones slavery, it contains many, many passages regulating the treatment of slaves. In Genesis, an entire race of people (the tribe of Ham) is condemned by God to perpetual slavery. In the Epistle to the Ephesians, St. Paul basically tells slaves to shut up and obey their masters.

God doesn't condone slavery? According to the Bible, He does. Enthusiastically.

Slavery in the Bible provides chapter and verse. Read them for yourself.


edit on 26/11/10 by Astyanax because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 26 2010 @ 02:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by MrXYZ
reply to post by edmc^2
 



First of all, he (more like they...the bible was written by more than 1 person) didn't get it right. Second of all, your "1 in 3,628,800" probability is nothing but a number you pulled out of your ass...but you're welcome to show me exactly how you came up with that.

"1 in 3,628,800", lol...pseudo-science at its best


Just get this out of the way and show you that i did not pull it of my arse, let me show you how it's done.

Obviously you don't know how to multiply fractions. So here let me show you how 5th graders do it.

Here's our math problem:

You have 10 goats numbered 1-10 in a pen, blindfolded you need to transfer them to the next empty pen.

Q: what's the probability of getting it right the first time, that is, moving the goats in consecutive order - from 1 to 10?

So what you need to do to get the correct probability is multiply all of the fractions. Simple huh?

thus: 1/10 x 1/9 x 1/8 x 1/7 x 1/6 x 1/5 x 1/4 x 1/3 x 1/2 x 1/1 = 1/3,628,800.

so ur probability of getting it right the first try is 1 in 3,628,800 try. kapish!




And this a great example of a lack of knowledge. The earth isn't "hanging upon nothing", it's held in place by gravity. Next time a coconut falls on your head, remember that you just got owned by "nothing"

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


As for the earth "hanging upon nothing" - can you see gravity?

yes/no? maybe so.


But how does a "goat herder" know this fact? I wonder.



ty,
edmc2



posted on Nov, 26 2010 @ 11:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by dusty1

The unengaged virgin could say nothing, and not have to marry him. Later the victim could get engaged, tell her fiance about it, he could wait in the bushes, she could lure the rapist to her, scream, and they kill the rapist before he does it again.

You really need to talk to someone who understands the traditions of the time, because you are so wrong it's hilarious.

You know how Muslim countries are about guarding their women and stoning them if they have sex outside marriage?
That was the custom of the whole area. Good women were valued, just like a good camel was, and they were owned, just like the camel.

First, engagement . . . that was betrothal, and often done at a very young age to secure ties between families.
Then the gir's family were responsible for guarding her honour, and if she had sex the whole family were in trouble.

A women had to prove, by bleeding on the sheet on her wedding night, that she was a virgin.
If she did not bleed, she was in trouble. Telling about a rape in the past that she could not prove was no excuse.
She could expect to be killed or exiled for that, or, if she was very lucky, just locked up for life.

Do you think the girl's betrothed would still want her if he discovered she'd previously been raped?
No, sorry, purity was of overriding importance to the Israelites, when it came to women.
Why do you think they only took virgins as captives and killed the rest in their many genocides?

The young man wouldn't be looking for some rapist in that case. He'd be wanting to know why she had let herself be raped. If the woman was off away from everyone, or if she didn't scream and manage to get people to come and save her, she was considered every bit as guilty as the rapist.

The girl would be shamed, her whole family would be shamed, and the marriage would never happen.

The biblical order held firm. If no-one heard the rape-victim and came to help, she was guilty. If the girl had not screamed, (loudly enough to get people to come and help,) she was to be stoned, along with her rapist.
- If he could still be found.



edit on 26/11/10 by Kailassa because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 26 2010 @ 11:10 AM
link   
reply to post by Astyanax
 




Meaning what? That she goes shopping and gives alms to beggars, and is allowed the freedom to buy a kitchen-garden or small vineyard, which she (next verse) plants with her own hands, developing biceps (verse after that) in the process. What empowerment!


You obviously don't own a Bible.

The King James version reads this way. Proverbs 31:16

"She considereth a field, and buyeth it: with the fruit of her hands she planteth a vineyard."

A field.

Let me say it one more time, a field. This was an agricultural society. You must live in the city.


it contains many, many passages regulating the treatment of slaves.


Yes. It does. You're not reading my posts. I have been saying this the whole time. Slavery existed, the Law put protections in place to prevent abuse, and preserve peoples dignity.

Today, some people have to be employees. They are not geared to be self employed. If we created a law making employees illegal, society would crumble.

Did you know that the Law had a command against charging interest? Our modern society is built on interest.
Get rid of interest right now, and some would benefit, but society would crumble.

You need a whole new system.

This world exists outside of God's purpose.

God allows a lot of crap to go on. Including rants by atheists.

You complain when God allows things to happen, and doesn't "do" something, so He must not exist.

You complain when God tries to regulate imperfect human behavior, to make the best of a bad situation.

The Bible contains advice, and stories of peoples lives.

Like your life, there is going to be good and bad, some characters in your life will inspire, and others will cause misery.

But we do the best we can.

According to the story, God did His best, when He sent His best. He sent His son, to die for us all, and give us a chance at a new start in the future.


I like to argue, but what motivates me to talk to you and others reading this, is I want you to gain everlasting life. I want you to have hope of better days to come.

If I save you, then I may save myself.



posted on Nov, 26 2010 @ 11:22 AM
link   
reply to post by Kailassa
 



No, sorry, purity was of overriding importance to the Israelites, when it came to women.


When Joseph found out that Mary was pregnant. This is what he did.


Matthew 1:19 (New International Version, ©2010) 19 Because Joseph her husband was faithful to the law, and yet[a] did not want to expose her to public disgrace, he had in mind to divorce her quietly.

Bible Translations

Joseph was a good man. God almighty would not have entrusted Joseph the carpenter, with the upbringing of His only begotten son, if that were not the case.

You do not understand God, so you cannot understand the Bible.
edit on 26-11-2010 by dusty1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 26 2010 @ 12:08 PM
link   

edit on 26-11-2010 by RUSSO because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 26 2010 @ 12:11 PM
link   
reply to post by edmc^2
 


I hope you realize given that his steps are wrong, the probability figure he comes up with is 100% meaningless. First of all, he can't be sure those were the only steps...secondly, he would have to prove those steps happened because of divine intervention...and he doesn't. He's trying to prove god's existence through probability, and that's just plain laughable. Science for example isn't saying "we believe evolution to be right because probability tells us that...". That's NOT proof, that's guessing. We know evolution is right because we have fossil evidence, and DNA evidence.

Trying to prove god's existence through probability is like trying to prove it/her/him through semantics (like ooz tried) or philosophy (Marc Cecil's approach). All those aren't scientific and prove nothing. So again, the guy who pulled that figure out of his ass doesn't really know about how science works and is just trying to somehow justify his irrational beliefs


I really don't get how you can be so hellbent on 100% believing scripture when it has been proven wrong at least once. Be flexible, be objective...otherwise you're just a blind sheep.

The Dalai Lama said it nicely. Sorry for the bad picture quality, but it's the words that are important. Very interesting discussion about religion vs science between the Dalai Lama and Carl Sagan.



edit on 26-11-2010 by MrXYZ because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 26 2010 @ 05:11 PM
link   
Regarding your "math problem":

Originally posted by emdc^2
What's the probability of getting it right the first time, that is, moving the goats in consecutive order - from 1 to 10?


Originally posted by emdc^2
What are the chances that the writer of Genesis just guessed the order?


First of all, the probability of randomly getting 10 concescutive numbers is absolutely NOT THE SAME as the probability of chronological events in the genesis tale.
Chonology ≠ Chance.

How likely would Genesis come up with a non-chonologic story?

Example:
In the beginning animals and man were created => then creation stopped => then landmasses appeared...


Originally posted by emdc^2:
Is it possible that he came up with on his own without the aid of science or scientific instruments?

If the writer wasnt mentally retarded, yes. Kapish?

So what do we have at the end of the day?

Age of the Bible ≠ Timeline of its content.
Genesis ≠ Catastrophism-Theory (which is obsolete anyways).
Chonology of Genesis ≠ Proof for a Creator.

Oh, and we actually can measure gravity...
edit on 26-11-2010 by WfknSmth because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 26 2010 @ 07:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by emdc^2
What are the chances that the writer of Genesis just guessed the order?


Well...he didn't get the order right in the first place. Blue_Jay33 and I went over this and I clearly demonstrated that the Bible puts the creation of the sun and the moon directly after the creation of plant life. Didn't I even repost that in this thread?

We shouldn't be arguing with you over the probability that the authors got it right when the authors didn't get it right. Hell, it has birds preceding life living on dry land, plants on dry land before marine life, and all sorts of other mistakes.

Also, the Biblical creation refers to the moon as a 'light' with the same language as it refers to the sun...

 


So to answer the OP, no.

Evolution is compatible with theism and deism, but not 'creationism'.



posted on Nov, 26 2010 @ 07:58 PM
link   
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
 

Yes, youre right about that of course... just didnt want him to get away with this abstract math-thingy he threw in...
Man, this nonesense makes my head spin


Case closed I guess.



posted on Nov, 27 2010 @ 12:21 AM
link   
reply to post by Kailassa
 

Fantastic post. Correct in every detail.

Among traditionally-minded (Buddhist, Hindu, Muslim and even some Christian) families in my country, post-nuptial sheet inspection is still the norm. Two elderly female relatives, one from the groom's family and one from the bride's, are deputized to perform it. I still remember, as a teenager, standing in a hotel lobby in a country town and watching a pair of long-faced old biddies follow the bride and groom, and their luggage, out to a waiting car. It was plain from their expressions that the expected sanguinities had not occurred. Funny as hell to me and the friend who was with me; not so funny for the bride, who was doomed to a lifelong reputation as a slut.

I also spent some years living and working in the Middle East, and can vouch for every word you say.

It's the same, too, all over the Indian subcontinent and parts of Central Asia. Not sure about China and the Far East.


edit on 27/11/10 by Astyanax because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
3
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join