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.

 

My first issues with the Bible.

page: 48
47
<< 45  46  47    49  50  51 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 23 2011 @ 11:20 AM
link   
reply to post by BaitingThePublic
 


Because if God exists for sure, choice does not.




posted on Mar, 23 2011 @ 01:10 PM
link   
reply to post by DarkKnight76
 

Can you prove that unequivocally? And, no, faith doesn't count. So I am an idiot because I accept that the human species, as well as most modern primates, had one ancestor?

You'd probably enjoy the article that came out showing how Chimps (if memory serves me right) have now evolved to both go swimming and kill fish with spears.



posted on Mar, 23 2011 @ 01:26 PM
link   
It took a long time for judaism to adopt a full monotheism. Thats why there are many references to "other" gods, and the references to Yaweh being a god for the jews, and why god was a jealous god and he was to be worshipped only. There was a long list of gods that were in rotation during that time.

The bible is full of contradiction, mostly due the changes in society around it, and also because they borrowed many stories and teachings from other religions around it.



posted on Mar, 23 2011 @ 01:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by InnerstellarOne
Just thought if there were any natural selectionists here, Have a read of this, Probably refute your theory on evolution.





Nearly a half a billion years ago, tiny horseshoe crabs crept along the shorelines much like today's larger versions do, new fossil evidence suggests.

Two nearly complete fossil specimens discovered in Canada reveal a new genus of horseshoe crab, pushing their origins back at least 100 million years earlier than previously thought.

Dubbed Lunataspis aurora, the ancient horseshoe crab is estimated to have been just 1.5 inches (4 centimeters) from head to tail-tip. That's much smaller than its modern-day relatives that can span nearly 20 inches (50 centimeters).


"We do not know if the fossils were small because they were simply young animals or because Lunataspis just didn't grow any bigger," said researcher David Rudkin of the Royal Ontario Museum in Canada.

Crabby find

Rudkin and his colleagues, including Graham Young of the Manitoba Museum, spotted the fossils buried in 445-million-year-old rocks from the Ordovician period in central and northern Manitoba. They describe the discovery in the January issue of the journal Paleontology.

The specimens included patches of the animals' outer-covering and even evidence of their compound eyes.

Horseshoe crabs are not true crabs and are instead more closely related to spiders and scorpions. And like their eight-legged relatives, horseshoe crabs sport a flexible exoskeleton made of chitin rather than the hard-shell armoring worn by crabs.

Chitin degrades over time. For that reason, ancient specimens of horseshoe crabs have been sparse. Until now, the oldest fossils dated back 350 million years ago, from the Carboniferous period. Fossils have also been found in rocks from the Jurassic Period, suggesting the animals were crawling around beneath dinosaurs. Both the Carboniferous and the Jurassic fossil discoveries indicate the ancient horseshoe crabs greatly resembled their modern-day counterparts.

Primitive looks

Analysis of the recent finds also indicates the ocean creatures haven’t changed much over the eons.

"We wouldn't necessarily have expected horseshoe crabs to look very much like the modern ones, but that's exactly what they look like," Rudkin said.

"This body plan that they've invented, they've stayed with it for almost a half a billion years. It's a good plan," Rudkin told LiveScience. "They've survived almost unchanged up until the present day, whereas lots of other animals haven't."

And whereas major extinction events have wiped even the mightiest, non-avian dinosaurs from our planet, this primitive-looking organism has come out unscathed.

"The horseshoe crab, the lowly little animal that crawls out of the sea every once in a while to mate, it's survived for at least 445 million years in more or less the same form," Rudkin said.

He added that understanding how horseshoe crabs adapted to their ecological niche so early and then weathered natural crises will give scientists broader insights about how ocean ecosystems changed over time.



This is a (yet another) horrible example, this time to "debunk" evolution.

This is ONE animal. ONE. Beyond that, it is a very simple animal, with a horribly monotonous existence. The animal had NO NEED TO EVOLVE. Just because the current theories of evolution can be highly flawed at times does not mean that there is no more to be learned about the subject.

**A few pages back, I offered up a question, something like:
--Why is it so hard to fathom that "God" created an organism (DNA or whatever you want to "reduce" carbon based life to) that is highly capable of adapting and changing to better survive in existing conditions?

There are many many many stories about how this may not be the first time that the Earth has been inhabited. What if "God" simply creates the starting point each time, possibly with the same compounds, possibly with different ones each time. The simple life forms would develop and change over what seem like huge periods of time to us.

This thread has proven that some members on here are just dead set on the thought that they are right, and no one else could possibly prove otherwise. Look at the world around you...how much do you really know? How can you claim to know so much, and offer examples that only make it seem that you seek to prey on others' inability to LOOK BEYOND WHAT YOU'RE TAUGHT AND TOLD!



posted on Mar, 23 2011 @ 01:33 PM
link   
And to bring this back to topic...

Could "In ___ image" mean more than just physical appearance? Could this mean things like CURIOSITY, LOGIC, EMOTIONS, etc. are all qualities that "God" exhibits?

Could this also apply to evolution? Could this mean that "God" is highly capable of change?
edit on 3/23/2011 by ChaosComplex because: more to add



posted on Mar, 23 2011 @ 01:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by ammocase
It took a long time for judaism to adopt a full monotheism. Thats why there are many references to "other" gods, and the references to Yaweh being a god for the jews, and why god was a jealous god and he was to be worshipped only. There was a long list of gods that were in rotation during that time.

The bible is full of contradiction, mostly due the changes in society around it, and also because they borrowed many stories and teachings from other religions around it.

Exactly. Of course, there are plenty of gods. said gods you give 'little g's to, and they're explained to be gods because those that believe in them call them gods, regardless of whether they actually are or not on whatever spiritual or otherworldly plane exists. Who are we to decide what they are when we don't know much past what goes on on the surface of our planet?

There's only one God (from which all things came, which cannot be denied) who guards over all Divine Law, but plenty of gods people decide to worship instead. For whatever reason. Belief is relative and obviously changes due to free will.


Originally posted by ChaosComplex
And to bring this back to topic...

Could "In ___ image" mean more than just physical appearance? Could this mean things like CURIOSITY, LOGIC, EMOTIONS, etc. are all qualities that "God" exhibits?


Yup. It's not just 'trinity' that has to be taken into account, imo. It's all the personalities of God that exist (just like we have our personality traits). The Trinity concept sometimes seemed to have been added by man in response to the specific traits/forms thru which they experienced God. As Father, Son and Holy Spirit, but many don't count His personality traits as anything (compassionate, merciful, just, loving, etc) or the fact that that we really could be just like Him in spirit (not ability, but think about all we're capable of doing with our minds if we actually try? Cloud-busting's just a small depiction of this power. It doesn't amount to God's ultimate power, sure, but we were given such to access also - not entirely, but enough to help with taking care of the earth and each other. We just don't attempt to used them because we're 'too busy' or lose easy access to them due to indoctrination).

Just food for thought though, as believing solely in the trinity wouldn't make a difference in your faith as a whole. A good look at Zoroastrianism explains this really well, too.
edit on 3/23/2011 by Debunker75 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 23 2011 @ 01:35 PM
link   
reply to post by ChaosComplex
 


Makes more sense to me than appearance, seeing as how we all look very different.



posted on Mar, 23 2011 @ 01:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by ChaosComplex
And to bring this back to topic...

Could "In ___ image" mean more than just physical appearance? Could this mean things like CURIOSITY, LOGIC, EMOTIONS, etc. are all qualities that "God" exhibits?

Could this also apply to evolution? Could this mean that "God" is highly capable of change?
edit on 3/23/2011 by ChaosComplex because: more to add


if god is the alpha and the omega, he is everything. god made man in his image (which is everything), we came from everything (evolution). thus we are made in his image. pretty simple.



posted on Mar, 23 2011 @ 01:42 PM
link   
I think I may have stumbled onto something good just now...
All of this will be derived from my current understanding of the basic idea of Adam and Eve...
Adam and Eve were the first people.
Between the two of them, they reproduced...
These children then took wives, etc...

Where did these wives come from?

Where can you account for the many VASTLY different races on the Earth? I'm talking about the races that are visually (and sometimes biologically) different, Caucasian (or white), African (or black), and Asian. I see these as the three "main" races, not in a separation way, just the fact that the three are instantly recognizable. There has to be an explanation for this extreme difference, especially if all life supposedly stemmed from one male and one female (INBRED!!?!?!?!!)...



posted on Mar, 23 2011 @ 01:47 PM
link   
reply to post by ChaosComplex
 


Of course that doesn't even take into account the whole great flood. All these races had to have popped up after that no?



posted on Mar, 23 2011 @ 01:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by TKDRL
reply to post by ChaosComplex
 


Of course that doesn't even take into account the whole great flood. All these races had to have popped up after that no?


I suppose that would make sense, but it only brings up more questions...

Who survived the flood (human)? Just Noah and his family, correct?
So this brings us back to the same point...ONE bloodline, resulting in the varied races...
Is there a place in the Bible that touches on these things?



posted on Mar, 23 2011 @ 01:52 PM
link   
reply to post by ChaosComplex
 


Not that I know of, but I must admit it has been years since I finished reading the bible last. I am getting a new ebook reader soon, can't wait, ebooks of all kinds are free to be had. thank god for the internet

edit on Wed, 23 Mar 2011 14:05:47 -0500 by TKDRL because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 23 2011 @ 01:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by TKDRL
...thank god for the internet


Didn't Al Gore invent the internet?








posted on Mar, 23 2011 @ 02:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by ChaosComplex
I think I may have stumbled onto something good just now...
All of this will be derived from my current understanding of the basic idea of Adam and Eve...
Adam and Eve were the first people.
Between the two of them, they reproduced...
These children then took wives, etc...

Where did these wives come from?

Where can you account for the many VASTLY different races on the Earth? I'm talking about the races that are visually (and sometimes biologically) different, Caucasian (or white), African (or black), and Asian. I see these as the three "main" races, not in a separation way, just the fact that the three are instantly recognizable. There has to be an explanation for this extreme difference, especially if all life supposedly stemmed from one male and one female (INBRED!!?!?!?!!)...


They did research based on dna and mapped it all back to Africa. From Africa we spread toward mesopotamia, then spreading outwards to europe and asia. There is a lot of research that supports this, there is also research that claims to contradict this, though questionable in their attempt.

Differences come from our change we get from the enviorment. There are theories that explain this, like the skin color difference in black people from Africa, and the slanted eyes from people in asia. I have always believed that in 20,000 years Americans will have chaged to look like Native Americans in time.



posted on Mar, 23 2011 @ 02:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by ammocase

Originally posted by ChaosComplex
I think I may have stumbled onto something good just now...
All of this will be derived from my current understanding of the basic idea of Adam and Eve...
Adam and Eve were the first people.
Between the two of them, they reproduced...
These children then took wives, etc...

Where did these wives come from?

Where can you account for the many VASTLY different races on the Earth? I'm talking about the races that are visually (and sometimes biologically) different, Caucasian (or white), African (or black), and Asian. I see these as the three "main" races, not in a separation way, just the fact that the three are instantly recognizable. There has to be an explanation for this extreme difference, especially if all life supposedly stemmed from one male and one female (INBRED!!?!?!?!!)...


They did research based on dna and mapped it all back to Africa. From Africa we spread toward mesopotamia, then spreading outwards to europe and asia. There is a lot of research that supports this, there is also research that claims to contradict this, though questionable in their attempt.

Differences come from our change we get from the enviorment. There are theories that explain this, like the skin color difference in black people from Africa, and the slanted eyes from people in asia. I have always believed that in 20,000 years Americans will have chaged to look like Native Americans in time.


In a word, Evolution.



posted on Mar, 23 2011 @ 02:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by ChaosComplex
I think I may have stumbled onto something good just now...
All of this will be derived from my current understanding of the basic idea of Adam and Eve...
Adam and Eve were the first people.
Between the two of them, they reproduced...
These children then took wives, etc...

Where did these wives come from?
This woman goes about explaining this via an interesting bit of logic. I've not seen all her videos, but she addresses the first question. Not sure if she addresses the part about the flood. www.youtube.com...

This does though: www.godandscience.org...
edit on 3/23/2011 by Debunker75 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 23 2011 @ 02:03 PM
link   
The great flood was in many religious tales, even those that predate judaism. It was common for flooding in both mesopotamia and egypt to occur. I know for egypt the flooding of the nile came from the snow melting off the moutain tops in africa. And considering that the "world" was believed to have been whats around them only, it would make sense for them to believe that the world has flooded.



posted on Mar, 23 2011 @ 02:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by ammocase
The great flood was in many religious tales, even those that predate judaism. It was common for flooding in both mesopotamia and egypt to occur. I know for egypt the flooding of the nile came from the snow melting off the moutain tops in africa. And considering that the "world" was believed to have been whats around them only, it would make sense for them to believe that the world has flooded.


This seems pretty obvious, but for some reason the idea never crossed my mind.

That makes sense, if a people are "stuck" in one area, they may think that there is nothing beyond their home. If their home flooded, they may certainly think the entire world has met the same fate.

Noah was warned and told to build the ark...is this situation present in any other writings (forewarning)?



posted on Mar, 23 2011 @ 02:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by ChaosComplex

Originally posted by ammocase
The great flood was in many religious tales, even those that predate judaism. It was common for flooding in both mesopotamia and egypt to occur. I know for egypt the flooding of the nile came from the snow melting off the moutain tops in africa. And considering that the "world" was believed to have been whats around them only, it would make sense for them to believe that the world has flooded.


This seems pretty obvious, but for some reason the idea never crossed my mind.

That makes sense, if a people are "stuck" in one area, they may think that there is nothing beyond their home. If their home flooded, they may certainly think the entire world has met the same fate.

Noah was warned and told to build the ark...is this situation present in any other writings (forewarning)?


Epic of Gilgamesh, "The Flood Tablet", which is displayed in the british museum, predates judaism as it is 1700 years older!!!! Utnapishtim was the name of the guy who was warned by the gods to load up animals as the floods will kill off all of mankind. If you consider the original to be the real version, then this should be the story to go by as these were the original stories taken (or stolen if you rather use that term) by the bible.


Here is a link to it in detail: religiouscrossroads.tribe.net...
edit on 23-3-2011 by ammocase because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 23 2011 @ 02:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by ammocase

Originally posted by ChaosComplex

Originally posted by ammocase
The great flood was in many religious tales, even those that predate judaism. It was common for flooding in both mesopotamia and egypt to occur. I know for egypt the flooding of the nile came from the snow melting off the moutain tops in africa. And considering that the "world" was believed to have been whats around them only, it would make sense for them to believe that the world has flooded.


This seems pretty obvious, but for some reason the idea never crossed my mind.

That makes sense, if a people are "stuck" in one area, they may think that there is nothing beyond their home. If their home flooded, they may certainly think the entire world has met the same fate.

Noah was warned and told to build the ark...is this situation present in any other writings (forewarning)?


Epic of Gilgamesh, "The Flood Tablet", which is displayed in the british museum, predates judaism as it is 1700 years older!!!! Utnapishtim was the name of the guy who was warned by the gods to load up animals as the floods will kill off all of mankind. If you consider the original to be the real version, then this should be the story to go by as these were the original stories taken (or stolen if you rather use that term) by the bible.


Here is a link to it in detail: religiouscrossroads.tribe.net...
edit on 23-3-2011 by ammocase because: (no reason given)


Thank you for that. Looks like The Epic of Gilgamesh is next...



new topics




 
47
<< 45  46  47    49  50  51 >>

log in

join