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.

 

Science fails to exclude God

page: 32
29
<< 29  30  31    33  34  35 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 14 2011 @ 02:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by bogomil

Originally posted by RealTruthSeeker

Originally posted by bogomil

Originally posted by RealTruthSeeker

Originally posted by bogomil

In the present case genesis 1 is quite clear: We are supposed to live ín a geocentric cosmos, according to it. Do your truth-criteria include such a conclusion as 'true'? Please explain.


I don't believe this and to my knowledge no one teaches such a thing. Where did this idea come from? I've never heard of such a thing.


Count it as a blessing, that no-one teaches this anymore. But that's actually what genesis 1 says.


I take it you have your own interpretation of what Gen.1 means. Go ahead and share it. No since in me trying to guess. Although I have a feeling of what you might say, I'm interested in what your take on this is.


I'm quite the literalist on it. The key-words are 'firmament' for all celestial bodies except earth, and 'under' the firmament for earth.

Obviously someting moves around something in a astronomical context, and the firmament and earth being seperated positions, you can try to work out the options of moon, sun, planets and stars in their relative movements to each other and to earth.


Sorry, but I don't see how this has to do with the meaning of Gen 1. It would be better if you just gave your direct thought. I don't own a mystery machine so I have no idea what you are talking about.




posted on Jul, 14 2011 @ 02:38 PM
link   
reply to post by RealTruthSeeker
 





Sounds that like science has alot of gaps to fill. If that is the case, then why would I listen to anything they say?


Because they back up the stuff they do find out with facts and objective evidence since the introduction of scientific method (google it!). So just because they don't know everything, you chose to completely ignore facts? Do you believe a ball will hit with a certain speed if you drop it from a specific height or not? Because we can calculate that...yet you chose not to believe them because they don't have answers to other stuff? That's beyond silly...

If it weren't for science, you wouldn't even be able to post those silly posts



posted on Jul, 14 2011 @ 02:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by Leahn

Originally posted by bogomil
If there's safety in numbers, Islam will soon be THE truth. It has already outgrown catholicism and will probably outgrow all the christianities together in a few generations (based on present statistical trends).


Present statistical trends show that Islam will never outgrow Christianity, without resorting to genocide. While people tend to be mislead when they hear that Islam has a greater proportional growth than Christianity into believing that Islam is growing faster than Christianity, the truth is that there are so much more Christians than Muslims in the world that a smaller percentage increase still results into a faster growth.


The only problem with your answer fitted to doctrines instead of reality is, that islam HAS outgrown catholicism, so a statistical change is apparant.

Btw, I am able to read statistics, even to look through cosmetic efforts.



posted on Jul, 14 2011 @ 02:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by bogomil
The only problem with your answer fitted to doctrines instead of reality is, that Islam HAS outgrown Catholicism, so a statistical change is apparent.

By the way, I am able to read statistics, even to look through cosmetic efforts.


Show me them. Show me the statistics saying it.



posted on Jul, 14 2011 @ 02:47 PM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 





And yes, there's stuff science can't explain (yet).


And never will, because science is the study of observable phenomena by it's own empirical rules.
The Bible is the greatest record we have of our past. In truth I don't make any claims. God does.
Hey X does darkness exist ?



posted on Jul, 14 2011 @ 02:54 PM
link   
reply to post by randyvs
 





The Bible is the greatest record we have of our past.


Yeah, a record of what people believed back then. It's demonstrably inaccurate or DEMONSTRABLY wrong in many cases.

Like the exodus story, astronomy/cosmology as well as science in general (LINK), and of course a ton of other stuff like people surviving in whales (lol), global floods that demonstrably didn't happen, and of course the Genesis account.



And again with the darkness? Really?

Light and dark are subjective terms we use to describe how we humans measure measure photons visually. The photons actually exist, the terms light and dark are just subjective evaluations, relative terms...nice try though

edit on 14-7-2011 by MrXYZ because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 14 2011 @ 02:54 PM
link   
reply to post by RealTruthSeeker
 


You wrote:

["Sorry, but I don't see how this has to do with the meaning of Gen 1. It would be better if you just gave your direct thought. I don't own a mystery machine so I have no idea what you are talking about."]

What I wrote WAS the simple version. But I'll try again:

Firmament above.

Earth below.

Not the same. Grok?

Sun on firmament.

Earth NOT on firmament.

Sun and earth go one way or another around each other (you have surely noticed this). So either does the earth go around the sun (which it can't in the genesis model, because that would mean it has to move onto the firmament) or the sun moves around the earth. Which is geocentry.

The problem here is only, that already as early as the pauline bible being written, planets were known for what they are, and planets can DIRECTLY be observed NOT to move around the earth as in the geocentric model. Self-contradiction from sheer stupidity or dotrinal obsession. Who knows.

And that's just the beginning of genesis 1's non-sense.



posted on Jul, 14 2011 @ 02:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by MrXYZ

Originally posted by randyvs
reply to post by MrXYZ
 


Simple natural forces that were designed and put in place by God.



If God didn't do it ? Then how did everything get here X ?



1) Prove that god put in place those forces. Until you present objective evidence, all you do is preaching. That's your right of course, but it makes you look silly if you try to pass it off as truth


2) Your question reminds me of Bill O'Reilly when he asked "how did the tides get here?", "how did the moon get here?", and "why does only earth have a moon?" (when in reality there's planets with waaaay more moons than us). God of the gaps. Science doesn't have an answer yet, so you fill a gap in knowledge with god...again. Just like cavemen did when they saw meteorites


The evidence that I could produce you will not accept. I could point to a dozen things that the Bible already new before science even discovered them. Now of course the Bible is not a science book, yet it is scientifically accurate. I do not know of any scientific evidence that contradicts the Bible, if you have some then please produce it.



posted on Jul, 14 2011 @ 02:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by bogomil
reply to post by RealTruthSeeker
 


You wrote:

["Sorry, but I don't see how this has to do with the meaning of Gen 1. It would be better if you just gave your direct thought. I don't own a mystery machine so I have no idea what you are talking about."]

What I wrote WAS the simple version. But I'll try again:

Firmament above.

Earth below.

Not the same. Grok?

Sun on firmament.

Earth NOT on firmament.

Sun and earth go one way or another around each other (you have surely noticed this). So either does the earth go around the sun (which it can't in the genesis model, because that would mean it has to move onto the firmament) or the sun moves around the earth. Which is geocentry.

The problem here is only, that already as early as the pauline bible being written, planets were known for what they are, and planets can DIRECTLY be observed NOT to move around the earth as in the geocentric model. Self-contradiction from sheer stupidity or dotrinal obsession. Who knows.

And that's just the beginning of genesis 1's non-sense.




Again, sorry, but your not pointing out anything, your just giving, heck I don't what your giving on this. Why don't you just break this down verse by verse. Because I still have no idea what you are saying.
edit on 14-7-2011 by RealTruthSeeker because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 14 2011 @ 03:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by MrXYZ
Yeah, a record of what people believed back then. It's demonstrably inaccurate or DEMONSTRABLY wrong in many cases.

Like the exodus story, astronomy/cosmology as well as science in general (LINK), and of course a ton of other stuff like people surviving in whales (lol), global floods that demonstrably didn't happen, and of course the Genesis account.


Look, I wasn't going to interject myself into your conversation because, seriously, even though I am a Christian, I can clearly see that randyvs has bitten more than he can chew, and has been dedicating his time to dig the hole he dug for himself further and further instead of simply giving up and letting it go, as he should.

On the other hand, I find your derisive behavior despicable, and given the fact that you just crossed a dangerous threshold between what is safe to be said, and what isn't, I am going to have to enjoy myself making you look stupid for your remarks.

I want the demonstrations for all the sentences where you used the word "demonstrably." Everything you said that is demonstrable to be wrong, I wanna see it. Demonstrate it.



posted on Jul, 14 2011 @ 03:03 PM
link   
reply to post by RealTruthSeeker
 





I do not know of any scientific evidence that contradicts the Bible, if you have some then please produce it.



1) People living in whales.
2) Global flood that never happened.
3) Meteorites being a sign of god.
4) Humans just popping up in their current form without evolution.
5) A wooden boat that can host 2 of each kind of animal.
6) Someone parting the waters.
7) Someone walking on water.
8) Talking snakes.
9) Angels with wings

10) Being able to see the entire earth when standing on a mountain.

...and the list goes on. Every single one of those claims are from the bible, and every single one is demonstrably wrong and not based on facts.

In short, there's a TON that is demonstrably wrong in the bible, and stuff that isn't based on scientific facts.



posted on Jul, 14 2011 @ 03:05 PM
link   
reply to post by Leahn
 





I want the demonstrations for all the sentences where you used the word "demonstrably." Everything you said that is demonstrable to be wrong, I wanna see it. Demonstrate it.


I presented sources in the form of links for just that purpose. Contrary to randy, I don't just make claims, I back them up with facts. Read the links and you have what you ask for



posted on Jul, 14 2011 @ 03:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by Leahn

Originally posted by bogomil
The only problem with your answer fitted to doctrines instead of reality is, that Islam HAS outgrown Catholicism, so a statistical change is apparent.

By the way, I am able to read statistics, even to look through cosmetic efforts.


Show me them. Show me the statistics saying it.


Here:

www.religioustolerance.org...

while this is a fake, cosmetic pro-christian statistics.

fastestgrowingreligion.com...



posted on Jul, 14 2011 @ 03:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by MrXYZ
reply to post by RealTruthSeeker
 





I do not know of any scientific evidence that contradicts the Bible, if you have some then please produce it.



1) People living in whales.
2) Global flood that never happened.
3) Meteorites being a sign of god.
4) Humans just popping up in their current form without evolution.
5) A wooden boat that can host 2 of each kind of animal.
6) Someone parting the waters.
7) Someone walking on water.
8) Talking snakes.
9) Angels with wings

10) Being able to see the entire earth when standing on a mountain.

...and the list goes on. Every single one of those claims are from the bible, and every single one is demonstrably wrong and not based on facts.

In short, there's a TON that is demonstrably wrong in the bible, and stuff that isn't based on scientific facts.


Unfortunately that is not proof to anything. Just because science can't produce the same thing in a lab doesn't mean it's not true. If that is the case then they should be able to produce their own universe, that is of course if their theory is correct.
edit on 14-7-2011 by RealTruthSeeker because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 14 2011 @ 03:28 PM
link   
reply to post by RealTruthSeeker
 


Now you're just grasping at straws


For crying out loud, people surviving in whales!!! And what about the fact that we know for a FACT a global flood didn't happen? You can't be serious...
edit on 14-7-2011 by MrXYZ because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 14 2011 @ 03:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by MrXYZ
reply to post by randyvs
 





The Bible is the greatest record we have of our past.


Yeah, a record of what people believed back then. It's demonstrably inaccurate or DEMONSTRABLY wrong in many cases.

Like the exodus story, astronomy/cosmology as well as science in general (LINK), and of course a ton of other stuff like people surviving in whales (lol), global floods that demonstrably didn't happen, and of course the Genesis account.



And again with the darkness? Really?

Light and dark are subjective terms we use to describe how we humans measure measure photons visually. The photons actually exist, the terms light and dark are just subjective evaluations, relative terms...nice try though

edit on 14-7-2011 by MrXYZ because: (no reason given)


Well the last time you answered the question. I was just wondering if you changed your answer. From yes.



posted on Jul, 14 2011 @ 03:36 PM
link   
reply to post by randyvs
 


How did I change my answer? Of course darkness exists...it's a SUBJECTIVE title though



posted on Jul, 14 2011 @ 03:36 PM
link   
reply to post by RealTruthSeeker
 


As there are too many options for me to draw and paste (even if I knew how to paste a drawing, which is doubtful), take a piece of paper and a pencil and draw a model of cosmos according to the text of genesis 1. You can make the firmament a sphere, a semi-sphere, a cube, a plane or whatever you like and then you place the earth UNDER the firmament.

Then you try to make out, how the relative movement of the earth and sun is, without the earth getting onto the firmament. Can't be simpler.

The initial description is given in verses 5-10 and finishes in verses 14-17.

Then there is the problem of photosynthesis in verse 11-12.

And in verses 14-17 the sun. moon and stars are created after the earth

And the metabolistic problem of all biological beings as vegetarians in verses 29-30.

Later it turns out, that genesis 1 and 2 are not identical, as in gen. 1 are animals created before mankind, but in gen. 2 after (verse 2:19).

If you want help to get out of these dilemmas, I'm quite sure there are pro-christian sites with ready-made answers. I only hope, you can understand these answers in case you use them; there's usually a LOT of semantic, magic and really weird science in them.



posted on Jul, 14 2011 @ 03:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by RealTruthSeeker

Originally posted by MrXYZ
reply to post by RealTruthSeeker
 





I do not know of any scientific evidence that contradicts the Bible, if you have some then please produce it.



1) People living in whales.
2) Global flood that never happened.
3) Meteorites being a sign of god.
4) Humans just popping up in their current form without evolution.
5) A wooden boat that can host 2 of each kind of animal.
6) Someone parting the waters.
7) Someone walking on water.
8) Talking snakes.
9) Angels with wings

10) Being able to see the entire earth when standing on a mountain.

...and the list goes on. Every single one of those claims are from the bible, and every single one is demonstrably wrong and not based on facts.

In short, there's a TON that is demonstrably wrong in the bible, and stuff that isn't based on scientific facts.


Unfortunately that is not proof to anything. Just because science can't produce the same thing in a lab doesn't mean it's not true. If that is the case then they should be able to produce their own universe, that is of course if their theory is correct.
edit on 14-7-2011 by RealTruthSeeker because: (no reason given)


It's maybe meaningless to point this out to you, but you are referring to scientific principles (these days we would call it philosophy of science), which more or less became obsolete 50-60 years ago. Science is no longer using strict reductionist materialist philosophy as an exclusive base.

In any case you're using the 'disprove me' argument, so as said maybe some dozen times or more, if that's your basis, you can ofcourse 'disprove' all competing religious claims, so Brahma after all ISN'T the real 'god'.



posted on Jul, 14 2011 @ 03:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by MrXYZ
reply to post by RealTruthSeeker
 


And what about the fact that we know for a FACT a global flood didn't happen? You can't be serious...
edit on 14-7-2011 by MrXYZ because: (no reason given)


It has never been dis-proven. I guess all of the stories outside of the Bible are wrong as well? How could anyone claim that such an event didn't happen when there are tons of stories from different cultures saying that it did.



new topics

top topics



 
29
<< 29  30  31    33  34  35 >>

log in

join