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.

 

10 Acres of New Land Rises in Russia (I Mean Was Ceated by God...Excuse Me)

page: 3
29
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 14 2011 @ 04:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by TrueAmerican

Originally posted by TDawgRex
New Volcano? Land just doesn't rise like a elevator. If this is true, that area is in for a &#!t storm. But that's just my gut feeling. It's done me well thus far.


Well it seems (as in article translation) that at least some liquefaction would occur in an upheaval like this, wouldn't it? A mud volcano?

I dunno. Far be it from me to question creationism. I wanna believe. It's just events like this make it hard. Darn those scientists!


You should question creationism.

You should question anything that asserts itself with absolutely no evidence and ignores anything that proves it wrong despite the overwhelming evidence.

Do you want to believe or do you want to know. Do you want actual evidence based answers to the mysteries of life and the universe or do you want simplistic answers that make you 'spiritually feel good' instead of intellectually fulfilled?




posted on Sep, 14 2011 @ 04:43 AM
link   
reply to post by megabytz
 


lol, now because some land has popped up creationism cant be true, bahahaha, stay on topic as we all know it takes alot of faith to believe in evolution in its entirity, so get off your perch and preach your faith in the appropriate threads.

edit on 14-9-2011 by Haxsaw because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 14 2011 @ 06:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by aRogue

Originally posted by James1982

Originally posted by Lil Drummerboy

Originally posted by aRogue
Another Tunguska event is building it seems.


HuH?
how does that relate?
wow


I'm trying to figure out the same thing.....

Somehow land rising from a sea will attract a meteor or comet to blow up above a vast forest?

"Today a fly landed on my big toe"

"Another Tunguska event is building it seems"


Seems to make just as much sense

edit on 13-9-2011 by James1982 because: (no reason given)


So Tunguska was the event of a comet eh? I guess we learn something new everyday...

*hint at the sarcasm*
edit on 14-9-2011 by aRogue because: (no reason given)


well it wasn't the event OF a comet
but a comet was almost certainly involved.
or, you know, aliens or whatever, the actual point being made here is that it did not involve land rising from the sea.


people seem to be getting needlier about their faiths.



posted on Sep, 14 2011 @ 06:19 AM
link   
Somebody should have typed "new Island emerges from the ocean" in to their search engine before posting a thread about something so inane.
This happens all the time. Its of no consequence at all.
As for denying creation, WHAT?
Based on what? What evidence?



posted on Sep, 14 2011 @ 06:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by DaemusAlphae
reply to post by TrueAmerican
 


I...am....flabbergasted.

I have no words for this. I just....do no know what to say....


So why say anything?



posted on Sep, 14 2011 @ 07:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by TrueAmerican

Ok, so I guess God must have decided Russia was overpopulated and needed some more beachfront rock and a new peninsula?


So, what's with the picking on creationists with this news?

A story keeps coming to mind when I read on ATS. The punch line is, "It is not sporting to tease the village idiot."

Do you realize that, unlike geology, few persons who are passionate about matters of faith actually are expected to have professional and post-graduate degrees?

It is a problem we face in the Church.

I knew a passionate woman who worked for a Creationism museum in Texas. I listened to her prepared talk and sat silently as she betrayed her lack of science background (e.g., "if life had been on the planet for billions of years, like scientists say, then the bodies of all of those animals would make the earth several times larger than it is now."). Her views were not only out of ignorance, but out of an unidentified (by me) need to believe as she did-- and that belief was CONTRARY to the teachings of the Church. Yet she taught her shallow and erroneous science beliefs in the name of the Church as well as in the name of Science.

So I ask you, What ought I have done? I have a post-graduate degree in theology, and a math and science heavy undergraduate degree.

As a religious, by profession, where do I begin?

To me, her faith views appeared to be built on a false foundation, and yet she and I shared many of the same beliefs. Do I attack her scholarship? Do I humiliate her in a public setting? Do I take over her prepared presentation? This was a real live person with feelings, emotions, and human needs.

I tell you what I did, I sat with her privately, many times, and offered an alternative and scientifically valid understanding. I spent many hours with her, being as gentle as I could-- alert to what she could and what she could not accept as I attempted to lead her into a more sophisticated thought.

Likewise, there are the ignorant non-believers who have an astounding shallowness in what they think the Church believes and teaches-- drawing on examples of the most ignorant believers to characterize the faithful in one broad stroke. I guarantee that most non-believers do not even suspect the intellectual and academic activity of theology-- I can guarantee it because the vast majority of believers no not even know it.

So, please take a moment to view yourself through my eyes in regards to what the faithful believe. And then, remembering the punch line above, recognize that I chose not to tease you.



posted on Sep, 14 2011 @ 08:08 AM
link   
Nice info, however the sarcasm in the title is an unnecessary jab. Surely you didn't find that pertinent.



posted on Sep, 14 2011 @ 08:11 AM
link   
This is how it looks like


www.liveleak.com...

pretty scary



posted on Sep, 14 2011 @ 08:16 AM
link   
Wow I had never heard of a Mud Volcano before this is really cool info. This is why I love ATS I learn something new everyday!



posted on Sep, 14 2011 @ 08:29 AM
link   
reply to post by TrueAmerican
 


I know your title is tongue in cheek which is sad. But never the less it is a fact that it is all done by GOD. Supernatural means outside of Nature but he surely uses Nature to His Will.

Very interesting piece and a great find. I do not think this is volcanic activity because we have not seen this from that activity recorded yet, so it will be interesting to see if they can figure out why or how this happened. If it were in America it would just be more land for the government to Steal and Tax!



posted on Sep, 14 2011 @ 09:58 AM
link   
It looks like TEPCO has found somewhere to sneakily dump all the irradiated topsoil from the contaminated areas in Japan



posted on Sep, 14 2011 @ 03:49 PM
link   
reply to post by TrueAmerican
 


HOw in the F5CK would evidence of an evolving geologic record be counter evidence to God????


I mean you've got me stymied with this one. I can't IMAGINE the train of thought that led you to that conclusion. Was it the use of the word evolving????

Jaden



posted on Sep, 14 2011 @ 03:53 PM
link   
reply to post by megabytz
 


Me thinks you got your stories mixed up. Religion is spiritual and internal in basis. Science is external and observation based. Evidence counter to scientific theory is constantly provided and ignored by the overwhelming majority of the scientific community. Huge leaps in logic are made to establish theory and they call it fact when it is far from it.

The biggest mistake ever made in science was the acceptance of so called fact through inductive reasoning. As soon as that happened you could throw the majority of science out the window.

JAden



posted on Sep, 14 2011 @ 04:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by Masterjaden
reply to post by TrueAmerican
 


HOw in the F5CK would evidence of an evolving geologic record be counter evidence to God????
Jaden


Very simple. According to the bible, Earth is what, a max of 5000 years old? Ok, make it 10,000, just for argument's sakes. But according to the hard evidence, and various methods of dating, it is more like 4.5 billion years old. Now I am sorry, but there is just too much of a discrepancy there. And one of the two is very likely very wrong.

To witness new land arise out of nowhere, pushed up by the collision of tectonic plates, lends more credence to an evolving earth that has taken billions of years to slowly shape itself into what we see today. But I will temper that with: I believe sometimes very rapid, catastrophic events (such as mass plate movement like in Kamchatka) happen.

The knowledge tree in the Garden of Eden was the forbidden fruit. Of course it was.
In other words, "Don't research and become knowledgeable about the earth and all things, instead trust and believe in the Word." Belief in that Word then earns the scammer ten percent of the believer's income. Get a few of those, and you too can live large by just preaching a story.

I am not fooled.



posted on Sep, 14 2011 @ 08:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by TrueAmerican

Originally posted by Masterjaden
reply to post by TrueAmerican
 


HOw in the F5CK would evidence of an evolving geologic record be counter evidence to God????
Jaden


Very simple. According to the bible, Earth is what, a max of 5000 years old? Ok, make it 10,000, just for argument's sakes. But according to the hard evidence, and various methods of dating, it is more like 4.5 billion years old. ...

...

The knowledge tree in the Garden of Eden was the forbidden fruit. Of course it was.
In other words, "Don't research and become knowledgeable about the earth and all things, instead trust and believe in the Word." Belief in that Word then earns the scammer ten percent of the believer's income. Get a few of those, and you too can live large by just preaching a story.

I am not fooled.


You were not writing to me; but I'm jumping in anyway (probably because I woke up with a bur under my saddle, but maybe because it is important).

First, The Bible does not say that the Earth is 5-10,000 years old. Anglican Archbishop Ussher, an academic, used known dates of historical events in the Bible, and using the genealogies, arrived a year of Creation of 4004 BCE. He did not think it was true, but wondered if it were significant. He sent his numbers to Universities to be discussed.

Then, when the King James Version was published, in the margins, the Ussher Chronology was provided. Many KJV's continue to use the Ussher Chronology in the margins because it is reasonably accurate from about the time of Solomon on. It becomes and editorial nightmare to decide where the numbers cease to have meaning-- other than spiritual meaning so they put it all in.

Among some, to suggest that the the length of lives (and names!) has a spiritual meaning, and not intended to be a mathematical puzzle would get charges of "Non-Believer!" and "Blasphemer!" and "Romanish!"

To be fair, the poorer churches in our time tend to be the less educated. Bright and knowledgeable clergy, have much to do and the battle over Ussher's Chronology is not likely to be the ditch they choose to die in. It won;t get preached, and the clergy may never suspect it was believed by any in the flock.

But the 4004 BCE thing is all over the Internet and most often found on sites contesting their faith, and so they take up a passionate project to defend their faith on that premise. And once a person realizes they not only have been reading material leading them astray, but teaching that material-- it is very rare that they back down, admit the have been fooled-- so well armed they thought themselves to be with "proof" that Earth was created in 4004 BCE.

I have seen it in classes I have taught. A student says, "So, you are saying the Bible is a metaphor-- and that is all it is?"
"No. I am not saying that. I am saying that with time, the greater meaning-- not a lessor one-- will begin to form. That contemplating Adam and Eve in a new world has real, life-changing meaning which is not altered in the least if there were not only Adam and Eve, but also Fred & Wilma, Lucy & Ricky, and others; even if all of them existed a million years ago-- give or take."

To appease, if necessary, I'll add, that the first human sensible product of the Big Bang would be light; the second, would be forming of matter and a separation; and so on. I might suggest that the Creation is told from a human perspective of God's work, because the story is not God explaining Himself, but God explaining our perceptions.

I may ask a class how there can be a "day" before the earth has a star and a moon to rotate underneath? The answer does not matter-- that the "literal" interpretation cannot be the only one is what matters-- there is not less- there is more than meets the eyes. And from there, we scoop up ancient teachings of the Church, because from there, we have returned to Scripture as a purely spiritual language-- the language of the soul.

As to the scammers...

I resent the heck out spiritual leaders with enormous incomes when their flocks live paycheck to paycheck. Few clergy live that way; bu there are enough who do to get my dander up.

In my little corner of the faithful, All of the clergy live on a stipend, upon which they pay about 30% self-employment tax (no deductions) and then tithe 10% right back to the Church-- many living at or below the poverty level without complaint. Others have a vow of poverty-- it depend on which orders they have taken. Every last one of them has, at the very least, a Master Degree from an accredited university or seminary.

Not one of them talks the garbage you place in their mouths about science. Still, I know some charlatans, but they are not stupid charlatans.



posted on Jul, 7 2012 @ 01:25 AM
link   
It's amazing that something like a mud volcanoe can create a whole new island in a matter of days. I know if I was swimming and saw this happening I would freak right out.






posted on Jul, 7 2012 @ 01:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by boony
Somebody should have typed "new Island emerges from the ocean" in to their search engine before posting a thread about something so inane.
This happens all the time. Its of no consequence at all.
As for denying creation, WHAT?
Based on what? What evidence?


okay.... so i did that and didn't find anything similar to the OP. i found islands emerging due to volcanoes. plus the original topic was about a peninsula not an island. i think your comment was unnecessary.



new topics

top topics



 
29
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join