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.

 

Creationism theory or story?

page: 3
1
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 1 2011 @ 01:46 AM
link   
reply to post by xxsomexpersonxx
 
signature:

"But the things that come out of a person’s mouth come from the heart and these defile them. For out of the heart come evil thoughts—murder adultery sexual immorality theft false testimony slander. These are what defile a person; but eating with unwashed hands does not defile them.”
- Jesus refusing to wash his hands because its a human tradition and not a commandment from god. Such Wisdom.


Your signature is a blatant misrepresentation, of Jesus. Jesus makes a clear distinction between the spirit and the vessel for that spirit. He was showing the Pharisees to be hypocrites. They were worried about traditions, and staying true to habit. Jesus was worried about them nullifying the word of God. Germs aren't important. The word of God is. Jesus was on earth to teach and fulfill a prophecy. Actually that passage shows something even deeper, in you. God is weighing on your heart.




posted on Oct, 1 2011 @ 01:48 AM
link   
To attribute the first formation of things to chance is nonsense for chance cannot produce the results of intelligence. If chance could be intelligent, it would cease to be chance.



posted on Oct, 1 2011 @ 02:06 AM
link   
reply to post by Shadow Herder
 


Why could this not be chance. Do you think chance/random events could to us look like intelignence in the same we see faces in clouds?



posted on Oct, 1 2011 @ 02:11 AM
link   
reply to post by Tony4211
 





What observable evidence does a creationist have?


All of creation a God and Jesus Christ.

"Oh but you have no evidence"

So what ?

God never intended us to become so deluded, that we would be able to convince ourselves he does not exist.

Colin



in the same we see faces in clouds?


Oh you mean pariedolia ?



edit on 1-10-2011 by randyvs because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 1 2011 @ 02:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by Shadow Herder
What is to be thought of the opinion that attributes the first formation of things to a fortuitous combination of matter, in other words, to chance?

"Another absurdity! Who that is possessed of common sense can regard chance as an intelligent agent? And, besides, what is chance? Nothing."

The harmony which regulates the mechanism of the universe can only result from combinations adopted in view of predetermined ends, and thus, by its very nature, reveals the existence of an Intelligent Power. To attribute the first formation of things to chance is nonsense for chance cannot produce the results of intelligence. If chance could be intelligent, it would cease to be chance.
Wow. That post was intelligently designed. You explained that very well. If chance could be intelligent, then intelligent design would be falsified as a theory.



posted on Oct, 1 2011 @ 02:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by Tony4211
Theory

a coherent group of tested general propositions, commonly regarded as correct, that can be used as principles of explanation and prediction for a class of phenomena: Einstein's theory of relativity. Synonyms: principle, law, doctrine.

Creationism is literally the exact opposite of this. It has no evidence, only claims. Creationist use claims based off of theories that actual, hard working scientists construct. You have to prove yourself first before you can disprove something else.


Evolution is completely observable, despite the dogma that creationists circulate throughout these forums.


www.youtube.com...


www.youtube.com...


www.youtube.com...
Coevolution



What observable evidence does a creationist have?


edit on 29-9-2011 by Tony4211 because: (no reason given)
Intelligent Design is observed all of the time. As a matter of fact, by you posting on this website, waiting for other posters to reply, you have observed intelligent design. You can actually use your observation of this intelligence, to make predictions. One prediction you will not make, however, is; These words your reading, replied to your OP, by chance.



posted on Oct, 1 2011 @ 09:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by addygrace
Your signature is a blatant misrepresentation, of Jesus. Jesus makes a clear distinction between the spirit and the vessel for that spirit. He was showing the Pharisees to be hypocrites. They were worried about traditions, and staying true to habit. Jesus was worried about them nullifying the word of God. Germs aren't important. The word of God is. Jesus was on earth to teach and fulfill a prophecy. Actually that passage shows something even deeper, in you. God is weighing on your heart.


My signature is one of the easier ones to rationalize, I admit. It's not there to make a point though, it's just there because it's humorous at face value before anyone starts rationalizing. I can't imagine any deity that was aware of germ theory would make such a statement. Especially since common thought at the time was that illnesses and other problems were caused by sin instead, Jesus perpetuated it by using something that would actually help and refusing to do it, opting for refusing to sin instead.

If you would like me to switch to one that can't be rationalized, I'll go ahead and do so. Then there'll be no bases for accusing misrepresentation. But, I repeat, I meant my current one lightly. I don't think it's necessary to go to a serious bad part of the bible to constantly draw out beneath my posts, that would be far too cocky for my tastes. Maybe just a disclaimer beneath it instead?

~
P.S. Glad to have what I contribute to the topic ignored, while people are still willing to attack my off topic signature. Really furthers the topic at hand.



posted on Oct, 1 2011 @ 12:16 PM
link   
reply to post by xxsomexpersonxx
 


I know how you feel. Not one single person has done what the original post called for. To provide observable evidence of creationism. I wasn't necessarily trying to prove Evolution to be right and creationism wrong or vice versa. I am sure everyone knows my stance on the matter. I provided observable evidence for Evolution and left the blank open for the creationists. My initial point for even creating this thread was to show how people try to disprove Evolution with claims, rather than actually providing evidence of their belief.



posted on Oct, 1 2011 @ 12:32 PM
link   
reply to post by Tony4211
 





Creationism is literally the exact opposite of this. It has no evidence, only claims. Creationist use claims based off of theories that actual, hard working scientists construct. You have to prove yourself first before you can disprove something else.


Hmmp, that is an inaccurate statement.

The Bible claims that God destroyed the world with a Global flood and all of the air breathing organisms except for what was in the Ark.

Evidence:

We see sedimentary rock covering a great portion of the earth. As the name states sedimentary, caused by water moving it to the place it now rests. Also in great depths that could not have happened over long periods of time and there is no evidence of life in the layers " biotubulation"

We see large fossil beds of the same types of animals which requires rapid burial to make fossils.

We see large canyons all around the world and ancient lake beds on the up side of them which would cut the canyons in weeks or months, not millions of years as proposed by evolutionary beliefs.

We see large coal layers which is formed by large amounts of vegetation being buried which is not happening on any scale of those proportions.

The Bible states that God asked Job if he has seen the springs of the deep which Job could not have.

Evidence

In the 70s we discovered springs in the ocean.

The Bible states that each kind will produce only its kind.

Evidence:

We have never seen anything in any way give birth to a different kind........ever.
Fossils are not proof of such a fairy tale.
Dead bones prove nothing as one has to assume anything about the life of said organism

I make no claims of hard working scientist, their work in real science is just fine.

But when they enter the areas of origins their statements are religious in every way

we believe, it could have happened, it may have are all belief and faith based statements



posted on Oct, 1 2011 @ 04:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by xxsomexpersonxx
 
I can't imagine any deity that was aware of germ theory would make such a statement. Especially since common thought at the time was that illnesses and other problems were caused by sin instead, Jesus perpetuated it by using something that would actually help and refusing to do it, opting for refusing to sin instead.
Actually that passage shows they knew something about germs, whether they called it germs or just knew the correlation between washing hands and preventing disease.
Some of the Old Testament laws prove they had a pretty amazing knowledge of Germ Theory.
The Pharisees were constantly trying to show Jesus to be a fraud.
Jesus constantly exposed the Pharisees for what they were. Jesus's point was to teach those around him, the traditions were not important, even if they did prevent a common cold. God was important.
Jesus wasn't here as a savior of the human body. He was here as a savior of the human spirit.

Originally posted by xxsomexpersonxx
 
If you would like me to switch to one that can't be rationalized, I'll go ahead and do so. Then there'll be no bases for accusing misrepresentation. But, I repeat, I meant my current one lightly. I don't think it's necessary to go to a serious bad part of the bible to constantly draw out beneath my posts, that would be far too cocky for my tastes. Maybe just a disclaimer beneath it instead?
Whatever you like. It would be rewarding for you if you could take this opportunity that you've been givin and seize it.



posted on Oct, 1 2011 @ 10:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by addygrace
Some of the Old Testament laws prove they had a pretty amazing knowledge of Germ Theory.
The Pharisees were constantly trying to show Jesus to be a fraud.
Jesus constantly exposed the Pharisees for what they were. Jesus's point was to teach those around him, the traditions were not important, even if they did prevent a common cold. God was important.
Jesus wasn't here as a savior of the human body. He was here as a savior of the human spirit.


Yes, the people at the time did see correlations between certain acts and disease. They didn't understand germ theory at all though, they thought the acts themselves were causing it instead germs caught from them. This caused a lot of acts to be considered as abominable, or sinful. Back to my point that they thought sin caused sickness, they thought that acts that also obviously caused sickness must be sins too. Backwards, absolutely lacking in knowledge of germ theory.

Think about how people spent lengthy periods of time 'unclean' for so many different acts. Imagine if this god just told his people how to properly clean themselves instead of calling them unclean and putting them on temporary shun status. It would have been easier to understand than many different time lengths for different unclean acts, and much more effective. Unclean time periods from certain acts may of been retained for optimization, but nothing like the exaggerated ones in the bible.

I don't know the verse, but I'm remembering a story of jesus, refusing to resurrect someone because he didn't want to touch a dead carcass to resurrect and subsequently be unclean for 7 days, when he had to do something he needed to be 'clean' for before that. He could have just washed his hands thoroughly afterwards(like anyone with modern knowledge would do), but instead let the man stay dead, and the family continue to be in sorrow. He also could've used his unlimited power to do the resurrection without touching the corpse, I remember asking as a child why he didn't when the story was read to me, the eventual answer they didn't give was because it was just a story,

~
I repeat, I know the point he was making in the original verse, and I wasn't challenging it. It's just funny, that he used refusing to wash his hands to make a point about what defiles people. It's not something anyone who knew what we do in modern days would do, because it does completely defile you to eat with nasty hands. It's not a wise way to make a point.

~
If you would like to continue this discussion, please PM me. I don't like derailing threads, and I don't plan on discussing this any further in such an inappropriate place.

~
I'll contemplate a switch to something unrelated. Maybe something from my quote book. If not, I'll put a disclaimer up sometime soon. I hope that satisfies you.



posted on Oct, 2 2011 @ 12:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by xxsomexpersonxx

Originally posted by addygrace
Some of the Old Testament laws prove they had a pretty amazing knowledge of Germ Theory.
The Pharisees were constantly trying to show Jesus to be a fraud.
Jesus constantly exposed the Pharisees for what they were. Jesus's point was to teach those around him, the traditions were not important, even if they did prevent a common cold. God was important.
Jesus wasn't here as a savior of the human body. He was here as a savior of the human spirit.


Yes, the people at the time did see correlations between certain acts and disease. They didn't understand germ theory at all though, they thought the acts themselves were causing it instead germs caught from them. This caused a lot of acts to be considered as abominable, or sinful. Back to my point that they thought sin caused sickness, they thought that acts that also obviously caused sickness must be sins too. Backwards, absolutely lacking in knowledge of germ theory.

Think about how people spent lengthy periods of time 'unclean' for so many different acts. Imagine if this god just told his people how to properly clean themselves instead of calling them unclean and putting them on temporary shun status. It would have been easier to understand than many different time lengths for different unclean acts, and much more effective. Unclean time periods from certain acts may of been retained for optimization, but nothing like the exaggerated ones in the bible.

I don't know the verse, but I'm remembering a story of jesus, refusing to resurrect someone because he didn't want to touch a dead carcass to resurrect and subsequently be unclean for 7 days, when he had to do something he needed to be 'clean' for before that. He could have just washed his hands thoroughly afterwards(like anyone with modern knowledge would do), but instead let the man stay dead, and the family continue to be in sorrow. He also could've used his unlimited power to do the resurrection without touching the corpse, I remember asking as a child why he didn't when the story was read to me, the eventual answer they didn't give was because it was just a story,

~
I repeat, I know the point he was making in the original verse, and I wasn't challenging it. It's just funny, that he used refusing to wash his hands to make a point about what defiles people. It's not something anyone who knew what we do in modern days would do, because it does completely defile you to eat with nasty hands. It's not a wise way to make a point.

~
If you would like to continue this discussion, please PM me. I don't like derailing threads, and I don't plan on discussing this any further in such an inappropriate place.

~
I'll contemplate a switch to something unrelated. Maybe something from my quote book. If not, I'll put a disclaimer up sometime soon. I hope that satisfies you.
Sorry to offend. I just thought it was a great opportunity for you. Actually, I feel the signature does get a Bible verse across to someone who may never have read the Bible. They then get curious and look up more. So I applaud the verse. Thanx for the reply.



posted on Oct, 3 2011 @ 01:25 AM
link   
reply to post by Tony4211
 

Yes, but isn’t it wonderful to watch the creationists huffing and spluttering and blustering?

Of course they have no theory, they have no proof, they have nothing but their own ignorance – and not just ignorance of evolution alone, but also ignorance of what the religious faith they profess actually stands for and demands of them.

People who think a book is God. Fetish-worshippers engaged in the form of blasphemy known as Bibliolatory.



posted on Oct, 5 2011 @ 01:04 PM
link   
Here is the simple truth;

Creationism is a fairy tale manufactured by TPTB to appeal to Religious minded folk
Evolution is a fairy tale manufactured by TPTB to appeal to Science minded folk
Ancient Aliens is a fairy tale manufactured by TPTB to appeal to Mystic minded folk

The truth is that we were here before, maybe many times before, and we blew ourselves all to hell. No pun intended...Charleton Heston was right. The Aliens are us and we are them.



posted on Oct, 6 2011 @ 10:37 AM
link   
As George Carlin said: RELIGION IS BULL#




top topics



 
1
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join