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.
You are referring to something that MIGHT happen and claiming it means the bible predicted it. That's nothing more than a guess based on a simple language that doesn't even translate fully and properly to English. The bible dates back so long that of course you can force the scriptures to refer to any event. That doesn't mean its true.
Originally posted by Deuteronomy 22:13-21
If a man takes a wife and, after sleeping with her, dislikes her and slanders her and gives her a bad name, saying, “I married this woman, but when I approached her, I did not find proof of her virginity,” then the young woman’s father and mother shall bring to the town elders at the gate proof that she was a virgin. Her father will say to the elders, “I gave my daughter in marriage to this man, but he dislikes her. Now he has slandered her and said, ‘I did not find your daughter to be a virgin.’ But here is the proof of my daughter’s virginity.” Then her parents shall display the cloth before the elders of the town, and the elders shall take the man and punish him. They shall fine him a hundred shekels of silver and give them to the young woman’s father, because this man has given an Israelite virgin a bad name. She shall continue to be his wife; he must not divorce her as long as he lives.
If, however, the charge is true and no proof of the young woman’s virginity can be found, she shall be brought to the door of her father’s house and there the men of her town shall stone her to death.
Originally posted by EnochWasRight
The Bible cannot be argued.
Originally posted by MrXYZ
Originally posted by XyZeR
Originally posted by EnochWasRight
My premise is not that evolution is not real. Things do evolve for sure. My premise is that evolution is a result and not a cause of results.
Have you ever read your own sentences?
Because you've contradicted yourself thrice now in 3 sentences, ( perhaps a new ATS record?)
and yet you expect us to have a reasonable discussion with you?
An elaborate troll is what you are imho.
This is what amazes me too. Not only is his entire argumentation based on "god of the gaps" and "argument complexity", but even worse, the original video posted doesn't even promote creationism, and he continues to contradict himself.
Originally posted by rhinoceros
Originally posted by Deuteronomy 22:13-21
If a man takes a wife and, after sleeping with her, dislikes her and slanders her and gives her a bad name, saying, “I married this woman, but when I approached her, I did not find proof of her virginity,” then the young woman’s father and mother shall bring to the town elders at the gate proof that she was a virgin. Her father will say to the elders, “I gave my daughter in marriage to this man, but he dislikes her. Now he has slandered her and said, ‘I did not find your daughter to be a virgin.’ But here is the proof of my daughter’s virginity.” Then her parents shall display the cloth before the elders of the town, and the elders shall take the man and punish him. They shall fine him a hundred shekels of silver and give them to the young woman’s father, because this man has given an Israelite virgin a bad name. She shall continue to be his wife; he must not divorce her as long as he lives.
If, however, the charge is true and no proof of the young woman’s virginity can be found, she shall be brought to the door of her father’s house and there the men of her town shall stone her to death.
Originally posted by EnochWasRight
The Bible cannot be argued.
So we should stone to death all the women who marry after losing their virginity?
P.s. I think the Bible can be argued, however arguing with its fundamentalist believers is pointless.edit on 22-3-2012 by rhinoceros because: (no reason given)
Also, wanted to mention the Gospel According to Thomas seems to be Jesus speaking from his view of Life in these more subjective "quantum physics" terms:
(50) Jesus said : "If they say to You, 'Where did You come from ?', say to them : 'We came from the light, the place where the light came into being of itself, established itself and revealed itself in their image. If they say to You : 'Who are You ?', say : 'We are its sons. We are the elect of the Living Father.' If they ask You : 'What is the sign of Your Father in You ?', say to them : 'It is movement and rest.'
And here is one for you to encourage you to keep up the Good Work:
(33) Jesus said : "Preach from Your roof-tops that which You will hear in Your ear. For no one lights a lamp and puts it under a bushel, nor does he put it in a hidden place, but rather he sets it on a lamp-stand so that all who come in and go out will see its light."
Originally posted by Deetermined
So, who or what decided there should be life at all? Who or what decided what kind of life would exist on the earth to begin with?
Originally posted by Deetermined
Wouldn't nature have to have some kind of intelligence to be able to "select" anything? Who or what determines which species is ultimately going to be the stronger one over the weaker one? Who or what decided which animals were going to eat plants and which ones were going to eat meat?
Originally posted by Deetermined
Seriously? What is even remotely random or chaotic about that? It does rain and snow for a reason, right? We know how and why that happens and it has an order to it like everything else. If anything, the design of the snowflake is more proof of intelligent design.
What? Who created the need for living systems to propagate and reproduce? They have "instinct"? Then you say, "but it was developed because evolution decided"? So, now evolution has it's own form of intelligence because it has "instinct" and it's capable of "deciding"? Really?
My premise is not that evolution is not real. Things do evolve for sure. My premise is that evolution is a result and not a cause of results. An oak tree is always going to be an oak tree. The programming in the oak tree may adapt to its surroundings over time. We don't have evidence for this. The theory that all life is the result of matter arising to purpose and design is a false notion. The reason the evolution paradigm cannot stop using words that describe consciousness is because consciousness is needed to change the states of matter. You are correct to see that the argument is futile. It is. When we see a paradox of two reflections, both are not false. They are each true by the excluded middle. Here's an example.
However, I still disagree with you for the most part, as I believe that "instinct" is something that's encoded and is a form of intelligence.
All life has meaning and purpose. Just because we don't understand why mutations create stronger life forms and others die off doesn't mean it's random or has no purpose.
but anything related to humans is entirely by design. Humans did not evolve from anything else.
Originally posted by ChaoticOrder
"Instinct" is far from true sentient intelligence. It's a reaction to a stimulus. There doesn't need to be any consciousness involved. I can put a light sensor on a robot and program it to avoid strong light sources and that would be an unconscious instinct of the robot. It's simply acting in the way it was coded, but it most certainly isn't conscious, it simply exhibits traits that give the illusion it might be conscious.
We do understand it actually. Some mutations create a genetic change with have beneficial effects. Of course any life forms who has that advantage is probably going to live longer than other life forms of it's species. There is no purpose or underlying reason why it works that way. It's just the way it works due to the laws of the Universe, it's completely logical and rather easy to comprehend.
The real question is, could this process eventually create code so complex it becomes self-aware? Or could evolution eventually create life forms so complex they become self-aware? And I believe the answer is yes for both those questions, although we cannot prove it yet.
Yes we did actually. We aren't special, other than the fact we are the most advanced life form on this planet. All you are doing is stroking your ego when you try to believe we are special divine beings. You want to believe there is some magical purpose to why we are here, you want to feel that warm fuzzy feeling on the inside when you think you understand the Universe and our purpose. In reality all you are doing is lying to yourself. It's simply chance that we evolved to the state we are at today, and I will bet you anything that there are much more advanced life forms in the Universe who have evolved far beyond us.
You can say it's "unconscious instinct of the robot", but it took intelligence to "program" the robot. As I said earlier, instinct is encoded in us.
I agree that it works due to the laws given to the Universe. To say there is no underlying reason or purpose for what it does is, I believe is error. In fact, maybe you yourself just came up with an explanation for the purpose of the process when you made the statement below:
The real question is, could this process eventually create code so complex it becomes self-aware? Or could evolution eventually create life forms so complex they become self-aware? And I believe the answer is yes for both those questions, although we cannot prove it yet.
Well, you can't explain spirituality to someone who's never experienced it, so I can't help you to change your mind on this one, so I won't try.
Originally posted by ChaoticOrder
And it took evolution to encode instincts into different life forms. Evolution doesn't need to be a conscious intelligence, as I have explained in great detail.
Even is the Universe had different laws, given enough time self-aware creatures would still probably turn up. The laws aren't there to create self-aware creatures, self-aware creatures are simply a result of those laws when given enough time to play out. They could be changed to a high degree and evolution would still work.
Spirituality is completely different from religious beliefs. Religious beliefs just happen to incorporate some spirituality. For instance, I believe we each have a soul, and I believe things such as astral-project are real. However, I also believe that those things can be explained in purely scientific terms. Science just hasn't got that far yet because it chooses to ignore theories which sound so absurd.
OK, you believe in spirituality, but have you ever experienced it?