Did Muhammad ascend to heaven and descend, Messiah Jesus refutes this.

Originally posted by raiders247
reply to post by adjensen

 

I thought atheism was a simple "lack of belief in God"? You guys have organized principles now?

My atheism, along with many many others, is a lack of belief due to the absence of evidence. We have no organized principles, that in itself would be really no different than the religions we despise.

Let me introduce you to Atheism Plus, atheism with principals. It's all the rage these days, because "Bright" wasn't fail enough, lol.

I live by one principle and everything else really doesn't matter to me, I do to others as I would want done to me.

That's fine, but you represented all atheists as following that principal, which they do not.

Who said anything about being "amazing beyond comprehension'

You're right I assumed and that was my mistake. But in my experience when I ask someone that question and they respond with a "scientific" (for lack of better terms) word to explain what led them to believe, 100% of the time it was the awe of the universe and nature.

Well, you'll have to adjust that number, then, since I wouldn't say that, and I would guess that few such respondents were actually scientists.

You recognize, I hope, that this is an irrational statement -- you are drawing an absolute conclusion on the basis of non-absolute observations.

Okay I'll rephrase: There has yet to be any discovery of evidence to prove a God exists.

Which is an equally irrational statement -- your absolute conclusion, that there has "yet to be any discovery of evidence to prove a God exists", is based on non-absolute observations, along with a subjective claim to know whether something proves God exists or not.

That's the problem with many atheists. The only rational statement they can really muster is along the lines of "I have personally seen no evidence that leads me to believe that God exists," which is a pretty weak statement, so they're constantly trying to drag it "upstream" towards the positive statement "God does not exist."

Because, in the end, they don't much like admitting that the best they can manage is a vague opinion, which is of no more relevance than the theist's opposite claim.

reply to post by NOTurTypical


We atheists don't have to prove anything because we didn't make a claim, you did

Conveniently ignore my question huh?

We're going in circles, i respect your right to be ill informed.

FYI: Rational people couldn't care less about where a word originated, we care about its current meaning.

Originally posted by raiders247
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

We atheists don't have to prove anything because we didn't make a claim, you did

Conveniently ignore my question huh?

We're going in circles, i respect your right to be ill informed.

FYI: Rational people couldn't care less about where a word originated, we care about its current meaning.

What claim did I make? And stop arbitrarily asserting rational superiority, arbitrariness is NOT a hallmark of rational thought.

Originally posted by raiders247
Because without proof you can believe in anything no matter how stupid it sounds or makes you look.

So guess what, I just took a ride on a UFO mothership with Charlie Sheen and Elvis Presley. Don't ask me to prove it, just take my word for it...

Like I said, I don't care what you believe, so why would I ask you for proof of that?

I don't care if you don't want to prove anything to me thats fine, but Theists need to prove their claim in order to be taken seriously by rational people.

If you're rational, why do you keep making so many irrational statements in this thread? You've misrepresented your own principals as being held by all atheists, then claimed that atheists don't have shared principals, then made several absolute claims based on non-absolute observations, and now you're claiming that a person's personal beliefs make them "sound and look stupid."

What do you think of this statement, by fellow atheist and "moralist" Sam Harris in The End of Faith?

Some propositions are so dangerous that it may even be ethical to kill people for believing them.

Does that sound like someone we should look to for moral guidance?

reply to post by NOTurTypical

reply to post by adjensen

reply to post by lonewolf19792000


It's amazing how none of you can grasp the most simple concept.

Go ahead, keep believing in whatever it is you want to believe in with or without proof because it is painfully obvious none of you care for truth.

I apologize on behalf of whoever/whatever brainwashed some of you to the point where you cannot understand why someone chooses not to believe in something without proof.

Seems like most of you are more interested in playing semantics while avoiding the elephant in the room, and that is that no religious belief is rational, logical or sane.

I have to go have dinner now with Martin Luther King Jr. and Heath Ledger, i'm running late but i summoned my faster-than-light speed unicorn so I should make it to Alpha Centauri in time for appetizers. Believe me, I can't prove it but just take my word for it...

reply to post by raiders247


What's amazing is that you fail to realize your own logical fallacies. Demanding proof of God, and then subsequently shouting at the top of your lungs that you are an atheist, doesn't make you intelligent. It makes you an idiot.

Multiple people here have tried to point out the flaws in your logic, but because you disagree with their beliefs you have rejected their logic outright.

The only logical conclusion for someone opposed to the idea of a creator to come to, is agnosticism. Atheism requires just as much of a stretch of faith as theism does, as neither can currently be "proven".

No one has ever gone into heaven except the one who came from heaven—the Son of Man.

I bet my car on Adam and I know the answer already.
Betting on Eve too! Pretty easy riddle.

Anywho back to the topic at hand.

reply to post by lonewolf19792000


You actually debunk yourself.

John 3:13 claims the 'Son of Man', not 'Son of God'.

I don't think Yeshua even made those claims even though it is written that he did.

Furthermore, I believe the Koran is correct in stating the Bible has been corrupted.

Furthermore, from one of the books EXCLUDED from the bible, The Gospel of Thomas:

3) Jesus said, "If those who lead you say, 'See, the Kingdom is
in the sky,' then the birds of the sky will precede you. If they
say to you, 'It is in the sea,' then the fish will precede you.
Rather, the Kingdom is inside of you, and it is outside of you.
When you come to know yourselves, then you will become known, and
you will realize that it is you who are the sons of the living
Father. But if you will not know yourselves, you dwell in poverty
and it is you who are that poverty."

Originally posted by raiders247
reply to post by truejew

 

Well then false witness I am.

Good luck to you bro, seems like you'll need it

Sad... You had truth so close, but chose ignorance.

Originally posted by LightAssassin
I believe the Koran is correct in stating the Bible has been corrupted...

Religion ALWAYS lies...

That is your hint as to WHO is really behind it.

God always speaks the truth...

He alone is the source of all truth, life, and love.

reply to post by LightAssassin


So if Thomas says he claimed we are sons of God... And the bible says he was the son of God...

What is the issue?

Originally posted by raiders247
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

Theist made the claim that a god exists. So the burden of proof is on the theists since they made the claim, it's kinda how life works, you make a claim, you have to prove it.
In order for that statement to make any sense, there would have to be proof that a god exists in the first place

Issues with the creation of the cosmos

Where's all the Anti-Matter?
One of the many scientific problems with the big-bang notion is called the “baryon number problem.” In the big-bang scenario, the universe starts out infinitely small, and infinitely hot, in a point called a “singularity.” All the energy in the universe, and even “space itself,” is contained in this point. The point rapidly expands like a balloon and the energy cools as it is dispersed. The energy forms matter—hydrogen and helium gas. It is this gas which allegedly condenses to form stars and galaxies. Virtually every step in this conjectured process is riddled with problems that are indicative of the big bang’s dismal inadequacy as a scientific model. Let’s highlight one of these problems involving the conversion of energy to matter.

Energy can indeed be transformed into matter. This can be done in a laboratory. However, such reactions always produce an equal amount of a substance called “antimatter.” Each class of particle of matter has a corresponding anti-particle. Antimatter is identical to ordinary matter in virtually all respects except one: the charge of the particle is reversed. So, whereas a proton has a positive electrical charge, its antimatter counterpart, the “anti-proton,” has a negative charge. Likewise, electrons are negatively charged, but an anti-election (also called a “positron”) has a positive charge. As far as we know, it is impossible to create matter from energy without creating an exactly equal amount of antimatter. This is what laboratory science has shown us.

If the big bang had actually happened, it too would have produced an equal amount of antimatter. Therefore, the universe today should have an equal amount of matter and antimatter. But it doesn’t. The universe is made almost entirely of matter. This is no slight imbalance; it is a huge problem. It is estimated that the universe contains 10 to the power 80 atoms (that’s a one followed by 80 zeros). Each of these has a nucleus made of protons (and sometimes neutrons). Protons and neutrons are “baryons.” There are ubiquitous baryons in the universe, and yet there are virtually no anti-baryons to be found!

Big-bang supporters have come up with an idea to try and save the big bang from this baryon number problem. They have proposed that on extremely rare occasions energy can produce matter only—with no antimatter produced as a by-product. Indeed, there are a number of variant speculations in physics that rely on this notion to solve the problem of the missing antimatter, but, of course, this idea does not rely on the results of observational science. Observations have shown that matter and antimatter are always produced in pairs; we have never seen one produced without the other. As usual, the naturalist must rely on conjectures that are inconsistent with observations. The baryon number problem remains a serious defect in the big-bang model.

This problem for the big bang is actually a design feature for biblical creation. When particles and anti-particles touch, they destroy each other and release enormous amounts of energy. If God had made the universe with equal amounts of matter and antimatter (as physics requires for a natural origin), then the matter in the universe would have been destroyed by any contact with antimatter, releasing devastating amounts of dangerous radiation. The universe contains virtually matter only because it was supernaturally designed and created by God.
Taking back Astronomy: The Heavens Declare Creation and Science Confirms It (2011), p.80-82

2. Chemical Evolution

The Non-existence of the essentially needed population III stars

The Big Bang model requires the existence of Population III stars. What are Population III stars? According to the physics of the Big Bang, the only elements the Big Bang could have produced are hydrogen, helium, and possibly a trace of lithium, but no other metals. Anything atomically heavier than hydrogen and helium is considered a metal including, for example, oxygen. (Note: In this context astronomers use the term metal differently, not the way the term is used in chemistry). Therefore, the first stars of the universe could have been made only from hydrogen and helium, and these stars are known as Population III stars.

The stars we observe throughout the universe today all contain metals, such as Population I stars, which are metal-rich, and Population II stars that are metal-poor. Population I stars contain approximately 2-3% metals, they are found in the spiral arms or in the disks of galaxies. Population II stars, containing only 0.1% metal content in their light spectra, are observed around a galaxy halo, in globular clusters, and in the central bulge of a galaxy.

These designations became apparent from the stars' locations in the galaxy, space motion, and metal makeup. Stars produce the heavier elements by using successive stages of nuclear synthesis within their cores. According to the evolutionary theory of chemical enrichment, or how stars produce the heavier elements, those elements are spewed back into space through eruptions such as supernova explosions. In this way, later generations of stars that form are contaminated with heavier elements. Thus, according to evolutionary theory, the later that a star forms, the more metals that it ought to contain.

This means that if the Big Bang model were true, somewhere in the universe we should see stars without the spectral lines produced by metals. Moreover, because Population III stars are predecessors of all the observed Population I and II stars, vast numbers of them should have been identified long ago. But no such stars have ever been discovered; even the light from the most distant galaxies have metal lines in their spectra. Population III stars are essential for the Big Bang model, yet they have not been observed. Therefore, the Big Bang is not a plausible scientific model if something the theory requires is nonexistent.
source

searches for these [population III stars] and other MACHO's [Massive compact halo object] through gravitational microlensing have produced negative results. source

Without any proof that the existence of population III stars (which would be needed in large numbers what's more) then the idea that heavier elements than lithium (element 3 on the periodic table) formed from other naturalistic means is unsupported.

3. Stellar and Planetary Evolution

Star Formation impossible from conventional physics

Although virtually all secular astronomers believe that stars form spontaneously, the physics behind this alleged process is riddled with difficulties. According to the standard model of star formation, stars form from a collapsing nebula. However, when gas is compressed, it heats up.(i) This higher temperature creates extra pressure which resists further compression. The collapse would have a tendency to stop before the star ever formed. Furthermore, a collapsing cloud would spin faster as it collapsed.(ii) This is much the same way a skater spins up as she pulls her arms in. As the cloud spins faster, it becomes increasingly difficult to pull material in further: much as weights held at arm’s length are difficult to pull closer when one is spinning. Even if the star were able to form by pulling in the material, it would be spinning extremely rapidly. A small percentage of stars do spin rapidly,(iii) but most do not. The sun takes about 25 days to rotate once at its equator.(iv)

There is also a problem with magnetic fields. The intrinsic (weak) magnetic field of the collapsing nebula would become intensified as the cloud collapsed; the process “concentrates” the magnetic field. The magnetic field would then resist being compressed further—much like trying to push two magnets together when their like poles are facing each other. Gas pressure, angular momentum, and magnetic fields all work against the possibility of a condensing star. Clearly, the secular view that stars can form naturalistically has some serious problems.

i) This follows from the ideal gas law. In physics notation, the law is written as P = nkT where P is pressure, n is the number density of particles, k is the Boltzmann constant, and T is temperature in Kelvins.
ii) This follows logically from the conservation of angular momentum.
iii) T Tauri class stars, for example.
iv) The sun spins even more slowly at its poles (taking over 30 days to rotate once); thus, it is constantly “twisting” itself. This differential rotation would not be possible for a solid object, but since the sun is gaseous, it does not need to rotate at the same rate at all latitudes.
Taking back Astronomy: The Heavens Declare Creation and Science Confirms It (2011); Star Formation, p.85

You do know that all religions on the planet earth are fake. They always have been.
You can quote words from bibles, korans, buddist tablets, the torah, etc, etc.etc, infinitium.
But the thing is. They were all written by men. Not gods. Just plain men who wanted power over the masses. And created groups to sway other masses. Throughout histroy its always the same thing.
The saying.."my god is better than your god, even though its the same god with a different name."
And if you don't bow down, and worship me I will destroy the world..etc..etc..etc..
And the heathen will burn forever..etc..etc..etc.

::does a face palm::

Since this cycle started from the ice age period hundreds of millions of people have killed one another over this very thing. My gods better than your god, even though its the same god with a different name.

The shadow lords are siting back having a good laugh, for the sheeple continue to fight amongst themselves, never truly understanding. Divide & Conquor they play the old game well.

You have to break the chains of bondage, to truly be free.

But relax..have a cookie..::the old lady says:: and when you finish it, you won't remember anything, and you'll feel right as rain..

reply to post by raiders247


The Fine tuning argument
The information I will be using is mainly from the book, 'The Case for a Creator', Chapter 6: The evidence in Physics (interview with Robin Collins)

Walter Bradley, coauthor of 'The Mystery of Life's Origin' says,

It is quite easy to understand why so many scientists have changed their minds in the past thirty years, agreeing that the universe cannot reasonably be explained as a cosmic accident. Evidence for an intelligent designer becomes more compelling the more we understand about our carefully crafted habitat.

Cosmologist Edward Harrison has come to this conclusion:

The fine tuning of the universe provides prima facie evidence of deistic design.

Dr. Owen Gingrich, senior astronomer at the Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory, commented:

Fred Hoyle and I differ on lots of questions, but on this we agree: a common sense and satisfying interpretation of our world suggests the designing hand of a superintelligence.

--------
Robin Collins says,

Over the past thirty years or so, scientists have discovered that just about everything about the basic structure of the universe is balanced on a razor's edge for life to exist. The coincidences are far too fantastic to attribute this to mere chance or to claim that it needs no explanation. The dials are set too precisely to have been a random accident. Somebody, as Fred Hoyle quipped, has been monkeying with the physics.

There are about 30 key parameters or dials in physics that need to be spot on, we are going to look at just a few of them.

Gravity
Collins says,

Imagine a ruler, or one of those old-fashioned linear radio dials, that goes all the way across the universe. It would be broken down into one-inch increments, which means there would be billions upon billions upon billions of inches. The entire dial represents the range of force strengths in nature, with gravity being the weakest force and the strong nuclear force that binds protons and neutrons together in the nuclei being the strongest, a whopping ten thousand billion billion billion billion times stronger than gravity. The range of possible settings for the force of gravity can plausibly be taken to be at least as large as the total range of force strengths.

Now, let's imagine that you want to move the dial from where it's currently set. Even if you were to move it by only one inch, the impact on life in the universe would be catastrophic...That small adjustment of the dial would increase gravity by a billion-fold ...[that change] Relative to the entire radio dial-that is, the total range of force strengths in nature-it's extraordinarily small, just one part in ten thousand billion billion billion."

The result of that small change (one part in ten thousand billion billion billion) is animals anywhere near the size of humans would be completely crushed.

Collins:

In fact, a planet with a gravitational pull of a thousand times that of the Earth would have a diameter of only forty feet, which wouldn't be enough to sustain an ecosystem. Besides which, stars with lifetimes of more than a billion years-compared to ten billion years for our sun-couldn't exist if you increase gravity by just three thousand times. As you can see, compared to the total range of force strengths in nature, gravity has an incomprehensibly narrow range for life to exist. Of all the possible settings on the dial, from one side of the universe to the other, it happens to be situated in the exact right fraction of an inch to make our universe capable of sustaining life.

Robin Collins

There are other examples of fine-tuning," he said. "For instance, there's the difference in mass between neutrons and protons. Increase the mass of the neutron by about one part in seven hundred and nuclear fusion in stars would stop. There would be no energy source for life [stable hydrogen burning stars would cease to exist; Leslie, John (1989). Universes. New York, NY: Routledge. pp.39-40] .
"And if the electromagnetic force were slightly stronger or weaker, life in the universe would be impossible. Or consider the strong nuclear force. Imagine decreasing it by fifty percent, which is tiny one part in ten thousand billion billion billion billion, compared to the total range of force strengths."

"What would happen if you tinkered with it by that amount?"

"Since like charges repel, the strong nuclear force would be too weak to prevent the repulsive force between the positively charged protons in atomic nuclei from tearing apart all atoms except hydrogen," he said. "And regardless of what they may show on Star Trek you can't have intelligent life forms built from hydrogen. It simply doesn't have enough stable complexity."

The cosmological constant in today's physics corresponds to the energy density of empty space and is probably the most fine-tuned value to enable life to exist. A positive value enables space to expand and a negative value causes space to collapse in on itself (just the right value is needed to allow the particles for stars and galaxies to clump together). It is estimated to be fine tuned to the degree of at least one part in 10^53, that is, one part in a one hundred million, billion, billion, billion, billion, billion or it would be like throwing a dart at the surface of the earth from outer space, and hitting a bull's-eye one trillionth of a trillionth of an inch in diameter (less than the size of a single atom).

the beauty and simplicity of the laws of physics

"Think about the extraordinary beauty, elegance, harmony, and ingenuity that we find in the laws of nature," he replied as we headed back to the conference room.

"Whole books have been written about it. Weinberg once spent an entire chapter explaining how the criteria of beauty and elegance have been used to guide physicists in formulating the right laws.`' The theoretical physicist Alan Guth said that the original construction of the gauge theories of fundamental particle physics `was motivated mainly by their mathematical elegance.'4

"One of the most influential scientists of the twentieth century, Paul Dirac, the Nobel Prize winner from Cambridge, even claimed that `it is more important to have beauty in one's equations than to have them fit experiment.'” One historian said mathematical beauty was ,an integral part' of Dirac's strategy. He said Dirac believed physicists `first had to select the most beautiful mathematics-not necessarily connected to the existing basis of theoretical physics-and then interpret them in physical terms."'

"And you see beauty in the laws and principles of nature?" I asked.

"Oh. absolutely," he declared. "They're beautiful, and they're also elegant in their simplicity. Surprisingly so. When scientists are trying to construct a new law of nature, they routinely look for the simplest law that adequately accounts for the data."

I interrupted with an objection. "Isn't beauty in the eye of the beholder?" I asked. "What's beautiful seems so subjective."

"Subjectivity can't explain the success of the criterion of beauty in science," he replied. "We wouldn't expect purely subjective patterns to serve as the basis of theories that make highly accurate predictions, such as the success of quantum electrodynamics to predict the quantum correction to the g-factor of the electron.

"Besides, not all beauty is subjective; there are also objective aspects of it, at least in the classical sense. In his book The Analysis of Beauty, written in the mid-1700s, William Hogarth said the defining feature of beauty or elegance is `simplicity with variety.' And that's what scientists have found-a world where fundamental simplicity gives rise to the enormous complexity needed for life."
...
"In physics, we see an uncanny degree of harmony, symmetry, and proportionality. And we see something that I call 'discoverability.' By that, I mean that the laws of nature seem to have been carefully arranged so that they can be discovered by beings with our level of intelligence. That not only fits the idea of design, but it also suggests a providential purpose for humankind-that is, to learn about our habitat and to develop science and technology."

reply to post by raiders247


The Co-Existence of Humans & Dinosaurs (1 of 4) - Dr. Don Patton (31 minutes)

part 2 of 4
part 3 of 4
part 4 of 4 (10mins)

Kent Hovind: Dinosaurs and the Bible part 2 (90 mins)


Archaeology Digging for the Truth of the Bible - Dr. Don Patton
found:Joshua's Altar on Mt. Ebal, Gilgal and 12 Stones from Jordan, Fallen walls of Jericho, Rahab's house, Balaam Inscription (talking donkey), Shilo Platueau, Fortified gates of Solomon, Jeroboam's Altar at Dan, and the City and Palace of David


101 - The Earth in Time and Space by Dr. Walter J. Veith (former Professor of Zoology and proponent of evolutionary theory)
Description: In this video, the big bang theory of origins and its plausibility are discussed. The catastrophic origin of the geological column is presented in full multimedia format. Evidence for rapid water deposition of the layers of the geological column, canyon formation, erosional features, and paraconformites (missing time zones) are discussed together with their age implications. The standard geological view is contrasted with the Biblical view, enabling the viewer to make a choice between the two models.


102 - A Universal Flood by Walter J. Veith (1 hour long)
Description: Science today denies a universal flood, as it would destroy the continuity of the fossil record in the geological column. In this video, evidence for precisely such a universal phenomenon is presented with fascinating video material from modern day catastrophes on a smaller scale. The origin of the petrified forests and their flood implications are also discussed.


R. H. Rastall, Cambridge

"It cannot be denied that...geologists here are arguing in a circle. The succession of organisms has been determined by a study of their remains embedded in the rocks, and the relative ages of the rocks are determined by the organisms that they contain."
Encyclopedia Britanica Vol. X, p. 168

Geologist have no idea how to age something...their logic is entirely circular

Ninety-five percent of the fossils are marine invertebrates, particularly shellfish. Of the remaining 5%, 95% are algae and plant fossils. Ninety-five percent of the remaining 0.25% are other invertebrates including insects. The remaining 0.0125% of fossils include all vertebrates, mostly fish. Ninety-five percent of the few land vertebrates consist of less than one bone. The fossil record is best understood as the results of a marine cataclysm (Morris, J .D., 1994)

Out of all the fossils in all the layers on Earth we find 95% are marine invertebrates! Marine invertebrates through every layer.....Global flood deposit

The noted palaeontologist Stephen Jay Gould of Harvard pointed out that:-

"The fossil record with its abrupt transitions offers no support for gradual change ........ All paleontologists know that the fossil record contains precious little in the way of intermediate forms; transitions between major groups are characteristically abrupt" (Gould, 1977).

Also Dr T S Kemp, Curator of Zoological collections, Oxford University said:-

"In virtually all cases a new taxon appears for the first time in the fossil record with most definitive features already present, and practically no known stem-group forms." (Kemp, 1999).

Evolutionist David Raup, Curator of Geology at Chicago's Field Museum of Natural History said:-

"The evidence we find in the geological record is not nearly as compatible with Darwinian natural selection as we would like it to be ....We now have a quarter of a million fossil species but the situation hasn't changed much. The record of evolution is surprisingly jerky and, ironically, we have even fewer examples of evolutionary transition than in Darwin's time ... so Darwin's problem has not been alleviated" (Raup, Field museum of Natural History Bulletin).

No intermediates...

"A large number of well trained scientists outside of evolutionary biology and paleontology have unfortunately gotten the idea that the fossil record is far more Darwinian than it is. This probably comes from the oversimplification inevitable in secondary sources: low level textbooks, semi-popular articles, and so on. Also, there is probably some wishful thinking involved. In the years after Darwin , his advocates hoped to find predictable progressions. In general, these have not been found yet the optimism has died hard, and some pure fantasy has crept into textbooks...". Raup, D. (1981). New Scientist, Vol. 90. Vol. 90. p. 832

The evidence for evolution is a complete fantasy filtered down to the masses!

Richard Dawkins speaking of the Cambrian fauna commented:

"And we find many of them already in an advanced state of evolution, the very first time they appear. It is as though they were just planted there, without any evolutionary history. Needless to say, this appearance of sudden planting has delighted creationists". Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker (New York: W.W. Norton Co., 1987).

Dawkins can't think of a single example of an evolutionary process or mutation that increase genetic information

“Everybody knows that organisms get better as they evolve. They get more advanced, more modern, and less primitive. And everybody knows,” according to Dan McShea (who has written a paper called “Complexity and Evolution: What Everybody Knows”), “that organisms get more complex as they evolve.”. . .

“The only trouble with what everyone knows, says McShea, an evolutionary biologist at the University of Michigan, is that there is no evidence it’s true.”
Dan McShea, “Onward and Upward?” by Lori Oliwenstein, Discover, June 1993, p. 22

Those genes that control key early developmental processes are involved in the establishment of the basic body plan. Mutations in these genes will usually be extremely disadvantageous, and it is conceivable that they are always so.
Wallace Arthur, 1997, The Origin of Animal Body Plans, p.14

That means no macro-evolution

“One of these days, both Joyce and Szostak believe, when someone fills a test tube with just the right stuff, a self-replicating molecule will pop up.
Some people will always hold to the belief that it is a divine spark, not clever chemistry, that brings matter to life, and for all their fancy equipment, scientists have yet to produce anything in a test tube that would shake a Fundamentalist’s faith.”
“How Life Began”, J. Madeleine Nash, Time, October 11, 1993, p. 74

The Spade Unearths the truth -
Archaeological evidence in support of Scripture is presented tracing evidence for the long-disputed stories of the Exodus and the existence of long-forgotten cities and archaeological finds such as the Ebla tablets.

Originally posted by Murgatroid
Religion ALWAYS lies...

Pure religion never lies.

"27Pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father is this, To visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep himself unspotted from the world." (James 1:27 KJV)

Originally posted by auraelium
How could Jesus refute that Mohamad didnt decend from heaven when Mohammad was born 500 years after Jesus supposedly lived?
To be fair to Muslims at least we know that Mohammad did realy exist in the historical record.theres no refernce to Jesus in the historical record and no evidence he ever existed.

But neither were Gods, except in fairytales...........

(FYI I'm an atheist) but Jesus did exist. There are plenty of Roman references to him. That does not mean he is the son of God though. If such a character was alive today he would posting nonsense on ATS and creating Youtube videos for 21 dec 2012 filmed in an attic at David Icke's house.

What is his name, and what is the name of his son? Surely you know! John 3:13 13 No one has ever gone into heaven except the one who came from heaven—the Son of Man. [spoken by Jesus]

reply to post by lonewolf19792000


Son of man incarnated as Enoch too, don't forget he went to " heaven".

www.abovetopsecret.com...


Eta.... The story of man is that of the story of Jesus as we all live through him. Within is where Jesus is located not in the material world.

Jesus had many incarnations and prepared a place for us. The mansion is located within.

We evolve as he did from fighting the inner demons to a reflection that mirrors that of Christ. The finale is what we all hope for. The finale of the story is becoming Christ like within.

I challenge the seeker to click the thread regarding Jesus's incarnations. Only click it though if you are prepared to see the light in another nature of which we all are not accustomed to.

Jesus asks us to seek. Same thing the serpent asks us to do.

The knowledge obtained is either used for good, or for the opposite. A sound heart who is in love with the love of God requires within to be balanced. Chaos is not a balance.

When Jesus came last, he brought the sword of division for a reason.

The ones who love light and love go within when the imbalance creates an unrest or chaotic state.

Again, the story of Jesus is the story of all of mankind.

Originally posted by LightAssassin
Furthermore, from one of the books EXCLUDED from the bible, The Gospel of Thomas:

To say that Thomas was excluded would imply that it was ever considered for canon, which it was not (not in the form found in Nag Hammadi, anyway.)

The saying that you cite is fairly classic Gnostic claim, derived from Valentinus in the mid-Second Century.

3) Jesus said, "If those who lead you say, 'See, the Kingdom is
in the sky,' then the birds of the sky will precede you. If they
say to you, 'It is in the sea,' then the fish will precede you.
Rather, the Kingdom is inside of you, and it is outside of you.

"The Kingdom" is the spirit world -- the spirit that is within your material being, and the spirit that lies beyond the material place.

When you come to know yourselves, then you will become known, and
you will realize that it is you who are the sons of the living
Father.

When you learn the true knowledge, then the Aeons and Archons will recognize you, and you will be allowed to leave the material world.

But if you will not know yourselves, you dwell in poverty
and it is you who are that poverty."

But if you don't acquire the Gnosis, sorry Charlie, you're stuck here in the material world for another go around, and better luck next time.

Sound like something that would be included in the New Testament? Nope, didn't think so