How to prove creationism FAKE

page: 3
4
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 24 2013 @ 11:06 AM
link   


Text Do you have examples of the aforementioned books? Where do they just choose to believe things as facts that aren't backed by science? Science evolves as new knowledge is a available. Things are constantly changing, and evolving in science, so it makes sense to change the text books as we learn more. Would you prefer that they never changed and still had 1850 science material, like the archaic outdated bible?
reply to post by Barcs
 


@ Barc

Have been away from the keyboard for awhile and just now read your reply to my rant.
Barc, Let me try to get on your page instead of you on mine. You have a bitter disregard for the bible as is shown by your posting. That is your privilege to be sure and is the consensus of most all scientists. The bitterness may come from not understanding the Creator that created you, I really don’t know.

Gen 1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
Gen 1:2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

The bible tells me that in the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. I want you to remember that it was both heaven and earth. Regardless of how intelligent you are you have to realize that there was a start to all of what we see. If you will not even see that fact then there is no sense to go any further with this conversation.

The bible then tells us that that the Creator created this world and the heaven surrounding this world from material that was without form and was empty of life. Which heaven is it that is mentioned in this account? Is it the first heaven surrounding the world or the second heaven which we call the universe? This material that the Creator used was not formed but was still noted as material. How old was this material in your estimation? It is the same material that we see today. But then this material was not formed nor did it have life. If this material did not have life then you could not date that material with the use of fossils could you? Radioisotope dating is at best a theory. Why do I say this? If you are a fair person without bias then here are some sources that you asked me to show.

ISOCHRON ROCK DATING IS FATALLY FLAWED
by William Overn - Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth (RATE)
Introduction
Scientists associated with the Institute for Creation Research have finished an eight-year research project known as RATE, or Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth. For over a hundred years, evolutionists have insisted that the earth is billions of years old, and have arrogantly dismissed any views contrary to this belief. However, the team of seven creation scientists have discovered incredible physical evidence that supports what the Bible says about the young age of the earth.
RATE Articles
Polonium Radiohalos: The Model for Their Formation Tested and Verified (#386) by Andrew A. Snelling, Ph.D.
Radioisotope Dating of Grand Canyon Rocks: Another Devastating Failure for Long-Age Geology (#376) by Andrew A. Snelling, Ph.D.
New Rate Data Support a Young World (#366) - by Russell Humphreys, Ph.D.
Carbon Dating Undercuts Evolution's Long Ages (#364) by John Baumgardner, Ph.D.
Radiohalos - Significant And Exciting Research Results (#353) by Andrew A. Snelling, Ph.D.
Nuclear Decay: Evidence For A Young World (#352) by Russell Humphreys, Ph.D.
Potassium-Argon and Argon-Argon Dating of Crystal Rocks and the Problem of Excess Argon (#309) by Andrew A. Snelling, Ph.D.
Evidence for a Young World (#384) by Russell Humphreys, Ph.D.

Did you know that your science now tells us that there is a third heaven? Not many bible bashers realize that fact nor want to bring the subject up. Your science now tells us that they admit that this universe is still expanding, and at a tremendous rate at that. What is this universe expanding into? Do you know? The old outdated bible says it is the third heaven and it told you that many hundreds of years before your science saw it. So now hundreds of years later your science says that they can prove the universe has a container which we have always called the third heaven.

If the universe is still expanding then God is still creating. My outdated bible has never said that God quit creating. It says that God rested on the seventh day. That resting period is now long gone and your science now tells me that my Creator is still creating. As the universe expands so it is filled with matter and that my friend is called creating and not just a happening by any means. After His rest, God continued to create and His timely creating
is what you are seeing as evolution. God creates daily (even as we speak). Read what other scientists have also studied and open your mind.




posted on Feb, 24 2013 @ 11:52 AM
link   
reply to post by Seede
 


First of all, I am not bitter towards the bible or religion. There's just no evidence to suggest it's real, so I reject that belief. Its teachings are thousands of years old at minimum and it has been translated over and over. Its accuracy is highly suspect. What I AM bitter about, is the constant unjustified attack on science. People have dedicated their entire lives to the expansion of this knowledge. It's just ridiculous how extreme religious folk seem perfectly happy with diminishing their work and dismissing it on whim, without even learning the basics, let alone developing an opposing scientific theory.

ICR is not a legitimate source. They have already been debunked and caught in lies; their agenda is clear. Also I didn't ask for dating discrepancy articles, I asked for scientific school books that have taught lies or guesswork as factual.

I was responding to this:


There are all sorts of bogus books out there that one cannot agree with the other and schools of learning choose exactly what they want you to believe as fact. Compare the books of schools from even one term to another and see the vastness of change in schooling. You have bought into exactly what some religionistes have also bought into. A bible for every need and a science book for every need.


Please, drop the scientific details about this "3rd heaven". I didn't even know there was a 2nd heaven, or a first one. Are you referring to other dimensions and string theory? Newsflash. According to them there are 12 dimensions, not 3, and it certainly isn't a scientific fact. Who can prove there is a "container" for the universe?

A whole paragraph about god still creating and it ends with this "Read what other scientists have also studied and open your mind.". What "other" scientists? What scientists have proven that god is still creating? You can't just drop all this without sources to back it up. Not once, ever, has anything been observed being created from nothing. The universe is spreading out, the big bang is over. There isn't still new matter exploding from a dense singularity. So please back up what you are saying with unbiased sources and actual peer reviewed science experiments. That would be great and will definitely get us on the same page. You are welcome to believe whatever you like, but dismissing science is not logical, unless you do it with other science.
edit on 24-2-2013 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 24 2013 @ 08:21 PM
link   
reply to post by Barcs
 



posted on Feb, 24 2013 @ 08:56 PM
link   
If god made me in his own image, why do I have a coccyx?
That's right, why do I have a damned tailbone?
A remnant/fossil of my ancestors built right into my body.

Damn that's all the proof anyone should need.



posted on Feb, 24 2013 @ 08:58 PM
link   


Text The universe is spreading out, the big bang is over. There isn't still new matter exploding from a dense singularity. So please back up what you are saying with unbiased sources and actual peer reviewed science experiments.
reply to post by Barcs
 


Can you prove this of which you have just stated? What science experiments would you recommend to prove that there is not new matter being produced with expansion?

The bogus books I had referenced are the science books of creationists compared to the science books of the atheists. Some one is wrong and guess who the good ole boy network belongs to. The vast majority of scientists are atheists and you well know it. The club membership dictates what is taught and what is not taught and you well know this as a fact. Most all universities and science professors are atheists and that is also a fact.

I am really surprised that you have not been taught that the universe is expanding and producing matter. This is not 2013 science but a hundred years old study that should have been in your science books from before you were thought of. Or was this information taken out of your science book?

The Bad Astronomer writes Quote "A century ago, astronomers (including Edwin Hubble) discovered the Universe was expanding. Using the same methods — but this time with observations from an orbiting infrared space telescope — a new study confirms this expansion, and nails the rate with higher precision than done before. If you're curious, the expansion rate found was 74.3 +/- 2.1 kilometers per second per megaparsec — almost precisely in line with previous measurements." -- Now Barcs, does that sound like I am rejecting science?

The universe is expanding and it must have some space to expand into. That is a fact of reality and it is called the third heaven by the bible totters. The first heaven is that of our atmosphere and the second heaven is that of the heavenly bodies. All terrestrial existence is embodied in this universe and this universe is expanding into another existence of space which is called the third heaven. I am surprised that you have not been taught this basic understanding of your existence. As the universe expands it either must have substance to fill the void, or the substance also expands or the expansion creates a void. Regardless of which of the three you choose, something is being created (produced). That is a fact of science and plain common sense. You reject the reality that nothing is being produced (added) by expansion? That is mind boggling to say the least.

Now concerning these scientists that I had referenced – Have you called them liars??? If you have then you should be ashamed of yourself. Have you noted that these three (of many more) are men of the highest honors in their fields and all hold Ph.D certification?
John Baumgardner. B.S. (Electrical Engineering), M.S. (Electrical Engineering), M.S. (Geophysics and Space Physics), Ph.D. (Geophysics and Space Physics) ...
Andrew A. Snelling, B.Sc.(Hons), Ph.D. (Geology) was for many years Geologist, Senior Research Scientist and Editor of the CEN Technical Journal
D. Russell Humphreys, Ph.D. Creationist physicist.

Now Barcs, this conversation began with your defense of science which is fine with me. The thing that you are blinded by is that there are creationist scientists as well as atheist scientists and each camp does have their preferences. But to denigrate a scientist simply because he or she is a creationist (Fundy) is totally unfair the same as you tote your dislike for others to bash one of your own. I have not bashed science. In fact I embrace science as long as bible bashing is left out of the mix. It was you who denigrated the bible as being totally out of touch with science and you are dead wrong in that approach. Somehow you have the idea that the age of knowledge is a key element in a fact. It most certainly is not the case. Nothing you have stated has any merit that the Torah is wrong and conflicts with true science. I hope you reconsider your unwavering attitude towards creationists or produce your proof of Torah being at fault.

To start your quest to silence your opposition, start with "John Baumgardner" and tell us exactly where he is wrong and what the truth of the matter is with his science. Don't simply call him a liar but prove that he is a liar. I will wait for that answer.



posted on Feb, 25 2013 @ 08:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by Chukkles
If god made me in his own image, why do I have a coccyx?
That's right, why do I have a damned tailbone?
A remnant/fossil of my ancestors built right into my body.

Damn that's all the proof anyone should need.


So you can do a poo

do a search, type pelvic floor muscle

Damn that's all the proof anyone should need that some just parrot anything with out researching truth



posted on Feb, 26 2013 @ 07:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by borntowatch

Originally posted by Chukkles
If god made me in his own image, why do I have a coccyx?
That's right, why do I have a damned tailbone?
A remnant/fossil of my ancestors built right into my body.

Damn that's all the proof anyone should need.


So you can do a poo

do a search, type pelvic floor muscle

Damn that's all the proof anyone should need that some just parrot anything with out researching truth


Soooo.........God poos?

Did Jesus poo?

They would be some apocalyptic ****s I'm guessing



posted on Feb, 26 2013 @ 02:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seede
Can you prove this of which you have just stated? What science experiments would you recommend to prove that there is not new matter being produced with expansion?

What statement of mine, do you need proof for? Most of my statements in that last post were asking YOU to back up your claims of a 3rd heaven, matter still being created, etc etc. You stated those things as facts, when they are not facts. I don't need to prove a negative. Burden of proof is on you to show creation is still happening, if that is indeed your claim.


The bogus books I had referenced are the science books of creationists compared to the science books of the atheists. Some one is wrong and guess who the good ole boy network belongs to. The vast majority of scientists are atheists and you well know it.

Once again, please give examples of these books. Whether or not a scientist believes in god, has nothing to do with the facts and experiments he observes. So you're basically saying they are wrong because they are mostly atheists?


I am really surprised that you have not been taught that the universe is expanding and producing matter. This is not 2013 science but a hundred years old study that should have been in your science books from before you were thought of. Or was this information taken out of your science book?

Cite your source of this. Matter is NOT being created. It goes against the laws of thermodynamics. Energy cannot be created or destroyed. Energy = matter, E=MC2. Energy can change forms but it can't be created or destroyed. If you think it can, then please back it up.


The Bad Astronomer writes Quote "A century ago, astronomers (including Edwin Hubble) discovered the Universe was expanding. Using the same methods — but this time with observations from an orbiting infrared space telescope — a new study confirms this expansion, and nails the rate with higher precision than done before. If you're curious, the expansion rate found was 74.3 +/- 2.1 kilometers per second per megaparsec — almost precisely in line with previous measurements." -- Now Barcs, does that sound like I am rejecting science?
Expansion does not equal creation. I never said the universe wasn't expanding or suggested you didn't know that.


The universe is expanding and it must have some space to expand into. That is a fact of reality and it is called the third heaven by the bible totters. The first heaven is that of our atmosphere and the second heaven is that of the heavenly bodies. All terrestrial existence is embodied in this universe and this universe is expanding into another existence of space which is called the third heaven. I am surprised that you have not been taught this basic understanding of your existence. As the universe expands it either must have substance to fill the void, or the substance also expands or the expansion creates a void. Regardless of which of the three you choose, something is being created (produced). That is a fact of science and plain common sense. You reject the reality that nothing is being produced (added) by expansion? That is mind boggling to say the least.

How can you call something a fact of reality when you haven't backed it up or can't prove it? Once again, please refer me to the scientific experiments that show empirical evidence of this container or "3rd heaven". There's a difference between empirical science and mathematical theories and hypotheses about what lies beyond our known universe. Right now the only answer is that we do not know.



posted on Feb, 26 2013 @ 03:31 PM
link   
reply to post by Seede
 


Continued from above:


Now concerning these scientists that I had referenced – Have you called them liars??? If you have then you should be ashamed of yourself. Have you noted that these three (of many more) are men of the highest honors in their fields and all hold Ph.D certification?

I'm not saying they are liars, I'm saying their opinions are still opinions, regardless of their credentials. I'm just trying to keep it logical. If you have the science that proves these opinions I'd like to see it. Simply stating that a few scientists think ID is possible or believe in it, doesn't prove it.


Now Barcs, this conversation began with your defense of science which is fine with me. The thing that you are blinded by is that there are creationist scientists as well as atheist scientists and each camp does have their preferences. But to denigrate a scientist simply because he or she is a creationist (Fundy) is totally unfair the same as you tote your dislike for others to bash one of your own. I have not bashed science. In fact I embrace science as long as bible bashing is left out of the mix. It was you who denigrated the bible as being totally out of touch with science and you are dead wrong in that approach. Somehow you have the idea that the age of knowledge is a key element in a fact. It most certainly is not the case. Nothing you have stated has any merit that the Torah is wrong and conflicts with true science. I hope you reconsider your unwavering attitude towards creationists or produce your proof of Torah being at fault.

A scientist is a scientist. It doesn't matter if they believe in god / creation. If they deal with facts and empirical data, then they are doing what they are paid to do. You don't seem to understand the separation between faith and science. A scientist can still have faith, but that doesn't mean it is based on science or that the belief holds more merit coming from one. It is faith, regardless. There is no way to verify the Torah or bible as accurate. If there was, I'd consider it, but so far there are a whole bunch of claims that are demonstrably wrong (talking snakes, living in a whale, noah's arc, walking on water, etc etc), so there’s no reason to assume it is accurate. I don't discount creationists because they are creationists. I discount them because they very often come onto this website and either promote lies and misunderstandings about science, OR they promote their religion as fact. That is the only thing that urks me.


To start your quest to silence your opposition, start with "John Baumgardner" and tell us exactly where he is wrong and what the truth of the matter is with his science. Don't simply call him a liar but prove that he is a liar. I will wait for that answer.


In regards to which claim? You want me to go through all of this guy's stuff (yeah I've seen it on answersingenesis) and debunk everything I can find on google? I know who the guy is, please give me a specific claim he makes regarding ID / creationism and that is backed by science. He's wrong all over the place, and I don't have time to break every single piece of it down.

Also it's a bit funny that my last post to you requested you to back up your claims, and you flipped it on me as if I have to prove you wrong or they stand. That's not how it works. If you are claiming Baumgardner is accurate and scientific, you need to show me the sources and the data / experiments he uses. Answersingenesis has been debunked many times, a simple google search for "answersingenesis debunked" should lead you right to many of them.

Again my main point is that ID/creationism is NOT backed by ANY objective science whatsoever. If you think it has been, then please post some links and send me in the right direction. I've been looking for objective evidence of ID for years.



posted on Feb, 26 2013 @ 08:26 PM
link   


Text Also it's a bit funny that my last post to you requested you to back up your claims, and you flipped it on me as if I have to prove you wrong or they stand. That's not how it works. If you are claiming Baumgardner is accurate and scientific, you need to show me the sources and the data / experiments he uses. Answersingenesis has been debunked many times, a simple google search for "answersingenesis debunked" should lead you right to many of them.
reply to post by Barcs
 


Well Barcs,
You have satisfied my curiosity in this discussion with you. I have shown you the basics of my arguments without one word of admission except that you did not know what a heaven was. You are a puppy chasing its tail and I tire with your lack of respect for intelligence. Most all atheists play this game of you have to prove but I do not. I have been down that road many times before you and I tire very easily with showing you the many brilliant people who you simply denigrate. I know that you do not have even the smallest amount of knowledge than that of John Baumgardner and yes I could show you some of his work but even that would not not satisfy your closed mind. When you denigrated John Baumgardner it was then that I knew who you were. I end this discussion with the hope that you will live long enough to realize how silly you really are.



posted on Feb, 28 2013 @ 03:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by Seede
Well Barcs,
You have satisfied my curiosity in this discussion with you. I have shown you the basics of my arguments without one word of admission except that you did not know what a heaven was. You are a puppy chasing its tail and I tire with your lack of respect for intelligence. Most all atheists play this game of you have to prove but I do not. I have been down that road many times before you and I tire very easily with showing you the many brilliant people who you simply denigrate. I know that you do not have even the smallest amount of knowledge than that of John Baumgardner and yes I could show you some of his work but even that would not not satisfy your closed mind. When you denigrated John Baumgardner it was then that I knew who you were. I end this discussion with the hope that you will live long enough to realize how silly you really are.


So basically you have resorted to ignoring everything I've said, not backing up a single claim you have made, and not even responding to single counter point made by me. You have refused to even quote me one single Baumgardner study that shows facts for ID and have insulted me in the process, simply because I'm not buying what you're selling. I am not playing games, I'm asking for facts to support your position. If you cannot do this, it is not my fault. This often happens with creationists, they'll make nonsensical claims and when asked for proof, they tuck their tail between their legs and disappear.
at claiming a "3rd" heaven was discovered or that any science anywhere suggests ID. I will end this discussion with the hope that you will live long enough to realize how silly you really are.


edit on 28-2-2013 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 1 2013 @ 07:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by spy66
Creating life sure aint easy.

If we were able to creeate life i bet the once who does it, would be labeled as very intelligent and very skilled. Dont you?
And i bet a price would be lurking.

If it dosent take any intelligence and skills to create life. What are we missing?

Are we just missing out on chance? Since life just appeared by chance.

Or is it that we are just not intelligent enough yet?






edit on 27.06.08 by spy66 because: (no reason given)


how do we know life did not just appear by chance? if it had failed a billion times before who would be the wiser, all of those other failures , no one would no about because there was no life. you are speaking of creating like in a lab in a short time, there could have been millions of years of chance failures until that one chance success happened and it stuck
edit on 1-3-2013 by jed001 because: whoops



posted on Mar, 2 2013 @ 10:37 AM
link   
reply to post by jed001
 


If you think about the singularity that expanded with a Big Bang.

The singularity must have had all the ingredients for life with in it. If you think about the expansion of our universe, it is quite lanyard/flat/straight line. There were no odds here at all. It was just a matter of time. The universe just had to expand and evolve enough first. Life has a specific place on a expansion time line. Life was never going to miss it. Because it never did. So there are noe odds or ifs to argue.

edit on 27.06.08 by spy66 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 13 2013 @ 10:27 AM
link   
reply to post by Seede
 



The bogus books I had referenced are the science books of creationists compared to the science books of the atheists. Some one is wrong and guess who the good ole boy network belongs to. The vast majority of scientists are atheists and you well know it. The club membership dictates what is taught and what is not taught and you well know this as a fact. Most all universities and science professors are atheists and that is also a fact.

I've been to lectures by folks from the ICR. They lied to me and the audience. They claimed that a photo showed a human sandal crushing a trilobite. They showed a blurry image and the speaker excused the use of a poor quality image in the show. The speaker promised to send the high quality image to anyone asking for it and promised that stitch marks were clearly visible. I have no idea what anyone would go out to a lecture with such a bad image,but I was willing to wait for the high quality image to be sent to me. The speaker sent me the same image and there are no visible stitch marks or anything else suggesting it was a sandal print. This was an obvious lie on the part of the speaker from the ICR. It turned out to be typical behavior.

The vast majority of scientists are like the vast majority of people. They are religious. They are not atheists. The vast majority of people are not actively religious and the same applies to subsets of the population including scientists.

There is the ridiculous claim that scientists promote the status quo and reject evidence. That is stated by all sorts of people with outrageous claims from "new agers" to "aliens are gods" promoters to the religious intolerants to psychics and expanding earthers, etc. If any of these people were to actually attend a scientific meeting they would see active discussions and proposals on all sorts of issues.

Some of the issues that have been hot in the scientific community include:
1. Do adults produce new neurons
2. Did particles travel faster than light
3. Is there a larger than Jupiter planet in the Oort cloud
4. Are birds evolved from dinosaurs
5. Does the Higgs boson exist
6. Was there a pole shift in the Cretaceous

This weeny list mentions a few items that leaked into the MSM. Science is a hot bed of new ideas and testing of those ideas. New information is discovered all of the time. There is no membership with restrictive teaching. You hear that sort of commentary from people whose ideas have been tested and discarded as wrong. Lots of things have been shown to be wrong and the notion that is creationism has been shown to be wrong countless times.

One of the few times I saw creationists doing actual science was them looking for human footprints in dinosaur tracks. This was done in Texas. They did not find any. Unfortunately, some zealous hoaxers did carve 5 perfect toes onto slide marks made by dinosaurs. This vandalism tricked no scientists, but did irreparable harm to the value of the tracks.


I am really surprised that you have not been taught that the universe is expanding and producing matter. This is not 2013 science but a hundred years old study that should have been in your science books from before you were thought of. Or was this information taken out of your science book?

Are you confusing the steady state theory with the big bang?


The universe is expanding and it must have some space to expand into.

That may not be correct. I believe that space expands. There is no need to have space to expand into.


Now concerning these scientists that I had referenced – Have you called them liars??? If you have then you should be ashamed of yourself. Have you noted that these three (of many more) are men of the highest honors in their fields and all hold Ph.D certification?

You refer to creation scientists. Do they actually do science? Do they collect evidence and construct a testable theory that is falsifiable? Do they test the theory? Are they willing to reject a theory if it is shown to be false?



posted on Apr, 5 2013 @ 09:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by ObservingTheWorld
Okay, I want to look at this from the creationist point of view. The Earth was created 6,000 years ago.


I have never seen this in the Bible. For some reason this is always brought up but I personally do not believe this and have not read it in Gods word. Can you point me to it? There is no possible way for us to comprehend in the first place how God thinks or how he calculates time anyhow, but for discussion sake can you tell me where this is in the Bible? Thank you.



posted on Apr, 5 2013 @ 10:30 PM
link   
reply to post by AllGloryIsGods
 


This comes from a study done by Bishop Ussher.
en.wikipedia.org...

Ussher deduced that the first day of creation began at nightfall preceding Sunday, October 23, 4004 BC, in the proleptic Julian calendar, near the autumnal equinox.



posted on Apr, 6 2013 @ 12:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by stereologist
reply to post by AllGloryIsGods
 


This comes from a study done by Bishop Ussher.
en.wikipedia.org...

Ussher deduced that the first day of creation began at nightfall preceding Sunday, October 23, 4004 BC, in the proleptic Julian calendar, near the autumnal equinox.




Thank you for answering my question. It appears what this is based on is the Second Epistle of Peter. When I find something that does not correlate with other scripture or what I feel in my heart I Google the book. For instance "Who wrote 2 Peter?". It will lead you to a wiki entry that will explain what you wish to know.




Although 2 Peter internally purports to be a work of the apostle, most biblical scholars have concluded that Peter is not the author and consider the epistle pseudepigraphical.



Also when put in context it appears he is speaking about Gods patience and not on literal terms. If I cannot cross reference something in the other scriptures, especially those I know were divinely inspired, I move on and choose not to believe it literally. Remember it is a testament it was not written by God himself. If it was it would be perfect. Man is not perfect and I am certain that when the Bible was being written they had no idea how we would interpret things today.

What I see from many people is they read something from a part of it such as this and take it literally and when its not true they choose not the believe the rest of the Bible. In fact a lot of the new testament was not written by the apostles themselves but followers of them or rather people they converted. The book of John is a good example. I see the entire Bible as a testament to what Gods law was before and what Jesus came to teach us. It is hard to explain. Mathew is another book that you should look to the source before you take literally.

It is apparent that people of the Jewish faith tried to insert things later on to combine the two faiths. Christianity and Judaism. I call myself a servant of God I choose no religion. I follow no man. As Jesus said do what they say not what they do. That should be self explanatory. I do not want to be associated with them because they do not do what they say. It gives the Bible a bad name and instills wrath in those it should convert. Christ opened the door for all, before it was not open to all.

I would caution any Christian, Jew, or Gentile who takes the Bible literally. Remember who it was written by. By man to the best of mans ability. We all fall short of the glory of God.



posted on Apr, 6 2013 @ 09:55 AM
link   
reply to post by AllGloryIsGods
 




I would caution any Christian, Jew, or Gentile who takes the Bible literally. Remember who it was written by. By man to the best of mans ability. We all fall short of the glory of God.


I don't need glory to be happy.



posted on Apr, 6 2013 @ 10:10 AM
link   
reply to post by ObservingTheWorld
 


Arguing against the creationist´s position that the earth is only 6000 years old is ridiculous.

Every half rational and sane human being knows that this is absolutely impossible.

We could start to argue with people who still think the world is flat (or hollow for that matter, but I don´t want to open another can of worms).

So I am sorry, but this is a waste of time. I don´t have to convince idiots. That is what they did for hundreds of years, trying to convince all the world that they (Christianity) are right. Even by force if necessary.

Let those fools believe what they want.



posted on Apr, 6 2013 @ 10:38 AM
link   
reply to post by ObservingTheWorld
 


I'm sorry but the bible does not teach that the earth is 6000 yrs old it is only one specific version of man that was traced back 6000 years old. Myself and many scholars on the subject accept that the Earth is millions of years old and there is a obviously a gap of time in scripture that is unimportant to the story and recordings of the Bible as a whole.

So it's like one huge straw-man. Do you research and you will find like someone else already mentioned in this thread that creationist do not agree on this stuff at all to start with. So ?? what gives? Why bother I mean? I believe in a Creator but I also believe in a certain aspect of evolution. I certainly don't disregard all of science but I can see how the information found in the bible can harmonize with science pretty well so long as you go back to the original language and find out exactly what they were saying. Many times that paints a entirely different picture for us.

My take on it and I'm just one among many I realize, but just to show you how much opinion can vary from one believer to another I share my version in short with you:

I say that the spiral of life the golden ration, the Fibonacci sequence is the manifestation of the very force that creates life. It is a much higher understanding of creation than science holds at least at this point in time. That spiral is found everywhere and considering the pattern and math behind it there can be hardly a doubt that there is some type of intelligence behind it. Thus the reason for all the humanoid life forms and not just "whacky" crazy looking aliens like one might expect if evolution were true in the way that science presents it.

So you see both the creationist AND the Science is an agreement and you are simply overlooking the mechanism that confirms this. In my humble opinion at least.

There is a good deal of anecdotal evidence to ponder on but certainly not the hard evidence many desire. That's why it's called "faith". Still how is it that people over look all the workings of our universe and our planet and body's that come together and form this incredible life and journey. Don't forget without the human mind or at least some type of brain and vision receptors the universe more or less doesn't even exist! At least not in the material form we think as to be real. Remember that inside atoms there is no matter to be found for the most part it's only empty space.

So it is with the entire universe until observed by some higher form of life that can "drop" the curve so to speak and kick-start reality. Also you have other little tidbits that give us hints to the reality of a living creator when you see things written in a 2000 year old ancient text that states "In the beginning was the word and the word was God" Translation: In the beginning was vibration and vibration is responsible for starting the process of creating or at the very least ordering or re-ordering the materials we see and call the material universe(and again this vibration follows the rules of the golden ration in ordering materials found in creation into a process to create life out of what ever materials that are around it at that present time).

Do you see how far removed my understanding of creation is from simple religious nonsense and how far removed it is also from the dogma of science alone? Balance is the key in this dualistic world we live in. Embrace it and it all goes so much smoother .. as far as understandings that is !


Peace,
-FG

edit on 4/6/2013 by firegoggles because: (no reason given)





top topics
 
4
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join