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 cannot be true

page: 6
13
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 6 2013 @ 02:02 PM
link   

edmc^2

Krazysh0t

edmc^2

Krazysh0t
reply to post by edmc^2
 


The book could easily have been the subject of confirmation bias. If you want to see divinity in a book that is divine, you will see it. Not to mention there is the centuries of oppression from the Catholic church and various inquisitions to stamp out any other religions. So if the ruling elite deem that the bible is divine, you will find some way to rationalize it so that some guy with a black hood over his face doesn't lock you in a dungeon and stick flaming pokers in your eyes. So the ruling elite have been converting by torture and ostracizing non-believers for centuries while repeating over and over again that the bible is divine. People grow up their whole lives hearing that the bible is divine, then tell their kids that. It is no surprise that it would be hard to look at the bible critically unless you decouple the divinity from the bible.

As to your comment about the bible addressing the beginning of the universe, that is easy to see. First off there are only two answers to this question. There either is a beginning or there isn't. So to start with, you have a 50/50 shot of being right. Second, EVERY religion has a creation story. So Christianity (or rather Judaism in this case) having a creation story isn't really that impressive since it is just going along with the crowd. Third, since infinity is so hard to understand for humans, it makes more sense that ancient humans would see a beginning and an end to the universe. The concept of infinity was lost on them.


Please stick to the topic - where did the writer of the Genesis got information from - in regards to the beginning of the Universe?




BTW - 50/50 chance of being right that the universe had a beginning or not is a very convenient way of not addressing the question.

But honestly, as a person of science as you claim to be - Are you really doubting that the Universe had a beginning - 13.7 billion years ago?

That all the findings gathered my men of science (NASA/Astrophysics/Cosmology) throughout the age of modern scientific knowledge are "bunk"?

If so, the earth must be 50/50 chance of being flat then using your analogy.


I think you may be misinterpreting what I said. All I'm suggesting with the 50/50 comment is that when pondering the question, "Did the universe have a beginning?" there are only two answers. Yes or No. Then I went on to say that due to all the other religions having a creation myth, it isn't surprising that Christianity has one too. You originally asked how this story could come about, and I was just outlining a few logical deductions that could help to give the backbone of the story. It doesn't take a huge stretch of the imagination to come to the things I said. I also NEVER suggested or hinted that I don't believe the universe has a beginning, I'm not sure why you keep saying that.


Please stick to the topic - where did the writer of the Genesis got information from - in regards to the beginning of the Universe?


The writer, most likely Moses, just jotted down what the Hebrew elders told him the story was. Before that it was passed down orally. Oral passing of stories opens doors for misinterpretations and leaving stuff out (which is probably how the contradictions I brought up in the OP came about). Not to mention if you, as the holder of the lore of your people, are the only one who knows these stories inside and out, you kind of have domain on what you tell your people since no one can confirm if that is the story or not.


No, I did not misinterpret what you said.

50/50 is an unsure answer. To me it's a YES. No doubt about it as indicated by all scientific findings. The universe had a beginning (13.7 billion years ago according to estimates). This is also born by the fact that the earth is around 4 billion years old - indicating a beginning. There's no if and buts or 50/50 chance.

Thus in this case - there's ONLY one answer:

The universe had a beginning.

NOT as you stated.


"there are only two answers"


Contradicting your next statement, namely:




I also NEVER suggested or hinted that I don't believe the universe has a beginning, I'm not sure why you keep saying that.


Now, why you're bringing in religion into this discussion, I'm not sure - but I have an idea.

As for the information about the beginning of the universe, sure, Moses was the writer and obviously got (some/many of) the information from his forefathers. But still, the question is - where did the space age information came from?

How is it possible that to have this information without the aid of modern science?

Did they just made it up?

Or did they guess it?

If so, how far reaching is their knowledge then?


Are you being deliberately obtuse or something? Your original question was how ancient man could come to the conclusion that the universe had a beginning without the aid of science. I RESPONDED by saying that it boils down to a 50/50 guess. Then I went on to say that other, older religions all had creation myths so it isn't surprising the ancient Hebrews would also make up their own creation myth.

However, NONE of this even remotely suggests what I believe on the matter. You seem to think that I am following the above logic to come to my own conclusion, but you NEVER asked what I thought on the matter so I wasn't answering that question. Seriously, you are misunderstanding what I'm typing. Go back and reread both of our posts again carefully.

Also what space age information did Moses' people have? They didn't have an exact age of the universe. Their text says the universe was made in 6 days and the seventh day is a day of rest. The only info they have is that the universe has a beginning, which I demonstrated how that guess was made.
edit on 6-12-2013 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)




posted on Dec, 6 2013 @ 02:04 PM
link   

Woodcarver
reply to post by mekhanics
 


Thats not a good metaphor because we know where dictionaries come from. In fact every example of a dictionary that we have, we know where it came from. That is very similar to the watchmaker story. It would be very odd indeed if something like that manifested on its own.

As for life? We know that it is self replicating some things dont even need a partner. Cells split and reproduce of thier own accord. It is a natural function of the chemistries involved. This is across the board with all forms of life.






Your body contains more than 100 trillion cells, some so small that one million of them brought together would fit on the tip of a needle. Despite this tiny size, however, the cell is considered by the scientific community as the most complex structure man has ever come across. Though many of its secrets have still not been unraveled, it forms the greatest impasse for evolutionary theory. The Russian evolutionist Alexander I. Oparin expresses this truth, which cannot be overlooked:

Unfortunately, however, the problem of the origin of the cell is perhaps the most obscure point in the whole study of the evolution of organisms.1

Another admission on this topic belongs to Professor Klaus Dose, the Director of the Institute for Biochemistry at Johannes Gutenburg University. In regard to the formation of the living cell, Dose has this to say:

In spite of many attempts, there have been no breakthroughs during the past 30 years to help to explain the origin of chilarity in living cells.2

1. NUCLEUS
All of the information pertaining to the human body is encoded here, in this DNA molecule.

2. ENDOPLASMIC RETICULUM
It isolates and transports proteins and other molecules.

3. MITOCHONDRIA
The cell's primary source of energy. The molecule ATP, vital for all body functions, is synthesized here.

4. CELL MEMBRANE
Semi-permeable, it controls the entry and exit of molecules.

5. CELL MEMBRANE GATES
They allow glucose and oxygen in, and transport synthesized protein and enzymes outside the cell.

Figure 1.2 Protein-producing ribosomes; energy-producing mitochondria; DNA, the central information bank; the endoplasmic reticulum that facilitates transport, the Golgi body that acts as a depot, the membrane which controls entry into and exit from the cell; all of the enzymes that have a duty in all reactions in the cell-with all of this planned, endless activity the cell operates like a perfectly run factory. Remember that the cell, harboring all of these processes, is a trillion times smaller than any factory.

With these words Dose admits that evolution cannot explain the origins of living things.



posted on Dec, 6 2013 @ 02:04 PM
link   
reply to post by mekhanics
 


Ben stien is such a putz. Dawkins is alluding to something similar to my earlier post, the actual story that is portrayed in genesis is one of alien interaction. (Which i do not accept). But stien finds a way to word mine and actually states "dawkins believes in creationism". Tactics like this are unforgivable. Dawkins obviously is humoring him and stien takes the opportunity to completely misquote him.

I cant tell what side your taking on that video.



posted on Dec, 6 2013 @ 02:07 PM
link   

Krazysh0t
reply to post by mekhanics
 


Did you just utilize the watchmaker fallacy for the creation of the universe? I mean if you follow the science it all makes sense. Everything starts out small then builds on itself as gases combine into stars who create heavier atoms and explode which combine to former more complex structures and so forth. It's not like the Big Bang happened and whole galaxies popped out fully formed or anything. Your analogy is terrible.
edit on 6-12-2013 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)


Watchmaker analogy Debunked

Stupid made-up analogy to belittle an opponent valid argument.
edit on 6-12-2013 by mekhanics because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 6 2013 @ 02:10 PM
link   
reply to post by mekhanics
 


Um... That link you just posted is proving my point that the analogy you originally made, the watchmaker analogy, is flawed. Did you actually read the article you posted, or are you just not sure which position you are arguing for?



posted on Dec, 6 2013 @ 02:11 PM
link   

Krazysh0t
reply to post by mekhanics
 


Um... That link you just posted is proving my point that the analogy you originally made, the watchmaker analogy, is flawed. Did you actually read the article you posted, or are you just not sure which position you are arguing for?


Nevermind. Drank too much beere.

I lost. You win.



posted on Dec, 6 2013 @ 02:11 PM
link   
reply to post by mekhanics
 


No worries. It happens to the best of us. Gave you a star for your trouble



posted on Dec, 6 2013 @ 02:13 PM
link   
reply to post by Krazysh0t
 


thanks bud. I'm off now



posted on Dec, 6 2013 @ 02:16 PM
link   
reply to post by mekhanics
 


I am still not sure what side your on. Are you familiar with Dr Craig Venter? He spearheaded the massive undertaking of sequencing the human genome. (And thousands of other animals and organisms). His presentations are amazing but they only touch the surface of what goes into the work that is performed by thousands of laboratories across the world. You would really have to have a working knowledge of molecular biology to dig into the meaning of what his work shows and how they come to the conclusions that they do. Very well worth the effort.



posted on Dec, 6 2013 @ 02:18 PM
link   
reply to post by Krazysh0t
 


I get it, you are obviously a very bright and educated person. I thought the point I was making was simple enough, but let me explain. The merit for your argument is that Triangulation is a plausible way to prove or disprove theories, and you believe that Triangulation has helped you disprove Creationism. I was merely pointing out the flaws in your logic- yet, you dance around the point and redirect it. This post is just as much about Triangulation as it is about Creationism. Being the case, I was accurately pointing out that Triangulation can only be used if you have two known points. Anything that happened beyond recorded history would be reliant on hearsay and conclusions, yet you even quite vehemently dispute one record of historical events.



posted on Dec, 6 2013 @ 02:30 PM
link   
reply to post by Krazysh0t
 


So if you're saying they've guessed it, are you admitting that they "guess" quite accurately then?

Is that a yes?

Thus, their "guess" is based on facts. Correct?

The universe had a beginning - was created!

That's an AMAZING guess considering the knowledge they have back then.

No telescopes, no satellites, no modern science.

Now, how many more "guesses" do you think they got right?

For instance, is this another "lucky guess"?

Job said this:



7 God stretched out the northern sky... and hung the earth in empty space. -- Job 26:7 GNB



"...hung the earth in EMPTY SPACE" - lucky guess again?

Satellites shows and confirmed that indeed the earth is suspended in empty space.



posted on Dec, 6 2013 @ 02:30 PM
link   

onthedownlow
reply to post by Krazysh0t
 


I get it, you are obviously a very bright and educated person. I thought the point I was making was simple enough, but let me explain. The merit for your argument is that Triangulation is a plausible way to prove or disprove theories, and you believe that Triangulation has helped you disprove Creationism. I was merely pointing out the flaws in your logic- yet, you dance around the point and redirect it. This post is just as much about Triangulation as it is about Creationism. Being the case, I was accurately pointing out that Triangulation can only be used if you have two known points. Anything that happened beyond recorded history would be reliant on hearsay and conclusions, yet you even quite vehemently dispute one record of historical events.


Fair enough. It was the first time I attempted to make a point from that angle which I learned in an advanced writing class in college. They can't all be winners
Maybe I shouldn't have focused so much of the OP on it and stuck to the legitimacy of the bible and the contradictions in the story.



posted on Dec, 6 2013 @ 02:35 PM
link   
reply to post by edmc^2
 


Well guessing correctly when the odds of doing so are 50% wouldn't be the most astounding guess in my book... If I were to ask you which team will win this Monday for MNF Dallas or Chicago and you ended up guessing correctly, should I form a religion around it or declare you a sage? No, of course not, it was just a lucky guess. Same thing here.

Also, space isn't empty.

Dust in Space


Space isn't empty. It's full of schmutz. As the Earth makes its annual journey around the sun, it collects about 40,000 tons (35,000 metric tons) of dust. Not to put too fine a point on it, but space is filthy.



posted on Dec, 6 2013 @ 02:59 PM
link   

Krazysh0t
reply to post by edmc^2
 


Well guessing correctly when the odds of doing so are 50% wouldn't be the most astounding guess in my book... If I were to ask you which team will win this Monday for MNF Dallas or Chicago and you ended up guessing correctly, should I form a religion around it or declare you a sage? No, of course not, it was just a lucky guess. Same thing here.

Also, space isn't empty.

Dust in Space


Space isn't empty. It's full of schmutz. As the Earth makes its annual journey around the sun, it collects about 40,000 tons (35,000 metric tons) of dust. Not to put too fine a point on it, but space is filthy.


"lucky guess" - so that's your line and defense and you're sticking to it, yes?

OK then, lets see how far you will take this "lucky guess" line.

Now using your analogy, put yourself in the past this time, about 3500 years in the past, then try to guess which NFL team will win the game this coming Monday. Can you accurately do it?

Remember, the book of Genesis (according to chronology) was written more than 3000 years ago by Moses. They didn't have the space age information we have today nor the instruments, yet their "guess" was 100% accurate - more than 3000 years later. And IS still 100% accurate.

Can you do the same?

But back to what Job said, was it also a lucky guess?

That the "earth is hanging in empty space"?

Now if your defense and explanation is that "space in not empty" - that's a lame attempt to avoid the question.

Why? Well how would you say the outer space appear through the naked eye?

Can you see this space "schmutz" of yours with just your naked eye?

Really?



posted on Dec, 6 2013 @ 03:06 PM
link   

edmc^2
reply to post by edmc^2
 

"lucky guess" - so that's your line and defense and you're sticking to it, yes?

OK then, lets see how far you will take this "lucky guess" line.

Now using your analogy, put yourself in the past this time, about 3500 years in the past, then try to guess which NFL team will win the game this coming Monday. Can you accurately do it?


Sure, the odds are still 50%. Just because I make the guess 3500 years prior to this one doesn't alter the odds any.


Remember, the book of Genesis (according to chronology) was written more than 3000 years ago by Moses. They didn't have the space age information we have today nor the instruments, yet their "guess" was 100% accurate - more than 3000 years later. And IS still 100% accurate.


The guess being "the universe was created," an easy guess to make with a 50/50 chance of being correct.


Can you do the same?

But back to what Job said, was it also a lucky guess?

That the "earth is hanging in empty space"?

Now if your defense and explanation is that "space in not empty" - that's a lame attempt to avoid the question.

Why? Well how would you say the outer space appear through the naked eye?

Can you see this space "schmutz" of yours with just your naked eye?

Really?


Invalid response, going by your logic you could say that the sky is empty too since you cannot see the air, however we know that the sky is made up of many different gases of varying compositions. Just because you cannot see it, doesn't mean it isn't there. Even IF you dismiss the tiny dust particles in space, there are also stars, other planets, asteroids, comets, and a whole slew of other things out in space. Space isn't empty. Job isn't even remotely correct.

I notice when science confirms the guess the bible makes then it is divinely inspired, but when the guess isn't correct, you come up with some technicality why it is still a good guess. You cannot have it both ways.

ETA: one more thing, comets bisect the earth orbit on a regular basis. That is where meteor showers come from. Therefore, in these cases, Earth inhabits a section of space that is clearly NOT empty.
edit on 6-12-2013 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 6 2013 @ 03:24 PM
link   
reply to post by Krazysh0t
 


So, based on what your saying, if you were living 3000 years ago, you could have guessed exactly was Moses wrote. Correct?

No need for scientific knowledge, space age technology, just plain old guess, will do.

This means then that your knowledge is way advance than the people 200 years ago. Just like Moses.

Interesting.



Invalid response, going by your logic you could say that the sky is empty too since you cannot see the air, however we know that the sky is made up of many different gases of varying compositions. Just because you cannot see it, doesn't mean it isn't there. Even IF you dismiss the tiny dust particles in space, there are also stars, other planets, asteroids, comets, and a whole slew of other things out in space. Space isn't empty. Job isn't even remotely correct.

I notice when science confirms the guess the bible makes then it is divinely inspired, but when the guess isn't correct, you come up with some technicality why it is still a good guess. You cannot have it both ways.


Again, with the naked eye, how does outer space look like - especially at night?

How would it looked like from the vantage point of a person (a nomad) living 3000 years ago - with no knowledge of tiny space particles?

Let me add this:

How would it appear when there are no visible stars in a moonless night.

Note:

let me clarify - moonless means NOT visible to the naked eye. starless night.



edit on 6-12-2013 by edmc^2 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 6 2013 @ 03:37 PM
link   

edmc^2
reply to post by Krazysh0t
 


So, based on what your saying, if you were living 3000 years ago, you could have guessed exactly was Moses wrote. Correct?

No need for scientific knowledge, space age technology, just plain old guess, will do.

This means then that your knowledge is way advance than the people 200 years ago. Just like Moses.

Interesting.


The ONLY knowledge that Moses got correct was that the universe was created. Everything else about the story is still up for debate. So, yes I can easily make the same EXACT guess given the same EXACT amount of knowledge Moses possessed. You don't need to be a scientist to make a guess, especially one that has a 50% chance of being correct. I'm really not sure why you are putting so much emphasis on a guess that any drunken bum off the street could make.


Again, with the naked eye, how does outer space look like - especially at night?

How would it looked like from the vantage point of a person (a nomad) living 3000 years ago - with no knowledge of tiny space particles?




Again, you are putting emphasis on how Moses' guess is supposedly 100% and this is just amazing, but when I post proof that Job's guess isn't even remotely true, but kind of looks true based on visual acuity, it is still miraculous. In fact, you cannot even call it a guess anymore, just description based off of what the ancients believed was in space around them. You praise Moses for making a correct guess without having all the knowledge at hand (I must stress again, 50% chance), then rationalize why when Job makes his guess, it is ok for him to be wrong. The fact of the matter is, that Job is wrong. I'm sure if science had come out and confirmed that there weren't tiny dust particles floating around in space, you'd be beating me over the head with that info.



posted on Dec, 6 2013 @ 04:23 PM
link   
reply to post by Woodcarver
 





There are also about 100 other similar comparisons taken from other beliefs like mithraism, budhism, zooroastra, sumerian cuniform, the epic of gilgamesh, the baghavad gita, egyptian ( isis, osirus, horus)
I can really go on and on. In fact when you lay these stories out you can plainly see the chronology and evolution of these stories and why and how the bible was edited by the catholic church (universal church) to reach the broodest market. Even taking over the pagan holidays now littered with christian theology. (Ever wonder what trees have to do with christmas? Or rabbits have to do with the story of christs rebirth?)

I dont mean to pick on you but it seems you have taken a lot for granted and have accepted a lot with out enough research of your own. The truth is there is no magic, only things that we dont understand yet. There is no such thing as supernatural, as soon as something "supernatural is experienced in this physical world you could no longer consider apart from this natural world so the word itself is a misnomer.


So basically you cannot show me where it's "copied" word for word. I didn't think you could because I have said, I've done my homework. They can be found to be similar. At that, I say.. who cares.

Taken what for granted? lol Seriously?

You see no magic, I see it. You experience no magic, I experience it. Which of us is right? Neither here nor there really. My experiences are not for you and the same can be said for yours. Why can you not except that?

If there were no such thing as supernatural then the word is for what? The people who experience the supernatural are said to be?? Liars? lol Give me a break. Pick all you want, doesn't bother me. I find you quite entertaining to my logic.

The Earth spinning at the rate it does in space is in my opinion.. supernatural.



posted on Dec, 6 2013 @ 04:54 PM
link   

Krazysh0t
reply to post by borntowatch
 


Apparently you need reading comprehension classes because I even acknowledged in the OP that there could be two ways to interpret the creation story, so really stop telling me what I do and don't understand. I think I can figure that out for myself.


So you agree, creationists criticise the creation account, well done.
Now can you agree that creation is a faith

Can you understand that faith cant be proven, then can you understand that the responsibility of the evolutionist, big banger is to prove their respective theory, scientifically

Prove it beyond doubt, scientifically and you and the atheists win the argument
You dont have the truth, only assumptions, most of those assumptions have little or no evidence.

Your whole argument is flawed.



posted on Dec, 6 2013 @ 04:58 PM
link   
reply to post by Krazysh0t
 


U said:



The ONLY knowledge that Moses got correct was that the universe was created. Everything else about the story is still up for debate. So, yes I can easily make the same EXACT guess given the same EXACT amount of knowledge Moses possessed. You don't need to be a scientist to make a guess, especially one that has a 50% chance of being correct. I'm really not sure why you are putting so much emphasis on a guess that any drunken bum off the street could make.


Now this tells me that you're not a serious Bible student since you know not what you're talking about.




The ONLY knowledge that Moses got correct was that the universe was created.


To the contrary, he wrote many more facts that are scientifically verifiable. In fact, man's scientific knowledge today, although advanced due to ever advancing education and amazing instruments is quite simply trying to catch up with what the Bible writers knew long time ago.

Fact is, Moses wrote the book of Job, containing the words of Job stating that the earth is "hanging upon empty space".

Here's another:

According to The World Book Encyclopedia, 1987, Vol. 9, p. 227)


“The best informed medical researchers now doing the best work are arriving at the conclusion that the Bible is a very accurate scientific book. . . . The facts of life, diagnosis, treatment, and preventive medicine as given in the Bible are far more advanced and reliable than the theories of Hippocrates, many still unproven, and some found to be grossly inaccurate.”—Dr. H. O. Philips, in a letter to The AMA [American Medical Association] News, published in its issue of July 10, 1967.


The statement made by AMA is still 100% accurate today.

Any idea who they are referring to?

As for this:




Again, you are putting emphasis on how Moses' guess is supposedly 100% and this is just amazing, but when I post proof that Job's guess isn't even remotely true, but kind of looks true based on visual acuity, it is still miraculous. In fact, you cannot even call it a guess anymore, just description based off of what the ancients believed was in space around them. You praise Moses for making a correct guess without having all the knowledge at hand (I must stress again, 50% chance), then rationalize why when Job makes his guess, it is ok for him to be wrong. The fact of the matter is, that Job is wrong. I'm sure if science had come out and confirmed that there weren't tiny dust particles floating around in space, you'd be beating me over the head with that info.



Correction - it's NOT "supposedly 100%" accurate - but verifiably 100% accurate!

Again, before you say one more time that "The fact of the matter is, that Job is wrong", answer please this simple question that I'm asking:

...with the naked eye, how does outer space look like - especially at night?

How would outer space looked like from the vantage point of a person (a nomad) living 3000 years ago - with no knowledge of tiny space particles or space age education?






edit on 6-12-2013 by edmc^2 because: accurate



new topics

top topics



 
13
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join