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.

 

Young Universe Creationism Verses Old Universe Creation

page: 2
5
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 8 2013 @ 07:41 PM
link   
Lucid Lunacy
reply to post by vethumanbeing
 



VeteranHumanBeing(why dont 350 million year old Shark species rule the earth-you would think in that time frame would have evolved).



Lucid Lunacy
You're thinking in terms of 'human evolution' being the purpose of evolution. That if they evolved as much as us they would be zipping around in ferraris too. Sharks are highly evolved for their environment. They do rule the Earth, they just do so in the water as apex predators.


Not so much as the 'chief prime preditor' that floats above; Mako sharks are very tasty (they eat swordfish and so its flesh tastes of it; faux swordfish/mako actually in sneaky marketplaces). Hasnt quite figured the human out enough to evade its preditory process the "eat or be eaten" Darwinistic model. Actually, the tuna is right up there with sharks as major predators, unfortunatley; the human likes the taste of their flesh as well. So you are saying that the human in a perfect environment will not evolve, give or take 350 million years, or the shark has somehow escaped enropy/the self destruction of its own specie? We should take notes send an email, and find out how this has occured/this particular preservation of a specie (I have a feeling its due to its pelagic gypsy like nature/traveling patterns).


edit on 8-12-2013 by vethumanbeing because: (no reason given)




posted on Dec, 9 2013 @ 12:23 AM
link   
reply to post by Blue_Jay33
 



The bible wasn't written by Christians


Really, who were all those guys who wrote the New Testament ?
They were followers of Christ, born into Judaism but ALL converts to Christianity. And if the scriptures written in the old testament about creation were false Jesus would have said something, because he was there and heavily involved in creation. He would have corrected the narrative that we have today. He didn't and it stands as is.


There is multiple problems here. I'll focus on one.

You're saying Jesus didn't say anything negative towards OT etc, and therefore it was all good. Okay
Let's work under that premise. The idea Jesus verbally guided the way Christianity should be.

The Bible itself was formed long after Jesus and his Apostles died. 300 some years later by the Roman Empire via a series of council meetings. They picked and chose what would make it in the Bible Christians use today. In other words, a multitude of texts 'Christians' were reading and using (that as you say Christ gave thumbs up to) were omitted entirely from the this Bible.

So when is Jesus going to correct the narrative that was altered after he died?

Let me take a stab since I've heard the rebuttal multiple times. Those Roman council men were 'inspired' by Jesus from the netherworld.

That's the problem with discussing this stuff. No matter how many logical holes there are, there is some metaphysical reconciliation from the faithful.



posted on Dec, 9 2013 @ 01:28 AM
link   
reply to post by Lucid Lunacy
 





Let me take a stab since I've heard the rebuttal multiple times. Those Roman council men were 'inspired' by Jesus from the netherworld.


Nope, the apostasy from true Christianity had already begun, the bible was completed in the 1st century.
And from there things went downhill as predicted. The last person inspired was the Apostle Paul, the Roman Councils that came after him were not.



posted on Dec, 9 2013 @ 01:50 AM
link   
reply to post by Blue_Jay33
 



the bible was completed in the 1st century.


The canonical Bible, the one Christians use today, began its formation starting in 325 AD.

First Council of Nicea

Also the last book of the New Testament wasn't written until around 150 AD.

As for the 'true' Christians and the 'true' interpretations and yadda yadda. Again, something everyone claims on nothing but faith.

I'd have to have faith to believe your word over the countless others. Which I don't.



posted on Dec, 9 2013 @ 05:27 AM
link   

Blue_Jay33
Nope, the apostasy from true Christianity had already begun, the bible was completed in the 1st century.


This statement has no basis in historical fact, the oldest complete Bibles (old and new testament) date to (at best) the late 3rd, early 4th centuries. That is a 200+ year gap that has no physical evidence to support your claim.




edit on 9-12-2013 by AugustusMasonicus because: networkdude has no beer



posted on Dec, 9 2013 @ 06:53 AM
link   
It never fails to amaze me that people could believe such a fairy tale.

Nice documentary about Rosetta Stone (Stone used to decipher Ancient Hieroglyphs) how dangerous and un-scientific religious groups are. Because deciphering hieroglyphs could mean records that could date before 'world start' date by Bible, they saw it as possibly dangerous and tried to stop it and discredit everyone involved.

Thankfully, today this is just as plague quarantined and only few believe this non-sense.




Father George Coyne, former director of the Vatican Observatory, commenting that all of the scriptures are written around/between 2000 BC and 150 AD, and modern science has only come into existence in the last couple hundred years, and thus the scriptures in no way contain any science and should not be taught as such.

*From YouTube video description



posted on Dec, 9 2013 @ 07:54 AM
link   
reply to post by Blue_Jay33
 


Search polonium halos and you'll find the YEC crowd.



posted on Dec, 9 2013 @ 10:32 AM
link   
reply to post by Lucid Lunacy
 


I guess we are both correct in a way, the bible put together as a whole, we at talking Genesis to Revelation did come later. But perhaps I wasn't clear in my post, the writings were completed individually in the later half of the 1st century, and I made a mistake when I said Paul was the last, it was John who wrote the last books of the bible just before he died around 100 AD.
Anyways Jesus does reference's the creation in Matthew 19:4



"Haven't you read the Scriptures?" Jesus replied. "They record that from the beginning 'God made them male and female.'



posted on Dec, 9 2013 @ 06:46 PM
link   
reply to post by Blue_Jay33
 


Okay let's say it was all written prior to 100 AD. Doesn't change my point.

If as you say the council men were not 'inspired', why then do Christians use a Bible that's not inspired? Also, since you say the narrative (Jesus's narrative) hasn't changed, how is that accurate considering most of Christendom uses this Bible that, again, you say was not inspired.



posted on Dec, 10 2013 @ 01:07 PM
link   
reply to post by Lucid Lunacy
 



What 'inspired' means and how do you recognize 'inspired' work?

Is Book of Mormons inspired?

Please help me understand as I have few question about certain part of 'inspiration'....



posted on Dec, 10 2013 @ 05:57 PM
link   
reply to post by SuperFrog
 


Did you read all those posts? Not an accusation just making sure you know the flow of the conversation.

Personally I don't believe any holy texts or bibles are inspired. From any religion. I don't believe a Creator God has intervened in this way…. at the very least not in these books.

The idea being discussed is that the collection of early Christian writings were inspired by divinity itself. A member said Christ even guided literally while he was alive (by not dismissing OT, etc) the direction Christianity should take. This member doesn't believe the men that formed the Bible were inspired (nor do I). That's a problem though. If all those texts were inspired, then obviously the Romans omitting them was not in the divine game plan. Christ's aka God's 'narrative', that being the case, changed when the Bible was made.

I was interested in how that was reconciled. Those Roman men were inspired after all, and God changed his mind about prior texts of his? So much for omnipotence and omniscience then.
edit on 10-12-2013 by Lucid Lunacy because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 10 2013 @ 09:28 PM
link   
To be more on topic here was one guy's effort to figure out how many Christians were YEC (Young Earth Creationists).

how-many-christians-are-young-earth-cr eationists





The idea I guess was that if would follow those that believed the bible was the literal word of god in every way would also be a YEC.

According to Wiki:


Since 1982, between 40% and 50% of adults in the United States say they hold the creationist view that "God created humans in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years" when Gallup asked for their views on the origin and development of human beings. A 2011 Gallup survey reports that 30% of U.S. adults say they interpret the Bible literally.


Wiki: Young_Earth_creationism

So is it more or less accurate to correlate literal interpretation of the Bible with YEC?

2 Peter 3:8 But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day.

Is that combined with god making the World in 6 days (plus 1 day of 'resting') what forms the literal basis for YEC?
edit on 10-12-2013 by Lucid Lunacy because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 11 2013 @ 09:26 PM
link   
But there is a huge difference between this Universe, our Sun, and the Earth and all the life on it except man created around 10,000 years ago, or just humans. Science can support the latter, clearly it does not support the other.



posted on Dec, 11 2013 @ 09:59 PM
link   
reply to post by Blue_Jay33
 


Which part of that were you saying science does or doesn't support. Can you paraphrase? I'm not sure I followed all of that.



posted on Dec, 12 2013 @ 09:00 AM
link   
reply to post by Lucid Lunacy
 


The universe, sun, and earth created within the last 10,000 years is not possible, and God didn't do it that fast.



posted on Dec, 12 2013 @ 09:28 AM
link   

Blue_Jay33
Fundamentalists of Christendom teach that the universe, including our earth
and all life on it, is only a few thousand years old. Those who teach this doctrine—
known as creationism—may have high regard for the Bible, but they contend that God created all
things in six days just a few thousand years ago.
They reject credible scientific evidence that contradicts their view.
As a result, the teaching of creationism actually discredits the Bible, making it appear unreasonable and inaccurate. Individuals who promote such views might remind us of some in the first century who had a
zeal for God “but not according to accurate knowledge.”
(Rom. 10:2)

Genesis 1:1 covers way more than what creationism claims, it covers everything right until God began to work on the planet earth that had already existed for eons.


In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

Something as simple as light from stars arriving at our planet millions of light years away disprove the young universe belief/theory as wrong.

Of coarse non-believers don't have to be convinced of this, this is more for believers that still cling to the young Universe idea.



I don't have all the answers, but there is a very simple solution to this conundrum. Did God create Adam as a baby? Did God create Eve as a baby? As an embryo? If you were able to age test Adam one day after he was created would the results show that he was one day old? No, no, and no. So why is it assumed God created a rock that would carbon test at one day old? If he created Adam as an adult why could the earth not have been created as an "adult"? If you believe God created everything, including Adam as an adult, why could you not believe he created a rock that was a million years old? If you don't believe God created everything then obviously this thread doesn't matter to you.



posted on Dec, 12 2013 @ 01:13 PM
link   
reply to post by Lucid Lunacy
 

Reason why I ask what 'inspired' mean:

in·spired (n-sprd)
adj.
Of such surpassing brilliance or excellence as to suggest divine inspiration: an inspired musician; an inspired performance.

in·spired·ly (-sprd-l, -sprdl) adv.
inspired [ɪnˈspaɪəd]
adj
1. aroused or guided by or as if aroused or guided by divine inspiration an inspired performance she was like one inspired
2. extremely accurate or apt but based on intuition rather than knowledge or logical deduction an inspired guess



As showed in this definition from TFD - inspired also means extremely accurate...
and if that is true, we still live in geocentric universe.


Yes, I have read discussion so far, but nothing new - people trying to prove bible story true by quoting bible... nothing new...



posted on Dec, 12 2013 @ 08:39 PM
link   
reply to post by jjkenobi
 


What you say makes no sense to me because you are talking biological life verses inanimate matter.
Why would he make the Universe to only look like it was created billions of years ago ?
He isn't trying to trick us.



posted on Dec, 12 2013 @ 08:56 PM
link   

Blue_Jay33
reply to post by jjkenobi
 


What you say makes no sense to me because you are talking biological life verses inanimate matter.
Why would he make the Universe to only look like it was created billions of years ago ?
He isn't trying to trick us.



After having sat through lectures from YEC's, that is the very thing they use to discredit the fossil record, "The Lord put them them their to trick us"



posted on Dec, 12 2013 @ 11:10 PM
link   

BubbaJoe

Blue_Jay33
reply to post by jjkenobi
 


What you say makes no sense to me because you are talking biological life verses inanimate matter.
Why would he make the Universe to only look like it was created billions of years ago ?
He isn't trying to trick us.



After having sat through lectures from YEC's, that is the very thing they use to discredit the fossil record, "The Lord put them them their to trick us"


If that is the way they want to explain the dinosaur bones, and yes I have heard that too, but it is so laughable, another version is "the devil put them them there to trick us". It gives otherwise intelligent Christians a bad rep, but then again they are doing it to themselves.




top topics



 
5
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join