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.
bbracken677
Grimpachi
ketsuko
ArtemisE
reply to post by yuppa
Science has no clue if there's an afterlife. But they have discovered that the earth isn't 7000 years old. That the creation story isn't the correct sequence of events. The flood myth was obviously stolen ( or borrowed, didn't mean stolen as a bad thing.) from the sumarians. All while we can use Hubble to watch new solar systems and planets form just the way science predicted. There was even a court battle over weather ID and creationism was science... Guess what it isn't. If creationism was true. Then gene theropy and cloning wouldn't work, but it does. Science hasn't disproved all of religion..yet. But as tech has advanced. We're constantly debunking creation type myths. That's the problem with the evangelical scientists. The latch on to something unknown and say its proof of religion. Ignoring the things that wouldn't work if there theory was applied to the rest of the world.
You know what?
All of your diatribe has just disproved a bunch of humans ... not God.
His "diatribe " wasn't aimed at God it was aimed at religion. It certainly disproved a religion.
The idea of God and the constructs of religion are not the same thing nor are they interchangeable.
I like how those supporting science like to use 20th century science against 17 century religious dogma (7k year old earth) and then cheer..?? Seems rather weird to me.
Regarding Artemes's reply regarding the sequence of creation in Genesis...it is in the correct order of events, both cosmologically as well as evolutionary. And this is a book that is how many thousands of years old? Just a few hundred years ago scientists thought the earth was flat.
Seems that you are taking to task a multi-millenia old book for not getting it just right vs 21st century science. hmmm.
I, for one, think they got it just right sequentially. Oddly right.
ArtemisE
reply to post by bbracken677
It's in order if you consider this an analogy for that and so forth. Either the bible is mans attempt to explain what at the time was unexplainable or it's a divinely written text that should be infallible. If let there be light is an analogy for the Big Bang. Then wouldn't that insinuate all the stories are analogies instead of hard historical fact?
Grimpachi
bbracken677
Grimpachi
ketsuko
ArtemisE
reply to post by yuppa
Science has no clue if there's an afterlife. But they have discovered that the earth isn't 7000 years old. That the creation story isn't the correct sequence of events. The flood myth was obviously stolen ( or borrowed, didn't mean stolen as a bad thing.) from the sumarians. All while we can use Hubble to watch new solar systems and planets form just the way science predicted. There was even a court battle over weather ID and creationism was science... Guess what it isn't. If creationism was true. Then gene theropy and cloning wouldn't work, but it does. Science hasn't disproved all of religion..yet. But as tech has advanced. We're constantly debunking creation type myths. That's the problem with the evangelical scientists. The latch on to something unknown and say its proof of religion. Ignoring the things that wouldn't work if there theory was applied to the rest of the world.
You know what?
All of your diatribe has just disproved a bunch of humans ... not God.
His "diatribe " wasn't aimed at God it was aimed at religion. It certainly disproved a religion.
The idea of God and the constructs of religion are not the same thing nor are they interchangeable.
I like how those supporting science like to use 20th century science against 17 century religious dogma (7k year old earth) and then cheer..?? Seems rather weird to me.
Regarding Artemes's reply regarding the sequence of creation in Genesis...it is in the correct order of events, both cosmologically as well as evolutionary. And this is a book that is how many thousands of years old? Just a few hundred years ago scientists thought the earth was flat.
Seems that you are taking to task a multi-millenia old book for not getting it just right vs 21st century science. hmmm.
I, for one, think they got it just right sequentially. Oddly right.
First of all genesis is scientifically impossible. Big problem having earth and living organisims before the sun and stars. Another big problem is light speed theory once you start thinking about the time it takes for light to travel through space to reach us. So no the genesis story is incorrect no matter how it is spun or interpreteded.
.edit on 23-2-2014 by Grimpachi because: (no reason given)
bbracken677
Grimpachi
bbracken677
Grimpachi
ketsuko
ArtemisE
reply to post by yuppa
Science has no clue if there's an afterlife. But they have discovered that the earth isn't 7000 years old. That the creation story isn't the correct sequence of events. The flood myth was obviously stolen ( or borrowed, didn't mean stolen as a bad thing.) from the sumarians. All while we can use Hubble to watch new solar systems and planets form just the way science predicted. There was even a court battle over weather ID and creationism was science... Guess what it isn't. If creationism was true. Then gene theropy and cloning wouldn't work, but it does. Science hasn't disproved all of religion..yet. But as tech has advanced. We're constantly debunking creation type myths. That's the problem with the evangelical scientists. The latch on to something unknown and say its proof of religion. Ignoring the things that wouldn't work if there theory was applied to the rest of the world.
You know what?
All of your diatribe has just disproved a bunch of humans ... not God.
His "diatribe " wasn't aimed at God it was aimed at religion. It certainly disproved a religion.
The idea of God and the constructs of religion are not the same thing nor are they interchangeable.
I like how those supporting science like to use 20th century science against 17 century religious dogma (7k year old earth) and then cheer..?? Seems rather weird to me.
Regarding Artemes's reply regarding the sequence of creation in Genesis...it is in the correct order of events, both cosmologically as well as evolutionary. And this is a book that is how many thousands of years old? Just a few hundred years ago scientists thought the earth was flat.
Seems that you are taking to task a multi-millenia old book for not getting it just right vs 21st century science. hmmm.
I, for one, think they got it just right sequentially. Oddly right.
First of all genesis is scientifically impossible. Big problem having earth and living organisims before the sun and stars. Another big problem is light speed theory once you start thinking about the time it takes for light to travel through space to reach us. So no the genesis story is incorrect no matter how it is spun or interpreteded.
.edit on 23-2-2014 by Grimpachi because: (no reason given)
This is totally bogus. Seems clear that you have never actually read Genesis.
1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
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.
1:3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
1:4 And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.
1:5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.
1:6 And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.
1:7 And God made the firmament and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so.
1:8 And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.
1:9 And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so.
1:10 And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good.
1:11 And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.
1:12 And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
1:13 And the evening and the morning were the third day.
1:14 And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:
1:15 And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.
1:16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.
1:17 And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,
1:18 And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good.
1:19 And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.
1:20 And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.
1:21 And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forthabundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
1:22 And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth.
1:23 And the evening and the morning were the fifth day.
1:24 And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.
1:25 And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
1:27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
1:28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.
1:29 And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat. (1:30) To every beast ... I have given every green herb for meat.
All animals were originally herbivores. Tapeworms, vampire bats, mosquitoes, and barracudas -- all were strict vegetarians, as created by God.
(1:31) Behold, it was very good.
God purposefully designed a system that ensures the suffering and death of all his creatures, parasite and host, predator and prey.
1:30 And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so.
1:31 And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.
7th day concludes at start of Genesis 2 -
2:1 Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them.
2:2 And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made.
2:3 And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made.
Please quit with the attacks.
IMHO you have science on your side you don't need attacks.
Use facts and reason or don't reply to them... People attack when they get logic trapped. Which looks like you feel like your losing.
yuppa
reply to post by olaru12
LEt me ask you a counter question instead. Is Science unquestionable?
Grimpachi
bbracken677
Grimpachi
bbracken677
Grimpachi
ketsuko
ArtemisE
reply to post by yuppa
Science has no clue if there's an afterlife. But they have discovered that the earth isn't 7000 years old. That the creation story isn't the correct sequence of events. The flood myth was obviously stolen ( or borrowed, didn't mean stolen as a bad thing.) from the sumarians. All while we can use Hubble to watch new solar systems and planets form just the way science predicted. There was even a court battle over weather ID and creationism was science... Guess what it isn't. If creationism was true. Then gene theropy and cloning wouldn't work, but it does. Science hasn't disproved all of religion..yet. But as tech has advanced. We're constantly debunking creation type myths. That's the problem with the evangelical scientists. The latch on to something unknown and say its proof of religion. Ignoring the things that wouldn't work if there theory was applied to the rest of the world.
You know what?
All of your diatribe has just disproved a bunch of humans ... not God.
His "diatribe " wasn't aimed at God it was aimed at religion. It certainly disproved a religion.
The idea of God and the constructs of religion are not the same thing nor are they interchangeable.
I like how those supporting science like to use 20th century science against 17 century religious dogma (7k year old earth) and then cheer..?? Seems rather weird to me.
Regarding Artemes's reply regarding the sequence of creation in Genesis...it is in the correct order of events, both cosmologically as well as evolutionary. And this is a book that is how many thousands of years old? Just a few hundred years ago scientists thought the earth was flat.
Seems that you are taking to task a multi-millenia old book for not getting it just right vs 21st century science. hmmm.
I, for one, think they got it just right sequentially. Oddly right.
First of all genesis is scientifically impossible. Big problem having earth and living organisims before the sun and stars. Another big problem is light speed theory once you start thinking about the time it takes for light to travel through space to reach us. So no the genesis story is incorrect no matter how it is spun or interpreteded.
.edit on 23-2-2014 by Grimpachi because: (no reason given)
This is totally bogus. Seems clear that you have never actually read Genesis.
Seems pretty clear you don't read these threads.
Jump in here on the discussion of genesis impossibility
There is also a thread that shows light speed theory debunks the creation story. Just use your search engine.
As of today the creation story has probably been debunked yet another way. The bible creation story is no better than the Sumerian creation story or the Aztec creation story. They are all full of holes and inconsistencies there is only one reason why people try to defend the bibles creation story and it isn't because of its accuracy.
bbracken677
I have seen so much bigotry here, so much closed minded thinking, so much intolerance that it makes me want to puke.
I do not know, nor do I care what the pertinent parts of any of the theories are,
Grimpachi
reply to post by bbracken677
I do not know, nor do I care what the pertinent parts of any of the theories are,
OK in other words no need to use science. Which has been my whole point that scientifically Genisis is BS.
But you don't give a damn.
I don't give a damn if you think I read genesis either it is not something I can prove here. But I will say it read like a story should and even contradicts itself. If you would like to debate it line by line I have already provided you a link to do so.
BTW I have never claimed to be a progressive thinker but I do claim to be a free thinker that is not bound by a dogmatic closed minded religion that denies evidence to the contrary of said religion at every turn.
I made a comment that Genesis was (let me quote myself here) "Oddly close" to modern theories.
How, assuming you have any modicum of reading comprehension, do you interpret that?
It's called freedom.
Grimpachi
Honestly I couldn't care less if ....
reply to post by ReturnofTheSonOfNothing
Text Let's focus on Genesis 1 for now. Genesis 2 has a completely different and contradictory creation story.
olaru12
yuppa
reply to post by olaru12
LEt me ask you a counter question instead. Is Science unquestionable?
Ever heard of the scientific method? Of course science is questionable. The whole concept of denying ignorance and verification thru repeated experimentation and questioning the results.
teacher.nsrl.rochester.edu...
Now if religion could follow the same methods instead of just acting on "faith"....we might get somewhere.
I have no problem with people exercising their "faith" until it gets discriminatory, holier than thou and a method for control freaks to exercise their arrogance.
Need to feel special and one of the chosen? fine....keep it to yourself!!edit on 23-2-2014 by olaru12 because: (no reason given)