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.
Originally posted by teamcommander
reply to post by EnochWasRight
I can only post here, the same response which I have posted on another such thread.
I would like to ask for some one to explain the difference in two phrases which I hear a lot.
1. The Bible is the "inspired" word of God, written by men of faith.
2. The theory of evolution is "conjecture" based upon acceptable evidence of the changes in organisms over time.
I am not asking for some ones "belief" in the validity of either. I am interested only in the differences in the two statements.
Originally posted by JameSimon
Oh god (pun intended), another criationist thread. Please stop this nonsense of "proof". How can you disprove every scientist with podcasts, numeral and word plays?
Originally posted by JameSimon
Oh god (pun intended), another criationist thread. Please stop this nonsense of "proof". How can you disprove every scientist with podcasts, numeral and word plays?
Originally posted by spy66
I think this is a very interesting read.
I am going to spend some time on this before i start to judge.
Originally posted by ProfessorChaos
Originally posted by JameSimon
Oh god (pun intended), another criationist thread. Please stop this nonsense of "proof". How can you disprove every scientist with podcasts, numeral and word plays?
For every anti faith thread on this site, there's bound to be a pro faith thread, and there's a LOT of each.
I used to love reading these types of threads here, but it's gotten to the point that now I just roll my eyes at each "Proof of God" and "Proof of no God" thread that pops up.
The real irony is that there is no proof whatsoever for either stance.
Originally posted by intrptr
How did life get here?
Originally posted by EnochWasRight
In physics, the strong nuclear forces is the Proton (+) and Neutron (-).
Originally posted by superman2012
reply to post by EnochWasRight
At each point that we (human intellect) find something we think is 100% true, there are always loopholes out of that truth.
Including belief in an antiquated system that keeps us in line by scaring us with the man in the sky?
Originally posted by EnochWasRight
Originally posted by superman2012
reply to post by EnochWasRight
At each point that we (human intellect) find something we think is 100% true, there are always loopholes out of that truth.
Including belief in an antiquated system that keeps us in line by scaring us with the man in the sky?
I will only point out that Ad Hominem can be against God as well. The Bible continues to stand against our reasoning of it. Why? Again, physics is the answer. God is the Father (Strong House) and the strength of the house (our reality) comes from invariable symmetry. You and I are variables. Of course, we are not going to be willing to bend the angle of heel to God. If you look up what I mean by 'angle of heel,' you will see another profound mystery.
The heel is on either side of the loaf of bread.
1 Cor 10
16 Is not the cup of thanksgiving for which we give thanks a participation in the blood of Christ? And is not the bread that we break a participation in the body of Christ? 17 Because there is one loaf, we, who are many, are one body, for we all share the one loaf.
The heel crushes the head. Heel is a change of authority, like when we tell a dog to heel. You are complaining about being heeled. This is natural. Electrons do not follow invariant symmetry. We are ALL electrons by comparison.
Genesis 3
“Cursed are you above all livestock
and all wild animals!
You will crawl on your belly
and you will eat dust
all the days of your life.
15 And I will put enmity
between you and the woman,
and between your offspring[a] and hers;
he will crush your head,
and you will strike his heel.”
Again, the Son of God is the heel, change of authority, the one driving the ship and changing the angle of heel and the ends of the ONE loaf of bread. He is the Bet Nun (House of Seed) and so are we.
1 Corinthians 15
20 But Christ has indeed been raised from the dead, the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep. 21 For since death came through a man, the resurrection of the dead comes also through a man. 22 For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive. 23 But each in turn: Christ, the firstfruits; then, when he comes, those who belong to him. 24 Then the end will come, when he hands over the kingdom to God the Father after he has destroyed all dominion, authority and power. 25 For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. 26 The last enemy to be destroyed is death. 27 For he “has put everything under his feet.”[c] Now when it says that “everything” has been put under him, it is clear that this does not include God himself, who put everything under Christ. 28 When he has done this, then the Son himself will be made subject to him who put everything under him, so that God may be all in all.
I love it when people try to convince others that do not subscribe to a belief in the Scriptures with quotes from the Scriptures... ugh.
Originally posted by TheColt
Originally posted by EnochWasRight
In physics, the strong nuclear forces is the Proton (+) and Neutron (-).
I'm sorry, but... what?
Originally posted by EnochWasRight
reply to post by ProfessorChaos
I love it when people try to convince others that do not subscribe to a belief in the Scriptures with quotes from the Scriptures... ugh.
Argument from Ad Hominem is when you attack the object, but leave the subject alone. It is an empty fallacy.
Your statements accuse me of Post-hoc-ergo-propter-hoc Fallacy - Questionable causality. I am showing you what your foundation of reasoning must be. I cannot choose your foundation. I can only show you why it is clay and iron mixed as a dense substance. It crumbles as truth, subtle and sure, rises above.
Originally posted by TheColt
Originally posted by EnochWasRight
In physics, the strong nuclear forces is the Proton (+) and Neutron (-).
I'm sorry, but... what?
Originally posted by jiggerj
reply to post by EnochWasRight
Dive deep and open wide.
That's just it, my friend. You've gone too deep. Why would an all-powerful all-loving god need to be so difficult to find when all this god would have to do is appear in the sky to everyone, and say "Hi, I'm god."
Point being, if this god wanted to be found, he'd wave at us. If you have to work that hard to find evidence of a god, wouldn't it be rational to think he doesn't want to be found?
Originally posted by teamcommander
reply to post by EnochWasRight
Due to the amount of verbage which you have used I must admit to getting lost.
I don't know how, but it happened.
However, I do not "believe" you gave any recognizable answers to either of the questions which I posed.
This may possibly be due to my own lack of comprehension of the answers to such complex issues.
Could you, for the sake of more clarity, attempt to answer these questions again?