Survey Results: Origins and Evolution

reply to post by RevelationGeneration


Now-now... tolerence is a virtue!
Please refrain from calling folk retarded, I have loved ones who
suffer with this affliction.
Thank you.

reply to post by spikey


Well no. I'll quote what I just said about that.

I mean let's just speculate further. The bears killing the youth story? Prior to that scene, the prophet went to the river and cast out the town's evil. It's only logical that those he met outside the town were that evil, and therefore their destruction is perfectly understandable.

Originally posted by spikey

Originally posted by intrepid

Originally posted by Gorman91
Like I said, I wouldn't judge a man's character for one wrong deed, how ever selfish it was.

You may not but the OT god would have. Just look at the Pentateuch. I can give you dozens of scripture that shows that god does indeed judge people on one bad deed. But he was OK with this? Doesn't sound right to me.

There are even accounts of god instantly murdering a couple of teenagers for mocking a man because he was bald.

Really? would you mind substantiating that claim.

Thanks.

reply to post by A boy in a dress


Said it sounded retarded not that he was retarded.

P.S i', done with discussion, was nice talking to you children i think this thread is pretty much over yet i don't doubt there will be some arguing into the early hours of the morning like happened last night, creation vs evolution is a hot topic no doubt i feel sorry for the guy who claims to believe in both though, does he know what planet he's on? I would think he must have something wrong with him to believe we came from adam and eve and then also claim to believe in biological evolution, obviously a wolf in sheep's clothing and not a Christian, thanks bye.

reply to post by RevelationGeneration


Sorry Sir... It's a thing close to my heart.

I come to this site everyday to check up on new and exciting information, some of it old and newly discovered, and I love it, it's a very informative site. One thing about it (likely the only thing) that gets me is the abundant hypocrisy that goes on.

Seriously, for a site that urges everyone to deny ignorance it seems not everyone got the memo. For the record, I'm one of those "on the fence" types that is currently leaning towards theist but don't know for sure where to stand, but even I get insulted by the amount of disdain others articulate towards others belief systems. Not one person on the face of this planet knows the full truth. To say one is going to hell for not believing their sins could be saved from Jesus is pretty out there to a lot of us, but is it not just as bad to marginalize an entire belief system based on the few people you know/hear about who practice it? For example; Joe Black signs in and says he believes in a higher being, while not even remotely going into detail on the subject, chances are it won't take long before someone comes in and calls him a crazy loon for being so gullible and ignorant as to believe that a magical bearded man floating in the sky created us and watches over us. Funny thing is, nowhere in the bible does it say God is a bearded man, or that he floats around in the sky. Now I'm no bible scholar, but does the bible even go into detail about what God is? Oh, and by the way, Joe Black is a Hindu.

Based on what we as a species know, which is nothing when compared to everything, how can our logic dictate whether or not there is purpose, or connection. Personally I think it's incredibly narrow-minded to say that there isn't God, and by God I mean energy, the way, what is, why is. I'm not very good at expressing my self, but I want to make clear is that I'm not trying to win anyone over, just trying to emphasize that "knowing" something we can't even begin to fathom doesn't exist based on our knowledge is not really being open-minded, quite the opposite, but just my opinion.

P.S I'm pro evolution

.peace.to.all.

Originally posted by A boy in a dress
reply to post by MrXYZ

 

What if the whale breathed in and gave poor Jonah some air?
How'd that be?

Nice considerate whale.

Put it's digestive processes on hold for a few days too, nice of it.

Maybe...just maybe Jonah was caught...you know, doing something with a large lipped fish that some sailors are reputed to have done on long, lonely voyages...'Err...this fish just spat it..ME..i mean me out'.

Someone did ask for levity earlier on.

That's the best i can do, sorry.

reply to post by spikey

...'Err...this fish just spat it..ME..i mean me out'.

I'd go with that... cheers!

reply to post by RevelationGeneration

The reason its not proclaimed FALSE in the BIBLE is because it doesn't exist!

That's existential BS. The Bible is not the dictionary of all things that are true or false. That would be the Book of Life, currently inaccessible because it's in heaven.

The Bible is for the salvation of man. It deals with how to be saved. How to get into the Book of Life.

Now, assuming you can get through the bureaucratic mess heaven is these days what with Hurricanes and Earthquakes and the end times right around the corner, if you could get a line through to God's library, then perhaps you could request a temporary loan of the Book of Life. But last I checked, the Bible actually does have a little writing on it. And it's clearly stated that you are not going to see it any time soon.

Do you think the bible need's to mention every crack pot theory and disprove it because an arrogant person like you will not accept God's word as being the truth and has to make his own alternatives UP?????

Well actually I do accept God's word. You simply refuse to see it any way but your own way. Which in turn is bad to do, considering Jesus was considerate enough to have several testimonies of himself for the various different cultures he knew he would end up in.

Funny. He knew every culture that would come in contact with his story, and knew how to select the right apostles so that they could tell it in the perspective those communities would know how to listen to, but he never bothered to note on evolution.

Seems to me either you're wrong or God's wrong. I'm going to guess you are.

Aliens are also not included in the bible... why do u think that is? Perhaps because they are not real ether...

hu hu hu. Funny you mention that.

Do tell me. Where did the Nephilim go while God was flooding the world? It's kind of inferred that they left Earth.

Hmm. I think you should read Juse 1. I rather like Young's translation

13wild waves of a sea, foaming out their own shames; stars going astray, to whom the gloom of the darkness to the age hath been kept.

Seems to me that God's gone done lock some folks away in the gloom of the darkness of space. I wonder if it has anything to do with that dragon that suddenly shows up at the end of this age.

ha. Funny thing that God. He sure does know how to supply someone who hasn't even finished the bible with enough knowledge to know how to down those false prophets. I say thanks to the father for letting me know these things, so that I may put you down by them.

So uh, when are you going to admit you're wrong on this? Because I'm pretty sure you just keep repeating what you've been indoctrinated to think.

Originally posted by Vitchilo

Originally posted by GmoS719
reply to post by SkepticOverlord

 

I figured more people would lean towards creation.
hmmm.
I'll pray for the world today.

ATSers are not religious loonies who believe in made up stories created by organized religion so they could make a buck and get power.

Sorry to burst your bubble.

Phew...i can relax now. Was worried about these results.

reply to post by SaturnFX

For what it's worth...

The following was taken from a thread of mine and reedited to apply to his discussion.

I'm not trying to "Debunk" both the Bible or Darwinism but both seem to be missing the point. If there is a God and over half the planet believes there is. [Myself included] and most religions of the world perceives him/it as a spiritual being and if he made us in his image wouldn't that be more along the lines of a spiritual nature rather than a physical one?

Darwinism tells us something along the lines of survival of the fittest and that the superior traits for any given environment would become dominate and win out over lesser ones. Then if that's the case why didn't the Neanderthals win out? They were physically stronger, used tools and fire and had larger brains.

So in my mind Science needs to consider all aspects of those who genetically contributed to our development and include their history as an addition to "Homo-Sapiens" and Religion needs to expand itself to include our physical anthropological history since "God" and his gift is of a spiritual nature in my opinion.

As I stated elsewhere Science in one way shape or form and Religion have been with us since the earliest days of our existence and especially shown themselves in the earliest forms of monument and temple building. If standing stones and all other Megalithic site are not all "Astronomical" markers of some sort then the are classified as some sort of "Religious or ceremonial" site.

I find that rather interesting for if a site is not based on "Science" then it gets classified as a "Religious/ceremonia" site. I believe that in Human history the best periods are when both Science and Religion come together and cooperate. [An ancient now forgotten Golden Age?]

So It seems to me that both Darwinism and Creationism are both unwitting partners in a Conspiracy of sorts.

In Darwinism we are told that we "Evolved" to where we are today "Modern Man". And that everything of intelligence we find in the fossil record belongs to "Homo-Sapien - Modern man". While anything lesser belongs to the other non-homo Sapien lines. In Religion, God created "Man" in his image. I'm assuming here from what I've read they are referring to "Homo-Sapien aka Modern man" While anything lesser that belongs to the other non-homo sapian lines are to be ignored.

Meanwhile those other lines, Were tool users, Made use of fire, Lived in a family unit. Some buried their dead with signs of a belief in a after life [Religion].

Now I'm not saying Darwin's evolution and Creationism are both 100% wrong. I am saying that neither give the other lines any credit. Yet Genetically speaking we are carrying those other lines contributions that make us who we are today. So, we CAN claim their history and possible accomplishments as our own. Just like I can claim my Great Great Grandfathers even though we don't look anything alike nor ever met.

We as a species have always carried with us both Science and Religion. I believe deep down inside mankind has always understood this. We build temples [Ancient or not] which requires planning, engineering and mathematics [sciences] to accomplish. Is this not a form of symbioses? For those who believe in a stricter form of Religion did not God give us the ability for higher thinking? Maybe the Fossil record is nothing more than how an infinite being went about his business during creation?

Religions original purpose was to teach man how to be in contact with his Creator on a "Spiritual level" Not for Religion to take on any physical real world authority over him. That's a major elitist control issue many here at ATS should acknowledge.

Science should be used to better the way of life. Not to create means in which to enslave and profit from others who need [For example] certain medicines to live or to modify and then Patent certain foods [animal or vegetable] GMO etc. That's another major elitist control issue many here at ATS should acknowledge.

Someday, When Religion expands and finally grasps the full potential that God Himself gave to us and Science finally figures out all there is to know about the Macro, Micro and even the Multiverses through their advanced high tech tools. I have a feeling that while peering at the infinitely small or infinitely large they'll find a sign of sorts hanging there that simply reads...

I see you finally figured it out
Welcome home
God

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/58c70dad4cab.jpg[/atsimg]

Turning to pretty pointless debate as usual.

...so that “they may indeed see but not perceive, and may indeed hear but not understand, lest they should turn and be forgiven.”

Before I go to bed (and I have to) I've got one thing to say to all you proof-requiring atheists:

"You alone are proof of god"

It's your questions, thoughts, breath, life. Just look at your arm and slowly move it. Then look with your eyes around and above and think again. Isn't it a miracle and big mystery?

And if you say this is just random result of chaotic matter, then why the hell should I indulge hearing some flesh? Some soulless monkey? Not to mention the Lord. What value has your words? What value shall they have after a thousand years? It's funny to imagine you few decades ago learning how to walk and speak wondering who you are. If anyone should feel free to kill few people, it's Him. If you - man - decide and kill few animals for some good reason (for example to save biodiversity) , will you care judgements of other stupid animals? And you in your ignorance don't hesitate to judge Him.
I'm not saying I know the whole story. I'm just finding atheism silly.

reply to post by SLAYER69


[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/58c70dad4cab.jpg[/atsimg]

Thanks, this explains everything.

Laters.

reply to post by RevelationGeneration

...creation vs evolution is a hot topic no doubt i feel sorry for the guy who claims to believe in both though, does he know what planet he's on...?

Thank you... I feel I can believe in both, I truly do... and I think God let me see how
I could.

... I would think he must have something wrong with him to believe we came from adam
and eve and then also claim to believe in biological evolution,
obviously a wolf in sheep's clothing and not a Christian, thanks bye...

I have many things wrong with me, whether God gave me these 'wrong's or I picked
them up through having certain genes, I'll never know. But I'm not a wolf or a sheep...
as 'rhinoceros' showed with 'GATTAACCA -thing.
I'm a human.

Thank you for the healthy debate.

reply to post by RevelationGeneration


You could always read the Conclusion as that generally summarizes the article in a more coherent manner. Here are a few choice bits:

It is also obvious that Humphreys (2005a) never bothered to read or understand most of
my criticisms or references because he frequently keeps making the same erroneous
statements over and over again even though I thoroughly documented and refuted them in
my original essay (e.g., refusing to recognize the presence of gneisses in his samples,
failing to recognize possible contamination of his zircons with extraneous helium during
cooling and not heating episodes, ignoring my Appendix B and its more realistic Q/Q0
results, using the wrong ("biased") equation to calculate standard deviations, etc.).

Rather than providing thorough answers, Humphreys (2005a) exposes even more
inadequacies in his laboratory methods (such as, trying to identify rocks by merely
relying on naked-eye observations, improper naming of rock units, sloppy handling of
units of measure in Appendix C of Humphreys et al., 2003a, etc.).

In particular, I
show that Dr. Humphreys' miracle-based misconceptions about the ages of the Fenton
Hill rocks are probably due to him severely underestimating the Q0 values and the
amounts of uranium and thorium in his zircons, assuming that his defect curve and its
creation model adequately represent the high-pressure subsurface conditions at the
Fenton Hill site, and/or ignoring the possibility of extraneous helium contamination in his
zircons.

Using more realistic models, Loechelt (2008c) was able to show that the
current diffusion-related data for the Fenton Hill zircons, although far from perfect, are
consistent with the zircons being about 1.5 billion years old.

Appendix C is also worth checking out. It presents a list of questions that numerous researchers have asked Humphreys regarding his work that he has still not been able to answer in the 11 years since his first paper on the topic.

reply to post by PapagiorgioCZ


I wouldn't call it pointless. Indeed, you do seem to know atheism is something to be opposed to. I just haven't yet seen where in the Bible evolution would be untrue.

Originally posted by RevelationGeneration
reply to post by MrXYZ

 

We have human remains over 50,000 years old

Complete hog wash... did these human remains come out the ground with a little tag on them saying "Hi im 50,000 years old" ??? i very much doubt it. We both have the same evidence your just interpreting it wrong.

Radiometric dating is HIGHLY UNRELIABLE.

Even if radiometric dating techniques are out by 99% and not the agreed +/- 1%, his still puts the age of Earth at 400 - 500 Million years. How HIGHLY UNRELIABLE do you think the technique is exactly?

More or less than 99% inaccurate?

Originally posted by RevelationGeneration
P.S i', done with discussion, was nice talking to you children...

Dude, I'd lay hard currency on the fact that I'm older than you. Please don't call me a "child".

...thanks bye.

You will be missed.

Gorman, you asked to use the bible to disprove it. Can that be the bible and recorded history as well? Take the account of the flood.

Date of the flood

The Ussher chronology, a calculation of the dates of creation and other Biblical events published in 1650 by the Irish Archbishop James Ussher, places the Great Flood at 2348 BC. Using the Masoretic Text of the Bible shows the date to be 1656 years after creation.[44] Ussher calculated that the creation occurred in 4004 B.C.; using this date and the King James Bible result in a date of 2348 B.C. for the Flood. The Ussher chronology was highly influential, but other theologians have given different dates for the Creation; for example, Scaliger claimed it to have occurred in 3950 B.C., while Petavius calculated the date as 3982 B.C.

en.wikipedia.org...

If you believe that the liberal estimate of nearly 4000 years is right, it's impossible. Noah was 600 at the time of the flood.

In his six hundredth year God, saddened at the wickedness of mankind, sent a great deluge to destroy all life, but instructed Noah, a man "righteous in his generation," to build an ark and save a remnant of life from the Flood.

en.wikipedia.org...

If bible chronology is considered accurate that's impossible. That would be before the time of Adam.

Take the conservative number. Mid 2300's bc. What else was recorded for history during that time?

c. 2900 BC – 2334 BC: Mesopotamian wars of the Early Dynastic period continue.
c. 2400 BC-2000 BC: Large Painted Jar with Border Containing Birds, from Chanhu-Daro, Indus Valley Civilization, is made. It is now kept at the Museum of Fine Arts, Boston.
c. 2360 BC: Hekla-4 eruption.
c. 2350 BC: End of the Early Dynastic IIIb period in Mesopotamia.
c. 2350 BC: First destruction of the city of Mari.
c. 2345 BC: End of Fifth Dynasty. Pharaoh Unas died.
c. 2345 BC: Sixth dynasty of Egypt starts (other date is 2460 BC).
c. 2340 BC – 2180 BC: Akkadian Empire.
c. 2334 BC – 2279 BC: Semitic chieftain Sargon of Akkad's conquest of Sumer and Mesopotamia.
City of Lothal founded under the Indus valley civilization.

en.wikipedia.org...

How could those things have happened if everyone was dead except for Noah's family?

reply to post by SLAYER69

Darwinism tells us something along the lines of survival of the fittest and that the superior traits for any given environment would become dominate and win out over lesser ones. Then if that's the case why didn't the Neanderthals win out? They were physically stronger, used tools and fire and had larger brains.

Just felt like pointing out that it's most likely because our frontal and prefrontal cortices were more developed. These are the areas that allow for such things as forward thinking, planning, and socializing. So we were able to form more cohesive groups and then come up with a strategy that would net us the most food.

reply to post by intrepid


You're doing it wrong!!

In the bible, sometimes days are literal days...sometimes they are "special magic days" that last either a lot longer, or a lot less longer, depending on what's required to "make it fit".

Basically, if the dates don't add up, just cherry pick the ones that do and either ignore the others, or claim they are some "magical timeframe" that you can't take literally.