Debunking Original Sin

reply to post by AfterInfinity





You are raging against the machine yet you are doing the same thing from a different stance of those you call religious because you are also religious.What makes you think you are "acting" independently. Can you offer empirical proof.You may 'I think therefore I am" but what is that "am".Have you been the sole creator of that am.Did you cause your conception,inception and birth.

Have you deliberately willed every experience that you have had to form you.Will you continue to control everyone of your experiences.When you have your raging will be successful. However I think you have zero control over all the influencing acts of your "I am".

You can think anything you want but can you will everything you think. On a lower level it will seem as though you can.But it is the conglomeration of every experience you've had that caused that thought.On the higher level it doesn't work at all . I suspect no one would die since the majority of folks will is to not die.

The machine you are raging against is you.You have been built bit by bit BY your life experiences...and will continue to do so.You can make choices of what you "want" those experiences to be however the fact is wanting choosing and willing are not the causes.Then the wanting and willing seldom work out how you want....However sometimes(many) the not wanted works out for the better on hindsight.Some folks call that providence or coincidence but it can never be discovered at it's core what it is because the amount of cumulative experiences of causes that lead to the effect are infinite no matter how small.

The automaton theory is completely false.It is impossible. Automatons have to be programed....they have no will.They have no rage to against with. The fact is there is no way to know what the mechanism of life is and if there was nothing behind the process or a being.It can never be discovered.Raging against the machine is futility of the highest order.

reply to post by Rex282


I don't understand anything you just posted. Take your time, slow down, and type in coherent sentences. Maybe English isn't your first language, I don't know. All I know is that I don't have a point to answer because I couldn't make out what your point is, nor how you came to it.

I will answer this:

The automaton theory is completely false.It is impossible. Automatons have to be programed

We're programming ourselves. That's my point. We're reprogramming ourselves because we're not content with what we are. We don't like being human. We can imagine a hundred other things we would prefer to be, a hundred other things we would prefer we could do. So we change ourselves. We initiate a metamorphosis to shed the human mind, the human body. We want to evolve NOW. We think it's an upgrade...just like a child thinks turning water into chocolate milk is an upgrade.

But it isn't. It's a trap. God worship, combined with ever-more-advanced technology, could easily lead to transhumanism as we seek to become something more godly and less human. First, it starts with the mind, because we have to want it. We have to need it. We have to demand it.

The world's greatest guardians would become the world's greatest abominations as they perform all the greatest miracles for the most terrible and destructive of reasons...because they want to be better. Because they can't stand to be less. Because they hate themselves and what they are.

reply to post by Lone12

Social Psychology wants us to think that each newborn person is a Tabula Rasa,

Not true. For years now, they've been studying babies' brains, personalities, temperaments, learning styles, etc.

That idea was given up "long ago" (in terms of what we know about psychology - which isn't much, an makes it all so very fascinating).

Likewise, it's time to give up the Adam and Eve story as literal. The Bible and other Abrahamic texts need to be revised and updated for modern usage (most recent versions of the Bible leave hell out of it altogether - even the Roman Catholic Church doesn't teach hell anymore), or stuck in dusty archives of ancient mythology, where they belong. My opinion.

Regardless of how you feel about Bill Maher, this monsignor tells him what HE believes.

Originally posted by Joneselius
We've never seen an animal evolve at all, not ever.

We see things 'adapt'. And Darwin later published a work refuting his own claim, you'll have to do better than his earlier research. There's a plethora of scientifically approved rebukes for the theory of evolution. THEORY being the key word of course. THEORY.

What'll you say to God when he asks you what 'evolution' did? You haven't even observed it. We only see adaptation. Which is completely different. And it doesn't surprise me that the Vatican jumps on that bandwagon - they're evil.

Were Not seeing animals evolve before our very eyes but.. We do see Bacteria and Viruses mutate which is evolution. So yes.. we are seeing things evolve.

Originally posted by Kody27

The slightest evolutionary change in a species takes millions of years to take place.

Modern humans have only been around for thousands of years. Not millions (not that we know of anyway)
Basically just saying that our known recorded history hasn't even been around long enough to witness evolutionary changes. I thought this was common knowledge but apparently not.

I love it when science tears down their own theories with better science. I always laugh about "science" because a bumble bee supposedly on paper cannot fly and yet there they are flying around and doing their thing. Many scientists who work in DNA and genetics have been silent for a long time because evolution is a religion and anyone in their community who speaks against it is black balled and treated like a traitor! Just talk to these scientists and they very clearly and scientifically explain why evolution is absolutely impossible. If it takes millions of years to evolve, how long would a creature live who needs a reproductive system to develop it and thus reproduce? What about digestion? What about sight? What about any number of proteins needed to live and if you lack just one you die? Do you not see the fallacy that this millions of years to change prevents change? THEY WOULD ALL DIE!

Darwin believed we would find the evidence in the fossil record, but it just does not exist. The mammals all just showed up one day basically.


I chose to remove the other Meyer videos for simplicity sake. He covers it all in this one.

Originally posted by windword
reply to post by Joneselius
This isn't a thread about evolution, or it's debunking. It's about original sin and how, and why, that belief persists among those who also accept the theory of evolution.

Original sin, used as a catchall to trip up those who are extraordinarily pious in their daily lives, was the original and most diabolical large scale enslavement of man.

Originally posted by UnifiedSerenity
Just talk to these scientists and they very clearly and scientifically explain why evolution is absolutely impossible. If it takes millions of years to evolve, how long would a creature live who needs a reproductive system to develop it and thus reproduce? What about digestion? What about sight? What about any number of proteins needed to live and if you lack just one you die? Do you not see the fallacy that this millions of years to change prevents change? THEY WOULD ALL DIE!

Darwin believed we would find the evidence in the fossil record, but it just does not exist. The mammals all just showed up one day basically.

Well you obviously know what you're talking about.....these are issues that have never ever been brought up before so hopefully at least one scientist will read your post and pick up the mantle and address them.

That is unless scientists in the field have already addressed such questions many many times over the past 100 years or so, ever since it became clear that a lot of people are willfully ignorant on the subject and will gain all their knowledge on evolution from religious sources that, of course, have an ulterior motive.

They've even been addressed many many times here on the ATS forums, almost on a weekly basis.

But yeah keep laughing about science, while using the internet.......

reply to post by windword


Have you ever heard of the Urantia Book? It describes a very different origin of man. In the Urantia Book life was planted on this world by beings known as Life Carriers. They installed 3 separate, but simultaneous life bundles in the warm waters of the world of those times. The spirit of God then activates the life bundle and evolution takes over.

Evolution is God's time space technique for creation. The Urantia Book calls it progressive evolution. The before mentioned Life Carriers stay on the planet and manage the life evolution. They monitor the different forms of life that begin to evolve and try to cultivate the superior strains of life. This continues until an animal develops will. At that point they no longer can mange life.

This happened on Earth nearly 1 million years ago. That was when the first humans were born (twins - boy and girl). The human race was born. For hundreds of thousands of years the human race slowly evolved. About five hundred thousand years ago the evolutionary races of color began to appear, six different colors.

Once the human race had reached its natural evolutionary peak the biologic uplifters were sent to Earth. We know them as Adam and Eve. Their purpose was to uplift the races of men both biologically and to cultivate civilization. They arrived on Earth 35,000 years ago.

Events that happened 200,000 years earlier (The Lucifer Rebellion) caused this planet to be spiritually isolated, cut off from the normal communications with neighboring planets and the spiritual administration of the Universe. Due to this isolation Adam and Eve defaulted in their mission.

This is a very brief run down of the story in the Urantia Book.

Originally posted by TheEthicalSkeptic

Originally posted by windword
reply to post by Joneselius
This isn't a thread about evolution, or it's debunking. It's about original sin and how, and why, that belief persists among those who also accept the theory of evolution.

Original sin, used as a catchall to trip up those who are extraordinarily pious in their daily lives, was the original and most diabolical large scale enslavement of man.

Originally posted by windword
reply to post by micmerci

 

I understand that there are litteralist that accept that Biblical story as 100% factual. But even they have to admit that Cain was afraid of the other people, when he was exiled by God. The population of humans that existed outside of the Garden of Eden wouldn't have bee subject to the sins of Adam and Eve.

If not everyone is an offspring of Adam and Eve, then not everyone would have been subject to original sin. Right?

edit on 5-8-2013 by windword because: (no reason given)

What makes you think Adam and Eve did not have children in the Garden of Eden before the original sin? How long do you think Adam and Eve lived in the Garden of Eden before the original sin? They could have lived there for a million years and had thousands of children. Let's read Genesis 3:16 which is a part of the curse God puts on mankind for disobeying:

To the woman he said, "I will make your pains in childbearing very severe; with painful labor you will give birth to children. Your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you."

This verse indicates two things: 1. Child birth has already taken place. 2) It was not painful. From other parts of the curse (feel free to look it up) it paints the picture that life on earth before the curse was easy peasy and a very hospitable environment for man to flourish. Childbirth was not painful, man did not have to work the earth for food, they did not wear clothes so the weather must have been constantly perfect (not too hot or too cold), and they did not die. It's not a great leap to think that when Adam and Eve were kicked out of the Garden of Eden that the earth had thousands or millions of people living in it, especially considering none of them or their children or their children's children had experienced death yet.

reply to post by UB2120


That little story doesn't agree with evolution.

Originally posted by UnifiedSerenity

Originally posted by Kody27

The slightest evolutionary change in a species takes millions of years to take place.

Modern humans have only been around for thousands of years. Not millions (not that we know of anyway)
Basically just saying that our known recorded history hasn't even been around long enough to witness evolutionary changes. I thought this was common knowledge but apparently not.

I love it when science tears down their own theories with better science. I always laugh about "science" because a bumble bee supposedly on paper cannot fly and yet there they are flying around and doing their thing. Many scientists who work in DNA and genetics have been silent for a long time because evolution is a religion and anyone in their community who speaks against it is black balled and treated like a traitor! Just talk to these scientists and they very clearly and scientifically explain why evolution is absolutely impossible. If it takes millions of years to evolve, how long would a creature live who needs a reproductive system to develop it and thus reproduce? What about digestion? What about sight? What about any number of proteins needed to live and if you lack just one you die? Do you not see the fallacy that this millions of years to change prevents change? THEY WOULD ALL DIE!

Darwin believed we would find the evidence in the fossil record, but it just does not exist. The mammals all just showed up one day basically.


I chose to remove the other Meyer videos for simplicity sake. He covers it all in this one.

edit on 7-8-2013 by UnifiedSerenity because: changed out video for simplicity

So you've basically said nothing with this post. Evolution and creation can exist simultaneously, but that doesn't mean that there was some Christian entity called God who made us. For all we know there was no big bang, the universe might not have a beginning nor an end, that's the thing with the existence of time. There couldn't have been a "time" in which time itself came into existence. What was happening before there was time? Things were timeless? So there were no linear progressions, therefore you cannot pinpoint "when" time itself popped out of timelessness. It makes more sense to say that it has always been and always will be, because the same thing applies for the end of time. What then? Timelessness? At what point in "time" does timelessness take over again? it just doesn't make sense, logically, to even say that. Anyway, yes evolution takes millions of years to take place. A single cell organism can evolve into a multicellular organism and so on, they wouldn't have to die while evolving slowly. What the hell are you even talking about?

reply to post by UnifiedSerenity


You don't do ANY of your research at all, do you? Wow. I'm not even wasting my time with you because I'll have to forcibly spoon feed you with all the information necessary to form an intelligent conclusion.

Additionally, John Maynard Smith, a noted biologist with a strong background in aeronautics, has pointed out that bumblebees would not be expected to sustain flight, as they would need to generate too much power given their tiny wing area. However, in aerodynamics experiments with other insects he found that viscosity at the scale of small insects meant that even their small wings can move a very large volume of air relative to the size, and this reduces the power required to sustain flight by an order of magnitude.[45]

Another description of a bee's wing function is that the wings work similarly to helicopter blades, "reverse-pitch semirotary helicopter blades".

Bees beat their wings approximately 200 times a second. Their thorax muscles do not expand and contract on each nerve firing but rather vibrate like a plucked rubber band. This is efficient, since it lets the system consisting of muscle and wing operate at its resonant frequency, leading to low energy consumption. Further, it is necessary, since nerves cannot fire 200 times per second. These types of muscles are called asynchronous muscles [46] and are often found in insect wings.

I found that on Wikipedia. Spent about two minutes of my time. What are you doing that you couldn't spare so little time for this kind of education?

I think some folks, like myself, have a leg up on all the theories in regards to remembering that I pre-existed prior to taking on a body and being "born on earth." ....there are quite a few others here on ATS who have also posted about remembering prior to being born. So what does that have to do with this thread?

Well, I see and know directly that I am not from here, that I am not the body(which is just a vehicle for existence here), that I am not the programming that has been picked up since being here. I am none of those. I am the original consciousness that pre-existed prior to all this and will one day return...... everyone else is living under amnesia until they too remember their own pre-existence.

I do believe these bodies to be mostly ape-like animalistic mechanisms which still harbor those gorilla/cave man like instincts. When I pre-existed as pure consciousness, and even as a kid, there was no lust and drunk with testosterone going on, or anger, greed, need to dominate, to fight, to be an animal.

ALso, like afterinfinity mentioned, I do believe in automatons., which is basically a person that does not know themselves as original consciousness, and instead are blown to an fro by the winds of animal instinct and worldly programing (something, by the way, which just about all religions talk about transcending)

Sin is only mentioned in the Abrahamic branches. You don't see it in Native American culture, Asians cultures, Eskimos, Vedic, etc...... So there's the question of Sin being relative

My whole thing as far as sin goes, is that its part of existence here due to the ego(programming) and ape instincts from the body joining forces to create ignorance. It's inevitable.

reply to post by AfterInfinity


Has it been considered that bumble bees are only seen when it is warm? Their fluffy little bodies work in a way that uses the heat (thermodynamics lift them) - the wings are just for direction mainly, in my reckoning.

reply to post by Itisnowagain


How about you do some reading so you aren't just perpetually feeding off of your limited personal database?

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
reply to post by Itisnowagain

 

How about you do some reading so you aren't just perpetually feeding off of your limited personal database?

It is a consideration outside what is already believed - that is all.
I don't get insights in a book.

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
reply to post by Itisnowagain

 

How about you do some reading so you aren't just perpetually feeding off of your limited personal database?

I find it strange that you consider yourself to be a kind person. Would you like to read a reply like this posted to you when you put forward a consideration?

reply to post by Itisnowagain

It is a consideration outside what is already believed - that is all.
I don't get insights in a book.

And what kind of insights are you looking for? Subjective speculation that operates independently of scientifically verified data, or scientifically verified data that determines the results of objective speculation?

Originally posted by Itisnowagain

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
reply to post by Itisnowagain

 

How about you do some reading so you aren't just perpetually feeding off of your limited personal database?

I find it strange that you consider yourself to be a kind person. Would you like to read a reply like this posted to you when you put forward a consideration?

I find it strange that you don't do your research. I'm not here to please people, I am here to learn and help others learn. If you want to know how bumblebees fly, read a book or Google it and do some studying so when someone asks you, you don't have to speculate. When I have a question, I look it up and educate myself. It does tend to annoy people when strange trivia comes up and I jump in with an ad nauseum lesson because I just happened to look it up beforehand. But hey, how else do you learn?