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.

 

A Matter of Faith: New movie by Answers in Genesis

page: 3
12
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 5 2014 @ 05:33 PM
link   
a reply to: Verum1quaere

a reply to: Verum1quaere

Another question about the YouTube video "The Fossil Record Speaks". Dr. Veith seems to ignore the fact that ESR (electron spin resonance) is an absolute dating method, not relative like stratigraphy. Why doesn't he talk about that???


Determining the numerical age of rocks and fossils




Unlike relative dating methods, absolute dating methods provide chronological estimates of the age of certain geological materials associated with fossils, and even direct age measurements of the fossil material itself. To establish the age of a rock or a fossil, researchers use some type of clock to determine the date it was formed. Geologists commonly use radiometric dating methods, based on the natural radioactive decay of certain elements such as potassium and carbon, as reliable clocks to date ancient events. Geologists also use other methods - such as electron spin resonance and thermoluminescence, which assess the effects of radioactivity on the accumulation of electrons in imperfections, or "traps," in the crystal structure of a mineral - to determine the age of the rocks or fossils.

All elements contain protons and neutrons, located in the atomic nucleus, and electrons that orbit around the nucleus (Figure 5a). In each element, the number of protons is constant while the number of neutrons and electrons can vary. Atoms of the same element but with different number of neutrons are called isotopes of that element. Each isotope is identified by its atomic mass, which is the number of protons plus neutrons. For example, the element carbon has six protons, but can have six, seven, or eight neutrons. Thus, carbon has three isotopes: carbon 12 (12C), carbon 13 (13C), and carbon 14 (14C) (Figure 5a).

www.nature.com...

Dr. Veith is another peddler of disinformation.




edit on 5-5-2014 by Phantom423 because: (no reason given)




posted on May, 5 2014 @ 06:03 PM
link   
The funniest part of these discussion is that nobody on either side seems to be aware of the obvious in that both require faith in order to believe.

One side ignores the fact that their never has been or ever will be concrete proof of evolution. Even Charles Darwin had doubts and called pieces of his theory "absurd". No scientific test could verify it's authenticity, as any test attempting to do so would end in the life forms death. Animals do not become different animals. Take a fish. Every day pull that fish out of the water for gradually increasing amounts of time. When the time grows to the limit of the fishes ability to live without oxygen, it will die. It won't grow lungs. It won't become a lizard. It will expire. What is scientifically proven is adaptation. That is when genetically related lines of offsprings become better suited to survival in harsh conditions. See: sherpas, eskimos, etc. These are actually humans with genetic predisposition to survive in places where you would probably die. But we still call them human. Curious. Anyway, this is actual, and scientifically testable. Evolution is called a theory for a reason, as it is unprovable. It is only recently that people have began pushing it as a means of furthering a politically minded agenda. This is not science, but something else entirely. And combining natural selection with evolution shows a lacking understanding of either topic. Natural selection would be like in Sweden everyone is blond. Blond has been seen by most people there obviously as preferable to mate with rather then other hair colors. Therefore, one hair color is dominant. That is one aspect of natural selection. Evolution is the gradual shift from a single celled organism changing multiple times into other entirely different life forms altogether. It just doesn't happen this way, and is unprovable. It requires faith to believe.

On the other side, no one knows what happened in the beginning, therefore people of the religious persuasion can not accurately profess that they are sure of what happened then. They find answers in the Bible,(as do I) but were not there. It requires faith to believe.

So in actuality, both side share something in common: faith in unprovable ideas. Yet there are people who think they are smart but are not capable of even perceiving the illogical nature of their own understanding that try to insult the other like 5 year old children. It is shameful on both sides. If coming to believe in G-d is not in someones path, do not force the path onto them. It is for the elect, as it says in the Bible. Science is not against Biblical understanding, it is a small contingent of politically minded individuals. And the Bible doesn't go against science, as seeking out wisdom and understanding is commanded by G-d.

Why must we continuously seek to pick schoolyard fights as if most of us weren't over the age of 18? This is enlightenment? Now for those seeking out understanding who debate the other respectfully, kudos. For those that toss the terms like "Nutjob" out in derogatory ways, consider how foolish you are making yourself appear to those with intelligence and maturity. You sound like a child with no discipline or understanding. Your prejudice walks before you, mocking you to all with the ability to perceive. But yet you cannot perceive it. But we should listen to you, right? You are the last hope for humanity? Doesn't sound like denying ignorance. Sounds like spreading it like a virus.

Anyway, there is beautiful scientific understanding in the Bible. And men who don't believe have been influential in scientific observation. Divided houses can't stand. Let what one believes be fine with them. Debate could teach us all something we didn't know. But to deride another in hateful ways as if they lacked intelligence should not be accepted in civilized society. Bill Nye vs Ken Ham was actually a wonderful debate. Both appeared to respect one another, and gave them ample time to voice their opinions. I enjoyed it thoroughly. One should learn something, as that is how humans should conduct themselves.
edit on 5-5-2014 by pleasethink because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 5 2014 @ 06:53 PM
link   
a reply to: pleasethink

One side ignores the fact that their never has been or ever will be concrete proof of evolution. Even Charles Darwin had doubts and called pieces of his theory "absurd". No scientific test could verify it's authenticity, as any test attempting to do so would end in the life forms death. Animals do not become different animals. Take a fish. Every day pull that fish out of the water for gradually increasing amounts of time. When the time grows to the limit of the fishes ability to live without oxygen, it will die. It won't grow lungs.

You're wrong. Fish evolved and grew lungs. Evolution has been demonstrated in the laboratory hundreds of times. Backwards and forwards - evolution is about mutation and mutation is about change. Speciation is also a fact. Molecular phylogenetics and biological systematics have shown beyond any reasonable doubt that organisms on this planet have and still are developing through the evolutionary process.
Molecular genetics is a long way from Charles Darwin. The science of evolution is a fact. The speculation of Charles Darwin was just that: speculation until demonstrated and repeated under controlled conditions.

evolution.berkeley.edu...



posted on May, 5 2014 @ 06:58 PM
link   
Evolution is called a theory for a reason, as it is unprovable. It is only recently that people have began pushing it as a means of furthering a politically minded agenda. This is not science, but something else entirely. And combining natural selection with evolution shows a lacking understanding of either topic. Natural selection would be like in Sweden everyone is blond. Blond has been seen by most people there obviously as preferable to mate with rather then other hair colors. Therefore, one hair color is dominant. That is one aspect of natural selection. Evolution is the gradual shift from a single celled organism changing multiple times into other entirely different life forms altogether. It just doesn't happen this way, and is unprovable. It requires faith to believe.

Evolution is provable. If you want a list of scientific articles that have confirmed that, I would be more than happy to deliver. Your comment that "it's not science" says that you've never been in a molecular biology laboratory or understand anything about the process of "proving" anything in science.
"It just doesn't happen that way". Well tell us how it did happen WITH HARD EVIDENCE. Evolution is provable in the lab. Faith and belief are not. That's why it's called faith i.e. to believe in something that requires NO EVIDENCE. Science and the real world do require real evidence.

edit on 5-5-2014 by Phantom423 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 5 2014 @ 07:02 PM
link   
So in actuality, both side share something in common: faith in unprovable ideas. Yet there are people who think they are smart but are not capable of even perceiving the illogical nature of their own understanding that try to insult the other like 5 year old children. It is shameful on both sides. If coming to believe in G-d is not in someones path, do not force the path onto them. It is for the elect, as it says in the Bible. Science is not against Biblical understanding, it is a small contingent of politically minded individuals. And the Bible doesn't go against science, as seeking out wisdom and understanding is commanded by G-d.

Science does not have "faith" in unprovable ideas. If that was the case, any drug could be put on the market because of "faith". Every technological advance like the car or the airplane would require no proof that they either work or were safe. Just throw them out there with "faith" and hope for the best.
I'm sorry, but your idea of provability has nothing to do with real science. It is an excuse for lack of knowledge and laziness. The information is out there. That you don't avail yourself of it, is not science's problem. It's yours.

edit on 5-5-2014 by Phantom423 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 5 2014 @ 07:27 PM
link   
a reply to: Phantom423

The link you provided neither proved or disproved your or my argument. So why it was there, I have no idea.

What I said is based upon understanding, not on belief, as I am neither lazy nor unknowledgable. You can look at constant variations of species and claim whatever you wish, but that does not prove evolution, only suggests it. Any actual scientist with actual knowledge will say "Theory of Evolution" as Darwin himself referred to it as because of this reason. It is a theory. Just as the Theory of Relativity or the Theory of Connectivism, both of which have shown more actual signs of actuality then the proposed theory of evolution.

And thank you for calling me lazy and unknowledgable, as both prove what I said with empirical evidence. And please show me where your evidence exists that evolution has been proved in a laboratory, as this would change the nature of this argument entirely, but yet has never been shown by anyone conclusively. As such, the argument persists, only I choose to pay attention to those that hold themselves in a more professional manner. Not one who would slander another without any knowledge of them whatsoever. That, kind sir, is prejudice, not proof of evolution.

To hold ones self in front of others as one with learning does not a learned man make ye. One with an analytical mind quickly exposes the fraud so all may see. I suggest finding a more equitable adversary.

And as far as I am aware, the closest anyone has ever come to championing proof of "evolution" is to get a certain type of bacteria to grow on a foreign substance. This is not actually evolution, as the bacteria itself did not become a different bacteria, but rather adapted to a different medium. Is that what you would show the unlearned such as I?



posted on May, 5 2014 @ 07:32 PM
link   
a reply to: Phantom423


And the Bible doesn't go against science


Enough of the Bible contradicts science to demand caution when handling the rest of it.



posted on May, 5 2014 @ 07:40 PM
link   
a reply to: AfterInfinity

This appears to be another thread, as I'm certain there has been multiple threads about scientific observations that pre date their actual observed discovery by man by thousands of years. I would elaborate, but decline to prevent thread drift. If you would like to start another, please alert me to it's location.



posted on May, 5 2014 @ 07:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: BuzzyWigs

When world views collide, sometimes it becomes A Matter of Faith

Answers in Genesis has made their own MOVIE!!!

Have you seen the other bevy of films? God's not Dead, Noah, and the others?

I haven't, but I have to say all the ruckus is pretty amusing.


Almost as amusing as the fact you think Noah was made by Answers in Genesis.



posted on May, 5 2014 @ 09:03 PM
link   
a reply to: pleasethink

Here's the deal: You provide evidence for your position. I will provide evidence for mine. Deal?



posted on May, 5 2014 @ 09:05 PM
link   
a reply to: AfterInfinity

Why?



posted on May, 5 2014 @ 09:39 PM
link   
a reply to: pleasethink

I apologize for insinuating that you were lazy. I didn't mean that at all. Conversation and debate get hot at times. It was an inappropriate comment and I apologize.



edit on 5-5-2014 by Phantom423 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 5 2014 @ 09:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: pleasethink

Here's the deal: You provide evidence for your position. I will provide evidence for mine. Deal?



So you refute my claims with evidence that they are correct? Hat's off to you, sir. Never really saw that one before. Caught me off guard. I clearly stated that both sides rely upon faith. You appear to support that by refuting it? Hmmm. Clearly logic is at play that is beyond mine own. Or the paradoxical logic of modern day rears it's frightful countenance.

If you could prove evolution, sir, you would not be writing on Above Top Secret but instead would be polishing your Nobel Prize. But, again, I bow to your superior understanding, as my lazy, ignorant mind is perplexed. I would advise you go back to the drawing board.

I respect a intelligent tete at tete as much as anyone else. I will remind you it was you who belittled me. Clearly you have shown it is not as you say. This is how one conducts themselves with professionalism. No insults are necessary. One can simply wait for someone to insult themself, which you appear to have done unbeknownst to yourself. In this regard, thank you.

This is my point. It is not necessary to hurl insults, as it only makes yourself look foolish. It also inflames someone else's emotional response so that no intelligent conversation can be had. Not to mention exposing your own prejudice against a group of people you obviously don't know that much about. That has no place in civilized society, nor should it exist in a website that's motto is "Deny Ignorance". If it was a racial slur against black folks, it would be instaban, but because it's Christians you insult, somehow it is "politically correct". It is not personal, as you have no clue about who I am or what I know.

I let what I know do the talking, and seek to understand what I do not. Many different perspectives have shaped what I am today, as I don't deny anyone my company, and have taken bits and pieces of wisdom from many different places, people, etc. Maybe this world view would do to assist you in learning what you seek to know, instead of assuming you know what you do not. Prejudice will not make you popular amongst truly intelligent people(it is a construct of ignorant men), but instead will hold you always at arms length from finding true understanding. Anyways, point made. And thank you.



posted on May, 5 2014 @ 09:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: pleasethink

I apologize for insinuating that you were lazy. I didn't mean that at all. Conversation and debate get hot at times. It was an inappropriate comment and I apologize.




Apology accepted. Thank you for your understanding. I understand, it is not personal. I addressed this in the comment I just posted. Don't take it personal, either. Seeking understanding is what is important. It is okay to differ in opinions. It is what makes us human.



posted on May, 5 2014 @ 09:53 PM
link   
a reply to: pleasethink

I agree 100%. So on with the debate! Debate is good - everyone should come away with new knowledge - disagreement, yes. But knowledge is the key.



posted on May, 6 2014 @ 03:26 AM
link   

originally posted by: AfterInfinity
a reply to: Phantom423


And the Bible doesn't go against science


Enough of the Bible contradicts science to demand caution when handling the rest of it.


It's only the case if you read the Bible, a spiritual book, literally. Which is a very stupid thing to do and yet people in this century still do it.

For example why would you read the Jewish creation myth (Genesis) literally, and not the hindu, hopi, maya or inuit ones?

Because the people who read Genesis literally are biased and devoid of critical thinking.



Genesis, as all creation myths, as the whole Bible, is wealth of allegorical teachings. To read them literally completely defeats the point (and the reason why bible thumpers are judgemental despite their book teaching them the opposite. How can you learn wisdom if you get stuck at literal interpretation?)
edit on 6-5-2014 by SpaceGoatFarts because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 6 2014 @ 11:49 AM
link   
@pleasethink

Proof of Evolution:

First, it's necessary to define evolution for what it is and what it isn't:

What it is:
1. Change in the inherited characteristics of living organisms over successive generations. It is the frequency of change in alleles in a population over time.
2. Diversity at every level of biology: macro, micro, nano -- species, individual organisms and biological molecules like DNA.
3. Natural selection: The process of mutation which enhances survivability and reproduction.

What it is not:
1. Evolution is not a theory. It is a fact substantiated by experimental data.
2. Evolution is not about initial states. It is a process.
3. Evolution is not random chance. It is a complex system of patterns.
4. Evolution is not about apes becoming humans. Each is a distinct species with a common ancestor. But each species is distinct.


What counts as evidence:
1. Experimental data based on observation, testing and repeatability.

What doesn't count as evidence:
1. Rhetorical speculation and statements that have no experimental data to back them up.

Example:

Evolution of Ecoli:

Hard evidence:
Escherichia coli rpoB Mutants Have Increased Evolvability in Proportion to Their Fitness Defects
mbe.oxfordjournals.org...

Historical contingency and the evolution of a key innovation in an experimental population of Escherichia coli
www.pnas.org...

E. coli Long-term Experimental Evolution Project
myxo.css.msu.edu...

Speculation without Evidence:
The Genesis of Pathogenic E. coli
by Dr. Alan L. Gillen and Dr. J. Douglas Oliver, Department of Biology and Chemistry, Liberty UniversityOctober 6, 2010
www.answersingenesis.org...

Bacteria Evolve "Key Innovation" or Not?
blogs.answersingenesis.org...

Creationist Answer to Lenski's Ecoli
www.creationliberty.com...

____________________________________________

General Article on the Ecoli Experiment:

Lenski results challenge creationism
rationalwiki.org...

______________________________

Please give me your definition of evolution and what hard evidence substantiates your claim.
In doing so, please describe why the experiments cited above do not confirm the evolutionary process and how your evidence disputes their results.
Thanks.



edit on 6-5-2014 by Phantom423 because: (no reason given)

edit on 6-5-2014 by Phantom423 because: (no reason given)

edit on 6-5-2014 by Phantom423 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 6 2014 @ 12:45 PM
link   
a reply to: Phantom423

"All life on Earth is descended from a last universal ancestor that lived approximately 3.8 billion years ago."

I read that you almost got your evolution facts word for word from the wiki page for evolution, it seems. Yet left out this part.

You see, in my humble opinion, I don't think that things like humans generate from things like amoebas. Yet that is exactly what the theory of evolution proposes. Showing that e. coli can adapt to different mediums and survive is not really showing that e. coli can turn into a fish, is it? In fact, adaptation occurs in all species, including humans. I have alluded to just that fact. Would you call a Eskimo another creature? How about a Sherpa? Yet biologically their bodies have adapted over the years to survive in sub zero temperatures, or in low oxygen environments. If you were to stand atop K2, you would pass out from lack of oxygen if not acclimated. A sherpa could do jumping jacks. This is testable, and is more in line with what you have described.

This is why Darwin's theory of evolution has changed in definition since Darwin proposed it. It fits into the political agenda of removing G-d from modern understanding, but cannot be proven empirically. Therefore they masquerade it behind adaptability, which is provable and testable. Evolution, as Darwin proposed it is one day their was a sludge, containing all the necessary components of life(where did protein come from if no life was present), then a catalyst perhaps a lightning strike caused a single celled organism to appear. From this single celled organism, numerous other creatures began to propagate themselves until one day, a man appears and says "Who am I? Where did I come from? Am I alone?".

Now in hindsight, with Darwin's own understanding in clear view, sounds kind of outlandish. I mean the complex nature of man itself is more complicated and magnificent then the computer I use to post this message by orders of magnitude. Then you must consider the methods of reproduction reek of understanding, and are appear to be made solely for that purpose. I have seen mutations. They are not guided by anything. Children with huge heads, unable to lift them. Just look at a small population in Kazakhstan where the people where exposed to radiation. Their children would break your heart. That is a mutation. Mutation does not form working complex reproductive systems and separate them unto man and women. Then one must consider, as evolution only deals with animal life, where did plants evolve from? They also show the complex nature of life. A seed, smaller than your nose hairs, knows how to gauge temperature, moisture content of soil, how much sunlight is available, etc. It does this all before sprouting a life form capable of turning sunlight into bioenergy and CO2 into oxygen. Which goes hand in hand with us, as without that we would die.

Now consider, if you will, that all these life forms must have manifested in unison, in order for all to survive. Now also consider, that according to Darwin's own theory, lightning could be called G-d, as it is the proposed catalyst which lead to all life.

As I have stated, it hasn't been proven, nor will it be proven. Everything around you reeks of design. The more you learn, the more you see it could be no other way. It is actually more believable than what you propose. But both require faith to understand.

Also, you might want to actually read Darwin's "On the Origin of Species" so you might have a further understanding on what Darwin, the creator of evolution actually thought. Wiki is useful. But to gain a complete understanding one should consider the source.



posted on May, 6 2014 @ 12:49 PM
link   
@pleasethink

You didn't read the citations - the definitions are standard.

It's what the EXPERIMENTAL DATA shows - not opinion or speculation or interpretation of what Darwin or anyone else said. It's the DATA. Nothing else. And the data proves beyond a reasonable doubt that evolution is a fact.

If your opinion differs, that's fine. But opinion is not proof of anything. It's only an opinion not backed up by experimental data.

This is about data which is accepted by the scientific community as reasonable proof of the former theory - which is now fact.

So you have to come up with data that proves those citations wrong.



posted on May, 6 2014 @ 12:55 PM
link   
As I have stated, it hasn't been proven, nor will it be proven. Everything around you reeks of design. The more you learn, the more you see it could be no other way. It is actually more believable than what you propose. But both require faith to understand.


When you say it "hasn't been proven", what do you think those experiments show?? Why do you think they do them?? If it's not proof, why isn't it? Those questions must be answered. Otherwise, it's a default in favor of proof of evolution.



new topics

top topics



 
12
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join