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.

 

Origin of Creationism

page: 10
7
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 30 2014 @ 04:17 AM
link   

originally posted by: Cogito, Ergo Sum

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg
a reply to: wtf2008

I'm an atheist and I don't trust the bible and I literally don't believe in god. In any way, shape or form.


I can certainly understand that, in fact I find that view fair enough. At least it is consistent with what we can observe.


I find that most atheists that I know, arrive at a similar opinion after evaluation of both sides of this argument and seem to be more knowledgeable of religion, than religious devotees.

Though it is possible there could be "something" (IMO)...that doesn't mean there definitely is, it certainly won't be the anthropomorphic being as depicted in popular religious myth. Now there's narcissist! This being simply cannot be supported in any way, scientifically, philosophically or anything else-ophically.


I actually became an atheist after getting an O-level in Scripture and then studying for my Confirmation. After which, to the confusion of my parents, I announced that I wasn't going to church any more because I no longer believed in god.




posted on Jul, 30 2014 @ 04:27 AM
link   

originally posted by: GetHyped
a reply to: wtf2008

The claims of Creationism regarding the origins of life and the cosmos have been debunked.
No evidence in favor of creationism has ever been presented.

I know you think you're coming at this from some new and impressive angle but you're not. These arguments have been debunked countless of times in this forum alone.
no acceptable evidence for evolution either.evolutionists use the unacceptable observation and association both have no scientific binding.
Science prove without doubt that all living humans branched from one man in recent history 50k years. While evolutionists claim man branched from chimps 7 million years ago.we should have DNA most recent common ancestor should be at least 2 million years ago not just few thousand years ago as seen by DNA testing proving creation as reported by human sagas of communities separated before the advent of Abrahamic religion. Also what is the probability of DNA result matching sagas and Abrahamic religion and other religions claim of humans branching from one man in recent history. It is one in a billion unless of course they were told by a very superior entity that knew what DNA testing discovered just few years ago hence the prophets were truthful and who told them so is indeed God !!!!



posted on Jul, 30 2014 @ 04:28 AM
link   
a reply to: Cogito, Ergo Sum

Science isn't some magic thing either that claims to know everything. Saying that just because science 'doesn't know yet' is not really much different than saying 'we don't know God's plan yet'. You can't possibly say that science will one day know everything.

Apparently Science is the new God though. "Genuine Science" barely exists. Most things we know about the universe are based on theories. A lot of theories that can't be proven. It could be because we lack the 'science' or it could be because there's no scientific answer.
We're still trying to prove Einstein's theories and those are from over 40 years ago. Newton's theories were just as good until Einstein came along and I'm sure Einstein's theories will be good until someone else comes up with better ones.
None of them are the be all end all of how the universe works. It's all just a big guessing game and your guess isn't any better than someone who believes there's some creator moving chess pieces on a board or steering us towards some unknown goal.



posted on Jul, 30 2014 @ 04:37 AM
link   

originally posted by: adnanmuf

originally posted by: GetHyped
a reply to: wtf2008

The claims of Creationism regarding the origins of life and the cosmos have been debunked.
No evidence in favor of creationism has ever been presented.

I know you think you're coming at this from some new and impressive angle but you're not. These arguments have been debunked countless of times in this forum alone.
no acceptable evidence for evolution either.evolutionists use the unacceptable observation and association both have no scientific binding.
Science prove without doubt that all living humans branched from one man in recent history 50k years. While evolutionists claim man branched from chimps 7 million years ago.we should have DNA most recent common ancestor should be at least 2 million years ago not just few thousand years ago as seen by DNA testing proving creation as reported by human sagas of communities separated before the advent of Abrahamic religion. Also what is the probability of DNA result matching sagas and Abrahamic religion and other religions claim of humans branching from one man in recent history. It is one in a billion unless of course they were told by a very superior entity that knew what DNA testing discovered just few years ago hence the prophets were truthful and who told them so is indeed God !!!!


I need a translation for this as well. Sorry, but this makes absolutely no sense. I really don't think that you've done the slightest bit of real research on this. AiG and other creationist websites are about as scientifically literate as my cats.



posted on Jul, 30 2014 @ 04:40 AM
link   

originally posted by: wtf2008
a reply to: Cogito, Ergo Sum

Science isn't some magic thing either that claims to know everything. Saying that just because science 'doesn't know yet' is not really much different than saying 'we don't know God's plan yet'. You can't possibly say that science will one day know everything.

Never said it would know everything. "We don't know" in itself, isn't a reason to include god in it's explanations though.


Science is the new God though. "Genuine Science" barely exists. Most things we know about the universe are based on theories. A lot of theories that can't be proven. It could be because we lack the 'science' or it could be because there's no scientific answer.

It might be worth looking up what a scientific theory is.


We're still trying to prove Einstein's theories and those are from over 40 years ago. Newton's theories were just as good until Einstein came along and I'm sure Einstein's theories will be good until someone else comes up with better ones.

Over a century for SR, nearly a century for GR. We know Einstein's theories break down at a certain point. That is why science is looking for a unified theory.


None of them are the be all end all of how the universe works. It's all just a big guessing game and your guess isn't any better than someone who believes there's some creator moving chess pieces on a board or steering us towards some unknown goal.

None of them claim to be the "be all and end all". Only religious claims do that. There's a little bit more to science than a "guessing game", but if you wish to believe that...you most certainly can.



posted on Jul, 30 2014 @ 05:18 AM
link   

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg

originally posted by: adnanmuf

originally posted by: GetHyped
a reply to: wtf2008

The claims of Creationism regarding the origins of life and the cosmos have been debunked.
No evidence in favor of creationism has ever been presented.

I know you think you're coming at this from some new and impressive angle but you're not. These arguments have been debunked countless of times in this forum alone.
no acceptable evidence for evolution either.evolutionists use the unacceptable observation and association both have no scientific binding.
Science prove without doubt that all living humans branched from one man in recent history 50k years. While evolutionists claim man branched from chimps 7 million years ago.we should have DNA most recent common ancestor should be at least 2 million years ago not just few thousand years ago as seen by DNA testing proving creation as reported by human sagas of communities separated before the advent of Abrahamic religion. Also what is the probability of DNA result matching sagas and Abrahamic religion and other religions claim of humans branching from one man in recent history. It is one in a billion unless of course they were told by a very superior entity that knew what DNA testing discovered just few years ago hence the prophets were truthful and who told them so is indeed God !!!!


I need a translation for this as well. Sorry, but this makes absolutely no sense. I really don't think that you've done the slightest bit of real research on this. AiG and other creationist websites are about as scientifically literate as my cats.
no it's completely understood. You're just cornered and unable to debate or discuss. You're using excuses because you have no answer. Using dissimulation and playing you did not understand the questions.
You can go reread your textbooks and come back when you have answers.
edit on 30-7-2014 by adnanmuf because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 30 2014 @ 05:38 AM
link   

originally posted by: adnanmuf

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg

originally posted by: adnanmuf

originally posted by: GetHyped
a reply to: wtf2008

The claims of Creationism regarding the origins of life and the cosmos have been debunked.
No evidence in favor of creationism has ever been presented.

I know you think you're coming at this from some new and impressive angle but you're not. These arguments have been debunked countless of times in this forum alone.
no acceptable evidence for evolution either.evolutionists use the unacceptable observation and association both have no scientific binding.
Science prove without doubt that all living humans branched from one man in recent history 50k years. While evolutionists claim man branched from chimps 7 million years ago.we should have DNA most recent common ancestor should be at least 2 million years ago not just few thousand years ago as seen by DNA testing proving creation as reported by human sagas of communities separated before the advent of Abrahamic religion. Also what is the probability of DNA result matching sagas and Abrahamic religion and other religions claim of humans branching from one man in recent history. It is one in a billion unless of course they were told by a very superior entity that knew what DNA testing discovered just few years ago hence the prophets were truthful and who told them so is indeed God !!!!


I need a translation for this as well. Sorry, but this makes absolutely no sense. I really don't think that you've done the slightest bit of real research on this. AiG and other creationist websites are about as scientifically literate as my cats.
no it's completely understood. You're just cornered and unable to debate or discuss. You're using excuses because you have no answer. Using dissimulation and playing you did not understand the questions.
You can go reread your textbooks and come back when you have answers.


I think that you have it backwards. People have posted up explanations and proof - all of which you have high-handedly dismissed. You then claimed victory based on your own prejudices. I think that you're the one in a corner. What's the view of the wall like there?



posted on Jul, 30 2014 @ 06:14 AM
link   
a reply to: adnanmuf

No... you're not making sense... your posts are getting more and more incoherent, and what bits do make some sense are erroneous opinions without any basis in reality.

Your lack of knowledge in the sciences is astounding... you sound like a petulant child that is having a tantrum, and can't be reasoned with.

You made me think of this image strong enough that I had to post it…

Good luck with your delusions.



posted on Jul, 30 2014 @ 06:42 AM
link   

originally posted by: wtf2008
Theism, in most cases is based on a biblical God. The 'term' Atheist literally means that you don't believe in God. Most of the ''Atheists" I know, or have spoken to, aren't so literal.

You haven't spoken then to atheist, but rather agnostics. I will explain this part rather in later paragraph.


originally posted by: wtf2008
They just don't believe in the bible. It's a book with fairy tales that may or may not have happened. I don't think I speak for all Atheists, but I can say that the atheists I've spoken to are mostly concerned with not believing bible stories. Guess why? Because they can be proven wrong.

So far - good, they were proven wrong, many times over.



originally posted by: wtf2008
What can't be proven is how life, supposedly intelligent life, somehow evolved.
It's really just as unbelievable as theism. If we weren't here to argue about if some kind of God did or didn't exist then it wouldn't really matter. We'd be monkeys throwing # at each other (I'd throw so much # at you). But somehow it 'magically' happened very quickly. I haven't kept up, is human evolution an actual proven fact yet? Because I thought science knew everything.

But human evolution IS and actually proven fact ALREADY. There is no doubt in science about evolution. Religious folks, similar to parrot OP posts here are trying to discredit evolution and science, but even late Pope, John Paul II has acknowledged back in 1996 that evolution is not mere hypothesis. ( www.christianitytoday.com... )

I know, it would sound much cooler if both are wrong, but guess what - one is proven many times to be workable model, tested and testable.

So please, don't fall for such a comments that evolution is not proven, it is and its base for many advancement in science in past century.

As for my comment about atheism - it is more like VOID of belief, non existence of belief itself.
edit on 30-7-2014 by SuperFrog because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 30 2014 @ 06:50 AM
link   

originally posted by: tsingtao

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: randyvs

Then why hasn't this god of yours produced more of said evidence if he is so insistent on everyone believing in him? Seems kind of odd that he would rely on testimonials of people from thousands of years ago to be the ONLY evidence of his existence that hasn't degraded over time when (according to the bible) he could produce said evidence easily and without much afterthought.

Did it ever occur to you that MAYBE just MAYBE belief in god isn't required to go where ever you are destined to go once you die? I know a thought like that is anathema to religion, but in all likelihood it is the most likely explanation for god and his not providing evidence for his existence. If he exists that is.


romans 14:11

Romans 14:11New International Version (NIV)

11 It is written:

“‘As surely as I live,’ says the Lord,
‘every knee will bow before me;
every tongue will acknowledge God.’”[a]

so it doesn't matter if one believes or not.

all will be judged.

christians don't have VIP access to God or a leg up on getting into heaven.



So why do we need Christianity then?



posted on Jul, 30 2014 @ 07:02 AM
link   

originally posted by: wtf2008
a reply to: Cogito, Ergo Sum

Science isn't some magic thing either that claims to know everything. Saying that just because science 'doesn't know yet' is not really much different than saying 'we don't know God's plan yet'. You can't possibly say that science will one day know everything.


The difference being that as we do more and more science, we can fill in the gaps of things that science doesn't know. God's plan seems to remain unknowable and we have gained no new knowledge towards it. I'd rather side with science. We actually learn things that way instead of sitting in the dark knowledge-wise and awaiting answers we can explain our surroundings.


Apparently Science is the new God though. "Genuine Science" barely exists. Most things we know about the universe are based on theories. A lot of theories that can't be proven. It could be because we lack the 'science' or it could be because there's no scientific answer.


Genuine science? What's that? Science is just a process that humans have invented to try to better understand the universe through careful analysis. It is a process. The universe doesn't science. That is absurd. As of now though science is the BEST tool we have to best understand the universe without making assumptions about it. Assumptions about it lead to confirmation bias (assumptions like god exists despite no evidence).


We're still trying to prove Einstein's theories and those are from over 40 years ago. Newton's theories were just as good until Einstein came along and I'm sure Einstein's theories will be good until someone else comes up with better ones.


So? That's how science works. Are you denying any of those theories are real? Do you deny gravity? Do you deny relativity? Just because we cannot prove without a doubt 100% of the theories doesn't mean they are incorrect. Sure they may need some more fine-tuning as we learn more about the universe, but that doesn't mean that as a whole they are wrong.


None of them are the be all end all of how the universe works. It's all just a big guessing game and your guess isn't any better than someone who believes there's some creator moving chess pieces on a board or steering us towards some unknown goal.


Actually, yes it is a better guess, because science has this thing called evidence to back up its findings. You have a book of testimonials from people who may or may not be exaggerating or lying about their experiences. It's not even CLOSE to a similar comparison. Looking at your post it is safe to say that you understand next to nothing about how science works and develops theories. You should go learn about these things and learn why you are wrong then come back and have this discussion. Until then, you are showing up to a gun fight with a twizzler as your weapon.

ETA: It's funny that you denounce science considering you are literally using a device made possible by science to have this conversation. Every part of modern technology is made possible by science and the scientific method. We didn't just randomly put different pieces of equipment together and magically assemble a computer. No it came from understand electricity and other physical properties made possible by THEORIES that you are calling into question because they are "unprovable".
edit on 30-7-2014 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 30 2014 @ 07:09 AM
link   

originally posted by: adnanmuf
Science prove without doubt that all living humans branched from one man in recent history 50k years. While evolutionists claim man branched from chimps 7 million years ago.we should have DNA most recent common ancestor should be at least 2 million years ago not just few thousand years ago as seen by DNA testing proving creation as reported by human sagas of communities separated before the advent of Abrahamic religion. Also what is the probability of DNA result matching sagas and Abrahamic religion and other religions claim of humans branching from one man in recent history. It is one in a billion unless of course they were told by a very superior entity that knew what DNA testing discovered just few years ago hence the prophets were truthful and who told them so is indeed God !!!!


You haven't notice more then once at researches that points that earlier research that you parrot-repeat over and over was wrong and that new research place 'imaginative' Adam somewhere between 237,000 and 581,000 years ago. (Thank you Krazysh0t)

Now, do you understand that person such as this actually never existed and not just that never he met what they call Eve - but they never mated and lived in completely different times?!

All those mad and bad scientist - I bet they just conspire to make religion look wrong, don't you agree?



posted on Jul, 30 2014 @ 07:10 AM
link   

originally posted by: adnanmuf
no acceptable evidence for evolution either.


WRONG!

www.talkorigins.org...
evolution.berkeley.edu...
en.wikipedia.org...
anthro.palomar.edu...
evolution.berkeley.edu...
necsi.edu...

I shan't expect a coherent rebuttal from you any time soon. I'm assuming you'll move the goalposts and define some impossible standard for "evidence" that you clearly don't hold your own fundamentalist beliefs to.


Edit: anyone else getting the sense of deja vu?
edit on 30-7-2014 by GetHyped because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 30 2014 @ 07:13 AM
link   

originally posted by: adnanmuf

originally posted by: GetHyped
a reply to: wtf2008

The claims of Creationism regarding the origins of life and the cosmos have been debunked.
No evidence in favor of creationism has ever been presented.

I know you think you're coming at this from some new and impressive angle but you're not. These arguments have been debunked countless of times in this forum alone.
no acceptable evidence for evolution either.evolutionists use the unacceptable observation and association both have no scientific binding.
Science prove without doubt that all living humans branched from one man in recent history 50k years. While evolutionists claim man branched from chimps 7 million years ago.we should have DNA most recent common ancestor should be at least 2 million years ago not just few thousand years ago as seen by DNA testing proving creation as reported by human sagas of communities separated before the advent of Abrahamic religion. Also what is the probability of DNA result matching sagas and Abrahamic religion and other religions claim of humans branching from one man in recent history. It is one in a billion unless of course they were told by a very superior entity that knew what DNA testing discovered just few years ago hence the prophets were truthful and who told them so is indeed God !!!!


I see you ignored my link a few pages ago that explains that the y-chromosome adam and the mitochodrial eve that you are referring to didn't live during the same period and didn't know each other and that neither of those two individuals are the first humans on the planet.

Though, I gotta say. If you don't believe in evolution, I sure hope you don't go to the hospital anytime soon. You obviously shouldn't believe that most of their treatments and medicine will work. After all, modern medicine is based on genetics and evolutionary theory. So if evolution isn't true, then modern medicine is bunk.



posted on Jul, 30 2014 @ 08:12 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

I'm afraid that Adnanmuf is showing all the hallmarks of the committed creationist person-who-lives-under-a-bridge. He refuses to read or understand cites, he ignores and eventually misrepresents any evidence that contradicts his own beliefs, he belittles anyone who dares to point out the flaws in his arguments and he claims victories that only exist in his own mind.



posted on Jul, 30 2014 @ 08:23 AM
link   

originally posted by: GetHyped

originally posted by: adnanmuf
no acceptable evidence for evolution either.


WRONG!

www.talkorigins.org...
evolution.berkeley.edu...
en.wikipedia.org...
anthro.palomar.edu...
evolution.berkeley.edu...
necsi.edu...

I shan't expect a coherent rebuttal from you any time soon. I'm assuming you'll move the goalposts and define some impossible standard for "evidence" that you clearly don't hold your own fundamentalist beliefs to.


Edit: anyone else getting the sense of deja vu?


Regrettably, yes. This is turning into your standard "Evilution is wrong and bad and mean and stinky and only I know how wrong and bad and stinky you all are and now I'm going to stick my fingers in my ears and ignore you all with your mean, bad stinky facts and concentrate only on how one-sided my victory is!" creationist threads isn't it?



posted on Jul, 30 2014 @ 01:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: GetHyped

originally posted by: adnanmuf
no acceptable evidence for evolution either.


WRONG!

www.talkorigins.org...
evolution.berkeley.edu...
en.wikipedia.org...
anthro.palomar.edu...
evolution.berkeley.edu...
necsi.edu...

I shan't expect a coherent rebuttal from you any time soon. I'm assuming you'll move the goalposts and define some impossible standard for "evidence" that you clearly don't hold your own fundamentalist beliefs to.


Edit: anyone else getting the sense of deja vu?
as per your references the evolution theory is descriptive!!!.

Hence it has no power.
On the other hand DNA evidence shows that y chromosom had a beginning and will have an end in the near future. Hence if things are explained by evolution then evolution ultimate goal is termination.. also all mutations observed since discovery of DNA clearly cause degradation and disease. There has been no beneficial mutation..unless if there is external intervention on living beings on earth evolution would have caused end of species without the possibly of evolving into a better or a worse species.t b



posted on Jul, 30 2014 @ 01:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: adnanmuf

originally posted by: GetHyped

originally posted by: adnanmuf
no acceptable evidence for evolution either.


WRONG!

www.talkorigins.org...
evolution.berkeley.edu...
en.wikipedia.org...
anthro.palomar.edu...
evolution.berkeley.edu...
necsi.edu...

I shan't expect a coherent rebuttal from you any time soon. I'm assuming you'll move the goalposts and define some impossible standard for "evidence" that you clearly don't hold your own fundamentalist beliefs to.


Edit: anyone else getting the sense of deja vu?
as per your references the evolution theory is descriptive!!!.

Hence it has no power.
On the other hand DNA evidence shows that y chromosom had a beginning and will have an end in the near future. Hence if things are explained by evolution then evolution ultimate goal is termination.. also all mutations observed since discovery of DNA clearly cause degradation and disease. There has been no beneficial mutation..unless if there is external intervention on living beings on earth evolution would have caused end of species without the possibly of evolving into a better or a worse species.t b


Ladies and gentlemen I rest my case.



posted on Jul, 30 2014 @ 01:43 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t




Longer than any of our lifetimes,


Beautiful! Now get the next piece?



posted on Jul, 30 2014 @ 02:00 PM
link   
a reply to: randyvs

Next piece of what? What are you talking about?




top topics



 
7
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join