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.

 

Who wants to argue creation?

page: 23
19
<< 20  21  22    24  25  26 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 25 2015 @ 05:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: toktaylor
a reply to: spy66

If mass-energy cannot be created or destroyed, and if the universe is entirely composed of mass-energy, then the law of the conservation of mass-energy may be extrapolated to this startling conclusion: the universe, in one form or another, in one density or another, always existed. There was never a time when the mass-energy comprising our universe did not exist, if only in the form of an empty oscillating vacuum or an infinitely dense theoretical point called a singularity, consisting of no volume whatsoever.

IN CONCLUSION:

Look around, the forming of the universe was not a one event occurrence. It is still happening, galaxy and stars are being formed and consumed everyday and the universe is expanding, collapsing and changing right before your/our eyes. Do you see any evidence of any creator impacting any of the process happening in the universe now? Where you created, or did you evolve from a single cell orgasm to the person you are today.



I need to ask you one more question before i give a full answer.

Question: Have Our universe always existed? Or did it have a beginning at some point in time?




posted on Jun, 25 2015 @ 05:15 PM
link   
a reply to: spy66

Question: Have GOD always existed? Or did it/she/he have a beginning at some point in time?

Is it logical to believe that something you see and interact with from time immemorial has always existed or a invisible, unproven magician always existed...which is your conclusion.



posted on Jun, 25 2015 @ 05:19 PM
link   
If creationists possess empirical evidence to contradict the law of the conservation of mass-energy, let them share such information with the general scientific community. Otherwise, the fundamental doctrine of creationism—that the universe was created by God out of literally and absolutely nothing—must be recognized as theological rather than scientific. The term "Creation science" is therefore a self-contained contradiction in terms.



posted on Jun, 25 2015 @ 05:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: toktaylor
a reply to: spy66

Question: Have GOD always existed? Or did it/she/he have a beginning at some point in time?

Is it logical to believe that something you see and interact with from time immemorial has always existed or a invisible, unproven magician always existed...which is your conclusion.



Why cant you answer my question?

I am not trying trap you. You can answer With a simple yes or no.



posted on Jun, 25 2015 @ 05:57 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Jun, 25 2015 @ 05:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: toktaylor
If creationists possess empirical evidence to contradict the law of the conservation of mass-energy, let them share such information with the general scientific community. Otherwise, the fundamental doctrine of creationism—that the universe was created by God out of literally and absolutely nothing—must be recognized as theological rather than scientific. The term "Creation science" is therefore a self-contained contradiction in terms.


This Law that you mention is only relevant to Our universe. Dont you understand what you read?



posted on Jun, 25 2015 @ 06:01 PM
link   
a reply to: toktaylor




Have GOD always existed? Or did it/she/he have a beginning at some point in time?

Is it logical to believe that something you see and interact with from time immemorial has always existed or a invisible, unproven magician always existed..


I think many here might believe I'm joking in my posts regarding hologram and simulation theory but I urge you to take a closer look. They are both really the only working theories which answer a lot of questions.

In the past few years there have been some astonishing discoveries in QM including one by James Gates finding error correcting code in string theory equations. Deep subject. And the idea of existing forever isn't out of reach either if you think in terms of program executables or a video game. It makes perfect sense from the standpoint of a 'Sim' character (if it had A.I) would have always thought the game existed.



posted on Jun, 25 2015 @ 06:05 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Jun, 25 2015 @ 06:24 PM
link   
I'm a creationist, and I believe the World is about 6 to 10 thousand years old. I also believe it was made in 6 days. There is plenty of hard science to prove it. I don't get on ATS much anymore, but by now there must be hundreds of posts that prove the young Earth and 6 day creation.

If you believe in evolution, and you do not believe in a literal Adam and Eve, you are not a Christian. Christ came to resolve the problem caused by the sin of Adam. Christ talked about that and about Noah's ark. If you choose to believe in evolution, please do not call yourself a Christian. You aren't. Even if the Pope says it's okay.



posted on Jun, 25 2015 @ 06:27 PM
link   
Please review the second law of thermodynamics.
It is the reason for scientists to believe in the idea of the universe having an origin in time.
Also review entropy.

a reply to: spy66


edit on 6/25/2015 by Jim Scott because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 25 2015 @ 06:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: Jim ScottThere is plenty of hard science to prove it.


Creationist bingo, anyone?



posted on Jun, 25 2015 @ 06:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: Jim Scott
Please review the second law of thermodynamics.
It is the reason for scientists to believe in the idea of the universe having an origin in time.
Also review entropy.

a reply to: spy66



first explain to us your understanding of both the second law of thermodynamics and entropy and how they confirm the existence of a higher power. preferably in your own words.
edit on 25-6-2015 by TzarChasm because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 25 2015 @ 06:31 PM
link   
a reply to: Jim Scott




There is plenty of hard science to prove it.


Please, present some of that hard science. Because, as you know, there are mountains of hard science proving the world is 4.5 billion years old.



posted on Jun, 25 2015 @ 06:32 PM
link   
a reply to: FlySolo

Take one from the pile and pass your left:




posted on Jun, 25 2015 @ 06:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: Jim Scott
Please review the second law of thermodynamics.
It is the reason for scientists to believe in the idea of the universe having an origin in time.
Also review entropy.

a reply to: spy66



I agree. But the second Law still describes the function of a set state "The entropy of Our universe". It really dosent describe how Our universe came to be. But how the different Properties within Our universe functions from set time to a set end.

You see.....science cant describe anything Accept what it can observe, and science can only observe whats within Our universe at present time. You cant really use science to explaine creation...because it dosent have facts about how Our universe was formed.

Science is Limited to the speed of light. Our universe expands faster than light. So you cant use science to find facts about creation, only Clues.
edit on 27.06.08 by spy66 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 25 2015 @ 07:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: Jim Scott
Please review the second law of thermodynamics.
It is the reason for scientists to believe in the idea of the universe having an origin in time.
Also review entropy.

a reply to: spy66



first explain to us your understanding of both the second law of thermodynamics and entropy and how they confirm the existence of a higher power. preferably in your own words.


If i have made a mistake you would have called me on them. But you have not.
edit on 27.06.08 by spy66 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 25 2015 @ 07:13 PM
link   
a reply to: spy66

i could pick through every line of your posts and compile a long list of logical errors and gross assumptions, but 1) you arent interested in being corrected, 2) it isnt worth my time. you want an affirmative audience and not a genuine critique. to be perfectly honest, im tired of your games. the fact that you continually post here tells me you know deep down your "theories" dont hold any water otherwise you wouldnt be wasting time on a conspiracy forum (of all the places to make a name for yourself in terms of scientific breakthroughs). anywho, i wasnt talking to you. lets continue that.
edit on 25-6-2015 by TzarChasm because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 25 2015 @ 07:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: TzarChasm
a reply to: spy66

i wasnt talking to you. lets continue that.


But you replied to me 4 posts abowe ?


Sure i am interested. I would love to be corrected
I wont improve if i am not corrected.
edit on 27.06.08 by spy66 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 25 2015 @ 07:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: spy66

originally posted by: TzarChasm
a reply to: spy66

i wasnt talking to you. lets continue that.


But you replied to me 4 posts abowe ?



unless you have multiple accounts, no i did not.

please take the time to read who my posts are addressed to, even if you cant be bothered with the actual content.


Sure i am interested. I would love to be corrected I wont improve if i am not corrected.


you have been corrected on multiple occasions i have observed, and probably many more i have not. and yet you persist. you are clearly satisfied with where you are already in terms of scientific understanding (if it can be called such). if i cant make a horse drink, i certainly wont make it drown.

this is my last transmission to you. be joyful.
edit on 25-6-2015 by TzarChasm because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 25 2015 @ 07:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: spy66

originally posted by: TzarChasm
a reply to: spy66

i wasnt talking to you. lets continue that.


But you replied to me 4 posts abowe ?



unless you have multiple accounts, no i did not.

please take the time to read who my posts are addressed to, even if you cant be bothered with the actual content.


Sure i am interested. I would love to be corrected I wont improve if i am not corrected.


you have been corrected on multiple occasions i have observed, and probably many more i have not. and yet you persist. you are clearly satisfied with where you are already in terms of scientific understanding (if it can be called such). if i cant make a horse drink, i certainly wont make it drown.

this is my last transmission to you. be joyful.



The thing is....you dont have the know how to Challenge me.

You are nothing but Words.....

You were the one who called me out. Why dont you??? are you scared i will make you look bad?



new topics

top topics



 
19
<< 20  21  22    24  25  26 >>

log in

join