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: 24
19
<< 21  22  23    25  26  27 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 25 2015 @ 07:35 PM
link   
this whole thread looks bad. and yet those in favor of creationism will insist on starting more arguments, moving more goalposts, mining more quotes and misrepresenting more science. there are a few dozen threads (at least) just like this one to prove my point if anyone is interested in doing the digging, easily accessible via the ats search engine. have fun.




posted on Jun, 25 2015 @ 07:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: TzarChasm
this whole thread looks bad. and yet those in favor of creationism will insist on starting more arguments, moving more goalposts, mining more quotes and misrepresenting more science. there are a few dozen threads (at least) just like this one to prove my point if anyone is interested in doing the digging, easily accessible via the ats search engine. have fun.


Does this mean you give up or what????

I was hoping you had some solid facts to argue Your case......but i Guess you dont have any


Logic is a bi#ch isent it

edit on 27.06.08 by spy66 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 25 2015 @ 07:45 PM
link   
Wow. 23 pages of people saying:

Prove it.
No, you prove.
No, YOU prove it.
I have all the proof in this book here.
No, I have all the proof in this book here...

Both side are inherently unprovable. Creation will never be proven because God will never make an appearance. Evolution will only be proven when it's evidenced on another planet – which will be impossible to get to.

The massive weight of evidence arguing for the Theory of Evolution trumps Creation in almost every respect, largely because there is absolutely zero evidence for creation, but creationists will never accept it. Likewise, science will never accept the Bible's Genesis as evidence of anything either.

So many arguments, vitriol and animosity towards people we have never met. Let's just agree to disagree.



posted on Jun, 25 2015 @ 07:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: 321Go
Wow. 23 pages of people saying:

Prove it.
No, you prove.
No, YOU prove it.
I have all the proof in this book here.
No, I have all the proof in this book here...

Both side are inherently unprovable. Creation will never be proven because God will never make an appearance. Evolution will only be proven when it's evidenced on another planet – which will be impossible to get to.

The massive weight of evidence arguing for the Theory of Evolution trumps Creation in almost every respect, largely because there is absolutely zero evidence for creation, but creationists will never accept it. Likewise, science will never accept the Bible's Genesis as evidence of anything either.

So many arguments, vitriol and animosity towards people we have never met. Let's just agree to disagree.



Talk about stating a contradiction. (Both sides are inherently unprovable) But than you go on to say that the theory of evolution trumps creation......Jesse's who are you?

Evolution is just as easly related to creation. Have you read Genesis Chapter 1.....?



posted on Jun, 25 2015 @ 08:01 PM
link   
a reply to: spy66

You say you're not religious then you go and refer to Genesis ....pffft give it up already.



posted on Jun, 25 2015 @ 08:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: FlySolo
a reply to: spy66

You say you're not religious then you go and refer to Genesis ....pffft give it up already.


Must i be religious to refer to genesis?

I can tell you that i believe in God. But i am not religious......I think religion have it all wrong. To me religion is a mans perspective of Gods Word. I dont believe the Preachers teach the truth.
edit on 27.06.08 by spy66 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 25 2015 @ 08:13 PM
link   

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

Your post, I swear, to me, is one of the most outstanding remissions
I have read on this site.

It might seem like it, but it has always been my stance. I am very open to the possibility that there could be "something" (most atheists are) if it has evidence, but it isn't any of the usual religious gods that are trotted out. They are not only without evidence but aren't even possible (as claimed) IMO and fail every sniff test (science, observation, logic etc not to mention common sense). I notice you answered exactly 0. Fair enough.



edit on 25-6-2015 by Cogito, Ergo Sum because: for the heck of it



posted on Jun, 25 2015 @ 08:16 PM
link   
a reply to: spy66

You DO realize that the god of whatever you believe in...didn't personally hand write Genesis.




To me religion is a mans perspective of Gods Word. I dont believe the Preachers teach the truth.


Why are you referring to Genesis to make a point then?
Do you mind me asking how old you are? I need some perspective if I'm dealing with an adult or a child.



posted on Jun, 25 2015 @ 08:19 PM
link   
a reply to: randyvs

So, in our search for other "earths", what do we look for? We look for planets in the Goldilocks zone, or the habitable zone. Not too far from a star, not too close, etc, etc. And why do we do that? Because it has the highest probability of sustaining life? Why does that happen? Because out of the billions of galaxies, with billions of solar systems, only a small percentage will have the right conditions for sustaining life. We aren't here because some god happened to design the conditions here to produce us, we're here because, out of all the other billions of possible conditions that exist for all the other billions of planets in the universe, ours happened to be just right for producing life. When I hear arguments like yours, I hear someone saying "well, good thing god didn't put me on Neptune, because I would never survive there". You're here because of very unique set of circumstances - unique to earth. We aren't chosen, we aren't special, we exist as a byproduct of a much larger process. Think of all the other "we's" out there (and, yes, they are out there) - was their corner of the universe "designed" to produce them, or are they also just a byproduct of a very large and very long process? I can't imagine going for the former, when the latter just seems so logical.

Also, this is yet another case of fitting evidence to a pre-conceived belief system. Your OP represents thinking from thousands of years ago, before science allowed us to understand all of the complex processes that have existed for billions of years, and still exist today. Things evolve, things change, things go through these complex processes - no one placed the moon where its, no one molded the sun to its size - those are the way they are today as a result of these processes - and, I hate to tell you, but some day, they won't be as they are now and earth as you know it will cease to exist. Because of processes. I guess people will continue to try to make us more than we are - someday science will prove that just isn't so. We're getting there..



posted on Jun, 25 2015 @ 08:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: FlySolo
a reply to: spy66

You DO realize that the god of whatever you believe in...didn't personally hand write Genesis.




To me religion is a mans perspective of Gods Word. I dont believe the Preachers teach the truth.


Why are you referring to Genesis to make a point then?
Do you mind me asking how old you are? I need some perspective if I'm dealing with an adult or a child.


I am a 44 year old male.

I am refering to genesis because it describes the Big Bang almoste to the last detail. But With a different wording.
The moste importen thing about genesis is that genesis describes the state of the void/space prior to the creation of the firmament (singularity). Something science dont. Because it cant describe it. because it has not observed it.







edit on 27.06.08 by spy66 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 25 2015 @ 08:47 PM
link   
a reply to: redtic


Think of all the other "we's" out there (and, yes, they are out there) - was their corner of the universe "designed" to produce them, or are they also just a byproduct of a very large and very long process?


All the other what we's? You actually believe something that has far
less evidence to be considered than what there is for a Creator.
I fail to see how you can grope ( They are out there ) and completely
discount scholarly documents on scripture. What a JOKE!
edit on Rpm62515v48201500000047 by randyvs because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 25 2015 @ 08:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: 321Go
Wow. 23 pages of people saying:

Prove it.
No, you prove.
No, YOU prove it.
I have all the proof in this book here.
No, I have all the proof in this book here...

Both side are inherently unprovable.

Bible based creationism should be easy enough to prove. Simply demonstrate with evidence that the biblical account and timeline for creation is true. What has happened instead is that scientific observations discredit it. So, even if god exists, the bible account is still myth. As to the rest (other claims of creationism), no real evidence for any of it.

There is no more need to disprove a creator than there is to disprove leprechauns. They will be considered relevant when there is evidence. Until then, they are irrelevant.


Creation will never be proven because God will never make an appearance.

For obvious reasons. There are no religious gods.


Evolution will only be proven when it's evidenced on another planet – which will be impossible to get to.

Nonsense. Every genuine relevant scientific observation ever made on this planet supports evolution so it is well and truly accepted at this stage. Do you really think evolutionary biologists are holding off...waiting for some sort of extraterrestrial confirmation..? lol.


The massive weight of evidence arguing for the Theory of Evolution trumps Creation in almost every respect, largely because there is absolutely zero evidence for creation, but creationists will never accept it. Likewise, science will never accept the Bible's Genesis as evidence of anything either.

The word "almost" in this instance is superfluous. Most scientists (who have bothered to look) accept what the evidence for genesis indicates, it is storytelling and mythology originating in the late bronze age. Though some might quibble about whether it is iron age.


So many arguments, vitriol and animosity towards people we have never met. Let's just agree to disagree.







edit on 25-6-2015 by Cogito, Ergo Sum because: for the heck of it



posted on Jun, 25 2015 @ 09:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: randyvs
a reply to: redtic


Think of all the other "we's" out there (and, yes, they are out there) - was their corner of the universe "designed" to produce them, or are they also just a byproduct of a very large and very long process?


All the other what we's? You actually believe something that has far
less evidence to be considered than what there is for a Creator.
I fail to see how you can grope ( They are out there ) and completely
discount scholarly documents on scripture. What a JOKE!


Yeah, probability dictates it... well, here.. Mr Randy meet Dr Tyson...



(watch at least the first half)



posted on Jun, 25 2015 @ 09:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: spy66

The moste importen thing about genesis is that genesis describes the state of the void/space prior to the creation of the firmament (singularity). Something science dont. Because it cant describe it. because it has not observed it.



The claim that there was any "space" prior to "creation" is a massive one, completely devoid of evidence and based only on your personal reasoning and beliefs. It seems you have the same problem as scientists, you haven't observed it either. The difference being that scientists realise that.



posted on Jun, 25 2015 @ 09:47 PM
link   

OK, THAT WILL BE ENOUGH!!!




The personal back and forth will stop right now. You don't like what's being put forth? Debate the topic, not each other.

If you can't bring yourself to do that, find a different topic.


Do not reply to this post.
edit on 6/25/2015 by seagull because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 26 2015 @ 12:09 AM
link   
a reply to: Cogito, Ergo Sum




I notice you answered exactly 0. Fair enough.


Woe woe Cog ####ing woe! Are you really willing to bet
that I was patronizing you to avoid answering? When I
just as easily could've meant every word. But only wanted
to clarify first, separately and honestly. Nevermind. I'll
answer you Cog. Just really busy right now.



posted on Jun, 26 2015 @ 12:24 AM
link   
a reply to: redtic




Yeah, probability dictates it... well, here.. Mr Randy meet Dr Tyson...



We've met! Very unattractive when arrogance replaces humility. And
the only thing to exceed how smart he thinks he is? Is how smart he
wants you to think he is. I shutter to think of him as the true human
being. Further more he's a total ass for even try'n to convince people
he knows it all. And in 2000 yrs how many people will smile because
of him.



edit on Ram62615v26201500000012 by randyvs because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 26 2015 @ 12:42 AM
link   
. Science being so scientific and
closed minded would rather use words like coincidence to explain
the gaps that science will never be able to explain. Science often
sounds like George Bush.

Good point Randy .

Ilove the constant bs they spruike ...
like - too much is bad for you , then a month later ....it's good for you .
Anything to make a buck , no matter how toxic it may be !
Tankyou science for NOT adding up consequences ,
everyone knows we NEED glow in the dark pets ....

S&F glad to see your back,



posted on Jun, 26 2015 @ 12:53 AM
link   
a reply to: radarloveguy

Huh! Thank you Radar!



posted on Jun, 26 2015 @ 04:24 AM
link   

originally posted by: Cogito, Ergo Sum

originally posted by: spy66

The moste importen thing about genesis is that genesis describes the state of the void/space prior to the creation of the firmament (singularity). Something science dont. Because it cant describe it. because it has not observed it.



The claim that there was any "space" prior to "creation" is a massive one, completely devoid of evidence and based only on your personal reasoning and beliefs. It seems you have the same problem as scientists, you haven't observed it either. The difference being that scientists realise that.



Well i stick to my claim. And please note that it was I who made the claim.

Sure there is no Scientific evidence.....where and how would science gather such evidence????

Science is Limited to the speed of light. Our universe is expanding faster than the speed of light. Our observable universe is 13,8 billion years old. Have a diameter of about 91 billion light years.

To use science to argue creation is a dead end. But there are Clues to this. If Our universe is expanding faster than the speed of light and Our observable universe is 13,8 billion years old and 91 billion light years in diameter. What does that tell you???


edit on 27.06.08 by spy66 because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
19
<< 21  22  23    25  26  27 >>

log in

join