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.

 

Is There Evidence for Creationism? Show it to us.

page: 11
17
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 30 2015 @ 04:02 PM
link   
a reply to: Astyanax

hm and what evidence would that be? I mean we are talking about another plane of existence which is like another layer to this normal reality and is mental and you operate with thoughts. So this can be a tricky one


unfortunately I am not an expert yet on astral travel because I have managed to successfully project and fly around my house and short trips around my village only until I lost focus and it all went into a crazy dream.

But there certainly are infinity of other entities and each one of us (souls,atman) have a hidden guide aka. spirit guide, which can show you what you need to know and would understand depending on your present development of your soul.

And also for now I have not experienced this meeting with my guide or at least I do not remember it, because you know how hard it is to remember dreams, so I cannot say any more than that. But if those things are "real", than you can guess to what answer this is pointing...




posted on Aug, 30 2015 @ 04:41 PM
link   
www.evolutionnews.org...

Intelligent Design has scientific merit because it is an empirically based
argument that uses well-accepted methods of historical sciences in order
to detect in nature the types of complexity that we understand, from
present-day observations, are derived from intelligent causes. When
we study nature through science, we find evidence of fine-tuning and
planning -- intelligent design -- from the macroarchitecture of the entire
universe to the tiniest submicroscopic biomolecular machines.

Praise the Lord
Hallelujah and Shalom



posted on Aug, 30 2015 @ 04:52 PM
link   
The only kind of people that believe in Creationism are religious nut-cases. While the people that believe Evolution is the best explanation for the diversity we see on our planet are concerned with finding the truth about the world in which we live; regardless of their own preconceived notions or religious dogma.

That is all the evidence I need to prove that Creationism is just plain stupid. Next thing we know, the Creationist wackos will be strapping bombs to themselves and demanding we allow this nonsense to take over. Between them, the Flat Earthers and the "Moon landing was a hoax" people, I really fear for the future of this country.



posted on Aug, 30 2015 @ 04:54 PM
link   
a reply to: radarloveguy

The intelligent design crowd have been proved in a court of law to be frauds and liars.



Excellent watch btw as a non American It opened up my eyes a lot.
edit on 30-8-2015 by boymonkey74 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 30 2015 @ 05:11 PM
link   
a reply to: boymonkey74

Sorry , but the law is an ass .
I have already linked you to Einstein
AND Hawkins , who categorically
admit intelligent design is proven.

(the law allows me to recognise factual evidence
...even thugh humans act like monkeys )



posted on Aug, 30 2015 @ 06:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: spygeek
Seriously, is there any non biblical evidence in support of creationism?

I've looked really, really hard, but found absolutely none..


If you've looked really really hard and found absolutely nothing, it's most likely because your mind was made up from the start, so in that sense your search was in vain.

That said, my mind is not made up and my belief system can change if new data imposes it. It's my personal opinion that the knowledge that we have of the Universe today is not enough to answer the debate between creationism and evolution.

Could a highly intelligent consciousness create an artificial Universe? Why not? Are we living in one? Who really knows?

Personally once again, I wonder if the Universe is not a software. It behaves like a software, it seems to be based on mathematics, like a software.

In your thorough search for evidence for creationism, did you come across Michael J Behe's book "Darwin's Black Box"? To me it did at least open up new avenues of thought on evolution.



posted on Aug, 30 2015 @ 06:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: Smack
The only kind of people that believe in Creationism are religious nut-cases. While the people that believe Evolution is the best explanation for the diversity we see on our planet are concerned with finding the truth about the world in which we live; regardless of their own preconceived notions or religious dogma.

That is all the evidence I need to prove that Creationism is just plain stupid. Next thing we know, the Creationist wackos will be strapping bombs to themselves and demanding we allow this nonsense to take over. Between them, the Flat Earthers and the "Moon landing was a hoax" people, I really fear for the future of this country.


That is a truly uneducated, and quite frankly a disturbing comment. The bible says "You shall not kill". The religious who go to war, violate the bible. The non-religious who abort babies and sell their parts, violate the bible.



posted on Aug, 30 2015 @ 06:51 PM
link   
a reply to: TheChrome




The bible says "You shall not kill".

It says a lot of other stuff too.
"...if a man has an emission of semen, he shall bathe his whole body in water, and be unclean until the evening. And every garment and every skin on which the semen comes shall be washed with water, and be unclean until the evening. If a man lies with a woman...both of them shall... be unclean until the evening"

Have you "violated" the Bible?


BTW, isn't it supposed to be the "Bible?"

edit on 8/30/2015 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 30 2015 @ 07:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: TheChrome




The bible says "You shall not kill".

It says a lot of other stuff too.
"...if a man has an emission of semen, he shall bathe his whole body in water, and be unclean until the evening. And every garment and every skin on which the semen comes shall be washed with water, and be unclean until the evening. If a man lies with a woman...both of them shall... be unclean until the evening"

Have you "violated" the Bible?


BTW, isn't it supposed to be the "Bible?"


Sorry .. off topic
wasn't that another of those secret Clinton e-mails ?




posted on Aug, 30 2015 @ 07:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: TheChrome




The bible says "You shall not kill".

It says a lot of other stuff too.
"...if a man has an emission of semen, he shall bathe his whole body in water, and be unclean until the evening. And every garment and every skin on which the semen comes shall be washed with water, and be unclean until the evening. If a man lies with a woman...both of them shall... be unclean until the evening"

Have you "violated" the Bible?


BTW, isn't it supposed to be the "Bible?"


"Christ is the end of the law so that there may be righteousness for everyone who believes." (Romans 10:4)

The law code of old foreshadowed the Christ, but Christians are not obligated to follow those laws anymore.

"These are a shadow of things that were to come; the reality, however, is found in Christ. (Colossians 2:17)



posted on Aug, 30 2015 @ 07:11 PM
link   
a reply to: radarloveguy

Dr. Hugh Ross. Really?

Let's take a look at this guy -


Hugh Norman Ross (born July 24, 1945) is a Canadian North American astrophysicist, Christian apologist, and old earth creationist.

Ross has a Ph.D. in astrophysics from the University of Toronto[1][2] and an undergraduate degree in physics from the University of British Columbia.[3] He is known for establishing his own ministry called Reasons to Believe that promotes progressive and day-age forms of Old Earth Creationism. Ross accepts the scientific age of the earth and the scientific age of the universe, however he rejects unguided evolution and abiogenesis as explanations for the history and origin of life.[4][5][6]

..

Hugh Ross has been criticized by CSUF professor emeritus Mark Perakh for misunderstanding basic concepts of thermodynamics together with misinterpretations of Hebrew words.[15][16]


Wikipedia


Hugh Norman Ross (born 1945) is a Canadian astrophysicist and Christian old-earth creationist. He has a B.Sc. in physics and a Ph.D. in astronomy, and is the owner and president of Reasons To Believe, a Christian think-tank that advocates progressive creationism.[1] Ross accepts the scientific consensus on an old age of the earth and of the universe but rejects evolution and the scientific evidence for evolution. Ross is a prolific writer of books on creationism in which he attempts to reconcile the Bible and science. He has extensively criticized young earth creationism.

..

Ross defends progressive creationism, the view that although the earth is billions of years old, life did not appear by natural evolution. Instead, a supernatural God formed different lifeforms in progressive stages.[2]

His attempts to reconcile an old universe with a literal interpretation of Genesis have been known to engender some ad hoc hypotheses (the Flood was local, a day–age interpretation of Genesis Chapter 1). According to Ross, however, his position - rejecting science on the topic of evolution but accepting it on the origin of the universe - is justified by the fact that the origin of the universe is established by true science (astronomy, his own field), whereas claims about the origin and development of life on Earth are mere speculation:

“”Outside of astronomy, the question of origins is not science, but rather history. Origins research seeks to recount the events of a unique, one-time occurrence in the past. With the exception of astronomy, the opportunity to design and repeat carefully controlled experiments is not available to those engaged in deciphering origins.[3]
His numerous books are dedicated to the goal of proving the complete compatibility of modern science with the word of the Bible. In fact, it is apparently only his particular brand of Christianity that will stand the test

..

Ross has even granted that Intelligent Design per today is not a scientific hypothesis and should not be taught in schools. Luckily, he does have his own “testable” version at hand. In “Creation As Science: A Testable Model Approach to End the Creation/Evolution Wars” he provided 90 “scientific” predictions made by his brand of creationism. Unfortunately, his predictions are all vague, non-quantitative and even silly interpretations made after the fact to fit his prior assumptions, and formulated in a manner that ensures that there is no way they would falsify his preferred hypothesis, or that it would be possible to devise an experiment that would actually test them. It is also left fully open how he derived them. For instance, one of his predictions is “Genesis’s perfect fit with the fossil record;” it is, however, unclear what that even means, how it counts as a prediction, or how Ross understands the data to make it fit with a hypothesis he does not even spell out. Most of the “predictions” – the ones that make sense or are even remotely precise – are also completely compatible with evolution.[8]

One example of his “testable predictions” (from his book “Lights In the Sky and Little Green Men: A Rational Christian Look at UFO’s and Extraterrestrials”) is that “UFO's come from the Devil.” Ross claims that it can be tested as follows: “according to the Bible” demons only attack people who dip into the occult and make themselves vulnerable. Hence, “[a]ll that is necessary to further prove the conclusions of demonic involvement […] is to continue surveying people to ascertain who has encounters with residual UFO's and who does not. If the demonic identification of the RUFO phenomenon is correct, researchers should continue to observe a correlation between the degree of invitations in a person's life to demonic attacks (for example, participation in seances, Uija games, astrology, spiritualism, witchcraft, palm reading, and psychic reading) and the proximity of their residual UFO encounters.”[9] Some scientist might claim that there are certain methodological problems with the proposed test. Ross, however, has an alternative explanation for why scientists won’t test the claim:

“”[O]ne reason why research scientists and others may be reluctant to say that demons exist behind residual UFO's is because such an answer points too directly to a Christian interpretation of the problem.[10]
Ross rejects macroevolution, claiming that evolution is impossible in anything but bacteria. So how does Ross explain the transitional fossils for large animals? “God loves horses and whales. He knows because of their huge size and small populations that they will go extinct rapidly. When they do, he makes new ones.” That, apparently, is a testable hypothesis supposed to back up his replacement of the theory of evolution.


Rational Wiki

First of all, this guy sounds like a complete nut. He's not just a few sheep short in his back paddock - at this stage, he hasn't even got a paddock.

Second, his training is in physics and astronomy - as such he is not a qualified expert on biology, which is the discipline needed when discussing evolution. To argue his opinion has more weight simply because the guy is a scientist is a textbook Argument from Authority since the guy is not an actual 'authority' on the subject of evolution and abiogenesis.

Third, he seems a bit of a hypocrite for accpeting science in one area (his own discipline of astronomy) but rejecting it in other disciplines.

Fourth, his bias is all too clear. This guy has set out to prove his own agenda. He has his god-goggles squarely stapled to his face and there is no question at all that he is seeking to prove a biblical based worldview. He is starting with a conclusion and everything he does is out to prove that conclusion - he is not an unbiased and objective scientist merely out to follow the evidence where it goes.

For these reasons alone this guys word is worth less than nothing. This is nothing more than pro creationist propaganda and should be avoided like the plague by anyone with half a brain.
edit on 30/8/2015 by ReturnofTheSonOfNothing because: No scientist can explain the reason for this edit so it must be god!



posted on Aug, 30 2015 @ 07:23 PM
link   
a reply to: TheChrome



The law code of old foreshadowed the Christ, but Christians are not obligated to follow those laws anymore.

Why not?
As I recall, "thou shalt not kill" is one of those old laws.

edit on 8/30/2015 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 30 2015 @ 07:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: TheChrome



The law code of old foreshadowed the Christ, but Christians are not obligated to follow those laws anymore.

Why not?
As I recall, "thou shalt not kill" is one of those.


Now you are just being illogical Captain.



posted on Aug, 30 2015 @ 07:27 PM
link   
a reply to: TheChrome



Now you are just being illogical Captain.

No. You are.
"Thou shalt not kill" is from the Old Testament. According to you those laws don't count because Jesus.



edit on 8/30/2015 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 30 2015 @ 07:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: TheChrome



Now you are just being illogical Captain.

No. You are.
"Thou shalt not kill" is from the Old Testament. According to you those laws don't count because Jesus.




It's in the the Greek scriptures too. I'm not going to waste my time anymore with you



posted on Aug, 30 2015 @ 08:30 PM
link   
a reply to: TheChrome




The bible says "You shall not kill". The religious who go to war, violate the bible. The non-religious who abort babies and sell their parts, violate the bible.


Ergo proving my point in spades. The Bible is not a text book. It is mythology. Mythology is not science. Creationism is based on the Bible, therefore it is mythology,ipso facto it is not science.

To attempt to argue that it is science is to debase both religion and science.



posted on Aug, 30 2015 @ 08:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: Smack
a reply to: TheChrome




The bible says "You shall not kill". The religious who go to war, violate the bible. The non-religious who abort babies and sell their parts, violate the bible.


Ergo proving my point in spades. The Bible is not a text book. It is mythology. Mythology is not science. Creationism is based on the Bible, therefore it is mythology,ipso facto it is not science.

To attempt to argue that it is science is to debase both religion and science.


You are wrong. The bible is not mythology, religion is. You can look at ALL mainstream religion and track it's roots to Mythology. You can't track true religion to mythology. Sorry, you will lose in that debate.
edit on 30-8-2015 by TheChrome because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 30 2015 @ 08:47 PM
link   
a reply to: TheChrome

Sorry, you will lose in that debate,

You're probably right there. Because you get to define (and redefine) "true religion" at your whim. The ultimate moving goalpost.



posted on Aug, 30 2015 @ 09:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: TheChrome

originally posted by: Smack
a reply to: TheChrome




The bible says "You shall not kill". The religious who go to war, violate the bible. The non-religious who abort babies and sell their parts, violate the bible.


Ergo proving my point in spades. The Bible is not a text book. It is mythology. Mythology is not science. Creationism is based on the Bible, therefore it is mythology,ipso facto it is not science.

To attempt to argue that it is science is to debase both religion and science.


You are wrong. The bible is not mythology, religion is. You can look at ALL mainstream religion and track it's roots to Mythology. You can't track true religion to mythology. Sorry, you will lose in that debate.


Your tag line is eerily prophetic: "Debate with me and you will lose or learn...", it says.
Well, I learned long ago that it is futile to argue with a religious fanatic.

Peace! I'm out!



posted on Aug, 30 2015 @ 09:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: TheChrome

Sorry, you will lose in that debate,

You're probably right there. Because you get to define (and redefine) "true religion" at your whim. The ultimate moving goalpost.



You are false. Mythology can be proven.


Many popular customs associated with Christmas developed independently of the commemoration of Jesus' birth, with certain elements having origins in pre-Christian festivals that were celebrated around the winter solstice by pagan populations who were later converted to Christianity


Point and case, most of the traditions of Christianity are not Christian at all, but are based in Mythology.

You will have to bring some evidence of the bible being Mythological, not bringing tradition into play, otherwise you will lose.




top topics



 
17
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join