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: 12
17
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 30 2015 @ 09:21 PM
link   
a reply to: UniFinity


what evidence would that be?

Whatever evidence you think proves or strongly suggests that the world was created by some conscious, living entity.


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.

I'm not interested in all that. I'm interested in what evidence you have found on your astral travels that makes you believe that the universe was created and did not emerge spontaneously.


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.

Are we to understand, then, that you really haven't any evidence after all?

That's a bit disappointing.




posted on Aug, 30 2015 @ 09:25 PM
link   
a reply to: radarloveguy


I have already linked you to Einstein AND Hawkins, who categorically admit intelligent design is proven.

Oh no, they don't. You're just misrepesenting their occasional, metaphorical use of the word 'God'. Neither Einstein nor Hawking have ever 'admitted' the world is intelligently designed.

Einstein's religious views were complex, far too sophisticated for Praise The Lord types to understand. It was what we call Spinozan pantheism. Hawking is a thoroughgoing atheist.

And boymonkey74 is quite right about the ID crowd in America.



posted on Aug, 30 2015 @ 11:46 PM
link   
a reply to: spygeek

I've watched a creationist documentary or two and the method of proving creationist theory is to pretty much attack the tenets of evolution. So, the strategy is that once evolution is disassembled the only explanation left to explain the diversity of life on Earth is creationism. The last man standing. 😉. A person with a religious perspective will and never can be unbiased and objective...their perceptions are framed and filtered by their religious beliefs. To argue with such people is a colossal waste of time and energy.


edit on 30-8-2015 by felixdacat because: Corrected typos and added text



posted on Aug, 31 2015 @ 12:37 AM
link   
a reply to: felixdacat

Nailed to the wall with great big giant-sized nails - well said felix



posted on Aug, 31 2015 @ 03:35 AM
link   
a reply to: Astyanax

it looks to me that you are not getting my replay and read between the lines. And sorry I will not bother to explain myself any more, because it is on each individual himself to discover these things.

You, yes you yourself could be having those experiences it is not that I am special in any way. I am just very curious about our reality/conciousness and we all dream at night right!? So please start to write a dream journal and go from there and in a while you will try to experience astral projection on your own!

It is a mind blowing experience and it changes you forever because you are starting to get aware of your own true self beyond mind and body and any more bickering about it here for supposed evidence is all just lost in translation...get your own!

Only the fact that other realities are real with entities who are unconditionally helping you grow is proof for me that there is some infinity which we are all united in and apart of with NO end or beginning, it is ethereal and all our words cannot describe it.

But just to make myself clear, I do not think about God/Creator in a way like bible or Islam defines. Think more along the lines of Tao. If you are interested there is a great short book Tao te ching available on the net. Or more along the lines Advaita Vedanta which uses terminology like atman, brahman, paramatman...
This is what makes the most sense for me personally, but as I said before. All true masters in those or other religions have always said that each of us can get experience for yourself and they did not try to convince people by blind belief. They say to check it out yourself and see if it is true....

check out this link if anyone want to know what I am talking about:
www.theself.com...

edit on 1441010301838August388383115 by UniFinity because: added link



posted on Aug, 31 2015 @ 03:58 AM
link   
a reply to: UniFinity

What you're talking about is not Creationism. There is a vast difference between what you're trying to express and what Creationists are trying to convince people is true.

You're already much closer to the truth. At least from what you've been saying so far and the link you provided, that's my opinion anyway.



posted on Aug, 31 2015 @ 04:34 AM
link   
a reply to: mOjOm
hm...okey, I was not aware of that and thank you

if I google the term Creationism it says:
"Creationism is the belief that the universe and life originated "from specific acts of divine creation."

So I am just wandering if this really is out of a scope of what I was saying?

hm well when I think about it, maybe I get your point? Because when you put in in the context which is presented on the link, then even creation OR evolution did not happen it is all just imagined in the absolute reality.



posted on Aug, 31 2015 @ 05:02 AM
link   
a reply to: UniFinity

For the most part Creationism comes in a few different formats. But when it's all said and done 99.9% of it is really just a slight of hand by the Religious to insert their Deity at the head of the class once again. That's why there is so much confusion around it.

I can't be certain yet exactly what you are pointing to but suggesting Tao and removing a Biblical God is typically not what Creationism allows.

With what you're saying about consciousness and all that, you've really moved beyond that argument and have gone way out toward the fringe of existential theory at that point. Which in my opinion is the only place left to explore for those kinds of answers. Anything short of that just doesn't work. You either fall back into some kind of Religious Dogma or something of that nature.

That is of course if I'm understanding what it is you're saying. There is a whole lot of Woo-Woo type stuff out there that leads people into false dead ends. Usually for someone else to profit from. That's why it's always a good idea to be skeptical and always best to "Trust in what you Know". Which isn't usually much when you really get down to it, but that's all anyone really has. The rest is just gossip.

However, if there is more than just quantifiable reality the fringe is the only door left that's going to get you there and you still have to figure out how to open it even if does exist and you actually find it.

This of course is just my opinion and I may very well be wrong or completely crazy.

In fact, you might want to just ignore my advice all together.

edit on 31-8-2015 by mOjOm because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 31 2015 @ 06:15 AM
link   
a reply to: mOjOm

thanks for clarification!

I agree entirely with you and I think you understand me perfectly.

crazy, normal...bah.. I don't really care about that, they are imaginary standards imposed by each individual differently and your response was perfect from where I am standing.

we all know one thing, that we don't know nothing



posted on Aug, 31 2015 @ 07:05 AM
link   

originally posted by: ParasuvO
Evolutionists want to believe that everything will continue along on some "natural path" nature being some system they do not understand and cannot even bother to ask how it started because it is just as insane contemplating it as the GOD GUYS.

Especially they do not see that both "sides" are guaranteed to never know a dam thing about how all of this happened, and they both DONT CARE.


Thanks for proving my point ParasuvO. First, you invent a straw man about what "evolutionists" believe. Then, you attach a Creationist slur only used among Creationists to the point.

I mean there is SOOO much wrong with what you said that it would take several paragraphs to correct you.



posted on Aug, 31 2015 @ 08:13 AM
link   
a reply to: MrConspiracy
a reply to: Murgatroid
a reply to: TheChrome
a reply to: donhuangenaro
a reply to: CryHavoc
a reply to: ShaeTheShaman
a reply to: ParasuvO
a reply to: Jobeycool
a reply to: StalkerSolent
a reply to: Heliocentric

All these Creationists commenting, yet none of them posting evidence for creationism.

12 pages in and nothing.



posted on Aug, 31 2015 @ 10:17 AM
link   

originally posted by: GetHyped
a reply to: MrConspiracy
a reply to: Murgatroid
a reply to: TheChrome
a reply to: donhuangenaro
a reply to: CryHavoc
a reply to: ShaeTheShaman
a reply to: ParasuvO
a reply to: Jobeycool
a reply to: StalkerSolent
a reply to: Heliocentric

All these Creationists commenting, yet none of them posting evidence for creationism.

12 pages in and nothing.


I am tired of this nonsense.

You can look at the facts such as the Cambrian explosion. You will somehow demand proof, and yet overlook the facts that there is no evidence of complex life before the Cambrian period. You will listen to a bunch of psyco-babel of scientist trying to explain why there was an instantaneous occurrence and somehow "believe" that the supposals are accurate. Go for it, knock your socks of. It's stupid.

en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Aug, 31 2015 @ 10:25 AM
link   
a reply to: TheChrome

...is not evidence for creationism in any way whatsoever. Thanks for playing, though.



posted on Aug, 31 2015 @ 11:17 AM
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.


What is the difference between mainstream religion and true religion? Can you provide an example? Do you mean Catholicism and Judaism as opposed to Creationism? Thanks.



posted on Aug, 31 2015 @ 11:19 AM
link   

originally posted by: GetHyped
All these Creationists commenting, yet none of them posting evidence for creationism.

12 pages in and nothing.


The problem isn't with a lack of evidence...

The problem is that people are gullible.

People have become blind to the Jedi mind tricks that the elite have become so fond of using.

One day the world will realize that the fundys with their 'sky daddys' aren't the real enemies.

They will also know that what they claim they have 'debunked' was in reality, the truth.


Modern Western culture is based on denying objective truth and erecting a false reality in its place. The New World Order is dedicated to replacing Truth with a solipsism created by the same people who create money from nothing and charge interest.

"We have already contrived to possess of the minds of the goy communities...[they are] looking through the spectacles we are setting astride their noses." (Protocols of Zion, 12)

Modern society is based on a solipsism created by Illuminati (Cabalist) Jewish bankers and their Masonic minions. The word "solipsism" means a self-created reality that has little or no connection with Truth. Instead of being dedicated to Truth, humanity has been hijacked by the bankers. The "New World Order" is a solipsism that stymies and enslaves mankind while increasing the bankers' power and wealth. We are being drawn into a solipsism that inverts good and evil; truth and lies. We are being inducted into a satanic cult.

Denying Reality

“The matrix is everywhere. It is all around us. Even now in this very room. You can see it when you look out your window or when you turn on the television. You can feel it when you go to work, when you go to church, when you pay your taxes. IT IS THE WORLD THAT HAS BEEN PULLED OVER YOUR EYES TO BLIND YOU FROM THE TRUTH. Morpheus – “The Matrix.”



posted on Aug, 31 2015 @ 11:25 AM
link   

originally posted by: TheChrome

originally posted by: mOjOm

originally posted by: TheChrome

I disagree. I will borrow from another thread and mention the research of J. Craig Venter. He suggests that not all life here on earth share the same DNA. There are multiple forms of life on the planet, and they did not evolve from a single source. All evidence point to life being created. There are no links within the fossil record to prove otherwise, and plenty of evidence within DNA research to debunk the false notion of evolution.


Great. Got a link or something??

Now, let's say that the DNA is different. Why does that mean it was created??? Maybe it just developed different than our own DNA. Maybe it's from a different planet or something and got here through panspermia or something. Multiple forms of life on this planet, even with different DNA doesn't just automatically mean Creationism. You can't just make that jump to something because something is different.

That's what's wrong with Creationists. You just find any reason to say, "See, Creationism." But that doesn't make sense. You're just shoving it in there before you even know what you're talking about. Why does it have to mean it was Created that way??? If there was something just creating new life forms already completed why even have DNA in the first place or evolutionary processes happening??? Things would just pop into existence already complete and ready to go like magic.

Please elaborate on all the data in DNA research that debunks Evolution if you would??? Just because you make a claim doesn't make it true. All you people ever do is just make a claim that's unsupported, then right to the conclusion that Evolution is all false and expect everyone to just go "Ok." Doesn't work like that.


No it's a matter of science. The statistical chance of a single protein needed for life forming randomly, is 10 to the 113th power. 10 to the 113th power is more than the estimated atoms in the universe!

10 to the 50th power is considered a mathematical impossibility.

About 2000 proteins are needed for life, therefore not only would one protein have to form (10 to the 113th power chance) but around 2000. The statistics are astronomical!

Next, if there is more than one form of life on earth, this process would have to take place more than once.

Does this seem very logical to you?



You are completely wrong on that.




Now I will recall a classic experiment by David Bartel and Jack Szostak, published in Science in 1993. Their goal was to see if a completely random system of molecules could undergo selection in such a way that defined species of molecules emerged with specific properties. They began by synthesizing many trillions of different RNA molecules about 300 nucleotides long, but the nucleotides were all random nucleotide sequences. Nucleotides, by the way, are monomers of the nucleic acids DNA and RNA, just as amino acids are the monomers, or subunits, of proteins, and making random sequences is easy to do with modern methods of molecular biology.

They reasoned that buried in those trillions were a few catalytic RNA molecules called ribozymes that happened to catalyze a ligation reaction, in which one strand of RNA is linked to a second strand. The RNA strands to be ligated were attached to small beads on a column, then were exposed to the trillions of random sequences simply by flushing them through the column. This process could fish out any RNA molecules that happened to have even a weak ability to catalyze the reaction. They then amplified those molecules and put them back in for a second round, repeating the process for 10 rounds. By the way, this is the same basic logic that breeders use when they select for a property such as coat color in dogs.


The results were amazing. After only 4 rounds of selection and amplification they began to see an increase in catalytic activity, and after 10 rounds the rate was 7 million times faster than the uncatalyzed rate. It was even possible to watch the RNA evolve. Nucleic acids can be separated and visualized by a technique called gel electrophoresis. The mixture is put in at the top of a gel held between two glass plates and a voltage is applied. Small molecules travel fastest through the gel, and larger molecules move more slowly, so they are separated. In this case, RNA molecules having a specific length produce a visible band in a gel. At the start of the reaction, nothing could be seen, because all the molecules are different. But with each cycle new bands appeared. Some came to dominate the reaction, while others went extinct.


Bartel and Szostak’s results have been repeated and extended by other researchers, and they demonstrate a fundamental principle of evolution at the molecular level. At the start of the experiment, every molecule of RNA was different from all the rest because they were assembled by a chance process. There were no species, just a mixture of trillions of different molecules. But then a selective hurdle was imposed, a ligation reaction that allowed only certain molecules to survive and reproduce enzymatically.

In a few generations groups of molecules began to emerge that displayed ever-increasing catalytic function. In other words, species of molecules appeared out of this random mixture in an evolutionary process that closely reflects the natural selection that Darwin outlined for populations of higher animals. These RNA molecules were defined by the sequence of bases in their structures, which caused them to fold into specific conformations that had catalytic properties. The sequences were in essence analogous to genes, because the information they contained was passed between generations during the amplification process.


The Bartel and Szostak experiment directly refutes the argument that the odds are stacked against an origin of life by natural processes. The inescapable conclusion is that genetic information can in fact emerge from random mixtures of polymers, as long as the populations contain large numbers of polymeric molecules with variable monomer sequences, and a way to select and amplify a specific property.


As the article says the Bartel and Szostak experiment has been repeated numerous times.

I would also point out that self assembly of nucleosides is a well known process. There is no need for outside intervention.

If you want me to post the mathematics of the probability calculation, I will be happy to do so. Let me know.



posted on Aug, 31 2015 @ 11:31 AM
link   

originally posted by: Murgatroid

originally posted by: GetHyped
All these Creationists commenting, yet none of them posting evidence for creationism.

12 pages in and nothing.


The problem isn't with a lack of evidence...

The problem is that people are gullible.

People have become blind to the Jedi mind tricks that the elite have become so fond of using.

One day the world will realize that the fundys with their 'sky daddys' aren't the real enemies.

They will also know that what they claim they have 'debunked' was in reality, the truth.


Modern Western culture is based on denying objective truth and erecting a false reality in its place. The New World Order is dedicated to replacing Truth with a solipsism created by the same people who create money from nothing and charge interest.

"We have already contrived to possess of the minds of the goy communities...[they are] looking through the spectacles we are setting astride their noses." (Protocols of Zion, 12)

Modern society is based on a solipsism created by Illuminati (Cabalist) Jewish bankers and their Masonic minions. The word "solipsism" means a self-created reality that has little or no connection with Truth. Instead of being dedicated to Truth, humanity has been hijacked by the bankers. The "New World Order" is a solipsism that stymies and enslaves mankind while increasing the bankers' power and wealth. We are being drawn into a solipsism that inverts good and evil; truth and lies. We are being inducted into a satanic cult.

Denying Reality

“The matrix is everywhere. It is all around us. Even now in this very room. You can see it when you look out your window or when you turn on the television. You can feel it when you go to work, when you go to church, when you pay your taxes. IT IS THE WORLD THAT HAS BEEN PULLED OVER YOUR EYES TO BLIND YOU FROM THE TRUTH. Morpheus – “The Matrix.”


The problem isn't lack of evidence? We haven't seen a single post with documented data from real experiments and yet a whole host of posters declare that the "evidence" is here.

Science doesn't care about the NWO or related bs. It only cares about discovery by hard evidence. That's it. Evidence only has one definition in science. The definition you folks have concocted is evidence that none of you has ever been in a lab conducting a scientific experiment where the evidence MUST be real.

You're living in a fantasy world.



posted on Aug, 31 2015 @ 11:35 AM
link   
a reply to: TheChrome

What are you talking about? Are you suggesting that the Cambrian explosion goes against modern scientific ideas? Because that isn't true at all.

Just an fyi, the Cambrian explosion STILL took place over millions of years. It's just that relatively the time period discussed is much shorter; hence the moniker "explosion".



posted on Aug, 31 2015 @ 11:39 AM
link   

originally posted by: Murgatroid

originally posted by: GetHyped
All these Creationists commenting, yet none of them posting evidence for creationism.

12 pages in and nothing.


The problem isn't with a lack of evidence...


Yes it is. Case in point: this thread.

Anyone else fancy fancy a go?



posted on Aug, 31 2015 @ 11:45 AM
link   

originally posted by: GetHyped

originally posted by: Murgatroid

originally posted by: GetHyped
All these Creationists commenting, yet none of them posting evidence for creationism.

12 pages in and nothing.


The problem isn't with a lack of evidence...


Yes it is. Case in point: this thread.

Anyone else fancy fancy a go?


Once and for all, maybe we should start a sticky citing all the evidence by subject. This way, we can just hand out the references with the evidence. It sort of gets redundant because the Creationists repeat themselves multiple times - which also suggests that they never read the evidence!


edit on 31-8-2015 by Phantom423 because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
17
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join