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: 14
17
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 31 2015 @ 05:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: edmc^2

originally posted by: Phantom423

originally posted by: edmc^2
a reply to: spygeek

I'm not sure about Creationism but I believe and 100% subscribe to Biblical Creation or Creation By God. And the evidence for it is quite unmistakable. Really, it's right in front of your face.



Then maybe you'll be the first person in this thread to present the evidence. Remember the definition of evidence:

"the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid."

Thanks.


The brain alone is more than enough evidence of a Wise Creator.


I meant scientific evidence, the stuff you do in labs and publish.




posted on Aug, 31 2015 @ 06:32 PM
link   
a reply to: Barcs

Are you trying to tell me that things we believe today to be cold hard fact (based on research) will never be disproven as we advance?

We're forever finding things out about the world and beyond that completely contradict what we believed to be true.

If you want some examples i'll go searching or you can google yourself. It's late now (UK)



posted on Aug, 31 2015 @ 06:34 PM
link   
a reply to: MrConspiracy

The title of the thread is: Is There Evidence for Creationism? Show it to us.

Do you have anything to show?



posted on Aug, 31 2015 @ 06:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phantom423

originally posted by: edmc^2

originally posted by: Phantom423

originally posted by: edmc^2
a reply to: spygeek

I'm not sure about Creationism but I believe and 100% subscribe to Biblical Creation or Creation By God. And the evidence for it is quite unmistakable. Really, it's right in front of your face.



Then maybe you'll be the first person in this thread to present the evidence. Remember the definition of evidence:

"the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid."

Thanks.


The brain alone is more than enough evidence of a Wise Creator.


I meant scientific evidence, the stuff you do in labs and publish.



there are so many scientific evidence of life being a product of a wise Creator. Problem is, how one looks at them.

For instance, in many of the worlds top laboratories, smart people are had been synthesizing life. Yet inspite of the evidence in front of them - that life can only come from pre-existing life - they will conclude the opposite.


How Craig Venter Created Life


blogs.plos.org...



posted on Aug, 31 2015 @ 07:01 PM
link   
a reply to: edmc^2

he didnt create life, he just replicated it by transplanting existing genetic material. which proves nothing.



posted on Aug, 31 2015 @ 07:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: TzarChasm
a reply to: edmc^2

he didnt create life, he just replicated it by transplanting existing genetic material. which proves nothing.


Correct - that's just the title of the ARTICLE. However, inthe evolution community this was held as proof of evolution.

which proves my point.

in any case - life can only come from pre-existing life - which is scientific.



posted on Aug, 31 2015 @ 07:27 PM
link   
a reply to: edmc^2


Correct - that's just the title of the ARTICLE. However, inthe evolution community this was held as proof of evolution.


held by whom, specifically? i generally take my science from a board of honest certified experts, people who have spent decades studying their fields rigorously and have never given reason to be mistrusted.


in any case - life can only come from pre-existing life - which is scientific.


interesting point. does it then follow that a creator must come from a creator?

...checkmate.




posted on Aug, 31 2015 @ 08:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: TzarChasm
a reply to: edmc^2


Correct - that's just the title of the ARTICLE. However, inthe evolution community this was held as proof of evolution.


held by whom, specifically? i generally take my science from a board of honest certified experts, people who have spent decades studying their fields rigorously and have never given reason to be mistrusted.



in any case - life can only come from pre-existing life - which is scientific."

interesting point. does it then follow that a creator must come from a creator?

...checkmate.



not sure why this news to you or why you have not heard of it but in any case if you're interested search Dr. Szostak's work about self replicating synthetic life form.

as for this:


in any case - life can only come from pre-existing life - which is scientific.'

interesting point. does it then follow that a creator must come from a creator?

...checkmate.



=====================================

i was expecting you or someone will say this, but it's not as you put it "...checkmate."

Nope, quite the opposite. Instead it shows your inability to understand the concept of INFINITY.

Note again what i said:

'Biblical Creation explains it beautifully, in simple poetic terms it says:

Gen 1:1 - In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth".

Meaning, that (material) life at one point in time had a 'beginning". that the earth and the physical universe had a beginning. hence a Cause - a Creator - God.

a Cause that had no Beginning and no end. Hence Infinite God. as space-time is infinite so is God the First Cause.'


Just to be clear:

a Cause that had no Beginning and no end. Hence Infinite God. as space-time is infinite so is God the First Cause.'

Therefore God has no creator but is the Creator - the only ONE





edit on 31-8-2015 by edmc^2 because: edit



posted on Aug, 31 2015 @ 11:08 PM
link   
a reply to: TzarChasm

Then there's also this:

Laws of the universe.

As intelligent person, I assume you don't think that laws such as the four fundamental forces didn't just came on their own volition? I hope not. Otherwise, you will be relying on blind faith.



posted on Aug, 31 2015 @ 11:14 PM
link   
a reply to: UniFinity


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.

No, I'm reading just your words.

You have no evidence for Creationism, that is clear enough.



posted on Aug, 31 2015 @ 11:17 PM
link   
a reply to: Phantom423


Maybe we should start a sticky citing all the evidence by subject.

Already done many years ago, but may need updating.

Creationists don't dare look at it.



posted on Aug, 31 2015 @ 11:23 PM
link   
a reply to: edmc^2


Then there's also this...

Long time no see, friend. Didn't miss you, though.

I-know-in-my-heart won't work this time. Unambiguous, replicable, falsifiable evidence. Or walk.



posted on Aug, 31 2015 @ 11:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phantom423

originally posted by: TheChrome

originally posted by: Barcs

originally posted by: TheChrome
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.


The bible isn't a single book. It is a compilation of various stories from different time periods. You can't say with any degree of certain which stories are true and which ones are not. There is no debate. The bible holds just as much weight as all other ancient mythology. Claiming it's not, would be completely false.

Anyways, this thread is no surprise at all.

Not a single creationist has linked us to any physical tangible evidence that suggests creationism, while in the evidence for evolution thread numerous scientific studies were posted in support of it. I mean come on, you guys can only dance around the truth for so long, right? It's time to put up or shut up. If you aren't posting evidence, why even post in the thread? Why so desperate to prove a worldview?


Here is what needs to happen: Turn the tables. You evolutionists prove there is evolution! You can't! You blindly follow false dots that cannot be connected! So in your wisdom and supreme intellect, prove one fossil that connects organisms from different eras! ONE! that all I ask.


Sure we can. But first things first - I showed you that you were wrong in your post about the impossibility of a protein forming. You didn't respond. You simply ignored it. That's typical of your crowd - you ignore evidence.
But I'm not letting you off the hook so easily. Admit that you were wrong or tell us why the experiment I cited was faulty.



Fair enough. I am not avoiding the question, I am gathering facts. An engineer has to be correct, otherwise the plane crashes, the bridge collapses, or the plant explodes. I'm looking at the data from the link Phantom423 provided, and I realize I am facing a battle on two fronts. I mean you can't make this bull up:

Darwin himself was racist.
Evolution is racist.
Evolution leads to social Darwinism.

These are some of the topics, and I must separate myself from such worthless arguments. Moving on to the other stuff. So far nothing, lots about microbial adaptation etc, but no proof of any change in complex organisms. May take me a few days or weeks to get through all this, but my final argument will be precise and calculated.



posted on Sep, 1 2015 @ 12:03 AM
link   
a reply to: TzarChasm

Then there's also the information in our DNA.

Surely, you would not think that such highly sophisticated and highly complex codes didn't just write and programmed themselves? Do you?

I hope not. Otherwise that would be like assuming the codes in your computer wrote and programmed themselves.



posted on Sep, 1 2015 @ 01:33 AM
link   

originally posted by: Astyanax
a reply to: edmc^2


Then there's also this...

Long time no see, friend. Didn't miss you, though.

I-know-in-my-heart won't work this time. Unambiguous, replicable, falsifiable evidence. Or walk.


Of all the people, I didn't expect you to be the one using the old argument trick - appealing to /argument from authority.

Really? Dr. Karl Popper's philosophical principle on "Falsifiable Evidence"?

Really Astyanax? Rather than rely on proven Scientific Method, you're relying on....philosophY to disprove or prove creation as unscientific?

If this is your point, then the same rule applies to evolution theory.

And since both evolution and creation are described as events that happened, or allegedly happened, in the past. And that no human observers were there to witness them. They cannot be recreated in a laboratory.

Hence, no scientific experiment could prove or disprove either evolution or creation.

Hence if the Bible account of creation is unscientific, by the same token evolution also must be unscientific.

So which one is supported by your Philosophy and which is supported by Scientific Method?

Life can only come from pre-existing life.

or

Life spontaneously arose by chance?





edit on 1-9-2015 by edmc^2 because: authority



posted on Sep, 1 2015 @ 01:55 AM
link   
I just wanted to chime in with this.

The universe is so fine-tuned for life that 99.99999999% of it will kill you immediately if you happen to be located there. I would hardly call a universe in which life is just barely possible, one that has been fine tuned for it.

end of transmission
edit on 1-9-2015 by Tearman because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 1 2015 @ 03:27 AM
link   
a reply to: edmc^2


Dr. Karl Popper's philosophical principle on "Falsifiable Evidence"?

What? You want to discuss philosophy? Why?


Rather than rely on proven Scientific Method, you're relying on....philosophy to disprove or prove creation as unscientific?

A scientific theory has to be supported by falsifiable evidence. Do you know what 'falsifiable' means?


Cannot be recreated in a laboratory.

Neither can blue whale mating. Indeed, it hasn't even been observed in the wild. Yet we know it happens. Why? Falsifiable evidence in the form of blue whale calves, that's why. Is the penny beginning to drop?


Hence, no scientific experiment could prove or disprove either evolution or creation.

Who is talking about proof and disproof?


So which one is supported by your Philosophy?

What philosophy?

You saw the word 'falsifiable' and immediately went off on a trip of your own.

Please stop beating yourself over the head. It's painful to watch.
edit on 1/9/15 by Astyanax because: of unpleasant facts.



posted on Sep, 1 2015 @ 04:44 AM
link   

originally posted by: edmc^2
a reply to: TzarChasm

Then there's also the information in our DNA.

Surely, you would not think that such highly sophisticated and highly complex codes didn't just write and programmed themselves? Do you?

I hope not. Otherwise that would be like assuming the codes in your computer wrote and programmed themselves.



DNA code is not computer binary code. Why even bother comparing them in this case?



posted on Sep, 1 2015 @ 06:27 AM
link   
a reply to: TheChrome

That's great - do your research. Bartel and Szostak's experiment has been repeated multiple times with the same results. I linked some reference material for you and a couple of YouTubes by Jack Szostak on the project and his work. I look forward to your response.

www.science20.com...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

Original paper: www.researchgate.net... 61_1411-1418







edit on 1-9-2015 by Phantom423 because: (no reason given)

edit on 1-9-2015 by Phantom423 because: (no reason given)

edit on 1-9-2015 by Phantom423 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 1 2015 @ 07:27 AM
link   

originally posted by: edmc^2

originally posted by: Astyanax
a reply to: edmc^2


Then there's also this...

Long time no see, friend. Didn't miss you, though.

I-know-in-my-heart won't work this time. Unambiguous, replicable, falsifiable evidence. Or walk.



If this is your point, then the same rule applies to evolution theory.

And since both evolution and creation are described as events that happened, or allegedly happened, in the past. And that no human observers were there to witness them. They cannot be recreated in a laboratory.

Hence, no scientific experiment could prove or disprove either evolution or creation.

Hence if the Bible account of creation is unscientific, by the same token evolution also must be unscientific.

So which one is supported by your Philosophy and which is supported by Scientific Method?

Life can only come from pre-existing life.

or

Life spontaneously arose by chance?






But.. we have actual physical proof of evolution. Its right here in our hands and in front of our eyes. Do you not get this?

No one was also around when Earths land masses were all butted together, but we evidence and proff of it happening.

And id like to remind you and everyone else in this thread that science hasnt got all the answers yet. We are no afraid to say, nor is there anything wrong in saying "we dont know". But we are working on it. And just because we dont have an answer for somethings is no reason to jump straight to the big guy in the sky did it by magic.

Is that your answer to everything? Cant explain it straight away? Then its magic...
edit on 1-9-2015 by 3danimator2014 because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
17
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join