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.

 

Why Creation Is The Only Logical Explanation...

page: 16
42
<< 13  14  15    17  18  19 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 7 2015 @ 01:04 PM
link   
a reply to: Barcs




So again, where is your LOGICAL case for creation? You still haven't used a shred of logic and you won't even back up your claims.


It's really simple. Logic tells me that since only a pre-existing life can create life, then there's no other alternative but to accept that as a fact of life.

Otherwise, the opposite is true - non-life can and will create life.



edit on 7-10-2015 by edmc^2 because: (no reason given)




posted on Oct, 7 2015 @ 01:07 PM
link   
a reply to: edmc^2

But you have to understand that this story DOES NOT in any way agree with science. There was never a moment when there was just one human being, evolution simply does not work that way and new genders certainly don't appear when Gods steal people ribs.

It is true that race does not exist genetically speaking but the Bible doesn't say anything about genetics. If the Bible did clearly state that race doesn't exist and is merely a social concept how do you figure so many Christians were racists who owned slaves for centuries... oh right, because the Bible condones keeping foreigners as slaves in Exodus 21. So the Bible has xenophobia but not racism.

The human population would have collapsed and died out if there were only two people and there is absolute 0 in the way of scientific evidence that such an insanely narrow genetic bottleneck ever existed.

Specifically I want to know what you think about the ineptness of this God as he's written in Genesis. He has just finished creating male and female of every other animal but when it comes to humans he opts to go with just male. He then parades out the other animals but realizes none of them make good companions for Adam so decides to create Eve. What exactly is God doing here? Trying out the Trial Version of humanity? Is he play testing the humanity BETA? How could the all knowing being that made the Universe not understand that human beings and animals aren't compatible? He's the one who made them.

On a story level, on a mythology level, it might work, but taken literally not only does it contradict everything we know about human origins but it paints God as incompetent within the first few chapters of Genesis.



posted on Oct, 7 2015 @ 01:40 PM
link   
a reply to: edmc^2

You either didn't even read my full post or you purposely ignored the points I made. I clearly explained that we do not know the origins of everything. Not knowing does not mean god. You blatantly ignored this and just repeated the original argument... AGAIN!!!


then what convinces you that it's a fact?

That "perhaps we were all born of a comet impact"?

After all you're the one promoting it here.


It is a fact that we do not know all the answers. I am not making any claims of fact, other than amino acids (the basic building blocks of life) can come from comet impacts. I'm not saying comets created life, it could just be one step in a massively complicated process. You are the one asserting your opinion as logical fact here, not me. I'm just pointing out the inconsistencies of your argument, and you still haven't addressed them.



originally posted by: edmc^2
It's really simple. Logic tells me that since only a pre-existing life can create life, then there's no other alternative but to accept that as a fact of life.


That is not LOGIC, it is an ASSUMPTION. I already clearly addressed this point. Do you have a response to my counterpoints or are you going to just keep repeating your guess over and over again?

We have never observed pre-existing life creating life. We have only observed replication. Replication is NOT the origin of life. Try again.
edit on 7-10-2015 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 7 2015 @ 01:50 PM
link   
a reply to: Titen-Sxull




the Bible doesn't say anything about genetics.


Sure it does. Chapter 1 of Genesis talked about genetics when it said:



after its kind,... after their kind...


[Gen 1:25 ASV] 25 And God made the beasts of the earth after their kind, and the cattle after their kind, and everything that creepeth upon the ground after its kind: and God saw that it was good.

In other words, a genetic boundary exists between "it's kind" - the plant kind vs. the animal kind. In other parts of the Bible, it also talks about cross breeding within its kind until it's no longer possible.

Of course, in todays terminology, we use "species" which is a very confusing term since the boundary between species is blurred.

As for population, given a very fertile female, in a hundred years, that wouldn't be a problem, especially when Adam lived to round 1000.





Specifically I want to know what you think about the ineptness of this God as he's written in Genesis. He has just finished creating male and female of every other animal but when it comes to humans he opts to go with just male. He then parades out the other animals but realizes none of them make good companions for Adam so decides to create Eve. What exactly is God doing here? Trying out the Trial Version of humanity? Is he play testing the humanity BETA? How could the all knowing being that made the Universe not understand that human beings and animals aren't compatible? He's the one who made them.


You need to study closely what Genesis is telling us to fully understand what's going on. What you said is patently false. There was so much going on between a Father (God) and a son (Adam). There was bonding going on between God and man. And rather than God giving names to the animals, he gave that task to man, to Adam. And to come up with just the perfect name, Adam needed to observe each animals behaviour. It takes time to do that and it takes intelligence to pick just the right name. He needed to learn about his home, the earth. Then he needed to understand himself. He needed to become a mature person before taking on a more important task. For example, it takes a mature mind to start a family. Hence, Hebrew scholars believe that Adam was around 30-40 when Eve was brought to him to become his wife. Anyway, there's so much more to the story and I can't cover many of them here. But one thing for sure, it wasn't a trial and error because Adam fell in loved with his perfect wife Eve the first time he saw her. He composed the very first poem and dedicated it to his wife:

[Gen 2:23 ASV] 23 And the man said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man."

Afterwards, commanded them:

[Gen 1:28-31 ASV] ... Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it; and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the heavens, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth. 29 And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb yielding seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for food: 30 and to every beast of the earth, and to every bird of the heavens, and to everything that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, [I have given] every green herb for food: and it was so. 31 And God saw everything that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And there was evening and there was morning, the sixth day."



posted on Oct, 7 2015 @ 02:12 PM
link   
a reply to: Barcs




You either didn't even read my full post or you purposely ignored the points I made. I clearly explained that we do not know the origins of everything. Not knowing does not mean god. You blatantly ignored this and just repeated the original argument... AGAIN!!!


Sure I read them. That's why I asked, what convinces you that it's a fact.

If you don't know, then why are you arguing your point?




We have never observed pre-existing life creating life. We have only observed replication. Replication is NOT the origin of life. Try again.


Again, you're not making sense. The fact that we can create life from pre-existing life proves my point. That life will only come from life. It can't' come from non-life. We can even REPLICATE life from an already existing life but not non-life. So, from a logical stand point, the Origin of life MUST then come from pre-existing life. It's not an assumption but logic based on scientific facts. There's no other way around it.

And since you already said you don't know then your argument is pointless.

In fact, you might as well pick all of what I listed below as your illogical source of the origin of life.

1. Nothing (ex nihilo).
2. Law Of Gravity.
3. Random events
4. Natural laws.
5. Quantum vacuum.
6. Blind Chance Event.
7. Freak Accident.
8. Luck
9. Just happened and no one knows
10. Pop out from nowhere...
11. We don't know....yet...
12. We will never know.
etc...tbd



posted on Oct, 7 2015 @ 02:46 PM
link   
a reply to: edmc^2

Again, you repeated your original argument and ignored my points. Replication is not the origin of life, regardless of how badly you want it to be true. You have no argument only baseless claims that you can't prove.

Just because nobody has duplicated abiogenesis yet, doesn't make your fairy tales true, nor does it mean that it MUST come from life as you fallaciously claim. You can't prove a single thing in relation to this.

I'm done here. Clearly you are just trying to trick people into believing your lies and don't care about having an honest conversation. Another failed thread ends the same way all of your others did. How many other sites do you post this type of drivel on? Does anybody ever buy it?
edit on 7-10-2015 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 7 2015 @ 02:55 PM
link   
a reply to: edmc^2

I confirmed nothing..you are grasping at straws...where did the per-existing life comes from (by your conclusion that is GOD). you are left with a PARADOX..for if god can preexists life to create life, the UNIVERSE can preexists life to create life. We have overwhelming proof that the UNIVERSE exist and that it continues to create...what/where/how is the proof for your conclusion.



posted on Oct, 7 2015 @ 02:59 PM
link   
a reply to: edmc^2

"If they are able to think on their own, formulate on their own, consider the existence of the universe on their own, fathom the farthest reaches of the universe on their own WITHOUT any pre-programing of intelligible data then, No. "

By you own words you have refuted your claim. For if to have intelligence it requires a mind (your words) then say that non-human and plants do not have a mind but shows intelligence, where exactly do you stand.......???



posted on Oct, 7 2015 @ 03:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: toktaylor
By you own words you have refuted your claim. For if to have intelligence it requires a mind (your words) then say that non-human and plants do not have a mind but shows intelligence, where exactly do you stand.......???


He stands on thin ice, laughing because he thinks it will never crack. He jumps once, and it doesn't crack so he think that he can jump over and over again in the same spot and nothing will happen. He's refuted his own claims numerous times, but his stance on this is just ignore it and it will go away, just like all of those pesky facts that keep rearing their ugly heads. He has no answer for them so he just ignores it and pretends they were never brought up. Typical.
edit on 7-10-2015 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 7 2015 @ 03:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: edmc^2
a reply to: Titen-Sxull




the Bible doesn't say anything about genetics.


Sure it does. Chapter 1 of Genesis talked about genetics when it said:



after its kind,... after their kind...


[Gen 1:25 ASV] 25 And God made the beasts of the earth after their kind, and the cattle after their kind, and everything that creepeth upon the ground after its kind: and God saw that it was good.

In other words, a genetic boundary exists between "it's kind" - the plant kind vs. the animal kind. In other parts of the Bible, it also talks about cross breeding within its kind until it's no longer possible.

Of course, in todays terminology, we use "species" which is a very confusing term since the boundary between species is blurred.

As for population, given a very fertile female, in a hundred years, that wouldn't be a problem, especially when Adam lived to round 1000.





Specifically I want to know what you think about the ineptness of this God as he's written in Genesis. He has just finished creating male and female of every other animal but when it comes to humans he opts to go with just male. He then parades out the other animals but realizes none of them make good companions for Adam so decides to create Eve. What exactly is God doing here? Trying out the Trial Version of humanity? Is he play testing the humanity BETA? How could the all knowing being that made the Universe not understand that human beings and animals aren't compatible? He's the one who made them.


You need to study closely what Genesis is telling us to fully understand what's going on. What you said is patently false. There was so much going on between a Father (God) and a son (Adam). There was bonding going on between God and man. And rather than God giving names to the animals, he gave that task to man, to Adam. And to come up with just the perfect name, Adam needed to observe each animals behaviour. It takes time to do that and it takes intelligence to pick just the right name. He needed to learn about his home, the earth. Then he needed to understand himself. He needed to become a mature person before taking on a more important task. For example, it takes a mature mind to start a family. Hence, Hebrew scholars believe that Adam was around 30-40 when Eve was brought to him to become his wife. Anyway, there's so much more to the story and I can't cover many of them here. But one thing for sure, it wasn't a trial and error because Adam fell in loved with his perfect wife Eve the first time he saw her. He composed the very first poem and dedicated it to his wife:

[Gen 2:23 ASV] 23 And the man said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man."

Afterwards, commanded them:

[Gen 1:28-31 ASV] ... Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it; and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the heavens, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth. 29 And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb yielding seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for food: 30 and to every beast of the earth, and to every bird of the heavens, and to everything that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, [I have given] every green herb for food: and it was so. 31 And God saw everything that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And there was evening and there was morning, the sixth day."


AHEM!!.....

The Lord God said, “It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him.” Now the Lord God had formed out of the ground all the wild animals and all the birds in the sky. He brought them to the man… but for Adam no suitable helper was found. So the Lord God… made a woman… and he brought her to the man.
~ Genesis 2:18-22

It pretty much is obvious that he was to pick a mate from the animals but after trial and error it just could not be.



posted on Oct, 7 2015 @ 03:54 PM
link   

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

Again, you repeated your original argument and ignored my points. Replication is not the origin of life, regardless of how badly you want it to be true. You have no argument only baseless claims that you can't prove.

Just because nobody has duplicated abiogenesis yet, doesn't make your fairy tales true, nor does it mean that it MUST come from life as you fallaciously claim. You can't prove a single thing in relation to this.

I'm done here. Clearly you are just trying to trick people into believing your lies and don't care about having an honest conversation. Another failed thread ends the same way all of your others did. How many other sites do you post this type of drivel on? Does anybody ever buy it?


Yet you believe in what you don't know. Now that to me is BLIND FAITH.

Of course, I expect you giving up because there's nothing to based your faith on but on something you don't know.

It has no basis and as you've admitted it "nobody has duplicated abiogenesis yet".

But since "nobody has duplicated abiogenesis yet", why do you then believe it? Why do you buy something you don't know and has "nothing" to based on?

So yes, I agree, YOU'RE DONE HERE.

You have nothing to offer in your argument but "nothing" and "I don't know".



posted on Oct, 7 2015 @ 03:54 PM
link   
a reply to: toktaylor

Ouch....

Like he did not know his own book?!

It's all women fault, anyway....


Timothy 2:11-14 ESV

Let a woman learn quietly with all submissiveness. I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet. For Adam was formed first, then Eve; and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor.



posted on Oct, 7 2015 @ 04:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: edmc^2

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

Again, you repeated your original argument and ignored my points. Replication is not the origin of life, regardless of how badly you want it to be true. You have no argument only baseless claims that you can't prove.

Just because nobody has duplicated abiogenesis yet, doesn't make your fairy tales true, nor does it mean that it MUST come from life as you fallaciously claim. You can't prove a single thing in relation to this.

I'm done here. Clearly you are just trying to trick people into believing your lies and don't care about having an honest conversation. Another failed thread ends the same way all of your others did. How many other sites do you post this type of drivel on? Does anybody ever buy it?


Yet you believe in what you don't know. Now that to me is BLIND FAITH.

Of course, I expect you giving up because there's nothing to based your faith on but on something you don't know.

It has no basis and as you've admitted it "nobody has duplicated abiogenesis yet".

But since "nobody has duplicated abiogenesis yet", why do you then believe it? Why do you buy something you don't know and has "nothing" to based on?

So yes, I agree, YOU'RE DONE HERE.

You have nothing to offer in your argument but "nothing" and "I don't know".



How hypocritical...for you to be using a computer, the internet and quoting formulas all a product of the study of science and then say someone is using BLIND FAITH to prove science and evolution is the greatest of all irony.



posted on Oct, 7 2015 @ 04:06 PM
link   

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

I confirmed nothing..you are grasping at straws...where did the per-existing life comes from (by your conclusion that is GOD). you are left with a PARADOX..for if god can preexists life to create life, the UNIVERSE can preexists life to create life. We have overwhelming proof that the UNIVERSE exist and that it continues to create...what/where/how is the proof for your conclusion.


to the contrary. I'm not grasping at straws but just being logical. You though on the other hand is confused.

You said "the UNIVERSE can preexists life to create life". If you're so sure about this then what then is the "Singularity" "The Big-Bang" if not the BEGINNING of the universe?

Are you saying the Universe had no beginning?

That there's no such thing as CBR? Hence no origin of the universe?

If not, then what are you saying by "the UNIVERSE can preexists life to create life"?

I think you need to revisit your science book.



posted on Oct, 7 2015 @ 04:12 PM
link   
a reply to: edmc^2

Creationism - any hypothesis that is oriented around the belief that the earth and/or universe was created by an intelligent (often supernatural) agency.

I'm not splitting hairs over this.



posted on Oct, 7 2015 @ 04:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: toktaylor

originally posted by: edmc^2

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

Again, you repeated your original argument and ignored my points. Replication is not the origin of life, regardless of how badly you want it to be true. You have no argument only baseless claims that you can't prove.

Just because nobody has duplicated abiogenesis yet, doesn't make your fairy tales true, nor does it mean that it MUST come from life as you fallaciously claim. You can't prove a single thing in relation to this.

I'm done here. Clearly you are just trying to trick people into believing your lies and don't care about having an honest conversation. Another failed thread ends the same way all of your others did. How many other sites do you post this type of drivel on? Does anybody ever buy it?


Yet you believe in what you don't know. Now that to me is BLIND FAITH.

Of course, I expect you giving up because there's nothing to based your faith on but on something you don't know.

It has no basis and as you've admitted it "nobody has duplicated abiogenesis yet".

But since "nobody has duplicated abiogenesis yet", why do you then believe it? Why do you buy something you don't know and has "nothing" to based on?

So yes, I agree, YOU'RE DONE HERE.

You have nothing to offer in your argument but "nothing" and "I don't know".



How hypocritical...for you to be using a computer, the internet and quoting formulas all a product of the study of science and then say someone is using BLIND FAITH to prove science and evolution is the greatest of all irony.


Again toktaylor, you're confusing yourself. The argument is not between Science and God or Faith but between the athiest world-view and the Christian Theist word-view.

There are world-renowned scientists on both sides, so it's not science against religion either. It's the view of each side that's in conflict.

As to BLIND FAITH - how would you define something you believe in but have no evidence for it and worst DON'T KNOW if there's even one?

That to me is blind faith.

But just to see where you're coming from - does the universe have a beginning? If so where did it come from? What or who created it?



posted on Oct, 7 2015 @ 04:19 PM
link   
a reply to: edmc^2

I am saying whatever "cock and bull" theory you can use to justify that god can preexist before life can also be used to justify that the universe can also preexists.

Such as "Alpha n Omega", "that which is not created",blah, blah blah just substitute the word "god" and put universe. I am also saying it makes more sense to believe the universe is the source, since you can see, touch,feel & observe the universe but your theory (god, creator) is subject to belief and imagination and cannot be examined or proven.



posted on Oct, 7 2015 @ 04:20 PM
link   
a reply to: edmc^2



Sure it does. Chapter 1 of Genesis talked about genetics when it said:


That's a statement about on the level of those little kids toys that say "the cow goes moo" and the "duck goes quack", in other words its preschool level biology not any kind of statement on genetics or heredity.



As for population, given a very fertile female, in a hundred years, that wouldn't be a problem, especially when Adam lived to round 1000.


Three major facts that disagree with you, 1) inbreeding would cause the species to genetically collapse and die out, or, at the very least, create an obscenely obvious genetic bottleneck. No such bottleneck, where there were only two individuals, ever happened. 2) Human beings have never lived that long, lifespans in the ancient past were shorter, not longer. This isn't Lord of the Rings, its the real world, people don't live to be 1000. 3) Populations do not evolve that contain only two individuals. You can reject evolution all you want but it's a biological fact that we share common ancestry with other extant apes. We evolved and evolution never produces just two of a "kind".

We've also never observed any kind of barrier that would prevent evolution outside of the Biblical "KIND" category, there's no reason to think such a barrier exists to day or ever existed in the past.



Anyway, there's so much more to the story and I can't cover many of them here.


You seem to want to take it literally in many aspects. This idea that there's a big gap of Adam growing and maturing is something that is read into the text afterward similar to the later belief that the serpent was actually Satan which is not even implied in the text anywhere. I'm well aware there's a lot of wild interpretations of Genesis, including one that holds Adam had a first wife named Lillith since the Genesis creation is actually two different accounts smashed together.

I want to gauge how literally you take the story because you've completely dodged my issue about God bringing the animals before Adam to look for a helper by saying it took many years for Adam to name all the animals. That doesn't change what the Bible actually SAYS happened, namely that God talked to himself about how Adam was lonely because he couldn't find a suitable companion/helper among the animals. As mythology it works, as a depiction of an actual omnipotent being it makes no sense. You can say "well it was 40 years of naming animals" but that makes it worse. It means God waiting 40 years for Adam to name all the animals and then lamenting to himself that Adam couldn't find a companion among the animals he was satisfied with.

The fact that you believe the fantasy elements frightens me, such a the long lifespans, these are human beings, not elves from rivendale. All of this yet you critisize Hawking and Krauss for not being clear enough on what they mean by "nothing".



posted on Oct, 7 2015 @ 04:24 PM
link   

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

Creationism - any hypothesis that is oriented around the belief that the earth and/or universe was created by an intelligent (often supernatural) agency.

I'm not splitting hairs over this.


Why I'm not a proponent of Creationism:


Creationism is the religious belief that the Universe and life originated "from specific acts of divine creation."[2][3] For young Earth creationists, this includes a biblical literalist interpretation of the Genesis creation narrative and the rejection of the scientific theory of evolution.[4] As the history of evolutionary thought developed from the 18th century on, various views aimed at reconciling the Abrahamic religions and Genesis with biology and other sciences developed in Western culture.[5] Those holding that species had been created separately (such as Philip Gosse in 1857) were generally called "advocates of creation" but were also called "creationists," as in private correspondence between Charles Darwin and his friends. As the creation–evolution controversy developed over time, the term "anti-evolutionists" became common. In 1929 in the United States, the term "creationism" first became associated with Christian fundamentalists, specifically with their rejection of human evolution and belief in a young Earth—although this usage was contested by other groups, such as old Earth creationists and evolutionary creationists, who hold different concepts of creation, such as the acceptance of the age of the Earth and biological evolution as understood by the scientific community.[4][6][7]

Today, the American Scientific Affiliation, a prominent religious organisation in the US, recognizes that there are different opinions among creationists on the method of creation, while acknowledging unity on the Abrahamic belief that God "created the universe."[8][9] Since the 1920s, literalist creationism in America has contested scientific theories, such as that of evolution,[10][11][12] which derive from natural observations of the Universe and life. Literalist creationists[13] believe that evolution cannot adequately account for the history, diversity, and complexity of life on Earth.[14] Fundamentalist creationists of the Christian faith usually base their belief on a literal reading of the Genesis creation narrative.[13][15] Other religions either share the Genesis creation myth or have different deity-led creation myths,[note 1][16][17][18] while different members of individual faiths vary in their acceptance of scientific findings.

When scientific research produces empirical evidence and theoretical conclusions which contradict a literalist creationist interpretation of scripture, young Earth creationists often reject the conclusions of the research[19] or its underlying scientific theories[20] or its methodology.[21] This tendency has led to political and theological controversy.[10] Two disciplines somewhat allied with creationism—creation science and intelligent design—have been labelled "pseudoscience" by scientists.[22][23] The most notable disputes concern the evolution of living organisms, the idea of common descent, the geological history of the Earth, the formation of the Solar System and the origin of the Universe.[24][25][26][27][28]

Theistic evolution, also known as Evolutionary Creationism, is an attempt to reconcile religion with scientific findings on the age of the Earth and evolution. The term covers a range of views including Old Earth creationism.[29][30]


en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Oct, 7 2015 @ 04:29 PM
link   
a reply to: edmc^2

"As to BLIND FAITH - how would you define something you believe in but have no evidence for it and worst DON'T KNOW if there's even one? "

Again by your own words, you have defeated your argument....

creationism
kriːˈeɪʃ(ə)nɪz(ə)m/
noun
noun: creationism

" the belief that the universe and living organisms originate from specific acts of divine creation, as in the biblical account, rather than by natural processes such as evolution."

divine and unnatural...this is the product of blind faith to which you will never have any proof.


edit on 7-10-2015 by toktaylor because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
42
<< 13  14  15    17  18  19 >>

log in

join