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: 20
42
<< 17  18  19    21  22  23 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 9 2015 @ 03:14 PM
link   
You silly people with your faith in science! OMG that is totally blind faith. The OP has proven god, conclusively. He has presented facts and logical evidence to support his view and has proven that science is just a guess.




posted on Oct, 9 2015 @ 04:07 PM
link   
a reply to: edmc^2

Some semblance of the universe has always existed. Matter was created from energy in the early universe. Observations indicate that the positive energy of matter is exactly balanced by negative gravitational potential energy. Thus, the total energy of the universe is zero and no energy (or very little--just the amount allowed by quantum mechanics) was required to produce the universe. It could have been produced spontaneously by natural processes of a type that are now beginning to be understood in physics. One such process is called "spontaneous symmetry breaking." It's like the formation of a snowflake.
An expanding universe allows increasing room for order to form. The universe could have started as a tiny black hole with maximum entropy, produced by a quantum fluctuation, and then exploded in the big bang. The data from cosmological observ ations, which has improved enormously in just the last few years, has left no doubt among current working cosmologists that the big bang happened. The remaining holdouts are a few older astronomers who are gradually dying out. They are like some nineteenth century chemists and physicists who refused to accept the atomic theory to their dying days. Furthermore, the big bang is used by theists such as Craig and Hugh Ross to support their theologies.



posted on Oct, 10 2015 @ 06:36 AM
link   

originally posted by: Barcs
You silly people with your faith in science! OMG that is totally blind faith. The OP has proven god, conclusively. He has presented facts and logical evidence to support his view and has proven that science is just a guess.






posted on Oct, 10 2015 @ 06:54 AM
link   
a reply to: edmc^2

I read your post and I feel deeply, deeply sad. I wish I could help you. I want to help you, but I cannot. I can only suggest you learn science, starting with mathematics and then going into science itself. Concentrate on learning the scientific method, as expounded originally by Sir Francis Bacon. I wish you luck and hope you can succeed.



posted on Oct, 10 2015 @ 03:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: toktaylor
So it now becomes our duty to humanity to educate and enlighten you guys before it is too late...

Using fraud and deliberate deception?

Good luck with that.



Good grief Charlie Brown, why so gullible?

Any 'theory' that has to rely on outright fraud and forgery isn't a theory at all.

It's a scam....



The ten most common ‘icons’ used to back up evolution are reviewed and showed to be either fraudulent or irrelevant as evolutionary evidence. Amazingly, Wells documents that even some leading biology professors were unaware they were teaching nonsense.

What biology textbooks never told you about evolution


“A set of 19th century drawings that still appear in reference books…are badly misdrawn” says an embryologist in Britain. Although Haeckel confessed to drawing from memory and was convicted of fraud by his own university in Jena, the drawings persist. “That’s the real mystery,” says Richardson. I know it takes awhile to update textbooks, but 135 years should be long enough!

Source

Haeckel's drawings were known to be fraudulent by Haeckel's scientific peers from the outset. Given the prominence of Haeckel and his books, a corollary would be that Haeckel's scientific peers also knew from the outset that fraudulent drawings and claims were being used to sell Darwin's theory of evolution to the general public.

Lessons Learned from Haeckel and His Drawings

The notion that Haeckel's drawings were fraudulent or fake did not originate with proponents of intelligent design.

Those criticisms originated with evolutionary scientists like embryologist Michael Richardson, who called them "one of the most famous fakes in biology," or Stephen Jay Gould who said "Haeckel had exaggerated the similarities by idealizations and omissions," and that "in a procedure that can only be called fraudulent," Haeckel "simply copied the same figure over and over again."

Likewise, in a 1997 article titled "Haeckel's Embryos: Fraud Rediscovered," the journal Science recognized that "[g]enerations of biology students may have been misled by a famous set of drawings of embryos published 123 years ago by the German biologist Ernst Haeckel."

Darwin Lobbyists Defend Using Fraudulent Embryo Drawings in the Classroom

During the trial, Haeckel confessed that he had altered his drawings, but excused himself by saying: “I should feel utterly condemned and annihilated by the admission, were it not that hundreds of the best observers and biologists lie under the same charge. The great majority of all morphological, anatomical, histological, and embryological diagrams are not true to nature, but are more or less doctored, schematized and reconstructed”

cavern.uark.edu...

Ladies and gentlemen, I have traveled all over the world. I have debated and lectured on many, many major university campuses, and it is hardly a single university campus that I appear on that some student does not tell me that he is taught the theory of embryological recapitulation right there at that university.

I've had many evolutionists argue the evidence for evolution from embryological recapitulation. Unfortunately, as Dr. Montagu has said, it is a thoroughly discredited theory, but it is still taught in most biology books and in most universities and schools as evidence for evolution.

Darwin's Enigma

I re-checked all my other textbooks. They all had similar drawings, and they were all obviously wrong. Not only did they distort the embryos they pictured; they omitted earlier stages in which the embryos look very different from one another. As Richardson himself was quoted in the prestigious journal Science: “It looks like it’s turning out to be one of the most famous fakes in biology.” Worse, this was no recent fraud. Nor was its discovery recent.

The embryo drawings that appear in most every high school and college textbook are either reproductions of, or based on, a famous series of drawings by the 19th century German biologist and fervent Darwinian, Ernst Haeckel, and they have been known to scholars of Darwin and evolutionary theory to be forgeries for over a hundred years.

Survival of the Fakest

Haeckel’s drawings were exposed as fakes by his own contemporaries, and his Biogenetic Law was thoroughly discredited by 20th century biologists. Now the standard response from Darwinists: no textbooks are still using the fraudulent embryo images.

These textbooks were being produced as late as 2004, even though the fraud was detected in the 1800s! Is this the vaunted self-correction of science, or science being twisted to support social and political goals?

winteryknight.com...

Yet, despite Haeckel’s fraud conviction and early exposure, Western educators continued using the pictures for decades as proof of the theory of evolution. Today – believe it or not – Haeckel’s drawings still appear in many high school and college textbooks. Haeckel’s fraudulent drawings are just one of evolution’s pillars now under spectacular scientific assault. There are many others.

Evolution fraud in current biology textbooks

These people, it turns out, are operating from what I called The Gullible Mind. It is a psychological processing malfunction that filters out information based on its source rather than its integrity. People who operate from The Gullible Mind tend to have misplaced trust in governments, institutions, mainstream news networks, doctors, scientists or anyone who wears the garb of apparent authority.

But how does this work inside their heads? It's an interesting process. Gullible Mind people do believe it is possible for a government (or institution) to lie; but they believe that governments, institutions and doctors choose NOT to lie even when it would serve their own self interests to do so. Follow this carefully, because this is the fascinating part. These Gullible Mind people effectively believe that even though a government official could lie about something, they would never actually do so.

The gullible mind explained



edit on 10-10-2015 by Murgatroid because: felt like it...



posted on Oct, 10 2015 @ 04:14 PM
link   
a reply to: Murgatroid

Only a creationist would think that the TOE hinges on Haeckel's drawings.....pretty poor attempt, even from you.....



posted on Oct, 10 2015 @ 06:41 PM
link   
a reply to: Murgatroid

Only fraud still going is idea that your imaginary friend created all life including first man and later out of his ribs women some six thousands years ago.... meaning there was tons of incest going on for a while and surprisingly we are not all retarded because of all that incest... that your little book tells you...

Theory of evolution is fact... I heard late pope tell that long time ago (like almost 20 years ago)... seems his imaginary friend told him...

law2.umkc.edu...



posted on Oct, 10 2015 @ 08:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: SuperFrog
Theory of evolution is fact... I heard late pope tell that long time ago (like almost 20 years ago)... seems his imaginary friend told him... law2.umkc.edu...



The bottom line:

The Pope wasn't there when the Earth was made, the Saviour was...

The choice is yours about who you are going to believe.


All cults and movements associated with the "new world order" of the so-called New Age Movement have two things in common—evolutionism as their base and globalism as their goal.

www.bible.ca...

Jesuit New Age leader Pierre Teilhard de Chardin participated in one of the most blatant academic scientific frauds of all time. His deliberate deception went undetected for over 40 years and it has influenced the entire world, from the Holy Catholic Church, to evolution science, to secular education.

No one since the Piltdown fraud has escaped it's influence. What was his motive, why would a "man of God" FAKE anthropological evidence, and why would he use a secular fraud and deception to deceive the Church?



edit on 10-10-2015 by Murgatroid because: felt like it...



posted on Oct, 10 2015 @ 08:24 PM
link   
a reply to: Murgatroid

Haeckel was never convicted of fraud. His hypothesis was wrong, and the drawings were exaggerated. We know this. But nobody's talking about evolution either. This is supposed to be a logical evidence for creation thread, although it hasn't been posted. Looks like the OP abandoned ship again. We'll see this thread posted again under a new name in 4-5 months.
edit on 10-10-2015 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 11 2015 @ 06:34 AM
link   

originally posted by: Murgatroid

The bottom line:

The Pope wasn't there when the Earth was made, the Saviour was...

The choice is yours about who you are going to believe.


Sure, how do you know your imaginary friend was there??

Who is narrator in Genesis? Was he there??

How do you know - that this was not the way it happened:


#In the beginning was the computer. And God said
:Let there be light!
#You have not signed on yet.
:God.
#Enter user password.
:Omniscient.
#Password Incorrect. Try again!
:Omnipotent.
#Password Incorrect. Try again!
:Technocrat.
#And God signed on 12:01 a.m., Sunday, March 1.
:Let there be light!
#Unrecognizable command. Try again!
:Create light.
#Done.
:Run heaven and earth.
#And God created Day and Night. And God saw there were 0 errors.
#And God signed off at 12:02 a.m., Sunday, March 1.
#Approx. funds remaining: $92.50.
#And God signed on at 12:00 a.m., Monday, March 2.
:Let there be firmament in the midst of the water and
#Unrecognizable command! Try again!
:Create firmament.
#Done.
:Run firmament.
#And God divided the waters. And God saw there were 0 errors.
#And God signed off at 12:01 a.m., Monday, March 2.
#Approx. funds remaining: $84.60.
#And God signed on at 12:00 a.m., Tuesday, March 3.
:Let the waters under heaven be gathered together unto one place
and let the dry land appear and
#Too many characters in string specification! Try again.#Done!
:Run dryland.
#And God created Earth and Seas. And God saw there were 0 errors.
#And God signed off at 12:01 a.m., Tuesday, March 3.
#Approx. funds remaining: $65.00.
#And God signed on at 12:00 a.m., Wednesday, March 4.
:Create lights in the firmament to divide the day from the night.
#Unspecified type. Try again!
:Create sunmoonstars.
#And God created Sun, Moon, Stars. And God saw there were 0 errors.
#And God signed off at 12:01 a.m., Wednesday, March 4.
#Approx. funds remaining: $54:00.
#And God signed on at 12:00 a.m., Thursday, March 5.
:Create fish.
#Done.
:Create fowl.
#Done.
:Run fish'nfowl.
#And God created the great seamonsters and every living creature
that creepeth wherewith the waters swarmed after its kind and
every winged fowl after its kind. 0 errors.
#And God signed off at 12:01 a.m., Thursday, March 5.
#Approx. funds remaining: $45.00.
#And God signed on at 12:00 a.m., Friday, March 6.
:Create cattle.
#Done.
:Create creepy things.
#Done.
:Now let us make man in our image.
#Unspecified type! Try again.
:Create man.
#Done.
:Be fruitful and multiply and replenish the earth and subdue it
and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over of the fowl
of the air and over every living thing that creepeth upon the
earth.
#Too many command operands! Try again.
:Run multiplication.
#Execution terminated. 6 errors.
:Insert breath.
#O.K.
:Run multiplication.
#Execution terminated. 5 errors.
:Move man to Garden of Eden.
#File Garden of Eden does not exist.
:Create Gard.En.
#Done.
:Move man to Gard.En.
#O.K.
:Run multiplication.
#Execution terminated. 4 errors.
:Copy woman from man.
#O.K.
:Run multiplication.
#Execution terminated. 3 errors.
:Insert woman into man.
#Illegal parameters. Try again!
:Insert man into woman.
#O.K.
:Run multiplication.
#Execution terminated. 2 errors.
:Create desire.
#Done.
:Run multiplication.
#And God saw man'nwoman being fruitful and multiplying in the Gard.En.
#Warning: No time limit on this run. 1 errors.
:Create freewill.
#Done.
:Run freewill.
#And God saw man'nwoman being fruitful and multiplying in the Gard.En.
#Warning: No time limit on this run. 1 errors.
:Undo desire.
#Desire cannot be undone once freewill is created.
estroy freewill.
#Freewill is an inaccessible file and cannot be destroyed.
#Enter replacement, cancel, or ask for help.
:Help!
#Desire cannot be undone once freewill is created.
#Freewill is an inaccessible file and cannot be destroyed.
#Enter replacement, cancel, or ask for help.
:Create Treeofknowledge.
#And God saw man'nwoman being fruitful and multiplying in the Gard.En.
#Warning: No time limit on this run. 1 errors.
:Create good'nevil.
#Done.
:Activate evil.
#And God saw he had created shame.
#Warning: System error in sector E95. Man'nwoman not in Gard.En.
#1 errors.
:Scan Gard.En. for man'nwoman.
#Man'nwoman cannot be located. Try again!
:Search Gard.En. for man'nwoman.
#Search failed.
elete shame.
#Shame cannot be deleted once evil has been activated.
estroy freewill.
#Freewill an inaccessible file and cannot be destroyed.
:Stop!
#Unrecognizable command. Try again.
:Break
:Break
:Break
#ATTENTION ALL USERS ATTENTION ALL USERS: COMPUTER GOING DOWN FOR
REGULAR DAY OF MAINTENANCE AND REST IN FIVE MINUTES. PLEASE
SIGN OFF.
:Create new world.
#You have exceeded your allotted file space. You must destroy
old files before new ones can be created.
estroy earth.
#Destroy earth. Please confirm.
estroy earth confirmed.
#COMPUTER DOWN. COMPUTER DOWN. SERVICES WILL RESUME ON SUNDAY
MARCH 8 AT 6:00 A.M. YOU MUST SIGN OFF NOW!
#And God signed off at 11:59 p.m., Friday, March 6.
#And God saw he had zero funds remaining.


Person/People who wrote it - were they there?

Most importantly - were you there to observe it??



posted on Oct, 11 2015 @ 04:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: Barcs
a reply to: Murgatroid

Haeckel was never convicted of fraud. His hypothesis was wrong, and the drawings were exaggerated. We know this. But nobody's talking about evolution either. This is supposed to be a logical evidence for creation thread, although it hasn't been posted. Looks like the OP abandoned ship again. We'll see this thread posted again under a new name in 4-5 months.


Haha ha.

I thought you were DONE HERE Barcs?

So why are still barking?

Make up your mind - you in or out or just a troll?

Mod's please take note of trolls.

BTW - people have lives you know. Not like you who spends every waking minute of their lives in front of a screen.

Tippy tap tap tap...


edit on 11-10-2015 by edmc^2 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 11 2015 @ 04:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: Murgatroid

originally posted by: SuperFrog
Theory of evolution is fact... I heard late pope tell that long time ago (like almost 20 years ago)... seems his imaginary friend told him... law2.umkc.edu...



The bottom line:

The Pope wasn't there when the Earth was made, the Saviour was...

The choice is yours about who you are going to believe.


All cults and movements associated with the "new world order" of the so-called New Age Movement have two things in common—evolutionism as their base and globalism as their goal.

www.bible.ca...

Jesuit New Age leader Pierre Teilhard de Chardin participated in one of the most blatant academic scientific frauds of all time. His deliberate deception went undetected for over 40 years and it has influenced the entire world, from the Holy Catholic Church, to evolution science, to secular education.

No one since the Piltdown fraud has escaped it's influence. What was his motive, why would a "man of God" FAKE anthropological evidence, and why would he use a secular fraud and deception to deceive the Church?




Love the pic Murgatroid.

How the mighty has fallen...beaten by a chicken.



posted on Oct, 11 2015 @ 04:12 PM
link   

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

I read your post and I feel deeply, deeply sad. I wish I could help you. I want to help you, but I cannot. I can only suggest you learn science, starting with mathematics and then going into science itself. Concentrate on learning the scientific method, as expounded originally by Sir Francis Bacon. I wish you luck and hope you can succeed.


Hey StanL thanks for your concern but I think you got this wrong.

Fact is, I believe you even got a clue of what you're saying but thanks anyway.

I wish you luck and hope you can succeed.



posted on Oct, 11 2015 @ 04:53 PM
link   
a reply to: toktaylor

For a minute there toktaylor you sounded like a member of seminaries for atheists and freethinkers by Victor Singer.

But the thing is, whatever theory natural scientist come up with it will always fall short of the fact - the origin / source of energy. The source of the "singularity".



posted on Oct, 11 2015 @ 04:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: Barcs
You silly people with your faith in science! OMG that is totally blind faith. The OP has proven god, conclusively. He has presented facts and logical evidence to support his view and has proven that science is just a guess.



You're sounding more and more like a troll Barcs.



posted on Oct, 11 2015 @ 05:27 PM
link   
a reply to: Titen-Sxull


"And that life MUST by necessity pre-existing, always existing to be able to impart life"

So much stuff in what you said Titen-S to my above statement but I just would like to address what you said below and come back to the rest later.

You said that...



Not only is this a bizarre non-sequitur but its a logically fallacious statement. The entire premise of your argument is that life needs to come from life. You immediately throw this out the window by inventing a new kind of life, an UBER ORGANISM which you identify as the God of the Bible.

It's not evidence, it's not even a logically sound argument and I definitely think you can do better.


Actually, it's "...a bizarre non-sequitur" and "a logically fallacious statement" to say that Life can exist from inanimate things. There's no evidence for it. It can't be proven no matter what experiment is conducted. It just can't be done. Experiment after experiment, billions of $$ poured into it. Very sophisticated apparatus had been constructed and continue to be devised, still the result remained the same. The Urey/Miller hasn't advanced to what it was DESIGNED to do - create life from inanimate things through chemical reactions.

Yet, we can create designer genes, synthetic life with no difficulty as long as the source is life.

So by this alone, why "it's not evidence, it's not even a logically sound argument" to infer that life can only come from life?

Why you Titen-S is willing to believe/accept something that has no basis but conclude...




Not only is this a bizarre non-sequitur but its a logically fallacious statement?


that life can ONLY come from life?

I fail to see your logic if there's one.



posted on Oct, 11 2015 @ 08:53 PM
link   
a reply to: Titen-Sxull




We don't know. We haven't figured out exactly how life originated from non-living chemicals but we do know that life is just complex chemical interactions. There need not be a designer when we're dealing with something that is perfectly consistent with the natural interactions of chemicals. We have no reason to assume that in order for primitive microorganisms to evolve on Earth we would need some kind of intervention. The FACT is that life on Earth began as basic single-celled organisms which eventually gave rise to every extant species we see around us. That suggests that, even if a God was somehow involved, that God started out small, with single-celled organisms, for some reason. The most consistent hypotheses with the facts are those which state that life originated here, on Earth, arising from purely natural processes.


Titen-S I read your statement above several times and still found it contradictory. For intance, you said:



We have no reason to assume that in order for primitive microorganisms to evolve on Earth we would need some kind of intervention.


That alone to me is an assumption. For how would you know there's no "reason to assume...we would need some kind of intervention" if you don't have the evidence to back it up?

How would you know "There need not be a designer" if people were involved in the first place for "interactions of chemicals" to happen - a la Urey/Miller experiment?

Unless of course you're claiming you have evidence. If that is the case, then what do you mean by these statements?



We don't know. We haven't figured out exactly how life originated from non-living chemicals but we do know that life is just complex chemical interactions.


Assumption?

In addition, if we "haven't figured out exactly how life originated from non-living chemicals", why is this be the FACT? That is...



The FACT is that life on Earth began as basic single-celled organisms which eventually gave rise to every extant species we see around us.


In other words, if we "haven't figured out exactly how life originated from non-living chemicals", what convinced you that "life on Earth began as basic single-celled organisms"?

Assumption or fact?

This you got to tell me.



posted on Oct, 11 2015 @ 08:58 PM
link   
a reply to: edmc^2

you are creating a false dichotomy. either life can generate from inanimate material or your entire hypothesis is validated. what is your hypothesis anyway? in the event that proving life only comes from life, where do you go from there? how do you prove which higher power was responsible? there are thousands, you know. and you would have to prove it to a certified board, competent in the basics of science. and while you are at it, do you intend to address how god came to be, since life can only come from life?

or is god once again exempt from the law that necessitates him? does the lawmaker design the law that governs his birth? does the chicken lay the egg it hatches from?

do you see what im getting at?



posted on Oct, 11 2015 @ 09:24 PM
link   
a reply to: Titen-Sxull

And that life MUST by necessity pre-existing, always existing to be able to impart life.



Not YET. But human beings are made of non-living elements, we're made of the same stuff that Earth is made of, most of our bodies are composed of WATER and water is a non-living thing. Also this question will likely come up once we develop intelligent AI and we have to ask ourselves what the definition of life is, whether we might include some fast-thinking self-replicating machine as alive.


Sure, in fact, we're made of the "stuff" that stars are made of. We're bits of atoms just like the chair is made up of atoms. But the difference is and it is gigantic one, were alive.

So why are we alive while the chair is not? What's missing?

The source of life. An Intelligent Source of Life.



posted on Oct, 11 2015 @ 10:24 PM
link   

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

you are creating a false dichotomy. either life can generate from inanimate material or your entire hypothesis is validated. what is your hypothesis anyway? in the event that proving life only comes from life, where do you go from there? how do you prove which higher power was responsible? there are thousands, you know. and you would have to prove it to a certified board, competent in the basics of science. and while you are at it, do you intend to address how god came to be, since life can only come from life?

or is god once again exempt from the law that necessitates him? does the lawmaker design the law that governs his birth? does the chicken lay the egg it hatches from?

do you see what im getting at?



Not sure why you're saying "false dichotomy" even though there's not even one in what I said. In fact as I said before - it's between the atheist view vs. the Christian view. And even though (as i stated in another post) we're made of the "stuff" that stars are made of, there's a big difference. We are alive.

Why?

Because we came from a pre-existing life. And if you trace it back all the way to the beginning, you'll arrive at the same conclusion - a pre-existing life. A life that CAN IMPART Life.

In other words, life was put together by an already existing life. Any competent scientist can confirm this and repeat it be it through cloning or cell regeneration.

On the other hand, no competent scientists can produce life from inanimate chemicals. It can't be done, or else they've already done it.

As for God - where did he came from, who or what created him? There's ONLY ONE logical and scientific answer - he always existed. Otherwise, the question will be an infinite regress of who created the God, of who created the creator of the creator of God...ad infinitum.

It's the same question I can ask atheist's of as to who created the universe that created them. If you say, the big-bang, gravity, quantum vacuum, etc, then who created "it".

"do you see what im getting at?"

So the question is, which of these two views is logical?

It can't be both, so one must be the truth.

It can't be "we don't know" either then believe that it's a fact. Otherwise, it's a blind faith - believing something that is not a fact.

Hence, for atheist's like you, it's a big problem.

do you see what im getting at?

You're basing your belief on something you don't know - hence blind faith.



edit on 11-10-2015 by edmc^2 because: edit




top topics



 
42
<< 17  18  19    21  22  23 >>

log in

join