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: 38
42
<< 35  36  37    39  40  41 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 16 2016 @ 06:09 AM
link   
a reply to: 5StarOracle




What we have been discussing is scientific method because what is stated is an observation explaining the events...

Yeah, I know.
God did it. That's science.


edit on 4/16/2016 by Phage because: (no reason given)




posted on Apr, 16 2016 @ 06:12 AM
link   
a reply to: Phage

I imagine if a full scientific answer was provided by God himself it would contain many volumes each much larger than the bible itself...
It's accurate enough in its depiction of the process...



posted on Apr, 16 2016 @ 06:13 AM
link   

originally posted by: 5StarOracle
a reply to: Phage

It sure has a lot of scientific examples and provides answers and or explanation of scientific matters...

Is not the forming of the Sun and the Earth Science?

You said I don't know what science is...


The sun (and all the planets) were formed out of a rotating disk of interstellar dust and other particles that was left over from the remains of another star that exploded in a supernova billions of years ago. Right now we can see stellar nurseries in our galaxy where other stars are in the process of forming.
The above is nowhere in the bible. The bible, by the way, also says that pi=3. That makes it patently obvious that saying that the bible is scientific is like saying that astrology is accurate. No.



posted on Apr, 16 2016 @ 06:14 AM
link   
a reply to: 5StarOracle




It's accurate enough in its depiction of the process...

No. It isn't. Unless you're good at pounding square pegs into round holes.



posted on Apr, 16 2016 @ 06:15 AM
link   
a reply to: Phage

I can do that! oh wait nevermind



posted on Apr, 16 2016 @ 06:16 AM
link   
a reply to: Phage

If the square pegs corners are less than the circumference of the circle there is no need to pound at all...
Also there is no such thing as a square peg that would of course be rectangular however the same would remain true for a cube...
edit on 16-4-2016 by 5StarOracle because: Word



posted on Apr, 16 2016 @ 06:38 AM
link   
Creation is indeed the only explanation...
not only is it the only logical explaination...
Because any process that caused all to be...
could only be deemed "Creation"...



posted on Apr, 16 2016 @ 06:49 AM
link   
The creative days in Genesis do not refer to the creation of the universe. Rather the process of readying earth for life, and then the creation of that life on earth.

All the days are specifically about EARTH and nothing else.

Genesis 1:1 shows us that in the beginning God created both the heavens and the earth. That is the universe outside the earth, and the earth itself. It never states how long ago that was.

From verse 2 onward we are shown how God prepared the earth for human habitation.

Again those creative days which were eons of time themselves talk only about EARTH itself.

Look:

(Genesis 1:2) . . .Now the earth was formless and desolate, and there was darkness upon the surface of the watery deep, and God’s active force was moving about over the surface of the waters.

There was darkness over the watery deep. That is over the oceans. Why was it dark on the surface of the earth? We already know the earth exists, because it says there was darkness over the waters of the surface of the earth.

So we can deduct with reason and logic that verse two is NOT talking about the creation of the physical universe which is mentioned in verse one.

We are carried somewhere into the far distant future of verse one and are shown that the surface of the earth at that point in time was dark, and it was covered with water at that point in time.

It was dark because the earth's atmosphere was much like that of Venus' I imagine. Not that the sun and the universe did not already exist. Rather the light from the already existing sun could not penetrate the thick atmosphere which must have existed on earth at that point in time.

No one alive when Moses wrote that verse could have known that.

Now that you have a logical comprehension of what the creation account is really showing you. You can compare it with known science and it is dead-on accurate.

Look, I'll show you:

(Genesis 1:3-5) . . .And God said: “Let there be light.” Then there was light. 4 After that God saw that the light was good, and God began to divide the light from the darkness.  God called the light Day, but the darkness he called Night. And there was evening and there was morning, a first day.

There was light! Where? Obviously not the universe the stars had already been existing for billions of years.

If you use logic and read verse two again, you will see that what was dark was the earth's surface, which was covered with water.

So what became light? The earth's surface. That is just logical. The atmosphere cleared up enough, although still thick that the sun and moon and stars were NOT visible. Yet at this point in time light did penetrate through the atmosphere to the surface. And the day and night became apparent.

Very easy to understand when you really just read what it is saying.

Here let me show you some more:

(Genesis 1:6-8) 6 Then God said: “Let there be an expanse between the waters, and let there be a division between the waters and the waters.” 7 Then God went on to make the expanse and divided the waters beneath the expanse from the waters above the expanse. And it was so. 8 God called the expanse Heaven. And there was evening and there was morning, a second day.

So after the first day, when light penetrated through the thick atmosphere to the surface, God made a division between the "waters and the waters." Apparently that would refer to the oceans on the surface, and a water canopy in the atmosphere. For the expanse had to be somewhere in earth's atmosphere, I have a feeling it was in the high high atmosphere. From space, I imagine the earth still looked like Venus, a thick atmosphere full of gases.

Are you following? Has your mind been freed from the atheist and radical fundamentalist idea of what is being talked about here? Because it is very obvious.

Has the light gone off in your mind yet? If not, here I let me show you more.

Now using this basic and very simply knowledge of what is being discussed here, see if you can figure out what is being referred to next, try and use your own mind:

(Genesis 1:9-13) . . .Then God said: “Let the waters under the heavens be collected together into one place, and let the dry land appear.” And it was so. 10 God called the dry land Earth, but the collecting of the waters, he called Seas. And God saw that it was good. 11 Then God said: “Let the earth cause grass to sprout, seed-bearing plants and fruit trees according to their kinds, yielding fruit along with seed on the earth.” And it was so. 12 And the earth began to produce grass, seed-bearing plants and trees yielding fruit along with seed, according to their kinds. Then God saw that it was good. 13 And there was evening and there was morning, a third day.

Were you able to visually see that in your mind's eye?

You already know the earth exists. That there is a thick atmosphere, and that the earth, up to this point has a huge ocean of water covering the surface. And that there was a division of the waters in the expanse and the surface. So what happens at this stage?

Dry land appears.

And what is the very first life to arrive? We are told plant life and trees. This is significant because at that point in time the earth's atmosphere was probably very thick with carbon dioxide and nitrogen and other gases. Remember the sun itself is not visible from the surface.

So what happens over time now that God has created the vegetation and the trees? Can you see how the trees begin to filter the atmosphere putting more oxygen into it, clearing it up?

Now as you visualize this taking place, you see God forming the earth from stage to stage (starting from the point where it was covered with water and a thick atmosphere - that is the starting point of the Genesis account. Nothing previous to that is even mentioned). Now read the next part and see if you can figure out what happens by using your mind's eye and logic:

(Genesis 1:14-19) . . .Then God said: “Let there be luminaries in the expanse of the heavens to make a division between the day and the night, and they will serve as signs for seasons and for days and years. 15 They will serve as luminaries in the expanse of the heavens to shine upon the earth.” And it was so. 16 And God went on to make the two great luminaries, the greater luminary for dominating the day and the lesser luminary for dominating the night, and also the stars. 17 Thus God put them in the expanse of the heavens to shine upon the earth 18 and to dominate by day and by night and to make a division between the light and the darkness. Then God saw that it was good. 19 And there was evening and there was morning, a fourth day.

So before this time why while there was light, the sun was not visible. Correct?

So what happens in this creative day? The earth's atmosphere is finally cleared up enough, probably due to the plant life God created, that if you were on the surface and peered heavenward finally the sun and the moon and the stars appeared. Not that they were created on this day.

Now they became fully visible on the surface of the earth. Were you able to discern that, by reading it all by yourself? If so, then good! Now you are using reasoning and logic!

Ran out of room.
edit on 16-4-2016 by LifeisGrand because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 16 2016 @ 06:50 AM
link   
I gave it after few pages. Please is there scientific proof of Gods existence? Or can anybody setup hypothesis on which experiment(s) could be conducted - leading to theory? Is there theory on which we can base some predictions on .... WHAT? .... Demiurge done/will do?

BTW do you realize that only place on Earth, where such nonsensical discussions take place, are USA?

USA looks like bedlam from other countries perspective. Please, keep your inches and gallons at home. Keep your "democracy" at home. Keep your $ at home. Keep your weapons and brainwashed soldiers at home.

Now I understand why Saudi Arabia is USA close ally - its medieval mindset and here I grossly vilify medieval period.
edit on 16-4-2016 by JanAmosComenius because: typo



posted on Apr, 16 2016 @ 06:56 AM
link   
a reply to: LifeisGrand

This should be enough to help you see what Genesis is really talking about.

I really don't want to quote any more verses, as I have other things I need to do.

But just briefly let us go over the following:

vs 20-23; God creates the creatures of the sea and then the birds of the heaven.

vs 24, 25; God creates land animals, two kinds. Both wild and domestic. That is he created some land animals to live apart from humans, and he created others to be domestic and live with humans.

vs 26: God creates man.

Now if you look at the preceding account it is very very scientific and very very accurate. How did Moses know all these details? And if you look at the fossil record you will see that it confirms the Genesis account especially when it came to life. Sea creatures appeared first, and not gradually but suddenly. Followed by land animals. And lastly by humans.

Tens of millions of people understand all of this.

It still amazes me how atheists point to the wrong and ridiculous views of a small group of religist fundamentalists and apply it to every who believe in the Genesis account.

It is very likely they ignore this accurate one, because it is true. And they would rather not deal with it.

This forum is called Origins and Creationism for a reason.

It wants to perpetuate that everyone who believes in a Creator is a Creationist. Which is very very very far from factual nor is it true. It is lying propaganda which the atheist mind eats up.



posted on Apr, 16 2016 @ 07:10 AM
link   
a reply to: LifeisGrand

You reach so many times in your post that I rapidly realised that it's going to be pointless to debate you. I will however point out that a) you know nothing about the atmosphere of Venus (which is rapidly lethal to human life), b) you can't explain where the water went to, c) you have no idea where oxygen first came from and d) basic biology passed you by in school.

This thread is amusing in a way. It shows how utterly clueless creationists are about basic physics, chemistry, biology, astronomy, geology and palaeontology. Sorry, but the fossil record trumps a book of myths every time.



posted on Apr, 16 2016 @ 07:22 AM
link   

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg
a reply to: LifeisGrand

You reach so many times in your post that I rapidly realised that it's going to be pointless to debate you. I will however point out that a) you know nothing about the atmosphere of Venus (which is rapidly lethal to human life), b) you can't explain where the water went to, c) you have no idea where oxygen first came from and d) basic biology passed you by in school.

This thread is amusing in a way. It shows how utterly clueless creationists are about basic physics, chemistry, biology, astronomy, geology and palaeontology. Sorry, but the fossil record trumps a book of myths every time.



Someone actually started to read my post? Interesting.

But sorry, you failed. Instead of seeing what was being said, which was no reach, you ignored it all and said I don't understand Venus' atmosphere. Obviously we could not live on Venus. Just like earth's atmosphere in verse 2 of Genesis would have been deadly to human life. Human life would have been impossible at that point.

And when I stated that earth's atmosphere at that stage must have looked similar to that of Venus' that was no stretch or reach of the imagination as you claim.

It even stated right there, the earth's surface was dark. The only way that could have been possible is if the atmosphere was too thick for the light from the sun to penetrate to the surface. Not even plant life could have existed at that point.

In fact light had to appear first, and then plants. And yes I do know how oxygen is formed. Plants and trees breath in carbon dioxide and breath out oxygen. They work as filters. And the light had to appear first, and then the plants and trees, to produce oxygen (that is how oxygen is produced, it is something called photosynthesis and is taught in like 1st grade science I think).

As for where the water in the expanse went to? That is obvious, it was split into the earth during the flood. During the flood the highest peaks on earth were covered. And now the excess water is stored in certain areas of the earth as ice.

The expanse no longer exists. But when it did the entire earth was a tropical climate. You could be a human and walk around naked anywhere on earth and live comfortably.

If you doubt this, I have proof. Come to Denver, Co when you want and we shall go down several meters (about 30) and I can show you tropical plant and tree fossils. In fact the are found everywhere around the globe.

This also prevented the suns UV and other harmful EMR from reaching the earth.

If you still disagree, you will need to do some study and research. If all of the earth's ice in Antarctica, the glaciers, and Greenland, for example were to melt the entire land including the mountains would be covered with water again.

Instead of accusing and ignoring, and refusing to reason with logic. You should really open your mind.

Instead of mockery and name-calling, you should really try to reason.



posted on Apr, 16 2016 @ 07:38 AM
link   
a reply to: LifeisGrand

(Facepalm)
I'm sorry if I appear condescending or even insulting, but I am tired of pointing out facts that are stated in Geology 101. If all the water in the poles, plus the Greenland ice field (and every other ice field) melted there would not be enough added water to cover the planet in water. There just isn't enough. Here's a nice map.
The reason why you can find fossilised trees and plants in Denver is a simple one. It's called plate tectonics, which has not just changed the face of the continents, but also affected the weather. And by the way the Van Allen belts and the magnetosphere have a lot to do with deflecting the Sun's nastier radiation from the surface of the planet.
Here's some more Geology 101. The build up of oxygen in the atmosphere of our planet was not due to trees, but rather to the evolution of oceanic cyanobacteria, which led to the Great Oxygenation Event. I would advise you to look it up.
Access to books on geology, biology etc. etc. will soon show you that the bible is about as scientific as my cat.



posted on Apr, 16 2016 @ 07:58 AM
link   
a reply to: AngryCymraeg

No doubt about it. The same Creator that created plant life, also formed the life in the sea. In fact most of the oxygen of earth comes from plankton which are nearly microscopic organisms leaving in the oceans. Plankton were also created to use photosynthesis to produce oxygen. The same process as in trees and plants.

And if you wanted to we can go further and look at the process of photosynthesis and see how amazing it really is.

Cells contain chloroplasts, which contain thylakoids within. The chlorophyll molecules are put into the thylakoids, not at random by according to a highly ordered set of functions and assemblies called photosystems, of which there are two types in most plants (PSI and PSII). Each system work as a specialized assembly to take care of the steps need to arrive at photosynthesis.

Sunlight strikes the thylakoid, PSII arrays called light-harvesting complexes wait to trap it. They trap red light of a specfic wavelength.

PSI arrays look for a somewhat longer wavelength. While that is happening chlorophyll and and molecules such as carotenoids absorb blue and violet light.

The PSII arrays transfer the red light rays to electrons in the chlorophyll, until the electron has enough energy to jump from it. There is a carrier molecule that waits for it in the thylakoid membrane. It is then transferred from one carrier to another until it loses energy. When it is at a certain level of energy it is used to replace another electron in the photosystem.

The PSII array needs an electron (which makes it positive) this area is known as the oxygen-evolving complex. It takes the electron from a water molecule.

You know that water is H20. The oxygen evoloving complex contains four ions of metal manganese and these take the hydrogen molecules away from the water molecule. Thus the h20 is broken into 2 hydrogen atoms (ionized) and 1 oxygen, and 2 electrons. As this process repeats the plant/plankton releases the oxygen gas into the air.

The process is much much longer, but that is a very simplistic version of it. And even at that level you can see how it was designed and not just came about haphazardly by chance.

Nevertheless my understanding of photosynthesis does not negate the scientifically accurate account related in Genesis.

The green light is not used in the process that is why plants give off the green that you see.



posted on Apr, 16 2016 @ 08:07 AM
link   

originally posted by: LifeisGrand
a reply to: AngryCymraeg


Nevertheless my understanding of photosynthesis does not negate the scientifically accurate account related in Genesis.



But it's not a scientifically accurate account! You rightly admire photosynthesis, but your previous posts said that the O2 in the atmosphere came from trees and not from oceanic cyanobacteria! And please address my other points - the water can't go anywhere else because there isn't enough to cover all the landmasses, plate tectonics takes care of any plant fossils underneath you and the bible is still not scientifically accurate.
I would also like to state that you are adding your own interpretation to the bible, which is interesting. You must now that what it states is unscientific, so you are adding your own view on what it must mean. That was what I meant by the fact that you are reaching.



posted on Apr, 16 2016 @ 08:11 AM
link   
a reply to: AngryCymraeg

No indeed. I am not making anything up. I actually reasoned with you on what creation account is really saying. All you have to do use use verse 2 as a marker.

And I obviously was not alive when that happened. But I have no doubt that the trees produced oxygen, as well as all of the organisms created in the sea to produce oxygen gas.

And I already told you what happened to the water.

But that account is not something I made up. It has been understood by Christians for a very long time.

The account you are used to hearing is a a Creationist account of it, and is held by only a very small minority of radical fundamentalists.

You imagine it is the only one, because it is the only one that people who believe in evolution and atheists alike will touch.

They ignore this one that has been around for a lot lot longer.

In fact, did you know the very first motion picture with color and sound was entitled: "The Photo Drama of Creation" it came out in 1914 and was 8 hours long. And it explains everything nearly the way I showed you. That was shown to millions of people around the world. For the time it was the probably biggest known and seen motion picture in the world.



posted on Apr, 16 2016 @ 08:13 AM
link   
a reply to: LifeisGrand

"In fact light had to appear first, and then plants. And yes I do know how oxygen is formed. Plants and trees breath in carbon dioxide and breath out oxygen. They work as filters. And the light had to appear first, and then the plants and trees, to produce oxygen (that is how oxygen is produced, it is something called photosynthesis and is taught in like 1st grade science I think). "

Oxygen is primarily atom or element with such and such properties. Plants do not produce oxygen as element. They also do not work like filters in this sense. Plants are more like chemical factories powered by photons. They take carbon (C) from CO2 molecules and use it for creation of sugars which are sub-particles of starch and more complex macromolecules. Oxygen in form of O2 molecule is byproduct of this process. BTW what about H2O - do you have any idea how oxygen and hydrogen atoms of water molecule partake in photosynthesis?

I would be fired at exam if I compare photosynthesis to filtration.

Oxygen as element is product of nuclear fusion in stars and "that is how oxygen is produced".

I understand your point of view but your explanations are on level of "1st grade science".

There are really good universities in USA but elementary and high schools are arguably plain disaster.
edit on 16-4-2016 by JanAmosComenius because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 16 2016 @ 08:21 AM
link   
a reply to: JanAmosComenius

Thank you for taking the time to understand my point of view.

And I do realize that photosynthesis is more complicated than I mentioned. I was just showing how oxygen is released from the H20 in the photosynthesis process into the air. I didn't cover everything, because I did not feel it was necessary to.

Have you ever heard of Teraforming? The idea has been around for a long while. While perhaps I may not understand the complete process, what was happening in the Genesis account, God clearing up the atmosphere (which he did by his active force) scripture tells us that when the earth's surface was dark, his active force was "roving to and fro" over the watery surface.

So there were indeed supernatural events powered by the Creator which cannot be explained by science. Or perhaps he used laws of nature which he created, which were not stated, and which we obviously haven't figured out yet, to clear up the atmosphere enough for the light to penetrate earth's atmosphere to the surface:

(Genesis 1:2) . . .Now the earth was formless and desolate, and there was darkness upon the surface of the watery deep, and God’s active force was moving about over the surface of the waters.

Notice that there was no form and it was desolate, there was no life. It was a big vast pool of water that was was shrouded in darkness.

While Venus does not have the oceans of water earth does, if you can imagine yourself on Venus' surface, it was probably somewhat similar. Obviously not the same, like someone erroneously thought I didn't understand. I was trying to use it to help the reader get a mental picture of what the earth's surface looked like at that point in the creation process.



posted on Apr, 16 2016 @ 08:24 AM
link   

originally posted by: LifeisGrand
a reply to: AngryCymraeg

No indeed. I am not making anything up. I actually reasoned with you on what creation account is really saying. All you have to do use use verse 2 as a marker.

And I obviously was not alive when that happened. But I have no doubt that the trees produced oxygen, as well as all of the organisms created in the sea to produce oxygen gas.

And I already told you what happened to the water.

But that account is not something I made up. It has been understood by Christians for a very long time.

The account you are used to hearing is a a Creationist account of it, and is held by only a very small minority of radical fundamentalists.

You imagine it is the only one, because it is the only one that people who believe in evolution and atheists alike will touch.

They ignore this one that has been around for a lot lot longer.

In fact, did you know the very first motion picture with color and sound was entitled: "The Photo Drama of Creation" it came out in 1914 and was 8 hours long. And it explains everything nearly the way I showed you. That was shown to millions of people around the world. For the time it was the probably biggest known and seen motion picture in the world.


Ladies and Gentlemen I rest my case.

By the way, 1914 was before DNA was discovered, before a huge number of fossils were discovered, before Plate Tectonics was theorised, before the magnetic stripes on the seafloor were discovered and before a vast amount of scientific information was discovered about the early life of this planet. The creationist account of the creation of the Earth is wrong, is unscientific and is in fact totally unrealistic.
Yes, you told me what happened to the water. I then pointed out that you were cold flat dead wrong, whereupon you did what most creationists do when faced with an inconvenient fact, which is ignore it or misinterpret it.
I apologise again for my tone. But I am so very tired of having to explain facts to people again and again. This is Geology 101. This is basic stuff. And yet creationists feel the need to belittle, disparage and scoff at science, before then making stuff up to fit their preconceived viewpoint that goddidit.



posted on Apr, 16 2016 @ 08:29 AM
link   
a reply to: LifeisGrand

If you stood on the surface of Venus then (in the instant before you were flattened down to a puddle by the crushing atmospheric pressure) you would be boiled in your own skin by the scorching temperature, whilst your skin itself was feeling the effects of sulfur dioxide. Hence my problem with your analogy.
And then we get to the bit that made me headbutt the desk. You cannot claim that the bible is scientific and that the process you tried to describe as being credible is also scientific whilst then claiming that god is unscientific. You can't have it both ways.

Sorry, but your post jumped the shark. In fact, it had long since jumped the shark and is now in orbit.


edit on 16-4-2016 by AngryCymraeg because: Typo



new topics

top topics



 
42
<< 35  36  37    39  40  41 >>

log in

join