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: 62
42
<< 59  60  61    63  64  65 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 22 2016 @ 11:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: TzarChasm

Homo sapiens and apes (such as african apes) share a common ancestor. If you are going to be condescending, get your facts straight.


Discern fact from theory.




posted on Sep, 22 2016 @ 11:45 PM
link   
a reply to: cooperton

Facts are something you haven't presented. You haven't even presented theory.

What you have presented, is opinion. Based on religious bias.



posted on Sep, 22 2016 @ 11:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: TerryDon79
a reply to: cooperton

Facts are something you haven't presented.


I presented the law of energy conservation. get your facts straight bruh



posted on Sep, 22 2016 @ 11:51 PM
link   
a reply to: cooperton

Its also not a theory. We share a common ancestry with modern apes, which makes us primates. Monkies are furhter back. Stop perpetuating ignorance neighbour.



posted on Sep, 22 2016 @ 11:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: cooperton

Its also not a theory.


You're saying the theory of evolution is not a theory? Do you claim to be an objective scientist?



posted on Sep, 22 2016 @ 11:56 PM
link   
a reply to: cooperton

Wow. You presented something that's common knowledge, much like the, oh, I don't know, gravity.

I don't see you at the top of a building arguing against gravity though.



posted on Sep, 22 2016 @ 11:57 PM
link   
a reply to: cooperton

No I am saying the theory of evolution no where says we are descended from monkeys. It says we share a common ancestor with apes. Now before you go down the "its implied" it would thus also be implied that you share an ancestry with a banana.

Nice try, but you are off your game sunshine.



posted on Sep, 23 2016 @ 01:40 AM
link   

originally posted by: edmc^2
X creates Y but never X creates X. So by necessity X must exist first in order to create Y.

And there you go, around and around your circular logic.

Because you vehemently refuse to entertain the notion that your God a) was created or b) doesn't exist in the first place, which, let's face it, is the more plausible argument, you will forever sit in your corner yelling at all the big kids who won't play by your childish rules.

You keep saying you have logic and evidence. What is your evidence? X creates Y but never X creates X is not evidence. That's your assumption. Based on an incorrect assumption that X is eternal.
edit on 23-9-2016 by noonebutme because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 23 2016 @ 01:41 AM
link   
a reply to: noonebutme
Circles are perfect. Proof!



posted on Sep, 23 2016 @ 01:45 AM
link   

originally posted by: Noinden
First my faith is Polytheistic pre-Christian Irish. My view point is not creationist.
Second: I'm a scientist by trade (Chemistry and Biochemistry/Genetics).

That has to be one of the coolest things I've read on here. Honestly, no sarcasm.



posted on Sep, 23 2016 @ 01:50 AM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: noonebutme
Circles are perfect. Proof!

He GOT me!



posted on Sep, 23 2016 @ 10:27 AM
link   

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: cooperton

No I am saying the theory of evolution no where says we are descended from monkeys. It says we share a common ancestor with apes. Now before you go down the "its implied" it would thus also be implied that you share an ancestry with a banana.

Nice try, but you are off your game sunshine.


Speaking of sunshine, let's all have a recess. See you all next week.



posted on Sep, 23 2016 @ 12:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: cooperton

No I am saying the theory of evolution no where says we are descended from monkeys. It says we share a common ancestor with apes. Now before you go down the "its implied" it would thus also be implied that you share an ancestry with a banana.

Nice try, but you are off your game sunshine.


Speaking of sunshine, let's all have a recess. See you all next week.


Did you acknowledge your mistake? Would have been a lot cooler if you did.



posted on Sep, 23 2016 @ 01:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: TzarChasm
a reply to: Barcs

How dare you convert from the religion of science? Heretic! Wait til the pope of science hears about this, you will be excommunicated for sure...


...



His arguments are just TOO compelling. I thought I was so sure about evolution, but now I know better. You can't push your pseudo scientific evolutionist agenda on me any longer! Praise Jehovah!


originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: Barcs

Brilliant! Neil deGrasse Tyson better watch his back, this guy is the next Einstein!




Yep. Case closed. I am officially convinced. Close thread.


You are the worst. Seriously. Why must you be so condescending? Chill. What's more disturbing is that your fellow cult members starred you for it.

Edmc^2 presented his thoughts on the world using sound logic. Just because you believe your ancestors were monkeys doesn't mean you should act like one.


I'm a bit insulted that you don't take my conversion to religious fundamentalism seriously. I agree, his logic was undeniable. Since X never creates X, god is real and his name is Jehovah. Let me guess, you worship Yahweh or some other ghost? You must be a Satanist. It's not too late to save your soul!
edit on 9 23 16 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 23 2016 @ 08:16 PM
link   

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

Take your algebra and apply actual real world examples neigbhbour. If you can not. Then it is not an analaogy which olds and Hitchen's Razor applies.


I thought I did.

Here it is again.

X creates Y but never X creates X. So by necessity X must exist first in order to create Y - is a fact!

Hence, if Y = the universe, the material universe, then X must be the creator of Y.

Question then is, Who or what is X?

The logical answer is God. Otherwise we to have say that "nothing" was responsible for creating it (universe) - which is very illogical.

Of course, for you, you'll have no other choice but to say IDK.

Perfectly fine with me. You accept or may I say believe on what you don't know.

I on the other hand, BELIEVE on what I know to be the fact. No doubt about it.





edit on 23-9-2016 by edmc^2 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 23 2016 @ 08:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: noonebutme

originally posted by: edmc^2
X creates Y but never X creates X. So by necessity X must exist first in order to create Y.

And there you go, around and around your circular logic.

Because you vehemently refuse to entertain the notion that your God a) was created or b) doesn't exist in the first place, which, let's face it, is the more plausible argument, you will forever sit in your corner yelling at all the big kids who won't play by your childish rules.

You keep saying you have logic and evidence. What is your evidence? X creates Y but never X creates X is not evidence. That's your assumption. Based on an incorrect assumption that X is eternal.


It's not a circular argument but rather a FULL STOP!

For the universe to exist there must be by necessity an eternal pre-existing source of the raw material that created it.

God is the Prime Mover, the Creator - full stop.

In terms of human experience, Henry Ford created the Model T from the materials he had access to.

The design and assembly came from his mind and used natural laws to bring it together.



posted on Sep, 23 2016 @ 08:29 PM
link   
If God was real then I think we would really know that and it wouldn't require faith.

Faith is like a credit card. Sure it's helpful sometimes but it's not a good idea and kind of like an unfortunate trap.



posted on Sep, 23 2016 @ 08:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: sputniksteve

originally posted by: edmc^2

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

Logic ... You Keep Using That Word, I Do Not Think It Means What You Think It Means...

This post of yours is a prime example of confirmation bias.


It's not bias, it's just the fact Jack.

But can you refute this fact?

X creates Y but never X creates X. So by necessity X must exist first in order to create Y.


I think the disconnect in that argument for the traditional "athiest" is that they think you mean a Human Being called God was kicking it up in Heaven and then decided to make the Universe.

They fail to use their own imagination in seeing what God could or can be. Actually maybe it is just in this conversation because you are arguing for the "Christian" God instead of just a Creator that is non denominational or non related to Religion. In any case I think if they allow their mind to accept for a moment that the Creator can possibly take forms and embody concepts that are far outside the religious paradigm and closer to the Metaphysical or Spiritual they might be able to experience a shift in their perspective or start to blend things together which is in my opinion the correct path to discovery of truths they may then find evident.

So I guess my comment probably isn't really relevant to this particular discussion. Maybe it is I don't know.


Thanks Sputniksteve for your input. Yes, you're correct - the argument is not about the "Christian" God but the Creator of the Universe. So religion should be set aside if possible to fully understand the concept.


Unfortunately, most if not all atheists are naturalistic in their understanding hence can't see the spiritual or the invisible dimension that exist in the (incorporeal) universe.



posted on Sep, 23 2016 @ 08:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: EmmanuelGoldstein
If God was real then I think we would really know that and it wouldn't require faith.

Faith is like a credit card. Sure it's helpful sometimes but it's not a good idea and kind of like an unfortunate trap.


Actually, faith is like an anchor and is powerful if you know what to with it.

It's not a trap IF it's based on evidence and facts.



posted on Sep, 23 2016 @ 08:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: Barcs

originally posted by: edmc^2
It's based on a scientifically, mathematically and logically sound reasoning.

For example, by way mathematical illustration.

X creates Y but never X creates X. So by necessity X must exist first in order to create Y.


Brilliant! Neil deGrasse Tyson better watch his back, this guy is the next Einstein!


This is just but one of the hundreds if not thousands of facts that point to the existence of a Creator - God (Jehovah/Yahweh).


Yep. Case closed. I am officially convinced. Close thread.


Humor me Barcs - is there something faulty in my statement?

X creates Y but never X creates X. So by necessity X must exist first in order to create Y.

If so please enlighten me.




top topics



 
42
<< 59  60  61    63  64  65 >>

log in

join