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: 65
42
<< 62  63  64    66  67  68 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 25 2016 @ 11:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: edmc^2

originally posted by: TerryDon79
a reply to: edmc^2

It's only a "logical" assumption if you believe there is a god. That makes it a bias assumption, not a logical one. You're assuming an awful lot without having any evidence.

That makes this not even a theory, but a very bias hypothesis.


Assumptions are only that. They are just assumptions when there's no evidence to support it.

But if we look at reality and use it as a Model, the incontrovertible raw evidence points to Creation.

Case in point:

Here are the predictions of Evolution Model:
Life evolved from nonlife by chance chemical evolution (spontaneous generation - something from nothing)

Predictions of Creation Model:
Life comes only from previous life (Already Existing Life). Originally created by an intelligent Creator

Facts as Found in the Real World:

(1) Through experience and countless experiments and test, the results are ALWAYS the same, that is: Life comes only from previous life.

(2) No way to form complex genetic code by chance.

The evidence in not bias but the reality.




Let's take care not to confuse modern evolutionary synthesis with abiogenesis. I know its tempting but its also a misrepresentation of evolution (perhaps you already knew this?).


(1) Through experience and countless experiments and test, the results are ALWAYS the same, that is: Life comes only from previous life.


...except god, ironically enough.

insert special pleading fallacy here.




posted on Sep, 25 2016 @ 11:21 PM
link   
a reply to: TzarChasm

Of course conversely there is evidence that we are not designed well
:

In the human female, a fertilized egg can implant into the fallopian tube, cervix or ovary rather than the uterus causing an ectopic pregnancy. The existence of a cavity between the ovary and the fallopian tube could indicate a flawed design in the female reproductive system. Prior to modern surgery, ectopic pregnancy invariably caused the deaths of both mother and baby. Even in modern times, in almost all cases the pregnancy must be aborted to save the life of the mother.
In the human female, the birth canal passes through the pelvis. The prenatal skull will deform to a surprising extent. However, if the baby's head is significantly larger than the pelvic opening, the baby cannot be born naturally. Prior to the development of modern surgery (caesarean section), such a complication would lead to the death of the mother, the baby, or both. Other birthing complications such as breech birth are worsened by this position of the birth canal.
In the human male, testes develop initially within the abdomen. Later during gestation, they migrate through the abdominal wall into the scrotum. This causes two weak points in the abdominal wall where hernias can later form. Prior to modern surgical techniques, complications from hernias, such as intestinal blockage and gangrene, usually resulted in death.[7]
The existence of the pharynx, a passage used for both ingestion and respiration, with the consequent drastic increase in the risk of choking.
The breathing reflex is stimulated not directly by the absence of oxygen but indirectly by the presence of carbon dioxide. A result is that, at high altitudes, oxygen deprivation can occur in unadapted individuals who do not consciously increase their breathing rate.
The human appendix is a vestigial organ with no known purpose (suggested purposes are either unproven or incidental/non-essential) and no deleterious effects of its removal.[citation needed] However, appendicitis, an infection of this useless organ, is a certain death without medical intervention.

edit on 25-9-2016 by Noinden because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 25 2016 @ 11:26 PM
link   
a reply to: Noinden

how dare you second guess the immaculate designs of what was clearly a superior intelligence? ...even if it did forget to delete that cancer.exe file before running the simulation.




posted on Sep, 25 2016 @ 11:33 PM
link   
a reply to: TzarChasm




posted on Sep, 25 2016 @ 11:39 PM
link   
a reply to: TzarChasm

Yeah it must be my Polytheistic skeptic self going ".... yeah right" at the superior intelligence, I mean look at the muppets it's chosen as its representatives? The pope before this one looked like Palpatine



posted on Sep, 25 2016 @ 11:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: edmc^2

originally posted by: TerryDon79
a reply to: edmc^2

It's only a "logical" assumption if you believe there is a god. That makes it a bias assumption, not a logical one. You're assuming an awful lot without having any evidence.

That makes this not even a theory, but a very bias hypothesis.


Assumptions are only that. They are just assumptions when there's no evidence to support it.

But if we look at reality and use it as a Model, the incontrovertible raw evidence points to Creation.

Case in point:

Here are the predictions of Evolution Model:
Life evolved from nonlife by chance chemical evolution (spontaneous generation - something from nothing)

Predictions of Creation Model:
Life comes only from previous life (Already Existing Life). Originally created by an intelligent Creator

Facts as Found in the Real World:

(1) Through experience and countless experiments and test, the results are ALWAYS the same, that is: Life comes only from previous life.

(2) No way to form complex genetic code by chance.

The evidence in not bias but the reality.




Let's take care not to confuse modern evolutionary synthesis with abiogenesis. I know its tempting but its also a misrepresentation of evolution (perhaps you already knew this?).


(1) Through experience and countless experiments and test, the results are ALWAYS the same, that is: Life comes only from previous life.


...except god, ironically enough.

insert special pleading fallacy here.


hahahaha...you have nothing to offer but the usual tactic. Evade, hide the facts by using lazy arguments and word play.

"special pleading fallacy" is tired worn out argument from those who know they have nothing to argue with.

Any more of these smoke screens?



posted on Sep, 25 2016 @ 11:49 PM
link   
a reply to: edmc^2

What smoke screen is this? Perchance the fact you and your little friends still can't get the science right? That you insist in mistaking biogenesis and evolution?

Seriously the repeating of lies, does not make it truth, but you'd think it did the way creationists keep doing it.



posted on Sep, 26 2016 @ 12:07 AM
link   

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

What smoke screen is this? Perchance the fact you and your little friends still can't get the science right? That you insist in mistaking biogenesis and evolution?

Seriously the repeating of lies, does not make it truth, but you'd think it did the way creationists keep doing it.


hehehe...no one mentioned abiogenesis but you.

smoke screen?

If this is the extent of the evolution theory that you advocate, weak.

argue your point not smoke screens.



posted on Sep, 26 2016 @ 12:12 AM
link   

originally posted by: VP740
a reply to: TzarChasm



Brilliant video, thanks for sharing. Should be a movie.



posted on Sep, 26 2016 @ 12:17 AM
link   

originally posted by: edmc^2

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: edmc^2

originally posted by: TerryDon79
a reply to: edmc^2

It's only a "logical" assumption if you believe there is a god. That makes it a bias assumption, not a logical one. You're assuming an awful lot without having any evidence.

That makes this not even a theory, but a very bias hypothesis.


Assumptions are only that. They are just assumptions when there's no evidence to support it.

But if we look at reality and use it as a Model, the incontrovertible raw evidence points to Creation.

Case in point:

Here are the predictions of Evolution Model:
Life evolved from nonlife by chance chemical evolution (spontaneous generation - something from nothing)

Predictions of Creation Model:
Life comes only from previous life (Already Existing Life). Originally created by an intelligent Creator

Facts as Found in the Real World:

(1) Through experience and countless experiments and test, the results are ALWAYS the same, that is: Life comes only from previous life.

(2) No way to form complex genetic code by chance.

The evidence in not bias but the reality.




Let's take care not to confuse modern evolutionary synthesis with abiogenesis. I know its tempting but its also a misrepresentation of evolution (perhaps you already knew this?).


(1) Through experience and countless experiments and test, the results are ALWAYS the same, that is: Life comes only from previous life.


...except god, ironically enough.

insert special pleading fallacy here.


hahahaha...you have nothing to offer but the usual tactic. Evade, hide the facts by using lazy arguments and word play.

"special pleading fallacy" is tired worn out argument from those who know they have nothing to argue with.

Any more of these smoke screens?



Speaking of evasive posts... If I didn't know better, I would say you are running out of material.


edit on 26-9-2016 by TzarChasm because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 26 2016 @ 12:26 AM
link   

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: edmc^2

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: edmc^2

originally posted by: TerryDon79
a reply to: edmc^2

It's only a "logical" assumption if you believe there is a god. That makes it a bias assumption, not a logical one. You're assuming an awful lot without having any evidence.

That makes this not even a theory, but a very bias hypothesis.


Assumptions are only that. They are just assumptions when there's no evidence to support it.

But if we look at reality and use it as a Model, the incontrovertible raw evidence points to Creation.

Case in point:

Here are the predictions of Evolution Model:
Life evolved from nonlife by chance chemical evolution (spontaneous generation - something from nothing)

Predictions of Creation Model:
Life comes only from previous life (Already Existing Life). Originally created by an intelligent Creator

Facts as Found in the Real World:

(1) Through experience and countless experiments and test, the results are ALWAYS the same, that is: Life comes only from previous life.

(2) No way to form complex genetic code by chance.

The evidence in not bias but the reality.




Sorry but seeing your posts, there's nothing substantial in them that merits discussion.



Let's take care not to confuse modern evolutionary synthesis with abiogenesis. I know its tempting but its also a misrepresentation of evolution (perhaps you already knew this?).


(1) Through experience and countless experiments and test, the results are ALWAYS the same, that is: Life comes only from previous life.


...except god, ironically enough.

insert special pleading fallacy here.


hahahaha...you have nothing to offer but the usual tactic. Evade, hide the facts by using lazy arguments and word play.

"special pleading fallacy" is tired worn out argument from those who know they have nothing to argue with.

Any more of these smoke screens?



Speaking of evasive posts... If I didn't know better, I would say you are running out of material.




Sorry, but seeing your posts, there's nothing substantial in them that merits intelligent discussion.

edit on 26-9-2016 by edmc^2 because: what happened?



posted on Sep, 26 2016 @ 12:33 AM
link   

originally posted by: edmc^2

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: edmc^2

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: edmc^2

originally posted by: TerryDon79
a reply to: edmc^2

It's only a "logical" assumption if you believe there is a god. That makes it a bias assumption, not a logical one. You're assuming an awful lot without having any evidence.

That makes this not even a theory, but a very bias hypothesis.


Assumptions are only that. They are just assumptions when there's no evidence to support it.

But if we look at reality and use it as a Model, the incontrovertible raw evidence points to Creation.

Case in point:

Here are the predictions of Evolution Model:
Life evolved from nonlife by chance chemical evolution (spontaneous generation - something from nothing)

Predictions of Creation Model:
Life comes only from previous life (Already Existing Life). Originally created by an intelligent Creator

Facts as Found in the Real World:

(1) Through experience and countless experiments and test, the results are ALWAYS the same, that is: Life comes only from previous life.

(2) No way to form complex genetic code by chance.

The evidence in not bias but the reality.




Sorry but seeing your posts, there's nothing substantial in them that merits discussion.



Let's take care not to confuse modern evolutionary synthesis with abiogenesis. I know its tempting but its also a misrepresentation of evolution (perhaps you already knew this?).


(1) Through experience and countless experiments and test, the results are ALWAYS the same, that is: Life comes only from previous life.


...except god, ironically enough.

insert special pleading fallacy here.


hahahaha...you have nothing to offer but the usual tactic. Evade, hide the facts by using lazy arguments and word play.

"special pleading fallacy" is tired worn out argument from those who know they have nothing to argue with.

Any more of these smoke screens?



Speaking of evasive posts... If I didn't know better, I would say you are running out of material.




Sorry, but seeing your posts, there's nothing substantial in them that merits intelligent discussion.


Oh hello pot, I'm kettle, have we met?

on a serious note, it looks like this thread has reached the end of its rope. It was fun, but not altogether productive. maybe next time eh? we all know how much the forum loves a good reboot of a rehash of a rerun. piles of abandoned threads to prove it. like this one, eventually.

Sé mor'ranr ono finna.



posted on Sep, 26 2016 @ 12:46 AM
link   

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: edmc^2

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: edmc^2

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: edmc^2

originally posted by: TerryDon79
a reply to: edmc^2

It's only a "logical" assumption if you believe there is a god. That makes it a bias assumption, not a logical one. You're assuming an awful lot without having any evidence.

That makes this not even a theory, but a very bias hypothesis.


Assumptions are only that. They are just assumptions when there's no evidence to support it.

But if we look at reality and use it as a Model, the incontrovertible raw evidence points to Creation.

Case in point:

Here are the predictions of Evolution Model:
Life evolved from nonlife by chance chemical evolution (spontaneous generation - something from nothing)

Predictions of Creation Model:
Life comes only from previous life (Already Existing Life). Originally created by an intelligent Creator

Facts as Found in the Real World:

(1) Through experience and countless experiments and test, the results are ALWAYS the same, that is: Life comes only from previous life.

(2) No way to form complex genetic code by chance.

The evidence in not bias but the reality.




Sorry but seeing your posts, there's nothing substantial in them that merits discussion.



Let's take care not to confuse modern evolutionary synthesis with abiogenesis. I know its tempting but its also a misrepresentation of evolution (perhaps you already knew this?).


(1) Through experience and countless experiments and test, the results are ALWAYS the same, that is: Life comes only from previous life.


...except god, ironically enough.

insert special pleading fallacy here.


hahahaha...you have nothing to offer but the usual tactic. Evade, hide the facts by using lazy arguments and word play.

"special pleading fallacy" is tired worn out argument from those who know they have nothing to argue with.

Any more of these smoke screens?



Speaking of evasive posts... If I didn't know better, I would say you are running out of material.




Sorry, but seeing your posts, there's nothing substantial in them that merits intelligent discussion.


Oh hello pot, I'm kettle, have we met?

on a serious note, it looks like this thread has reached the end of its rope. It was fun, but not altogether productive. maybe next time eh? we all know how much the forum loves a good reboot of a rehash of a rerun. piles of abandoned threads to prove it. like this one, eventually.

Sé mor'ranr ono finna.


well, all is well that ends well. who knows you might be able to come back with a more substantial counter argument to my points.

ciao.



posted on Sep, 26 2016 @ 12:51 AM
link   

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: TzarChasm

Of course conversely there is evidence that we are not designed well
:

From your source:

Although the phrase "argument from poor design" has seen little use, this type of argument has been advanced many times using words and phrases such as "poor design", "suboptimal design", "unintelligent design" or "dysteology/dysteological". The last of these is a term applied by the nineteenth-century biologist Ernst Haeckel to the implications of organs so rudimentary as to be useless to the life of an organism.

Note the response to question #5 at 4:55 in the video below:





Go on...call it poor design again (or imply it):


edit on 26-9-2016 by whereislogic because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 26 2016 @ 12:59 AM
link   
a reply to: edmc^2
Something always comes from something, and even nothing is something, and sometimes something is also nothing. But nothing from nothing tends to equal to more nothing. Hence everything is created from something, by the simple virtue that it exists means that nothing does not exist. Nothing is merely a label we give to that which we do not see or understand.

However were you make a great mistake is that you assume that creating something even a whole universe is of great importance. Nope! That is merely your opinion, and from your perspective it may even be true, however one can only speak from there perspective or perspectives. Hence they are all flawed in there approach for they are based on nothing more then there respective and perspective somethings.

edit on 1amMondayam262016f1amMon, 26 Sep 2016 01:00:21 -0500 by galadofwarthethird because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 26 2016 @ 01:37 AM
link   

originally posted by: galadofwarthethird
a reply to: edmc^2
Something always comes from something, and even nothing is something, and sometimes something is also nothing. But nothing from nothing tends to equal to more nothing. Hence everything is created from something, by the simple virtue that it exists means that nothing does not exist. Nothing is merely a label we give to that which we do not see or understand.

However were you make a great mistake is that you assume that creating something even a whole universe is of great importance. Nope! That is merely your opinion, and from your perspective it may even be true, however one can only speak from there perspective or perspectives. Hence they are all flawed in there approach for they are based on nothing more then there respective and perspective somethings.


I beg to differ.

It's of great importance because it tells you the genius behind what was created! It's a big deal if you're trying to understand the mind behind it. Just like the Monalisa gives you an idea the of the genius behind it.

In fact, great minds of science were able to do science because they opened their minds to the heavens. It also tells us why it existed and what the future holds. Is it infinite or will it end? So much to consider with its unfathomable vastness.


The Awesome Universe!




posted on Sep, 26 2016 @ 11:29 AM
link   
Don't humans create humans, like every day?

Is that not X creating X?
edit on 9 26 16 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 26 2016 @ 12:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: Barcs
Don't humans create humans, like every day?

Is that not X creating X?


Not sure why you missed this, but when it comes to humans or animals, they PRO-CREATE, not create. In other words, they reproduce their own kind. To create is totally different.



posted on Sep, 26 2016 @ 01:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: edmc^2

originally posted by: Barcs
Don't humans create humans, like every day?

Is that not X creating X?

Not sure why you missed this, but when it comes to humans or animals, they PRO-CREATE, not create. In other words, they reproduce their own kind. To create is totally different.


Oh, so you offer a word based explanation for a mathematical equation that is supposed to be always true. I guess math doesn't work here. Thanks for proving that.



posted on Sep, 26 2016 @ 01:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: Barcs

originally posted by: edmc^2

originally posted by: Barcs
Don't humans create humans, like every day?

Is that not X creating X?

Not sure why you missed this, but when it comes to humans or animals, they PRO-CREATE, not create. In other words, they reproduce their own kind. To create is totally different.


Oh, so you offer a word based explanation for a mathematical equation that is supposed to be always true. I guess math doesn't work here. Thanks for proving that.


too funny.

I'm only showing your misapplication of the word CREATE. It has nothing to do with math.

But if it's the math you're after then way off base too.

X creates Y simply means that X already existed to create the universe.

And that X can't create X for the simple reason that X already existed.

Kinda like saying fish growing up, swimming in the water will get wet. It doesn't make logical sense.

try again




top topics



 
42
<< 62  63  64    66  67  68 >>

log in

join