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.

 

Creation, where is the evidence? I see none.

page: 10
0
<< 7  8  9    11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 14 2005 @ 05:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by ghost
Normally, as a personal philosiphy, I don't mix religion/spirituallity with politics! However I will chip in my 2 cents on this issue:

1. First, the Bible was written by humans. This leave room for mistakes and misunderstandings.


and a loooooot of imagination to somehow explain all they did not understand


2. Second, the bible has been translated many times throughout history. Ever heard the saying: "Lost in Translation" ?



adapted might be a better term


Now that I have addressed those issues. Allow me to address some facts:

You Asked: Where is there evidence for a global flood?

Are you aware that back in 1999 and 2000 Archaeologists found a large deposit of Sea Shells out in the Sahara Desert in Africa? If there are Sea Shells there, there Had to be water there at one time because those animals Require water to survive. Also, the Sahara isn't the only place on dry land where sea shells have been found.



could you provide a link to the info ? didn't spend to much time looking myself but couldn't find anything , but i'd lbe interested to know the age of these shells


You Asked: What alternative mechanism exists for describing the millions of species that exist today, if it isn't evolution?

Creativity! The Creator has imagination, and creativity! Before you attck this as just a crazy theory, allow me to quote the bible: "God Created man in his own image!"


This means we should have some god-like characteristics.


should ? you mean have remember ..... god created man ........

Look at the world around you! We live in a world of cars, airplanes, ships, huge building and monuments, cell phones and computers. None of these thing evolved, we created them.



machines created by man indeed and they did "evolve " not on their own but they did as science and technology found new and better ways , old models disappeared and were eventually replaced by more efficient ones




Why are humans the ONLY living creature that has this ability to create and invent on such a large scale? It is Easy to see how creativity is a survival advantage.


careful you start talking about survival and advantage you're just one step away from natural selection


However, the fact that only one species shows this ability developed to such a high level suggests that it was given to the human species for a reason.


to better destroy gods creation ?


Each species was custom design for the role it fills in its paticular envirnment, just like people we design a philips-head screwdriver specifically for one type of screw, or we design a key only to open a single lock.


you're getting there just a little bit more and you'll be an evolutionist



You Asked: Why does all life on earth contain the same genetic material if it didn't come from a common ancestor?

Some degree of commonality is to be expected!


why would that be if god created all species sorry it does not make sense to me , as far as everythig has been created having for base ......nothing

Look how we create, we use some elements of design over and over. For example dirt(including:mud & clay), water and sand are basic building materials. Out of these three elements we get: Concrete, Bricks, motar, glass, ceramics, ect. DID you Know?: the Bricks for your house, the China dinner plates in your cabinet, the heat absorbing tiles on a space shuttle, the inside of your bath tub and the body armor worn by soldiers in combat are all made out of a type of dirt called Clay?

How is that for commonality? The Creator could have done the same thing!



anthropomorphism..... god is not human ....that is what YOU would have done


You Asked: How can we scientifically prove a supernatural designer?



the question should be : how can we corroborate the events described in the bible?


The supernatural is tough to prove. However, there are many examples of supernatural forces in our world. In court witnesses are considered evidence. There are millions of people who have reported supernatural events. Explain these?


Here's my proof! Take it or leave it!




posted on Aug, 15 2005 @ 12:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by riley
If gravity can't be faster than light.. why are there black holes?
Light can't escape them so that force must be faster [it's certainly stronger].
No I'm not trying to disagree with Einstein.. I'm sure my reasoning must be flawed in some way [thats a first].
[edit on 12-8-2005 by riley]

First of all, light is ENERGY. Gravity on the other hand is a FORCE. They are two different things.

You forgot to account for what is called the nutralizing effect of motion. Gravity moves at EXACTLY the speed of light, No Faster, No Slower. Therefore, it works just like running on a treadmill. If you run at exactly the same speed as the treadmill, you stay in the same spot! that why you can spend an hour running on a treadmill and never go anywhere. There for, if no light escapes, you never see anything, and you have a Black Hole that still fallows Einstin's laws of physics!


I hope I've explained it in a way that makes sense!

Tim



posted on Aug, 15 2005 @ 12:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by ghost
First of all, light is ENERGY. Gravity on the other hand is a FORCE. They are two different things.

There is only matter an energy.. 'force' is just another word for energy [or rather the result of it affecting something else.. like magnetic energy]. I'm going to absorb your example for a while.. thanks for simplifying it for me.



[edit on 15-8-2005 by riley]



posted on Aug, 15 2005 @ 06:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by jake1997
Evolution, it is without beginning and without end. The model is based on a series of assumptions that can never be proven. Like the Ark of the Covenant, the missing links (millions of them) will not be found.
Read my sig


But the missing links are being found, every day new fossils turns up. However, the picture will never be complete since we are talking millions of years here. The only issue here really is whether God created the earth some thousand years ago (I just can't understand how seeminly intelligent people can actually believe this). Claim instead that God created earth, the dinosaurs and evolution, and I'll have no problem with that. I'm open minded and not a stranger to to the idea that our universe was created. However, disregarding all scientific evidence and believing in an old book written by shepards and farmers with no concept and understanding of the world they inhabit and taking their word for granted that this planet is no more than some thousand years old, that is plain and pure stupidity.



posted on Aug, 15 2005 @ 08:34 PM
link   
"Witnesses" are not considered evidence in the American judicial system. Witness testimony may be offered and scrutinized in court and it may influence a jury, but the testimony is by no means "proof" in the same way that ancient written records and stories are not inherently true. Physical evidence is more important than witness testimony.

There are many reasons for witnesses to provide false reports - internal errors may occur within the witness or external errors may occur that lead the witness to believe that he saw something that is not in synchronization with reality.

Zip



posted on Aug, 26 2005 @ 12:54 PM
link   
I after pondering the scientific side of things, it does seem odd that with the Billions of people that have lived, that for a species to be within .02 Percent of each other seems rather non evolutional.

You would think there would be groups of people that lag behind considerably in some area. Some feature, maybe in the dental area or the brain. Maybe in the intestinal track.

But there isnt. We are pretty much all the same. Why dont we have humans with webbed feet who live by the water, or humans with some other odd characteristic due to " evolutionary adaption "?

We havent found people in the these various modes...either in fossils or otherwise.

We dont have people with four legs and human heads or wings or anything else for that matter.

Peace



posted on Aug, 26 2005 @ 02:04 PM
link   
Why would we need 4 legs/heads/wings? Just because you want people to have them doesn't mean they will. Bad creation tactic is to say a dolphin can evolve into a bear so why haven't they? Why the hell would a dolphin evolve into a bear? There has to be a reason, also it is more like bear into dolphin since they EVOLVED from land mamals into sea mammals.



posted on Aug, 26 2005 @ 02:11 PM
link   
Hi there

Okay, I see what's going on here. But the fact is, we got a planet. Who cares, 7 days, 21 or millions of year.s I certainlY don't.

Anyway, creationism or not, we need to preserve this place.

Odysseus



posted on Aug, 26 2005 @ 03:08 PM
link   
Thats funny, I always thought it was sea to land....



posted on Aug, 26 2005 @ 04:34 PM
link   
It is, except for sea mammals, which went from sea to land to sea. As for differences among humans, well, I'm sure you're aware that people who live in the northern hemisphere typically have lighter skin than those who don't. As for the webbed feet, well, what the hell would be beneficial about a person having webbed feet? Why would a man need webbed feet just because he lives near water? I think it's infinitely more beneficial for a man to have regular human feet.

Zip



posted on Sep, 8 2005 @ 07:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by Jestaman
Bad creation tactic is to say a dolphin can evolve into a bear so why haven't they? Why the hell would a dolphin evolve into a bear? There has to be a reason, also it is more like bear into dolphin since they EVOLVED from land mamals into sea mammals.


Ok, WHY? People CLAIM that land animals eveolved from aquatic animals! How come noone sees this as being totally Obsurd? Evolution is about survival of the fittest. Going from the water to land, and then going back to the water sounds backwards to me. It would be like humans evolving into quadrapeds (four-legged anamials) in about 25 million years.
Do you really think that would happen?

People Critisize creationist for what they see as crazy ideas, Yet the evolutionist are just as obsurd with many of there Guesses! By the way, there are cultures of Humans that live off of the sea. They swim, fish and sometimes even live on the ocean.

Here's my question to the evolutionist: When do you think we might start seeing people with webbed feet?

Hey, if your going to live off of the ocean and depend on your ability to swim to survive, webbed feet, like those of a duck would help. I waitng for a good answer!

Tim



posted on Sep, 8 2005 @ 07:41 AM
link   
ghost,
Hate to say this but there are people who are born with webbed toes and or fingers.
I have the second and third toes webbed. It is a genetic (defect?).
In most cases it is correctable but in some (as in my case) when a majority of the nerves in the toes run through the webbing, doctors cannot perform the neccessary operation to separate the toes.
Web Toes and Fingers



posted on Sep, 8 2005 @ 08:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by kenshiro2012
ghost,
Hate to say this but there are people who are born with webbed toes and or fingers.
I have the second and third toes webbed. It is a genetic (defect?).
In most cases it is correctable but in some (as in my case) when a majority of the nerves in the toes run through the webbing, doctors cannot perform the neccessary operation to separate the toes.
Web Toes and Fingers


Sorry, I was unaware of this!


I never intended the remark as an insult to anyone! I am truly sorry if I offended anyone with my previous post. No hard feeling, I hope?

Tim

[edit on 8-9-2005 by ghost]



posted on Sep, 8 2005 @ 08:23 AM
link   
none taken

Just wanted to let you know that this webbed toes / fingers is and has been with the human race for many generations. Many doctors that I have talked to in the past about it explain that it is a genetic throwback defect. The feteus goes through many a transformation whilst in the womb. There are even times where it will have gills as well as the webbing.
No Probs here there!



posted on Sep, 8 2005 @ 10:11 AM
link   
It seems as if this thread has been taken off topic.

This thread is for positive proof of creationism, not misgivings about evolution.

If evolution was ever proven wrong, it would still not put any proof towards creation.

We know evolution happens and is real. There is debate about the mechanisms, but they all agree on the outcome as it is observable in nature.


Please, anyone, let's see some positive proof for intelligent design, or creationism.



posted on Sep, 8 2005 @ 12:43 PM
link   
maybe the fact that no one has put any evidence forward for creation or intelligent design is because there quite frankly isn't any. some arguements just pick out a few things in nature like a spiders web or an eye...which doesn't really constitute to proof.



posted on Jan, 15 2008 @ 07:24 PM
link   
First of all, what does intelligent design state? That all animals appeared all at once and fully formed.
What does the fossil record clearly prove? That all animals appeared all at once and fully formed.
Therefore, it is proof of a designer.

This is obvious proof for creation. Don't try to argue that I am just debunking evolution, because, as you can see I didn't even mention evolution. If you do, you are ignorant of the fossils record.

Some of you will argue that evolution has indeed found some missing links or transitional fossils. This is a waste of time and a very poor argument because even if you had 25 transitional fossils/missing links, (which you don't, you have no more than 10 highly controversal finds, if that), the thousands of completed fully formed fossils is incredibly overwhelming. It's not even close. It's thousands vs. the tens column.

Think clearly here and realize that the fossil record proves that all animals appeared all at once and fully formed. Because if you can't realize this than you are either ignorant of paleontology or you just don't want admit there is even the possibility of a designer.



posted on Jan, 15 2008 @ 09:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by ppkjjkpp
Because if you can't realize this than you are either ignorant of paleontology or you just don't want admit there is even the possibility of a designer.


I'm sure there's a saying about arrogance and ignorance. Not sure exactly how it goes.

ppk, you're well off target as usual. It might be an idea to get clued up on what the arguments are for ID creationism. Maybe try wikipedia, or even the discovery institute website:

What is ID?

[edit on 15-1-2008 by melatonin]



posted on Jan, 15 2008 @ 11:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by melatonin

Originally posted by ppkjjkpp
Because if you can't realize this than you are either ignorant of paleontology or you just don't want admit there is even the possibility of a designer.


I'm sure there's a saying about arrogance and ignorance. Not sure exactly how it goes.

ppk, you're well off target as usual. It might be an idea to get clued up on what the arguments are for ID creationism. Maybe try wikipedia, or even the discovery institute website:

What is ID?

[edit on 15-1-2008 by melatonin]



Not sure what you are rambling on about arrogance and ignorance. How is it arrogance to say the fossil record shows fully formed animals? If you don't agree you are obviously uneducated in paneotology and therefore ignorant.
I'm not going to argue about ID vs. creationism that wasn't my point. The fact of the matter is that the fossil record is proof of a designer/creator/God, whatever you prefer to call it. They both agree that animals were designed by a God at some point. ID was originally based upon creationsim and is actually a form of creationism. Maybe I didn't use the correct terminology but that doesn't change the proof.
The fossil record is still evidence for creationism without a doubt. That was my point and you changed the subject. So the evidence still stands true that animals were always fully formed all at once.



posted on Jan, 15 2008 @ 11:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by ppkjjkpp
How is it arrogance to say the fossil record shows fully formed animals? If you don't agree you are obviously uneducated in paneotology and therefore ignorant.


heh, yeah.

Do you think we would find sort of half-formed animals or something, like a bat with half a head and one leg? All species are fully formed. The populations just change over time. Thus, we can show a transition from a land mammal to a whale, but each species was fully formed. Indeed, every species alive today is a potential transitional.


They both agree that animals were designed by a God at some point. ID was originally based upon creationsim and is actually a form of creationism.


They do no such thing, but if it gives you a giddy feeling to think so, cool.

The fossil record shows massive changes in species over time, with species becoming radically more diverse. Starting from basic bacteria billions of years ago, to simple inverts a few hundred million, to vertebrates etc etc.

There was no start point where all species were poofed into existence.

And I know what ID is, it is creationism in a cheap tuxedo. But don't tell everyone, people aren't meant to think that.

Shhhh! I be hunting wabbits!!

ABE: just for future reference, here's what I was referring to:

"A man is arrogant in proportion to his ignorance. Man's natural tendency is to egotism. Man, in his infancy of knowledge, thinks that all creation was formed for him."
Edward Bulwer-Lytton

[edit on 16-1-2008 by melatonin]




top topics



 
0
<< 7  8  9    11  12 >>

log in

join