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: 8
0
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 29 2005 @ 12:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by jake1997

I said that wrong.

The timing. Approx 3000 BC. Roughly the time of the flood.


Umm, someone needs to break the news to the Chinese....
news.bbc.co.uk...




posted on Jul, 29 2005 @ 08:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by Lordling

Originally posted by jake1997

I said that wrong.

The timing. Approx 3000 BC. Roughly the time of the flood.


Umm, someone needs to break the news to the Chinese....
news.bbc.co.uk...


Did the writing have a date stamp of 8000 BC?
Hmm...another Jesus prophecy.
Thanks.

PS.. The dating methods produce guesses, and assumptions. This has been discussed at length in the sci-tech forum .



posted on Jul, 29 2005 @ 11:43 AM
link   
then instead of trying to tell us we're wrong in making assumptions on facts and evidence that show the earth is of a greater age and show us some evidence ''for'' the history of earth starting at 3000 BC.



posted on Jul, 29 2005 @ 01:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by James the Lesser
What I love is I tell christians

"Fine, evolution is wrong, it is just a theory. But so is gravity, so to prove all theories wrong you should jump off the Empire State Building or some other tall tower to prove that god, and not gravity, is right."


Two Words: Non Sequiter! This is example of a logical Falicy! Gravity is a FACT! Science knows how it works! The only question about gravity is: Why does it work?

Noone has proven that Evolution works as you claime!

Tim



posted on Jul, 29 2005 @ 02:44 PM
link   
Gravity remains a theory. Another force could account for our ability to stay on the ground.

Has anyone found the graviton?



posted on Jul, 29 2005 @ 06:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Uncle Joe
Gravity remains a theory. Another force could account for our ability to stay on the ground.

Has anyone found the graviton?


Quite so, in fact a lot of cutting edge research is being done in this area right now. The effect of the presence or absence of gravity appears to be instantaneous (it actually tests out to around 2x10^10c See Section 9 at link). This is, as noted, faster than the speed of light.

Because of the belief that GR is based on SR, which disallows the possibility of faster-than-light propagation in forward time, the most common interpretation of GR is that the speed of gravity is the speed of light. This interpretation is also based on a misunderstanding of the implications of aberration and confusion between the meanings of gravitational force variations and gravitational waves. However, the consequences of a propagation speed of gravitational force variations as slow as lightspeed would be catastrophic for many astrophysical bodies, and are strongly disallowed by physical principles and by all existing experimental evidence.

In conclusion, the "Law" of Gravity, is still very much a theory. It merely enjoys a current designation of "Law" (doesn't mean it's inviolable). This proof is due to it's observable nature, but that's an example of the Absolute Power of Science; it not only will reevaluate itself and correct previous misconceptions, but this process is inherent in Scientific Method.



posted on Jul, 29 2005 @ 06:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lordling

Quite so, in fact a lot of cutting edge research is being done in this area right now. The effect of the presence or absence of gravity appears to be instantaneous (it actually tests out to around 2x10^10c See Section 9 at link). This is, as noted, faster than the speed of light.

Because of the belief that GR is based on SR, which disallows the possibility of faster-than-light propagation in forward time, the most common interpretation of GR is that the speed of gravity is the speed of light. This interpretation is also based on a misunderstanding of the implications of aberration and confusion between the meanings of gravitational force variations and gravitational waves. However, the consequences of a propagation speed of gravitational force variations as slow as lightspeed would be catastrophic for many astrophysical bodies, and are strongly disallowed by physical principles and by all existing experimental evidence.

In conclusion, the "Law" of Gravity, is still very much a theory. It merely enjoys a current designation of "Law" (doesn't mean it's inviolable). This proof is due to it's observable nature, but that's an example of the Absolute Power of Science; it not only will reevaluate itself and correct previous misconceptions, but this process is inherent in Scientific Method.


I know this isn't the place, but Lordling seems knowledgable. Sorry if you hate off topic posts...

If gravity is indeed faster than the speed of light. Can't we 'create a ripple' like dropping a 'stone' into the 'fabric of space', and thus, 'sruf' on that wave...which, according to that article, is faster than the speed of light? Or am I not grasping it right?

I should have mentioned I am proposing space travel...Although it's probably obvious.


[edit on 29/7/2005 by FallenOne]



posted on Jul, 30 2005 @ 01:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by jake1997

Did the writing have a date stamp of 8000 BC?


No, and it didn't have 'Made in Taiwan' on it either.


PS.. The dating methods produce guesses, and assumptions. This has >been discussed at length in the sci-tech forum .


As that is your consensus, I would've thought that you would readily accept them, since guesses and assumptions are the same methodology used to translate the biblical texts.



posted on Jul, 30 2005 @ 06:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by Lordling

Originally posted by jake1997

Did the writing have a date stamp of 8000 BC?


No, and it didn't have 'Made in Taiwan' on it either.


PS.. The dating methods produce guesses, and assumptions. This has >been discussed at length in the sci-tech forum .


As that is your consensus, I would've thought that you would readily accept them, since guesses and assumptions are the same methodology used to translate the biblical texts.


Faith.

Now that we have agreed that both the bible and dating methods are faith based....evilution...which needs the long ages for change...must also be faith based. More so because of the drastic changes for which there is no evidence.

Now, look at that and consider it.
If the dating methods are assumptions...faith based...guesses.....
Then what are you really believing on?



posted on Jul, 30 2005 @ 07:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by Lordling
Quite so, in fact a lot of cutting edge research is being done in this area right now. The effect of the presence or absence of gravity appears to be instantaneous (it actually tests out to around 2x10^10c See Section 9 at link). This is, as noted, faster than the speed of light.

Because of the belief that GR is based on SR, which disallows the possibility of faster-than-light propagation in forward time, the most common interpretation of GR is that the speed of gravity is the speed of light. This interpretation is also based on a misunderstanding of the implications of aberration and confusion between the meanings of gravitational force variations and gravitational waves. However, the consequences of a propagation speed of gravitational force variations as slow as lightspeed would be catastrophic for many astrophysical bodies, and are strongly disallowed by physical principles and by all existing experimental evidence.

That's a bunch of pseudo science from a site that is filled with pseudo scientific crap.



posted on Jul, 30 2005 @ 08:07 AM
link   
1) Don't understand
2) Don't understand
3) Show us where it's longer or shorter than 7 days?
4) Look around and count the layers?
5) Crockadile
6) Are YOU sure about that?
7) Can you prove it wasn't a supernatural design
8) But it does.

Dallas



posted on Jul, 30 2005 @ 11:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by Simon666

That's a bunch of pseudo science from a site that is filled with pseudo scientific crap.



Alright then, if you have such an issue (which, I hope, is based on your understanding of physics rather than some crap you read somewhere else) with von Flandern's presentation on this subject, then:

math.ucr.edu...

physics.about.com...

www.space.com...

en.wikipedia.org...

My original intent was to support the fact that the Law of Gravity, technically isn't, and has constantly been a point of contention.



posted on Jul, 30 2005 @ 12:31 PM
link   
However, the consequences of a propagation speed of gravitational force variations as slow as lightspeed would be catastrophic for many astrophysical bodies, and are strongly disallowed by physical principles and by all existing experimental evidence.

It sure wouldn't be catastrophic within our solar system. As a matter of fact, some phenomena in our solar system can be better explained with a finite propagation speed of gravity than without one. The perihelion shift of the planet Mercury could for example not be explained by classical Newtonian physics with instantaneous propagation of gravity. However, the German schoolteacher Paul Gerber for example was capable by assuming Newtonian physics and a finite propagation speed of gravity of deriving a formula for the perihelion shift of Mercury. This formula by the way strongly resembled the one that Einstein later derived using general relativity, to the point that Einstein has been suspected by some of plagiarism.



posted on Aug, 5 2005 @ 01:18 PM
link   
You want evidence that there is truth in the Bible, it's in the feild of modern DNA and what we have learned from the Human Genome Project so far.

FACT: The Genetic Variation between ANY two people on earth is less then .02%! This figure includes mutations and Genetic defects.

This shows clearly that we are geneticlly related! In the bible, it sais all humans are decendents of 1 origional pair that god created! If we had evolved, as some claim, why aren't our genes more diversified? The variation between species is about 20%!

I just used modern science to prove the Bible's clame of Adam and Eve! Two origional people, one line of decendents! The creator made changes to help people fit into the different areas where they live, but we all decendents of the original pair of humans!

Tim



posted on Aug, 5 2005 @ 02:23 PM
link   
that's in no way proof, nor proves adam & eve.



posted on Aug, 5 2005 @ 03:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by ghost
This shows clearly that we are geneticlly related! In the bible, it sais all humans are decendents of 1 origional pair that god created! If we had evolved, as some claim, why aren't our genes more diversified? The variation between species is about 20%!

I just used modern science to prove the Bible's clame of Adam and Eve! Two origional people, one line of decendents! The creator made changes to help people fit into the different areas where they live, but we all decendents of the original pair of humans!

Well, you used it wrong. If all mankind is the descendents of just two people, their DNA needed to be pretty much flawless since inbreeding would underwise have had catastrophic effects. To account for all of todays genetic defects, the mutation rate of DNA would also have to be enormously fast, something which is not observed. If we really stem from some Adam and Eve living 6000 years ago, we would be rapidly degenerating and devolving within the next 6000 or so years towards a pittiful bunch of retarded people plagued with all kinds of diseases.

[edit on 5-8-2005 by Simon666]



posted on Aug, 5 2005 @ 03:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by shaunybaby
that's in no way proof, nor proves adam & eve.


If DNA isn't proof, then you Can NOT say that DNA supports Darwin either. So we're back to Darwin's guess, which hasNO Proof vs the Bible!

I request that in fairness, you withdraw all clames the DNA has proven Darwin right! If I'm not allowed to use DNA as Proof, you can't use it either!

With no DNA evidence, what do you have: Darwin's Guess, which now is supported by anything more then blind faith in an Idea?

Tim



posted on Aug, 5 2005 @ 03:39 PM
link   
You didn't prove anything so far but your lack of understanding of DNA and genetics.



posted on Aug, 5 2005 @ 04:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by ghost
If DNA isn't proof, then you Can NOT say that DNA supports Darwin either. So we're back to Darwin's guess, which hasNO Proof vs the Bible!

I request that in fairness, you withdraw all clames the DNA has proven Darwin right! If I'm not allowed to use DNA as Proof, you can't use it either!

With no DNA evidence, what do you have: Darwin's Guess, which now is supported by anything more then blind faith in an Idea?

Tim


darwin and evolution are not blind faith ideas. DNA does not support the bible's claim that we came from just two people. another reason for our interbreeding is because everyone is aloud to breed and not just the strong, which is the complete opposite to how the it works in the wild. different factors have contributed to our DNA variations, including evolution.



posted on Aug, 6 2005 @ 11:25 AM
link   
In reading the Bible versus Scientific publications, one must interpret the overall concept that each is trying to support.

The Bible is a catch all for a pretty large variety of topics. And it does so in one Volume, assembled of many with a choice of words that is ecompassing to say the least.

In the Scientific community, we are observers of what is. Through proof and theorem, we are trying to attain an axiom of truth to explain what is not known.

There will be no way short of an act of God to prove the Bible 100% perfect nor false. Im in the arena of saying the Bible is mostly true, and considering its not a scientific manual, it does a pretty good job of keeping people eating the right foods and living the right way. If I was starting the world over again, Id have to take the Bible.

The Scientific community will forever be trying to prove one thing to me in evolution. And that is this........Why cant we show, in fossils and bones,
creatures in slight variations. And Im not talking major changes, Im talking like thousands of variations of a species as it evolved.

Sure, we have Dinosaurs, and we have animals somewhere in between, but are they all related? How do we know that this planet wasnt reinhabited after it was found to be a wasteland of death for certain species of animals. Reinhabited like from another entity that brought life here?

Is it possible that two planetary bodies smacked into each other, and life rubbed from one to the other? Biblicaly, it talks about things being cast down from the sky. That would make some sense yes?

How about a Noahs ark in the form of another civilization that took pairs of animals and transported them into space to save species and they ended up here? Their planet facing devastation.

Theirs a zillion ways to slice it up.

We either were brought here.
Created here.
Or we came from mud to man here.

What I do know is that we are. In a one in a gabillion shot, we are.
Many times over according to evolutionists. This combination here on earth appears to be yielding direct hits every time in terms of the right kind of species. That just makes me believe ever more so of a master architect.

IE....God.

Peace



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join