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.

 

Scientific Evidence For Creation!!! Wow!

page: 1
0
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 5 2006 @ 06:20 AM
link   
according to this web site there is scientific evidence for creation dispelling the theory of evolution .....other places on this site talk about finding human fossiles in the same layers of earth as dinosaurs ........WOW!!

www.creationevidence.org...

[edit on 5-4-2006 by the_sentinal]




posted on Apr, 5 2006 @ 07:37 AM
link   
Well one flaw in their evidence is the magnetic field. It's switching, which is why it's fluctuating. There is evidence that it happens every few thousand years, and we're in the end cycle of the switch now. When it switches portions of it weaken, while others strengthen and then it flips. I'm not sure where they get "fading at exponential levels" though. Since 1845 it's dropped about 10%.

The population growth of the human race fluctuates wildly depending on conditions. When the Spanish Flu hit it wiped out 5% of the human race. When conditions support it, the population grows faster, when they don't the populatoin grows slower. I don't know how they figure that it stays perfectly steady at their 2% figure.

It looks almost like they pick and choose things that fit, and put it forward as their "proof"



posted on Apr, 5 2006 @ 07:42 AM
link   
Yup I agree.. not some religious company putting forward this 'evidence'?



posted on Apr, 5 2006 @ 08:09 AM
link   
The data seems to fit their theory all-too-well... and relies on anomalies in nature as proof. The citations do, in fact, check out on cursory examination. I believe in both creationism and Darwinian theory, neither has a proof that fits my level of rigor though. LOL. This argument will never end and is without any potential resolution prospects. Great fun tho' - lots of folks take this stuff very seriously.
What's next? "Scientist" unearths documents created before time began?



posted on Apr, 5 2006 @ 08:32 AM
link   
Some Problems here:

The global flood thing has been done here before... I'm sure someone will step and debunk this.

Radio Halos and Gentry: Bob Gentry is a smart guy... he's widely respected in his field, and has made significant contributions to science... just not origins science. I really hate to direct people to TO, but this is a scientifically sound refutation of Gentry and polonium halos.

I won't address the human artifacts issue... many are known fakes. However there are some interesting finds, that I don't think should be dismissed as fakes, but certainly many are fakes, or just lack sufficient control to accurately determine if they are legit or not.

Numbers 9 & 10... design in living systems.... design is only a hypothesis. While I believe design to be perfectly testable, falsifiable, etc., since the Design movement hasn't produced any data (read positive evidence of design), calling design evidence for any creation is premature.

In any case... good luck with your thread.... you're going to get hammered. Watch out for Produkt... he's actually banned, but masquerades around here with a different username. In fact, the masquerade is pretty weak, and he's flaunting ATS policies and rules right in plain sight under the eyes of the mods. Produkt masquerades under a very similar username now... you'll know it when you see it.



posted on Apr, 5 2006 @ 09:26 AM
link   

3. The Global Flood... The Biblical record clearly describes a global Flood during Noah's day. Additionally, there are hundreds of Flood traditions handed down through cultures all over the world. M.E. Clark and Henry Voss have demonstrated the scientific validity of such a Flood providing the sedimentary layering we see on every continent. Secular scholars report very rapid sedimentation and periods of great carbonate deposition in earth's sedimentary layers.. It is now possible to prove the historical reality of the Biblical Flood.


And how does the Biblical flood prove creationism to be a fact? Please do share.



posted on Apr, 5 2006 @ 10:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by zenlover28
And how does the Biblical flood prove creationism to be a fact? Please do share.



i dont think that picking just one point out of ten to dissprove his theory is an honest approach to this aurgument if you look at all ten points together you get a pretty clear picture ........but the flood is a matter of biblical record sedimentary layering proves this so if the biblical record stands proven in this area it's resonable to assume the rest of genesis to be true also......

if your a reasonable person??

[edit on 5-4-2006 by the_sentinal]

[edit on 5-4-2006 by the_sentinal]



posted on Apr, 5 2006 @ 11:24 AM
link   
Ummm i'm sorry, but I picked that out as an example. There are lots of holes in this argument to be made. That is being a reasonable person. Others had already picked out some of the other flaws and I was pointing out another. I didn't want to rehash what had already been stated by other posters.



posted on Apr, 5 2006 @ 11:32 AM
link   
I have yet to figure out how anyone can really assert that creationism and evolution are at odds with one another at all. It really doesn't matter if evolution is true in my opinion. Am I supposed to deduct that just because we originated from slime in the bottom of a stream that there is no creator?

You see, where people become confused is in the statement that we are in "God's image". What people need to realize is that that means we are in God's Spiritual image, not his physical image because God does not have a tangible image per se. Therefore, it really doesn't matter how the creative force brought us into being.Just know that it did and accept its ways.

[edit on 5-4-2006 by SpeakerofTruth]



posted on Apr, 5 2006 @ 11:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by zenlover28
And how does the Biblical flood prove creationism to be a fact? Please do share.


but the flood is a matter of biblical record sedimentary layering proves this so if the biblical record stands proven in this area it's resonable to assume the rest of genesis to be true also......

if your a reasonable person??

[edit on 5-4-2006 by the_sentinal]

[edit on 5-4-2006 by the_sentinal]
[edited to correct quote codes

[edit on 5-4-2006 by Nygdan]



posted on Apr, 5 2006 @ 11:48 AM
link   
No it's not reasonable to assume that everything in Genesis holds true because they 'think'..key word here being 'think'...that they've proven the Biblical flood theory to be true. Geographically speaking and historically speaking places flood. It happens. What is not proven from this is that the Biblical flood occurred. It may or it may not. Even if Noah existed and the flood occurred that does not provide proof that there is a creator. Many will argue, myself included, that the Bible is a mere man made historical record and in that record man created God in his image...not the other way around.



posted on Apr, 5 2006 @ 11:51 AM
link   
There is a lot of talk on thios thread about the "biblical flood". Every culture has a "flood" mythology and there is some evidence that suggests there was a large percentage of the earth covered in water. However, it seems to me that the flood was a relatively localized event.

When one examines the fact that the Nile used to flood ever so many years,it stands to reason that many people probably perished from such an event. Now,I am not saying that the "great" flood did not occur. It undoubtedly did. I just question to what extent.



posted on Apr, 5 2006 @ 11:53 AM
link   
I couldn't agree with you more, Speakeroftruth. Even if it did occur and could be proven to have occurred it would still lend no proof that there is a divine creator.



posted on Apr, 5 2006 @ 11:54 AM
link   
www.creationevidence.org... here's the frount page to the site i heard dr. carl baugh speak for six hour on creation evidence .......it would be very hard to debunk him after hearing the details

[edit on 5-4-2006 by the_sentinal]



posted on Apr, 5 2006 @ 11:56 AM
link   
So who does Dr. Carl Baugh suggest created the creator?



posted on Apr, 5 2006 @ 12:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by the_sentinal
according to this web site there is scientific evidence for creation dispelling the theory of evolution

What do you find convincing? Or is this just being presented as an 'interesting website'?


Evolutionists have constructed the Geologic Column

This is incredibly wrong. The geologic column was created before Darwin, and by people who were more or less creationists.

having taken place to form a continuum of rock/life/time over the earth

While its rare to find the entire column preserved in a single site, there are, infact, instances of it.

This supposed column is actually saturated with "polystrate fossils

There are no polystrate fossils, that is, individual fossils that cross multiple era boundaries or that exist in rock formed from sediment thought to have been formed out millions of years.

"[T]o the unprejudiced, the fossil record of plants is in favor of special creation

No bible, no biblical creationism. A person not already beleiving the bible isn't going to, on their own, come up with the crazy account in genesis by looking at the fossil record, nor are they going to think that everything was formed all at once.

Thats a bunch of errors/lies in the very first (and, presumably, 'best') arguement that that site has.

IOW, that site is a bunch of crap.


.....other places on this site talk about finding human fossiles in the same layers of earth as dinosaurs

This has not happened. Also, while I agree that it'd wreck the theories about the course of evolution, why would it refute evolution, in a scientific manner? I agree, it'd be stunning enough to really make ya question things in a very different light, but technically it'd be about the pattern of evolution, not that evolution happens.


zaphod
There is evidence that it happens every few thousand years, and we're in the end cycle of the switch now.

FWIW, no one's been able to get a real pattern or cycle out of it, we can't tell when the field will change next, only that we expect it to change. It doesn't 'cycle', it just switches back and forth (so there wouldn't be a 'end of a cycle' anyways).

Just being a jerk about it and nitpicking.



VK
The citations do, in fact, check out on cursory examination

Sure, but most of the citations are from creationists. I think woodmoreapp belongs to one of those groups that requires its members affirm a beleif in creationism in the first place too no? But I may be wrong.



The Sentinel
i dont think that picking just one point out of ten to dissprove his theory is an honest approach

Oky doky.


Scientific observations since 1829 have shown that the earth's magnetic field has been measurably decaying [...]These data demonstrate that earth's entire history is young

The magnetic field flucuates in strenght, as demonstrated by the evidence from ocean floor spreading. It didn't start out as a super strong field that has been slowly decaying over time.

It is now possible to prove the historical reality of the Biblical Flood

There is no evidence for a global flood, and if anything the geoglical evidence shows that it didn't happen and the physical evidence shows that its abusrd to even think it coudl've happened.

However, application on an evolutionary time scale runs into major difficulties. Starting with one "couple" just 41,000 years ago would give us a total population of 2 x 1089. 9

This is irrelevant, as human population growth isn't constant through time, and there have been major periods of loss and bottle-necking.

To record the existence of this element in such short time span, the granite must be in crystalline state instantaneously.10 This runs counter to evolutionary estimates of 300 million years for granite to form.

To begin with, the evolution of living organisms through a mechanism of natural selection has absolutely nothing to do with the geo-physics of rock formation. Here is a good detail of Gentry's argument, the webpage above doesn't do it justice or represent it properly. There is also a refuation of gentry's arguement there too:
www.talkorigins.org...

such as the hammer in Cretaceous rock, a human sandal print with trilobite in Cambrian rock, human footprints and a handprint in Cretaceous rock

None of these examples have ever been shown to be true, out of place artifacts are very often just artifacts that someone claims to have found in a particular location, never in any verifiable way. As far as man-tracks, in most cases its an example of naive misidentification, and in others, outright fraud, as at paluxy.

At present rates our atmosphere would accumulate current helium-4 amounts in less than 10,000 years

Except that the earth also looses atmospheric helium.

Astrophysicist Russell Humphries demonstrates that such space expansion would dilate time in distant space. This could explain a recent creation with great distances to the stars.

So what? A more likely explanation is that the age is real.

A minimal cell contains over 60,000 proteins of 100 different configurations.16 The chance of this assemblage occurring by chance is 1 in 10 4,478,296

Again, so what? No one is claiming that there was a mass of unbonded atoms that in one step became a fully functioning and advanced cell. Just because something is complex doesn't mean its designed. This, again also, is a poor representation of the ID agrument, IDists don't say that something is complex, therefore its designed. The chances of the individual atoms that make up a wad of spit having that exact formation are astronomically high, its irrelevant.

The human brain is the most complicated structure in the known universe

Again so what? And the human brain doesn't have an immpossibly complex structure that couldn't have been formed by natural selection, neverminding that there are clear antecedent represenatives of the human brain, showing that a brain can become more complex. This is yet another poor and falicious representation of something like an ID arguement.

So, to conclude, that page is crap. It gets the implications of the data wrong. It gets the veracity of the data completely wrong. It represents scientific theories completely wrong (it doesn't even distinguish between how living organisms change, and how lava cools!). And it doesn't even get the creationists arguments correct!

It doesn't understand nature. It doesn't understand the arguements it is trying to 'refute'. It doesn't even understand the arguments that it thinks support it.

IOW. Crap.


What did you find most convincing from it?



posted on Apr, 5 2006 @ 12:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by zenlover28
So who does Dr. Carl Baugh suggest created the creator?


Simple, God created man, and man Created God.

One big ol time paradox that would be well suited for a episode of the Outer Limits.



posted on Apr, 5 2006 @ 12:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by SpeakerofTruth
There is a lot of talk on thios thread about the "biblical flood". Every culture has a "flood" mythology and there is some evidence that suggests there was a large percentage of the earth covered in water. However, it seems to me that the flood was a relatively localized event.

When one examines the fact that the Nile used to flood ever so many years,it stands to reason that many people probably perished from such an event. Now,I am not saying that the "great" flood did not occur. It undoubtedly did. I just question to what extent.


if the flood was a localized event then how did noah's ark get on the top of mount ararat in turkey??

news.nationalgeographic.com...



posted on Apr, 5 2006 @ 12:07 PM
link   

Satellite pictures taken last summer of Mount Ararat in Turkey may reveal the final resting place of Noah's ark, according to Daniel McGivern, the businessman and Christian activist behind a planned summer 2004 expedition to investigate the site.


Key word in that is "MAY" reveal. It does not say that they have found Noah's Ark. Where did you read that information at?

This article is from 1994. I would think that if it was Noah's Ark we would have heard something by now.



posted on Apr, 5 2006 @ 12:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by the_sentinal
if the flood was a localized event then how did noah's ark get on the top of mount ararat in turkey??

news.nationalgeographic.com...


A rock formation that sorof looks like something does not make it that object. Just as the Matrixing of the Face of Mars, simple things, in the right angle, looks like something else.

Also note that the entire Noahs ark story was stolen from the tale of Giglamesh, with just a more biblical centric feel to it. that puts what little credibility it had on the chopping block, sorry.

Move Along.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join