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: 5
0
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 5 2006 @ 09:18 PM
link   
1. Regarding "Noah's Ark"-
a)Say there was a boat on Mt.Ariat(who's wood happened to be preserved for thousands of years). How would anyone be able to prove its authenticity? Do you think it would have "Noah's Ark" written on it?
b) Ok, lets say all of the animals in the world were loaded onto this ark, it landed on Mt.Ariat, and all the animals were taken off. Then why havent we found any Polar bear bones in Pakistan? Or zebras, ostriches, kangaroos, chimpanzee's, etc etc etc.... Both Polar bears made it to the north pole without dying? How did the predators eat and survive if there were only two of each type of animal, and all of them survived?

2. Regarding Science and God
Science cant disprove there is a god, because its impossible to disprove a negative. There is no evidence supporting the existance of a god, therefore, there is no way to scientifically test it.
Here is an example- Ok say I make this statement "I believe that "Zxenuthu the Great" from the Extrasolar Plane created the universe. Prove me wrong!" Well, science cant prove me wrong, because there is no evidence to support my statement in the first place! However, the burden of proof falls on the proponent of a theory, not the opponent.

3. Regarding "Intelligent Design"
a)First of all, lets clear something up- "Intelligent Design" is NOT a theory. It has no testable evidence to support it, and has almost no substance to it at all. Here is "Intelligent Design" in a nutshell- "There are some questions which evolutionary theory cannot yet explain, therefore there must have been a designer!" Pretty weak. Even if they did
manage to disprove evolutionary theory, they still dont have any evidence to support the "intelligent design" idea!
b)All intelligence that anyone has ever encountered has been biologically based. Even so-called "artificial intelligence" was/is created by biological intelligences.
This leads to an obvious paradox- If all biology was created by an intelligence, and all intelligence is biologically based, then how could an intelligence design the very thing that gave rise to it??!?!?!




posted on Apr, 6 2006 @ 02:02 AM
link   
Nygdan in response to your post way back on the first page,

First, let me say


Second, the reason I used the word "cycle" there, is because I was watching a program about the pole switch that showed that while some portions of the magnetic field in the North were weakening, other portions of the magnetic field in the South were strengthening.



posted on Apr, 6 2006 @ 02:07 AM
link   
of course they leave out information that they can't present in a way that proves their points.

i see the explanation of the creation of elements are missing. any astonomer knows that iron is the final element of nuclear fusion in stars and that those heavier than iron are created when stars go super nova, as it takes energy to fuse elements into those heavier than iron



posted on Apr, 6 2006 @ 05:14 AM
link   
that's a nice site...wierd it's titled 'www.creationevidence.org'. i mean they're not going to be biased now are they




The human brain is the most complicated structure in the known universe.18 It contains over 100 billion cells, each with over 50,000 neuron connections to other brain cells.19 This structure receives over 100 million separate signals from the total human body every second. If we learned something new every second of our lives, it would take three million years to exhaust the capacity of the human brain. 20 In addition to conscious thought, people can actually reason, anticipate consequences, and devise plans - all without knowing they are doing so.21


Well I'm convinced? Is anyone else. Quick where's my bible, I need to go to church to quickly repent my sins before I go to Hell!!!!


[edit on 6-4-2006 by shaunybaby]



posted on Apr, 6 2006 @ 05:53 AM
link   
Much of the statements presented in the article are quite convincing, however the source is clearly biased. It comes as no surprise that a convincing argument can be made to support the very ideal that the source advocates, especially in the absence of any opposition. It would be really something if a site such as this presented a convincing argument opposing their view. However, this tactic is not just confined to religion. Convincing arguments seemingly supported by strong evidence can and do appear universally, not least of all in science.



posted on Apr, 6 2006 @ 06:03 AM
link   
Sentinal's bloodcurdling avatar hasn't appeared for a few pages now. Are you still with us, man? And if you are, is your creationist belief as firm as it was before you started this thread?

Do you feel you have learnt anything from the discussion, and if so, what?



posted on Apr, 6 2006 @ 06:10 AM
link   
Sorry, I don't see the evidence. Besides I have my own religious beliefs.



posted on Apr, 6 2006 @ 07:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by the_sentinal
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!!


Hovind, I'm afraid, has long been known for making up evidence. I'll give details later, but you can spare yourself my lecture and read some very detailed responses on www.talkorigins.org...

It includes the famous evidence-mangled cases such as "mammoths found flash frozen with food in their mouths" evidence (actually, I thought that one was true till I did some serious investigating!)



posted on Apr, 6 2006 @ 09:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by Dexsquab

Originally posted by zenlover28

3. The Global Flood... The Biblical record clearly describes a global Flood during Noah's day...




Yes, it so very clearly does. What it doesn't clearly explain is just how Noah got all the way around to Australia, picked up some kangaroos, wallabies and platypii, stepped on over to New Zealand, grabbed a kiwi bird or two (well, two), went back to the middle east, got in his ark, floated around until the mighty Ararat resurfaced, crashed into it, and then, erm, I think he mailed the animals back to the antipodes.

Presumably the aforementioned deity upon whose orders said ark was constructed just folded space to get them back to their point-of-return.

It sure as gehenna doesn't mention it in the big book though, does it?

Global Flood... one boat... morons.


"Did The Kangaroo Hop All The Way To Australia?" and the following answer is given:

"Populations of animals may have had centuries to migrate, relatively slowly, over many generations [from the Ark]. Incidentally, the opposite question (also common), as to whether the two kangaroos hopped all the way from Australia to the ark, is also easily answered. The continents we now have, with their load of flood-deposited sedimentary rock, are not the same as whatever continent or continents there may have been in the pre-flood world. [Remember, God arranged for male-female representatives of each terrestrial animal kind to come to Noah (Gen. 6:20) during the 100 years that he was given to construct the Ark (cp. Gen. 5:32 w/Gen. 7:6), presumably on a giant (united) super-continent.]


We also lack information as to how animals were distributed before the flood. Kangaroo (as is true for any other creature) may not have been on an isolated landmass. Genesis 1:9 suggests that there may have been only one landmass. ("Let the waters under the heavens be gathered together into one place, and let the dry land appear.") For all we know, kangaroos might have been feeding within a stone's throw of Noah while he was building the ark.



posted on Apr, 6 2006 @ 09:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by Astyanax
Sentinal's bloodcurdling avatar hasn't appeared for a few pages now. Are you still with us, man? And if you are, is your creationist belief as firm as it was before you started this thread?

Do you feel you have learnt anything from the discussion, and if so, what?


back now i had to take a day or so and do some phisical work i do that from time to time..........and yes my belief is still strong ...not weak as nygdan would like to think.....

[edit on 6-4-2006 by the_sentinal]



posted on Apr, 6 2006 @ 09:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by Byrd

It includes the famous evidence-mangled cases such as "mammoths found flash frozen with food in their mouths" evidence (actually, I thought that one was true till I did some serious investigating!)


i have not heard anything suggesting that this evidence is false or erroneous could you give me a link on that



posted on Apr, 6 2006 @ 09:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by the_sentinal
"Did The Kangaroo Hop All The Way To Australia?" and the following answer is given:

"Populations of animals may have had centuries to migrate, relatively slowly, over many generations [from the Ark]. Incidentally, the opposite question (also common), as to whether the two kangaroos hopped all the way from Australia to the ark, is also easily answered. The continents we now have, with their load of flood-deposited sedimentary rock, are not the same as whatever continent or continents there may have been in the pre-flood world. [Remember, God arranged for male-female representatives of each terrestrial animal kind to come to Noah (Gen. 6:20) during the 100 years that he was given to construct the Ark (cp. Gen. 5:32 w/Gen. 7:6), presumably on a giant (united) super-continent.]


We also lack information as to how animals were distributed before the flood. Kangaroo (as is true for any other creature) may not have been on an isolated landmass. Genesis 1:9 suggests that there may have been only one landmass. ("Let the waters under the heavens be gathered together into one place, and let the dry land appear.") For all we know, kangaroos might have been feeding within a stone's throw of Noah while he was building the ark.


The fact that marsupials are only found on the continent of australia, suggests 'evolution' at work. It doesn't mean that all of a sudden the land mass broke off and all the marsupials and kangeroos just happened to be on that specific part.

What marsupials show us, is that evolution is a present force in our world whether we choose to believe it or not. There are also other cases like this elsewhere in the world where land or water is closed off. You'll find unique species that are not found anywhere else in the world. It just depends if you're willing to open your mind to these possibilities of evolution, rather than to dismiss them purely based on your religious beliefs.



posted on Apr, 6 2006 @ 10:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by shaunybaby

The fact that marsupials are only found on the continent of australia, suggests 'evolution' at work. It doesn't mean that all of a sudden the land mass broke off and all the marsupials and kangeroos just happened to be on that specific part.



why does it mean evolution?? a more plausable reason would be that the land mass broke apart and the kangaroos were on that sepcific part ....it has nothing to do with religion but logic

[edit on 6-4-2006 by the_sentinal]



posted on Apr, 6 2006 @ 10:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by the_sentinal
why does it mean evolution?? a more plausable reason would be that the land mass broke apart and the kangaroos were on that sepcific part ....it has nothing to do with religion but logic.


Because australia doesn't just break off and float over to it's current position in a day. It takes millions of years. Also they've never found any marsupials elsewhere, to think that all of them were in that one region, and absolutly none ventured elsewhere would not be logical in itself.

it shows how evolution works in different ways. the same reason why native africans look different to a person say native to england. i'm not really sure you can be native to england...i guess if you're ancestors go back to the saxons etc.



posted on Apr, 6 2006 @ 10:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by shaunybaby

Originally posted by the_sentinal
why does it mean evolution?? a more plausable reason would be that the land mass broke apart and the kangaroos were on that sepcific part ....it has nothing to do with religion but logic.


Because australia doesn't just break off and float over to it's current position in a day. It takes millions of years. Also they've never found any marsupials elsewhere, to think that all of them were in that one region, and absolutly none ventured elsewhere would not be logical in itself.

it shows how evolution works in different ways. the same reason why native africans look different to a person say native to england. i'm not really sure you can be native to england...i guess if you're ancestors go back to the saxons etc.


you would be suprised what can take place in a day or two...... reelfoot lake in tennessee was formed in a matter of days....not years



posted on Apr, 6 2006 @ 10:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by mytym
It would be really something if a site such as this presented a convincing argument opposing their view.

What did you find unconvincing about the arguements presented by multiple posters here so far??

We also lack information as to how animals were distributed before the flood.

Actually we don't, we have fossil evidence that shows the distribution of animals in the past. Also, if all the pairs of animals got to where they are today from walking from Mt. Ararat, why don't we see a distribution that supports that? And why did all the mammals with pouches (xcept possum) walk all the way to australia, and none of the mammals without pouches???

have not heard anything suggesting that this evidence is false or erroneous

? Then you are choosing to remian willfully ignorant. Not only is your faith weak to the point that it needs 'evidence' to support it, but it can't, apparently, stand up to any physical evidence that would contradict it.
That page made a lot of claims, backed none of them up, and a number of people here have shown that the claims, like the magnetic decay, the man with dino fossils, the polonium halos, etc, were false.

a more plausable reason would be that the land mass broke apart and the kangaroos were on that sepcific part

That is not more reasonable and we're talking about a heck of a lot more animals than kangaroos, and again, why no placentals?



posted on Apr, 6 2006 @ 10:31 AM
link   
Some people tend to see (perhaps deliberately) only a small part of Darwin's Theory and then ignore the rest. That portion is "man descended from the ape", which of course he didn't say at all in the first place. That phrase when spoken alone tends to upset people and make them defensive. That's why some people tend to keep repeating it over and over, often in a strident voice. Darwin did surmise that man and ape came from a common ancestor. This is an entirely different concept - since he could have used an earthworm instead and been as truthful. In fact the human and a grain of wheat share about 27% of the same DNA structure - the earthworm far more. To make things worse the modern human is characterized by its belief that the sum total of life can be summarized into a bumper sticker making all other knowledge irrelevant.

But then one does not need the Darwin Theory or all of the scientific work done on genetics since Darwin or even an understanding of DNA to understand evolution. Ignore the fossil record! It can never give more than a fragmented record. One need look at only a few facts that are easily verifiable:
All of the elements of the earth may be divided into two classes: inanimate things and living things.
The dividing line between those two classes are that living things can reproduce themselves and inanimate things can not. Reproduction itself is the engine of evolution.
When living things reproduce, they usually do not reproduce perfectly. There will be differences between them and their siblings and parents. Look at two oak trees or two pups from the same litter as compared to each other and to their parents. This is called divergence.
If the difference from the parent is so great that it causes the new living thing to die before it reproduces then its lifeline will cease to exist. Its divergence was excessive and the result to that lifeline was fatal.
If the difference between parent and child is so small that the child may survive as its parent did, then the lifeline carried between its parent through itself and to its offspring has lived through another test between its lifeline and the trials and tribulations of living. The physical characteristics of the lifeline are changing with each reproduction but the lifeline is remaining equipped as well as or better than is required to survive.
Repeat steps 3 , 4 and 5 many billions of times across the earth each year for more than four billion years. Those three steps are called 'evolution'. Imagine the countless directions in form and behavior that would result.
Look around you for the results. Verify this process through your own observation.
Is this all there is to evolution? Of course not. Is this the end of the problem between religion and science? Of course not. In fact the real problem is only starting. What will the rift be, if this battle is allowed to continue, when biological computers are built, ones that can grow, heal themselves, reproduce and think? And how about nanotechnology with its use of biological material embedded in the human body? And what will the reaction be when biological functions specified in the human DNA are added to, subtracted from and modified to enhance health, demeanor, beauty and ability? And when entirely new life forms are created for specific purposes? Or extinct lifeforms are resurrected for study or display? And medicine is completely changed from disease diagnosis and medicine to one of modifying the DNA to avoid the disease in the first place. Will the result be human? Or will it be a completely new species?

Where did that first living fragment come from, some 4 billion or more years ago? Scientists will call its chance occurrence a singularity, an event with a near zero probability. Religious people could call that a miracle if they wish to do so, an event with zero probability. The difference between these two concepts is itself near zero. To argue over this difference is foolish.

this is a exerpt from www.onelife.com ------sorry don't know how to do an external source box!!



[edit on 6-4-2006 by the_sentinal]



posted on Apr, 6 2006 @ 10:51 AM
link   
here ya go sentinal, I think you forgot this...

www.onelife.com...

hmmm.



posted on Apr, 6 2006 @ 10:54 AM
link   
sorry that last post shuld have had a external source box.......

[edit on 6-4-2006 by the_sentinal]



posted on Apr, 6 2006 @ 10:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by the_sentinal
Some people tend to see (perhaps deliberately) only a small part of Darwin's Theory and then ignore the rest.

Ok, so instead of answering the questions you're starting a new tact. Ok, some people just can't handle things, fine, you're copping out, whatever. But what is not acceptable is that you are cutting and pasting all this from another source, and presenting it as your own. We don't take kindly to willful ignorance around here, but at least we can all tolerate it and try to discuss things. But stealing and plagarism? My my, look at what your need to prop up a weak faith has done to you now.

[edit on 1-5-2006 by Nygdan]



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join