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: 6
0
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 6 2006 @ 11:09 AM
link   
Im sorry I do not consider that to be scientific evidence of creation.
While some of it may be accurate it does not prove creation as a reality.




posted on Apr, 6 2006 @ 11:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by the_sentinal
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 the part that really makes sense to me ........we can argue into eternity over the differences of these two concepts but it really comes down to where your faith is....

the bible definition of faith is found in hebrews 11:1 " now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen....

now my faith is not weak like nygdan would have you believe " i believe without seeing the evidence"----faith is the evidence of things not seen!!!

but many things you look at seem to piont to a creator rather than evolution the ecosystems of the earth are just too complex to have evolved in my opinion........and you know what opinions are like____everybody has one!!!!



posted on Apr, 6 2006 @ 11:16 AM
link   
the_sentinal, I think the appropriate thing to do before you post any further would be to go back to the post that you clearly did not link to any external source and edit it by linking it to the source or citing it somehow. Plagiarism is stealing. We all make mistakes, but you have been made aware of it and therefore you should correct it, IMO.



posted on Apr, 6 2006 @ 11:16 AM
link   
if you'll look at the appoligee for not using the external source box (because i'm new here) you will see nygdan that it was an honest mistake !!!...........the upper post will show why i used it ......lets not get all uptight here!!!



posted on Apr, 6 2006 @ 11:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by zenlover28
the_sentinal, I think the appropriate thing to do before you post any further would be to go back to the post that you clearly did not link to any external source and edit it by linking it to the source or citing it somehow. Plagiarism is stealing. We all make mistakes, but you have been made aware of it and therefore you should correct it, IMO.


i would fix it if i knew how !!!!



posted on Apr, 6 2006 @ 11:20 AM
link   
Just at least cite it at the bottom of the post where you obtained the inforamtion from.....post the link or anything.



posted on Apr, 6 2006 @ 12:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by the_sentinal
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


Have a day off will ya.

Since when were we talking about lack formations? So it takes God 6 days to create the universe, but it takes him a few days to create one lake... or was this lake after the initial creation?

Believe it or not, there is 'no' scientific evidence for creation. I'm not even sure why there is a thread her on it saying there is. It's utter rubbish.



posted on Apr, 6 2006 @ 01:12 PM
link   
Links to prove Evolution!!!!

www.news.harvard.edu...
www.eurekalert.org...

All I can say is HAhahahahahahaha!!!!!
Is this another fossil God put to test our faith, is it Creationists? Or was it Satan that put this fossil there to lead you astray?

Sad, I, a good Church Going Methodist for over 20 years, first few Ia dmit weren't really my choice, but after about 9-10 was able to choose whether or not to go, and I don't even believe half the BS in the Bible. World Flood? Creation? Women made from a rib bone? Plagues sent by God to kill millions because 1 person makes Him mad? Doesn't sound like a Loving, Kind, Caring God to me. Maybe if we hadn't discovered the Catholics were full of it and still believed the world was flat and center of the Universe I could believe Creation but since the Church is never right on anything I'm gonna go with science on this one.



posted on Apr, 6 2006 @ 03:57 PM
link   
Nygdan:
I wasn't referring to what has been posted by other posters on this thread so far. I was referring to the website that the original poster linked to. I thought it was pretty clear, as I was attempting to demonstrate the bias and lack of objectivity contained within.



posted on Apr, 6 2006 @ 04:20 PM
link   
Gee whiz, can't you find a more interesting story to try and prove than the Veggie-Tales Noah and all his cute animals story? I mean, come on. Really.

Go find the Tomb of Moses. That would impress me.

Although neither would provide any proof of a creative intelligence.

Only that this one particular deluge story in that book might have some vague historical basis. It certainly wouldn't help verify any of the specific details. Including the one referring to some kind of divine direction for this guy to built the boat. According to the story, even the people at the time didn't buy that. Try proving it with some chunks of old wood. Just because one thing might be right, doesn't prove anything about the rest of the story.

So it would be one down, several thousand to go.




posted on Apr, 6 2006 @ 05:05 PM
link   
ok who else cought the problem with the whole "two of each animal" noahs ark thing? if only 2 of each animal were left after the flood, wouldnt every animal existing be horribly inbred? and if adam and eve were the first humans, wouldnt every human be horribly inbred?


Originally posted by the_sentinal

For all we know, kangaroos might have been feeding within a stone's throw of Noah while he was building the ark.



well thats assuming that noah was building the ark in australian bush. you see the kangaroos are adapted to life in australia, not the middle east. tho both deserts, both are very different climates, therfore if the kangaroos were within a stone's throw of noah, they would be adapted to that climate and we would have a very different kangaroo to box.

seriously, in what ways does the whole ark thing sound even remotely plausible??? damn that must have been one HUUUGE ship, seriously, think of all the species that exist, haha that ship would have to be, well, bigger than anything i can imagine.

and "man evovled from ape" is just a way of simplifying "man and ape share a common ancestry with early primates".

just one more, promise: "faith is the evidence of things not seen!!!"-the_sentinal (see? works cited)

well i read a book once about how giant talking pink polkadotted coconuts created the universe as a project for an elementary school science fair. it was pretty convincing. I have a lot of faith in this theory, becouse the book said so. Well seeing as how faith is evidence of this, and i dont see any evidence against this, JESUS CHRIST IT MUST BE TRUE!! Boys, i think i'm on to something here!!!



posted on Apr, 6 2006 @ 05:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by the_sentinal
we can argue into eternity over the differences of these two concepts but it really comes down to where your faith is

Then why pretend that there is scientific evidence supporting and 'proving' this faith based idea????



faith is the evidence of things not seen!!!

Faith, per the definition you gave above, is hope in the unseen.


seem to piont to a creator rather than evolution the ecosystems of the earth are just too complex to have evolved in my opinion

In your opinion? Fair enough. But not based on the evidence.


........and you know what opinions are like____everybody has one!!!!

Which is why people try to use a scientific methodology to explain the world around them, because its not slavishly mastered by irrational opinion.


that it was an honest mistake

Perhaps that explanation would make sense if it was a complete cut and paste, but rather you edited out the parts, like the list, that wouldn't have shown up properly on the board format and that would've made it far too clearly the work of someone else.
Anyway, maybe it was an honest mistake, maybe it wasn't. At least now you can see that within moments of posting cut and pasted material without attribution that there will be multiple people from all over the board calling it out.


mytym
as I was attempting to demonstrate the bias and lack of objectivity contained within.

Ah ok, so 'this website' was the website linked too. My apologies for the misunderstanding.



posted on Apr, 6 2006 @ 05:32 PM
link   
I'm sorry but if you have to keep referring to your bible it just sounds like a cheesey way to get your religion forced onto the public. Besides which we have already determined that FSMism is the one true path.



posted on Apr, 6 2006 @ 05:51 PM
link   
How dare you belittle true faith with such a preposterous and ridicuous parody.


Everyone knows that the Invisible Pink Unicorn is the true creator, long may her hooves clack upon the vault of the starry heavens!




posted on Apr, 7 2006 @ 02:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by Nygdan

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??

They're not in the Bible. The only convincing arguments are the ones in the Bible. Every Buddhist, Hindu, Muslim, Shintoist, Taoist and practitioner of Wicca knows that.



posted on Apr, 7 2006 @ 10:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by ThePieMaN
. Besides which we have already determined that FSMism is the one true path.


pieman, i do believe i have been touched by His Noodly Apendage! im saved!



posted on Apr, 7 2006 @ 01:44 PM
link   
to nygdan if you think my faith is weak...........what if anything would make you think my faith is strong???

did'nt mean to start an arguement here i just thought that the web site sounded ligit



posted on Apr, 7 2006 @ 05:27 PM
link   
any website sounds ligit with that much faith



posted on Apr, 9 2006 @ 12:34 PM
link   
I think hanging out here makes one slowly go mad.

I am 42, so that means I have the answer to life, the universe, and everything!

My number is 89, and that finds its way into the Great Pattern. Also another number which reveals the Great Pattern is 108 which is related 89. The Moon is 108 lunar diamters from the Earth. The Sun is 108 Earth diameters. The Earth is 108 solar diameters from the Sun.

And finally, the number of Man is 666, as 666 is the circumference of Earth's revolution in solar diameters. God is the spirit of mankind, all hail Man!



posted on Apr, 29 2006 @ 04:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by LadyPropag8rProbability Estimate for Attaining the Necessary Characteristics for a Life Support Body

Notes: Estimate of dependency and longevity factors are accounted for at the end of the list. References to relevant science research papers and books also follow the list. The definition used here for a planet is broad enough to include a large satellite orbiting another planet. For reasons why satellites in general and starless planets are not suitable candidates for a life-support body see Lights in the Sky and Little Green Men by Hugh Ross, Kenneth Samples, and Mark Clark (Colorado Springs, CO: NavPress, 2002), pp. 39-41. reasons.org... for list entirety.

Be encouraged Sentinel, because when we are weak, HE is strong..heheh

Faith requires the things not seen. Keep the faith sentinel, hebrews11:-13:-) As far as research, I agree with alot of Dr Ross' findings. I wish I had time to post more.

[edit on 29-4-2006 by LadyPropag8r]



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join