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: 7
0
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 1 2006 @ 11:35 AM
link   
This is solid
This is WHAT IM TALKING ABOUT!
If anyone wants to debate, this is the way.
Nice work, praise the Lord and all that. Im a beliver




posted on May, 1 2006 @ 12:01 PM
link   
As for the "evidence," I still don't see the logical connection between "here's some data that may not fit our current theoretical models," to "the Earth and Man were created by God."

Of course there's data that doesn't exactly fit the models. That's why we do the studies. So we can either adjust the model or find out what we've missed in our measurements.

But I really don't see exactly how a person gets from "I don't know" to "God did it." It's not as if we've explored every other possible alternative explanation. We don't even know what all the alternative explanations might be. Our ability to measure things gets better all the time. When we get to the end of the list of things to measure, then maybe we can talk about God.

But that jump from "Helium 4 levels are unusually low," to "God did it," is just one bit of reasoning I don't understand.

======================================================

P.S. -- If these things are the best evidence of God that you can come up with, God must be pretty pathetic. No thundering voice from the clouds anymore, huh? If God is so big and great, one would think he'd be a little more obvious.

======================================================

P.P.S. -- Trying to reason with these poor, brainwashed religious morons is useless. They are the worst kind of trolls. They deny logic and reason in favor of feeling, and refuse to give up their notions no matter how they're shown to have no foundation. They look at is as a "test of faith" to see how well they can ignore reason and logic. I just get so sick and tired of their stupidity. I feel sorry for them. Oh, well.




posted on May, 1 2006 @ 05:06 PM
link   


That was funny Enkidu! I too wonder what happened to all those miracles from back in the day.



posted on May, 1 2006 @ 08:17 PM
link   
there was no evidence in the link, just a bunch of arguments pointing out TINY TINY flaws in evolutionary theory

responses to the points (haven't checked if anyone has pointed these out, i apologize if i'm repeating anything)

1: fossil record can be slightly strewn by earthquakes

2: the whole magnetic field arguments doesn't make any sense, simply because the measurements back in 1829 were very innaccurate.

3: No evidence is given for the gloabal flood, only possibility

4: speculating human populations based on current growth trends is VERY ignorant, population growth had no set rate, at points we lost much of the earth's human population

5: i know nothing about this, so i won't comment

6: as in 1, human debris can be moved through earthquakes, humans also can DIG and put artifacts near that.

7: highly suspect claims, i have little backing in physics, so i'll leave this to a physicists.

8: doesn't account for light from stars millions of light years away has already reached us

9: 1 in 10 4,478,296 ^17 is highly improbable, but not impossible, so it proves nothing.

10: like i said, improbable, but not impossible.



posted on May, 2 2006 @ 04:10 AM
link   
Maybe the universe is God, the fact we view God as a cosmic display of amazing colors and wonder.
If God were real, its not like we are able to comprehend his existance. So what if we are Gods creation and Earth is the cradle in his arms.
Although he is never going to poke his head through the clouds and go "hey, cut the #, im real".
Is it going to take Gods face in the sky to convince people?

I think the strongest evidence of God is the fact we exist. The complexity of life itself, the millions of creatures etc.
Just because we have found a way to explain life as a shake-and-bake theory still doesnt make it solid.
I think its a divded issue and if anything the church isnt teaching towards the youth today, the youth that wants proper answers, not fantasy style stories.



posted on May, 2 2006 @ 04:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by fennek77
Is it going to take Gods face in the sky to convince people?


No. But, it might take Jesus' face in a piece of toast to do so.



posted on May, 2 2006 @ 04:42 AM
link   
Haha
What if i see my own face in the toast?
could the prophecy be true?



posted on May, 2 2006 @ 04:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
there was no evidence in the link, just a bunch of arguments pointing out TINY TINY flaws in evolutionary theory



you couldnt answer some of the points so how can you say that there is no evidence??



posted on May, 2 2006 @ 04:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by Enkidu


P.S. -- If these things are the best evidence of God that you can come up with, God must be pretty pathetic. No thundering voice from the clouds anymore, huh? If God is so big and great, one would think he'd be a little more obvious



make no mistake about it the thunder is coming...you will live to hear the thunder



posted on May, 2 2006 @ 05:01 AM
link   


They may have meant well, but their faulty model was an easy target for Darwin. For example, Darwin pointed out that the fashionable theory—that each species had been independently created in their current location—made little sense of his observations that island species were often similar to those of the nearest continent. But his observations fit perfectly with the true biblical view that there was a global Flood, and animals migrated from Ararat to the islands via the neighbouring mainland.





This should be a lesson for those today who teach that Christians should compromise the plain meaning of the Bible to fit with ‘science’. Aside from placing fallible human opinion as an authority above the infallible Word of God, it just doesn’t work and paves the way for more departure from Scripture.


he's some more flood info for those of you who asked!!




*As far as we know, the scientists of the past listed here believed in a literal Genesis unless otherwise stated. The ones who did not are nevertheless included in the list below, because of their general belief in the creator God of the Bible and opposition to evolution. But because the idea that the earth is ‘millions of years’ old has been disastrous in the long run, no present day ‘long-agers’ are included intentionally, because they should know better.




Are there scientists alive today who accept the biblical account of creation?



Note: Individuals on this list must possess a doctorate in a science-related field.


Dr. Paul Ackerman, Psychologist
Dr. E. Theo Agard, Medical Physics
Dr. James Allan, Geneticist
Dr. Steve Austin, Geologist
Dr. S.E. Aw, Biochemist
Dr. Thomas Barnes, Physicist
Dr. Geoff Barnard, Immunologist
Dr. Don Batten, Plant physiologist, tropical fruit expert
Dr. John Baumgardner, Electrical Engineering, Space Physicist, Geophysicist, expert in supercomputer modeling of plate tectonics
Dr. Jerry Bergman, Psychologist
Dr. Kimberly Berrine, Microbiology & Immunology
Prof. Vladimir Betina, Microbiology, Biochemistry & Biology
Dr. Raymond G. Bohlin, Biologist
Dr. Andrew Bosanquet, Biology, Microbiology
Edward A. Boudreaux, Theoretical Chemistry
Dr. David R. Boylan, Chemical Engineer
Prof. Linn E. Carothers, Associate Professor of Statistics
Dr. David Catchpoole, Plant Physiologist (read his testimony)
Prof. Sung-Do Cha, Physics
Dr. Eugene F. Chaffin, Professor of Physics
Dr. Choong-Kuk Chang, Genetic Engineering
Prof. Jeun-Sik Chang, Aeronautical Engineering
Dr. Donald Chittick, Physical Chemist (interview)
Prof. Chung-Il Cho, Biology Education
Dr. John M. Cimbala, Mechanical Engineering
Dr. Harold Coffin, Palaeontologist
Dr. Bob Compton, DVM
Dr. Ken Cumming, Biologist
Dr. Jack W. Cuozzo, Dentist
Dr. William M. Curtis III, Th.D., Th.M., M.S., Aeronautics & Nuclear Physics
Dr. Malcolm Cutchins, Aerospace Engineering
Dr. Lionel Dahmer, Analytical Chemist
Dr. Raymond V. Damadian, M.D., Pioneer of magnetic resonance imaging
Dr. Chris Darnbrough, Biochemist
Dr. Nancy M. Darrall, Botany
Dr. Bryan Dawson, Mathematics
Dr. Douglas Dean, Biological Chemistry
Prof. Stephen W. Deckard, Assistant Professor of Education
Dr. David A. DeWitt, Biology, Biochemistry, Neuroscience
Dr. Don DeYoung, Astronomy, atmospheric physics, M.Div
Dr. Geoff Downes, Creationist Plant Physiologist
Dr. Ted Driggers, Operations research
Robert H. Eckel, Medical Research
Dr. André Eggen, Geneticist
Prof. Dennis L. Englin, Professor of Geophysics
Prof. Danny Faulkner, Astronomy
Prof. Carl B. Fliermans, Professor of Biology
Prof. Dwain L. Ford, Organic Chemistry
Prof. Robert H. Franks, Associate Professor of Biology
Dr. Alan Galbraith, Watershed Science
Dr. Paul Giem, Medical Research
Dr. Maciej Giertych, Geneticist
Dr. Duane Gish, Biochemist
Dr. Werner Gitt, Information Scientist
Dr. Warwick Glover, General Surgeon
Dr. D.B. Gower, Biochemistry

Dr. Dianne Grocott, Psychiatrist
Dr. Stephen Grocott, Industrial Chemist
Dr. Donald Hamann, Food Scientist
Dr. Barry Harker, Philosopher
Dr. Charles W. Harrison, Applied Physicist, Electromagnetics
Dr. John Hartnett, Physicist and Cosmologist
Dr. Mark Harwood, Satellite Communications
Dr. George Hawke, Environmental Scientist
Dr. Margaret Helder, Science Editor, Botanist
Dr. Harold R. Henry, Engineer
Dr. Jonathan Henry, Astronomy
Dr. Joseph Henson, Entomologist
Dr. Robert A. Herrmann, Professor of Mathematics, US Naval Academy
Dr. Andrew Hodge, Head of the Cardiothoracic Surgical Service
Dr. Kelly Hollowell, Molecular and Cellular Pharmacologist
Dr. Ed Holroyd, III, Atmospheric Science
Dr. Bob Hosken, Biochemistry
Dr. George F. Howe, Botany
Dr. Neil Huber, Physical Anthropologist
Dr. Russell Humphreys, Physicist
Dr. James A. Huggins, Professor and Chair, Department of Biology

[edit on 2-5-2006 by the_sentinal]



posted on May, 2 2006 @ 05:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by the_sentinal
make no mistake about it the thunder is coming...you will live to hear the thunder


always the answer you get 'he's coming...just wait'. seriously he's coming! we've been waiting almost 2000 years, but he really is coming!

and i ask you for 'evidence' or this even remotely happening, apart from perhaps the bible saying it will... which is in no way evidence.

it racks my brain to think what people believe in these days, i mean just look at scientology, and you want 'me' to take 'you' seriously?



posted on May, 2 2006 @ 05:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by the_sentinal
make no mistake about it the thunder is coming...you will live to hear the thunder


People have been saying that for over a thousand years. Sensationalism never gets old.



posted on May, 2 2006 @ 05:26 AM
link   
not in the list above is my wife who has a degree in microbiology who also believe's in creation



posted on May, 2 2006 @ 05:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by the_sentinal
not in the list above is my wife who has a degree in microbiology who also believe's in creation


and this is conclusive proof because...

there's nothing that says if you're a microbiologist that you can't believe in creation. saintforgod on here studied biology for a number of years i think, and still said he couldn't see any conclusive evidence for evolution. it depends how you look at the evidence i guess. for example you look at the evidence for god, and see it different to how i see it.



posted on May, 2 2006 @ 05:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by shaunybaby

Originally posted by the_sentinal
not in the list above is my wife who has a degree in microbiology who also believe's in creation


and this is conclusive proof because...

there's nothing that says if you're a microbiologist that you can't believe in creation. saintforgod on here studied biology for a number of years i think, and still said he couldn't see any conclusive evidence for evolution. it depends how you look at the evidence i guess. for example you look at the evidence for god, and see it different to how i see it.


i guess you had to read the whole thread but basically the credentials of the author of the opening material was in question and not accepted as legitimate because of his apparent lack of more reputable education but surely the above list of phd's could produce a more satisfactory person that agrees with creationism



posted on May, 2 2006 @ 05:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by the_sentinal
i guess you had to read the whole thread but basically the credentials of the author of the opening material was in question and not accepted as legitimate because of his apparent lack of more reputable education but surely the above list of phd's could produce a more satisfactory person that agrees with creationism


but that's a mere what 50+ something people?

there must be 1000s more with doctorates who 'don't' believe in creation.

in the grand scheme of things, the general trend of people who believe in creation, less and less do so, the higher up the education ladder you go. for example lets just say 50% in high school, then 25% in college, 5% university... but as i say that's just an example, not the actual percentages. i could find some though... not keen on doing so, i'm writing an essay on the history of music, but checking back here for little 5 minute breaks


[edit on 2-5-2006 by shaunybaby]



posted on May, 2 2006 @ 05:52 AM
link   
the wierd thing about that site creationevidence.org... is that it says at the top 'evidence for creation'... now where is the evidence that god put his hands in some dirt, made adam, made eve from his rib, created the universe and everything in it out of some sort of modeling clay, and so on...

absolutly none.

that webpage link is not 'evidence for creation', it's merely trying to debunk other theories. and by debunking other theories, even though it does not do that, that does not make creationism a more valid theory or anymore true.



posted on May, 2 2006 @ 06:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by shaunybaby

Originally posted by the_sentinal
i guess you had to read the whole thread but basically the credentials of the author of the opening material was in question and not accepted as legitimate because of his apparent lack of more reputable education but surely the above list of phd's could produce a more satisfactory person that agrees with creationism


but that's a mere what 50+ something people?

there must be 1000s more with doctorates who 'don't' believe in creation.


[edit on 2-5-2006 by shaunybaby]


and that is certainly not all the doctorates that do ethier..



posted on May, 2 2006 @ 06:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by shaunybaby
the wierd thing about that site creationevidence.org... is that it says at the top 'evidence for creation'... now where is the evidence that god put his hands in some dirt, made adam, made eve from his rib, created the universe and everything in it out of some sort of modeling clay, and so on...

absolutly none.

that webpage link is not 'evidence for creation', it's merely trying to debunk other theories. and by debunking other theories, even though it does not do that, that does not make creationism a more valid theory or anymore true.


yes i see that it is more of a debunk of evolution but you have to admit it does add some fuel to the creation theory... i've heard that the electromagnetic field is running down from more sources than this one and that to me say's more about creationism than alot of the other points .....



posted on May, 2 2006 @ 06:26 AM
link   
I think were getting comments from hard-core science over religion believers.
I mean? Should i take all their information to the local university and have a teacher verify the information?
What more will it take? The information has come from many many bright minds, these people dont write books based on theoretical evidence..

Anyone who doesnt think the site is solid..
Tell me.. What do you want? What else?



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join