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: 8
0
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 2 2006 @ 07:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by fennek77
Tell me.. What do you want? What else?


how about a little less religious propoganda? i mean a site www.creationevidence.org doesn't really scream 'equality'. it's all religion religion religion, of course they'll just be showing you evidence 'for' creation or trying to debunk evolution in anyway possible. merely stating that the brain is complex does not debunk evolution, and in no way adds to the creationism arguement.

i'd like some evidence to suggest that god put his hands in the dirt, pulled them out and created adam. but creationists can and never will prove that. you're trying to prove the unprovable. if you believe in creationism it's not because you believe it over evolution, it's because you're merely taking it on faith, and in essence what you to believe is 'god's word'.




posted on May, 2 2006 @ 06:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by the_sentinal

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??


i couldn't answer them all because they aren't my area of expertise, but i looked it up

the amount of helium-4 is only in discrepincy if you use a specific quantity of uranium and thorium in the earth's crust. it is possible that the estimates used as a starting point were far too high.

the radio halos argument is based off of the IMPROBABLILITY argument, and it is possible that the halos were formed in instantly crystalized granite from some catatestrophic geologic event or an impact crater.



posted on May, 2 2006 @ 07:27 PM
link   
So...what's next?

Do we have religious evidence for science?



posted on May, 2 2006 @ 07:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by shaunybaby

Originally posted by fennek77
Tell me.. What do you want? What else?


how about a little less religious propoganda? i mean a site www.creationevidence.org doesn't really scream 'equality'. it's all religion religion religion, of course they'll just be showing you evidence 'for' creation or trying to debunk evolution in anyway possible. merely stating that the brain is complex does not debunk evolution, and in no way adds to the creationism arguement.

i'd like some evidence to suggest that god put his hands in the dirt, pulled them out and created adam. but creationists can and never will prove that. you're trying to prove the unprovable. if you believe in creationism it's not because you believe it over evolution, it's because you're merely taking it on faith, and in essence what you to believe is 'god's word'.


ok! what about this one will you look at this one...it has a good section on carbon dating...if you wont look at evidence because it has god attached to it then arent you going into this with blinders on???

www.answersingenesis.org...



posted on May, 2 2006 @ 07:40 PM
link   
Okay, so if I agreed with all of the stuff on Page 1, that all of these things are wrong or misinterpreted, what is the logical line of thought that leads to the conclusion that it was all "created" (whatever that means) by God?

I just can't connect the dots. Is there an implication that there are NO OTHER POSSIBLE ALTERNATIVES to the God explanation? We've explored every possible reason why these thing's explanations are wrong, and the only reasonable conclusion we can reach is that God did it?

I think somebody might possibly be overlooking some alternative explanations.

Can I make that objection any more passive? Thanks.



[edit on 2-5-2006 by Enkidu]



posted on May, 2 2006 @ 08:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by Enkidu
Okay, so if I agreed with all of the stuff on Page 1, that all of these things are wrong or misinterpreted, what is the logical line of thought that leads to the conclusion that it was all "created" (whatever that means) by God?

I just can't connect the dots. Is there an implication that there are NO OTHER POSSIBLE ALTERNATIVES to the God explanation? We've explored every possible reason why these thing's explanations are wrong, and the only reasonable conclusion we can reach is that God did it?

I think somebody might possibly be overlooking some alternative explanations.

Can I make that objection any more passive? Thanks.



[edit on 2-5-2006 by Enkidu]


it's not that god did it is the only explanation....just the most logical one! most people dont want to accept this explanation because then they would have to accept other thing's along with it that they dont want to accept ...like sin and things like that so it's just easier to deny the whole thing and move along to the other explanations



posted on May, 2 2006 @ 10:20 PM
link   
Nygdan,
Very skilled debate. I need you here to convince my sales staff that you can’t sell anything if you spend the whole day reading the newspaper.

Sentinel,
“Cast not your pearls among swine”. If you believe, you believe. You can not force someone to change to your point of view just because you want them to. Be comforted in the fact that a vast majority of the Earth’s population believes in a creator and that your opponents are infuriated that they can not force their views on us.

Regarding the topic of your post: You chose to cast in your lot with a person who appears to be a total fraud. No credible person would use such utter nonsense to try and prove that that can not be proven. The truth is that mankind has not even scratched the surface of how the Universe functions. Science is struggling just to define the genetic code. Almost nothing is known of how the human brain functions. There are vast areas of the oceans yet to be explored. New species are being found daily. Yet there are those foolish enough to believe that science is in an advanced state. It is in its infancy. Infinity is a very large place. Science is limited to explaining only what it can quantify or qualify. Faith is not one of those things.

Don’t let the name callers and the children who attack anything they don’t understand get under your skin. They attack because they have nothing else to add to the debate. Mom bought them a computer and they get a thrill out of throwing mud from the safety of their bedroom between visits to porn sites. The adults in that crowd spent their time in school doing everything but learning so when challenged they respond with anger out of embarrassment. It’s like dealing with the bully in grade school; ignore them or stand up to them and they go away. Even more important, don’t mistake honest debate for an attack. Like I said you can not force your opinion on others.



posted on May, 2 2006 @ 11:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Blaine91555
Nygdan,
Very skilled debate. I need you here to convince my sales staff that you can’t sell anything if you spend the whole day reading the newspaper.

Sentinel,
“Cast not your pearls among swine”. If you believe, you believe. You can not force someone to change to your point of view just because you want them to. Be comforted in the fact that a vast majority of the Earth’s population believes in a creator and that your opponents are infuriated that they can not force their views on us.

Regarding the topic of your post: You chose to cast in your lot with a person who appears to be a total fraud. No credible person would use such utter nonsense to try and prove that that can not be proven. The truth is that mankind has not even scratched the surface of how the Universe functions. Science is struggling just to define the genetic code. Almost nothing is known of how the human brain functions. There are vast areas of the oceans yet to be explored. New species are being found daily. Yet there are those foolish enough to believe that science is in an advanced state. It is in its infancy. Infinity is a very large place. Science is limited to explaining only what it can quantify or qualify. Faith is not one of those things.



thanks blaine, i was a little hasty in choosing the first web site to back up creationism i've only been here a month or so and yea i guess i should choose my information better....respectfully, i'm not trying force someone to change their veiws just standing up for what i believe is the truth (someone has to) i realize that my veiws will cause some adverse reactions and thats fine i like a good debate as much as the next guy...( more so since i got married for some reason:lol
and hold no grudges for anything said this is an open forum, all veiws are on the table for examination thats what keeps me coming back ...

your correct in saying that science cannot quantify or qualify faith because faith is above science, faith is a spiritual force and the spiritual world is in another dimension, god is spirit , the spiritual world created this world we now see, this world is subject to the spiritual world in many way's



posted on May, 3 2006 @ 09:08 AM
link   
Quote:
"Science explains God's world, not God. You can't use science to "explain God."

Does that quote make any sense what so ever?

I understand that religions force this propaganda onto the public and if you dont follow the religion, pain, death, fire etc. follows.
The church needs to give up this fear tactics method and start teaching people how to understand God's existance. God before religion, not God through religion.



posted on May, 3 2006 @ 10:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by Blaine91555
Almost nothing is known of how the human brain functions.... Yet there are those foolish enough to believe that science is in an advanced state.


It is all relative though isn't it....

Science was more advanced in the 1900's than 1500's, more advanced in the 1950's than 1900's, more advanced in the 1980's than 1950's, which was more advanced in 2005 but even more advanced in 2006 - more advanced this week, than last.

So is science in an advanced state, yes, compared to the past. But it won't be more advanced than next year, next century etc etc.

We do know more than 'almost nothing' about the human brain - do you think neuroscientists/psychologists do nothing useful?

In all the fields of science, we will never have all the answers; we answer one question and raise 10 more.



posted on May, 3 2006 @ 11:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by the_sentinal
if you wont look at evidence because it has god attached to it then arent you going into this with blinders on???

That is an interesting question. Science, as a methodology, has been trying to deal with that aspect for a while. The best reasoning that I can see is that, because god is supernatural, and thus not bound by anything rational, intelligible, or natural, then there's really no way to work it into science.
I mean, lets take a miracle, for example, water magically turning into wine. We witness it happen. We run scientific tests, we see, chemically, there is h20, and then the constituents of wine. What do we expect to see, as evidence that it was a miracle? What if we examine the event in such detail that we can see the actual physical mechanism by which it has happened? Strange things happen in the universe, like entanglement of particles or the popping into and out of existence of 'the quantum foam' particles, etc. We can 'explain them', because there is no 'magic' that happens, its allways stuff in teh universe doing things. So we can expect that the water-into-wine miracle could, if investigated enough, be shown to have occured by a replacement on the quantum level of sub-atomic or anything like that, we could have a 'causal explanation' of a 'rare', but fundamentally physical, event.
But, at the same time, its freeking water that magically turned into wine! I mean, that'd be a miracle!

So I don't think we can physically and rationally demonstrate that supernatural happenings actually happen. We can only look at the materialistic and natural things rationally.


www.answersingenesis.org...

That pamphlet seems to suggest that, because carbon dating techniques aren't simplistic, that they're therefore meaningless.

What did you find convincing from it?


because faith is above science, faith is a spiritual force and the spiritual world is in another dimension

Then why is it 'logical' that god did these things? It might be 'beleivable', you can have faith in it, but that doesn't mean that its the most logical explanation. Indeed, because god is supernatural, its got nothing to do with logic.

[edit on 3-5-2006 by Nygdan]



posted on May, 3 2006 @ 12:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by the_sentinal
it's not that god did it is the only explanation....just the most logical one!


You apparently didn't learn logic in the same school I did.

I think in order for the logic to apply, you have to have at least a halfway decent definition of what you're applying it to. And "God" is very poorly defined.

For instance, if you define "God" as "everything and nothing," then yes, everything that exists very likely came from everything and nothing. You win. But that's a pretty lousy definition, if you ask me. It could also apply to a secular concept like "The Universe."

If, however, you're trying to define "God" as a conscious, directive entity of some sort, then you'll have to first prove to me that this hypothetical entity even exists before I can start attributing actions to it. Otherwise, I might just as well attribute the creation of existence to the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

If you define "God" as "love," as some people do, then we're really talking apples and oranges. Can love create a rock? I'd like to see that.




posted on May, 3 2006 @ 12:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by the_sentinal

ok! what about this one will you look at this one...it has a good section on carbon dating...if you wont look at evidence because it has god attached to it then arent you going into this with blinders on???

www.answersingenesis.org...


Carbon dating is not the only source of dating. It is limited in its timescale - about 60,000 years.

OK sentinal, simple question - how old is the earth?



posted on May, 3 2006 @ 12:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by melatonin
OK sentinal, simple question - how old is the earth?

The Earth is either around 8,000 years old, according to the Bible, or it's several million years old, according to the human footprints found with the dinosaur tracks.

Did Jesus have a pet dinosaur?




posted on May, 3 2006 @ 01:18 PM
link   
the_sentinal said:



it's not that god did it is the only explanation....just the most logical one! most people dont want to accept this explanation because then they would have to accept other thing's along with it that they dont want to accept ...like sin and things like that so it's just easier to deny the whole thing and move along to the other explanations

Well, to me there is nothing logical about an assumption based on faith. Who needs to understand the mechanisations of life and the Universe when the only 'logical' explanation is 'god did it' no further inquiry needed!

It's not about wanting to sin with impunity either, I'm an agnostic and I sin no more and no less than any religious person, so please don't say that people are atheists and agnostics merely so they can sin all they wish without fear.
People doubt god because it's a good idea, it's...just the most logical one!



posted on May, 3 2006 @ 01:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Enkidu
The Earth is either around 8,000 years old, according to the Bible, or it's several million years old, according to the human footprints found with the dinosaur tracks.


OK, I'll let you provide sentinal's answer. I'm sure it would be 6,000-10,000. So, lets throw the first hurdle...

Lake varves in Japan can be dated to about 45,000yrs old. They measure the level of diatoms in lake sediments to provide this answer (they are seasonal, a bit like tree-rings).

Amazingly, these varve datings correlate with both dendrochronological data (tree-rings) and C-14 analysis. It also provides a calibration point for C-14.

Lake varves calibration

Lake varves II

So, 45,000yrs and counting...

If you can explain this away sentinal, we'll move on to the next level of evidence to an even older earth.

[edit on 3-5-2006 by melatonin]



posted on May, 16 2006 @ 01:25 AM
link   
sorry, melotonin for taking so long to get back on this thread but i submitted this evidence to a board for possible submission into a news letter, it a good arguement piece but are you aware that this link you provided is from a website that agrees with me on the bible position of creationism??

as for the proof it lack's the ironclad seal needed for a debunk in my humble opinion but if you refer to the web site you provided you'll see that the dating method used in this instance is not 100% accurate


It is necessary to bear in mind that quite apart from all the problems of calibration, a significant proportion of radiocarbon dates are not reliable for any purposes, because they have been contaminated with older or younger carbon that changes the apparent age of the sample. Many radiocarbon-dating specialists still refer to their field as 'more an art than as science'! Published radiocarbon dates from sites and layers of fossils and sediments are quite often rescinded, when the materials are found to have been naturally contaminated. Most often the contamination is from older (less 14C-rich) calcium carbonate, coal or charcoal washed in from other layers, making a sample or layer seem older than it actually is. Although radiocarbon dating is a very useful tool for the Quaternary palaeoecologist, it must always be interpreted with caution.



counting back the annual layers will reveal the true number of years before the present, and comparing the 14C age of each tree ring or sediment layer will give an age scale for how 14C age can be converted into 'real' age. However, even this method is not completely reliable; 'false' double rings can sometimes appear, and occasionally a year may not appear in the record. Because of these problems, individual ring or layer-counting studies often suggest 'real' ages differing from one another by several percent,


nice try though



posted on May, 16 2006 @ 10:59 AM
link   
yes, I am aware it was from AIG, but it has the nice correlation from a proper article that indicates the highly significant relationship between the factors. There are three independent chemical/biological mechanisms that ALL confirm each other (i.e. they do not rely on each other and to have the same degree of error in each is highly unlikely).

So, nice try handwaving.

here's your next hurdle...

Greenland ice-cores: 110,000 years


Combined with highly advanced measuring techniques (Fuhrer et al. 1993; Hammer et al. 1985;Rothlisberger et al. 2000) the resolution of the Greenland ice-core records can frequently be finer than a year, and potentially this degree of temporal resolution extends back to before 100 thousand years before present. The records are capable therefore of providing information on long-term (millennial, supra-millennial) and short-term (sub-millennial to annual or seasonal) cycles or trends in the Earth's past environmental history, as well as on important singular events, such as major volcanic eruptions or particularly pronounced climatic shifts. Furthermore, the age and durations of past environmental events can be estimated by counting of the annual ice increments, by analysing selected constituents combined with visual core stratigraphy (Alley et al.1993; Hammer et al. in press,1999?; Hammer et al. 1978; Meese et al. 1997).


www.gsf.fi...

www.agu.org...


Antarctic ice-cores (vostok): 422,000 years


In January 1998, the collaborative ice-drilling project between Russia, the United States, and France at the Russian Vostok station in East Antarctica yielded the deepest ice core ever recovered, reaching a depth of 3,623 m (Petit et al. 1997, 1999). Preliminary data indicate the Vostok ice-core record extends through four climate cycles, with ice slightly older than 400 kyr (Petit et al. 1997, 1999).


www.ncdc.noaa.gov...


And finally to consolidate all this...

Devil's Hole: 567,000 years


Devils Hole is a tectonically formed cave developed in the discharge zone of a regional aquifer in south-central Nevada. (See Riggs, et al., 1994.) The walls of this subaqueous cavern are coated with dense vein calcite which provides an ideal material for precise uranium-series dating via thermal ionization mass spectrometry (TIMS). Devils Hole Core DH-11 is a 36-cm-long core of vein calcite from which we obtained an approximately 500,000-year-long continuous record of paleotemperature and other climatic proxies. Data from this core were recently used by Winograd and others (1997) to discuss the length and stability of the last four interglaciations.
The Devils Hole d18O record is an indicator of paleotemperature and corresponds in timing and magnitude to paleo-SST (sea surface temperature) recorded in Pacific Ocean sediments off the California and Oregon coasts. The record is also highly correlated with major variations in temperature in the Vostok ice core, from the East Antarctic plateau.

As eminent a geochemist as W. Broecker has stated that "...the Devils Hole chronology is the best we have..." Since 1992, all core material has been uranium-series dated using thermal ionization mass spectrometric (TIMS) methodology. In 1997, the Devils Hole Thorium-230 dates were independently confirmed by non-USGS investigators using Protactinium-231.


water.usgs.gov...
water.usgs.gov...
and water.usgs.gov...


So, we have devil's hole data corroborated by ice-cores, sediments, protactinium-231 and thorium-230. Again, all independent mechanisms.

Minimum age = 567,000 years

Any ideas? If you can hand-wave this away, we'll go further back...

[edit on 16-5-2006 by melatonin]



posted on May, 16 2006 @ 11:05 AM
link   

because they have been contaminated


A major problem with this right off the bat is that they are asking you to reject an entire technique simply because it doesn't work sometimes. We know the conditions under which it won't work (and NOT because of creationist research or reform in science proper). We can control for these problems. The other big problem is that, if there is rampant contamination and these dates are all useless (which the people at AIG certainly haven't shown), then WHY are the dates in agreement with one another AND other independant dating methods and systems? I mean, if they are just willy nilly being screwed up, then nothing should be in agreement. It is in agreement though, so why? Could it be because they method isn't useless?



posted on May, 16 2006 @ 12:29 PM
link   

Man-made artifacts - such as the hammer in Cretaceous rock, a human sandal print with trilobite in Cambrian rock, human footprints and a handprint in Cretaceous rock – point to the fact that all the supposed geologic periods actually occurred at the same time in the recent past.11



Firstly, it's false. No human sandal prints have been found alongside trilobites in Cambrian rock.

I actually took archaeology in university.

Same thing for the human footprints in Cretaceous rock.

paleo.cc...

Proven to be false.

The hammer, well, it has been closely guarded and nobody has really been able to scientifically date it.

paleo.cc...


I am not a theologist, and don't pretend to understand everything about Creation Theory, but I do know about archaeology, and the references he states have been debunked by the scientific community years ago.


A living cell is so awesomely complex that its interdependent components stagger the imagination and defy evolutionary explanations. 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 .17


It has happened ONCE in our solar system, due to the conflux of luck and environment.

How many billions of stars are in the sky? Let's say 90, it's a low number. The chances of life occuring on any of those planets might be .00000001% in the perfect circumstances.

If each of those stars forms part of a solar system, and each of those solar systems have 1-7 planets, then the chance for life evolving elsewhere is pretty high.

The universe is HUGE and we are an aberration. Life came about here due to luck and the perfect confluence of events.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join