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.

 

what proof is there that 'god' exists?

page: 3
0
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 2 2006 @ 09:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by marko1970

Originally posted by Rasobasi420
Well, if there is life on other planets, then the bible says they're going to hell for not accepting Jesus Christ right? I mean, if god only sent 1 messiah, then every other planet is out of luck, and will burn for eternity.

Anyway, I'm speaking from the point of view of the termite, believing that some devine being created them, and made the hyouse for them.



The topic of life elsewhere......
If there IS life like us on other planets, did they experience the same thing we did?

OR... did they follow God's word, & NOT fall victim to Satan?
If THAT'S the case, there would be no need for a Savior for them.....

I've often wondered about that.

OR YET...... did Jesus have to go to THEIR planets like he did ours?

That's something we probably will never know.... (or at least until we "die" & become spirits ourselves)

I mean, there are numerous galaxies in the universe. & each galaxy contains billions of stars & planets.
It's almost impossible to believe that our planet is the only one with life.
So what is the situation on those other planets if they are out there??

hmmmmmmm.....


Heck you don't even need to leave our planet for this discussion. I've always wondered what the rest of the world was doing during jesus's little escapade. The only people who knew anything about him were the ones in the vicinity. The rest of the world had no idea who the hell he was. The only way they found out is when they were taken from their lands and forced to believe or they had to wait for the book.




posted on Aug, 3 2006 @ 09:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by marko1970

More evidence for evolution???
THAT is pretty humorous!
Evolution on a microbiological basis, maybe. But Apes to MAN? *buzzer sounds* WRONG..
If we climbed down from trees, such as the comment was made previously in the post, why do we still have Apes????
Why didn't ALL the APES become human?
AND... where are ALL the fossil remains of each "evolutionized" stage of Ape-man? They don't exsist.
As I said, people are free to believe they came from monkeys if they want, but I can't put myself in the same lineage as a creature who STILL drinks his own urine, & eats fleas from his fellow kind.
I'm interested in this "Factual Evidence" of evolution from primate to human.... if you can, let me know where to research this.
Because if I AM WRONG, I'd like to know.


Yep as I said 'more evidence for evolution' mainly due to there being no evidence for ID. I mean on one hand we have a FACT based Theory and on the other we have some mythical FAITH based explanation.
Have you even read anything about evolution or does your predjucies against it stop you from learning? Firstly humans DID NOT evolve from apes but from a common ancestor of both species. Secondly all 'APES' as you call them didn't become human probably due to environmental differences i.e what benefited early humans (grassland) would not have benefited early apes.
I agree the fossil record of human evolution is incomplete but there is still a fossil record of early hominids. And just to put you right on one thing humans evolved from APES not MONKEYS (apes dont have tails) and also there are fellow humans that still drink their own urine and eat insects.
The evidence is there for the reading just google it or go to the 'origins and creationism conspiracy' forum on ATS and ask.


G



posted on Aug, 3 2006 @ 09:43 AM
link   
Evolution is STILL just that... a "Theory".
Evidence also keeps popping up to further discredit this theory.

There are too many missing links.

Also here's something that should make sense.
(found at www.cft.org.za... )


When we see design we know that there is/was a designer. The human mind
intrinsically knows the difference between randomness and design. When we
see a plastic hair comb, one of the simplest structures ever designed and
consisting of only one part, we know that it was designed and made through
intelligent effort. A plastic hair comb does not come into existence by
random chance.

If we see three stones sitting on the bottom of a clear stream we know that
they got there by the random action of the water current. If we see the
same three stones piled up one on top of the other sitting on the bank of
that stream we know that an outside intelligence placed them there.

We see design throughout nature. For good health blood must clot when it
gets outside the body, but must not clot inside the body. In addition, it
must stop clotting and not continue to clot once exposed to the outside.
The molecular motors which turn the cilia of cells look exactly like little
electric motors complete with bearings, shaft and housing. Our bodies must
make decisions to accept or reject foreign substances or our immunological
system does not work. Our bodies must also manufacture effective
countermeasures without killing us at the same time.




You should be able to see the distinct difference.......
But DO YOU?



posted on Aug, 3 2006 @ 11:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by marko1970
Evolution is STILL just that... a "Theory".
Evidence also keeps popping up to further discredit this theory.

There are too many missing links.

Also here's something that should make sense.
(found at www.cft.org.za... )


When we see design we know that there is/was a designer. The human mind
intrinsically knows the difference between randomness and design. When we
see a plastic hair comb, one of the simplest structures ever designed and
consisting of only one part, we know that it was designed and made through
intelligent effort. A plastic hair comb does not come into existence by
random chance.

If we see three stones sitting on the bottom of a clear stream we know that
they got there by the random action of the water current. If we see the
same three stones piled up one on top of the other sitting on the bank of
that stream we know that an outside intelligence placed them there.

We see design throughout nature. For good health blood must clot when it
gets outside the body, but must not clot inside the body. In addition, it
must stop clotting and not continue to clot once exposed to the outside.
The molecular motors which turn the cilia of cells look exactly like little
electric motors complete with bearings, shaft and housing. Our bodies must
make decisions to accept or reject foreign substances or our immunological
system does not work. Our bodies must also manufacture effective
countermeasures without killing us at the same time.

You should be able to see the distinct difference.......
But DO YOU?

Lets start with Theory and what Theory means.

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The word "theory" has a number of distinct meanings in different fields of knowledge, depending on the context and their methodologies....
...In scientific usage, a theory does not mean an unsubstantiated guess or hunch, as it often does in other contexts. A theory is a logically self-consistent model or framework for describing the behavior of a related set of natural or social phenomena. It originates from and/or is supported by experimental evidence (see scientific method). In this sense, a theory is a systematic and formalized expression of all previous observations that is predictive, logical and testable.

Did you note the ' a theory does not mean an unsubstantiated guess or hunch'.
As for your link to a site with a creationist bias check out these
en.wikipedia.org...
en.wikipedia.org...
Plastic comb? Its an inanimate object NOT a living being
Three stones? Not random if they were placed there by just before you noticed them. Things arent black and white, there are many possibilities and yes I do see the differences but that still does not provide evidence for ID or creationist claims.

G



posted on Aug, 3 2006 @ 11:31 AM
link   
So, if we DID in fact evolve from primates, or some hybrid species combining the two, where did the HYBRID come from?
& why did we stop evolving any further than where we are currently?

Evolution suggests the transformation from primate to homosapien millions of years ago; however,...... does Evolution have a ceiling effect? Is there a limit to the extent of species changing?

Why have humans remained virtually the same, for the past several hundred thousand to however many million years, since "becoming" human?

Shouldn't we continue to evolve at the same rate? Or at least resonably close to it? (or even 1% of the rate?)

That's what doesn't make sense to me.....
it seems as though the MAJOR evolution should still continue if that is the case.

[edit on 3-8-2006 by marko1970]



posted on Aug, 3 2006 @ 11:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by marko1970
So, if we DID in fact evolve from primates, or some hybrid species combining the two, where did the HYBRID come from?
& why did we stop evolving any further than where we are currently?

Evolution suggests the transformation from primate to homosapien millions of years ago; however,...... does Evolution have a ceiling effect? Is there a limit to the extent of species changing?

Why have humans remained virtually the same, for the past several hundred thousand to however many million years, since "becoming" human?

Shouldn't we continue to evolve at the same rate? Or at least resonably close to it? (or even 1% of the rate?)

That's what doesn't make sense to me.....
it seems as though the MAJOR evolution should still continue if that is the case.

[edit on 3-8-2006 by marko1970]


Well we have in the last 1000 years foreheads have become more promenent, it was on bbc teletext a while ago.
And homo sapien sapien has only existed for a blink of an eye (around 1/5 a million years) evolutionary speaking so you wouldnt really notice much difference.



posted on Aug, 3 2006 @ 12:02 PM
link   
That's true... but it's due to hair loss.
Not a change in physical characteristics like primate to human...

The Egyptian Mummies from several thousand years ago have the same "current" look as we do today....

& 200,000 years IS quite a long time. I WOULD expect to see more evidence of evolution in that amount of time.

ESPECIALLY if over the last 1000 years our foreheads have supposedly changed.



posted on Aug, 3 2006 @ 12:17 PM
link   
Good Goddess, now we're onto evolution. :shk:

Before answering the incredible silly ignorance that's been posted, I should say up front that evolution has nothing to do one way or the other with the existence of God. If, as I rather firmly believe, evolution theory is the best explanation for how speciation occurs, that in no way implies that there is no God; if, on the other hand, some other theory (as yet unpresented) replaces it, that does not prove that there is one.

That said:


originally posted by Marco 1970
If we climbed down from trees, such as the comment was made previously in the post, why do we still have Apes????
Why didn't ALL the APES become human?


Because that's not how evolution works.

Amphibians evolved from fish, but we still have fish. Mammals evolved from reptiles, but we still have reptiles. Whales evolved from wild dogs, but we still have dogs.

When a new species evolves, the entirety of its parent species doesn't somehow metamorphose into the new one; what happens is that some of the descendants of the old species become, over many generations, the new species, filling a different ecological niche than its parents.

Also, as Shihulud pointed out, humans did not evolve from apes. Hominids and apes represent a branching of the primate tree. Chimpanzees and gorillas aren't our ancestors, they're our cousins. Our immediate ancestor on the tree, Homo erectus, is extinct, but not because all the H. erectus morphed into H. sapiens.

What happened was that the ice ages came along, and put H. erectus under severe survival pressure. Natural selection then favored those individuals who were smartest, and best at tool making and socializing. A branch of the H. erectus species developed bigger brains, better linguistic ability, and better social skills, and those were the ones that survived and had children. The same thing that caused (eventually) H. sapiens descendants to develop from the H. erectus line, also killed off all, or at least most, of the true H. erectus -- although it's entirely possible that competition with H. sapiens was what killed off those that did survive.



I'm interested in this "Factual Evidence" of evolution from primate to human.... if you can, let me know where to research this.
Because if I AM WRONG, I'd like to know.


Well, frankly I suspect that if you really were interested in this factual evidence you would know about it, because it's not that hard to find. But anyway, go here:

Human Evolution

That will give you a good overview, and links to more in-depth stuff.



So, if we DID in fact evolve from primates, or some hybrid species combining the two, where did the HYBRID come from?


I don't know where you're getting this "hybrid" stuff from. Hominids and apes both descend from monkey-like creatures, most of them now extinct. I should add here that well over 95% of all species of animal that have ever lived on the planet are extinct, so that really shouldn't be a surprise.



& why did we stop evolving any further than where we are currently? . . . Why have humans remained virtually the same, for the past several hundred thousand to however many million years, since "becoming" human?


First of all, H. sapiens has only been around for between 100,000 and 200,000 years, which is not very long in evolutionary terms.

Secondly, evolution is driven by survival pressure. A species that is highly successful -- that is, one that survives well and procreates well -- isn't going to change much, because it doesn't have to. Evolution happens when large numbers of individual members of a species die off, so that survival and procreation become a challenge.

Look at sharks. They're very primitive fish, dumb as stumps, that can't even breathe unless they keep moving since they have no gill pumps, and their skeletons are made of cartilege, they don't even have bones -- BUT they are very efficient eating machines, superb predators, and it's a formula that works for them. They don't have to change, and so they don't. Except that some of the really big shark species have gone extinct, these animals have survived just as they are for a very, very long time.

At the present, humans are the most successful animal species in the world, with the possible exception of cockroaches. There are indications we may be creating conditions ourselves, though, that will put us again under survival pressure. If that happens, then H. sapiens will evolve into something different. But in that case, the process will be accompanied by the collapse of civilization and the deaths of many, many, many people. In the short term, at least, it isn't something devoutly to be wished.

[edit on 3-8-2006 by Two Steps Forward]



posted on Aug, 3 2006 @ 12:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by marko1970
& 200,000 years IS quite a long time. I WOULD expect to see more evidence of evolution in that amount of time.


Marco, you really need to educate yourself on the subject of evolution before you say any more. To be blunt, you're embarrassing yourself, dude.

200,000 years may seem like a long time in terms of history, but in terms of evolution it's the blink of an eye, especially when we haven't been under survival pressure except in the first 10,000 years or so of that time.

If you understood evolution theory well enough to criticize it intelligently, you would know this.



posted on Aug, 3 2006 @ 12:33 PM
link   
Evidence for God?

Its within all of us.

Belief.

I do not believe in any kind of omnipotent creator, therefore to me he does not exist.
To those who do believe in him, he does exist.
God's existence is a subjective thing, for some he is real, for others he isn't.



posted on Aug, 3 2006 @ 12:57 PM
link   
LOL its funny when someone attacks something with obviusly no knowledge about it.
I think we should get off evolution before marko really makes himself look stupid (well even more) and we cant forget that even if we proved completly or disproved completly evolution the followers of god would use the fact that evolution is true/false to prove the exiostence of god whether it be intelligent design or the book.



posted on Aug, 3 2006 @ 12:58 PM
link   
1st of all, I'm not the least bit "embarrassed".

I know that there is no "solid proof" for either argument.
I am just giving my reasons for why I personally believe the creation/Intelligent Design outlook. To me it makes more sense.

As far as needing to "educate" myself on "evolution", I don't see how a fictional theory is going to be anything more than entertainment. It's not education in the same sense as factual knowledge. (such as mathematics.....)

So it does all boil down to personal beliefs.

Darwinism has it's arguments, & creationism has it's own as well.

"Scientists" STILL cannot eliminate the possiblity of Divine Creation, because there are many things that they can't explain, & don't understand.

I believe evolution happens to an extent..... but not on a level that could bring about humans, & self-aware, sentient exsistence.



posted on Aug, 3 2006 @ 01:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by marko1970
1st of all, I'm not the least bit "embarrassed".



Well, that's too bad. Honestly, you should be.



I know that there is no "solid proof" for either argument.


Would you mind defining "solid proof" for us, please? I can't answer that assertion until and unless I know what you mean by it.



As far as needing to "educate" myself on "evolution", I don't see how a fictional theory is going to be anything more than entertainment.


Well, the problem is that you're in a poor position to know whether or not it's "fictional" until and unless you do. Many of the things you've said about it so far, purporting to question it, fail to address it because of that lack of understanding on your part.

In general, you can't argue against an idea unless you first understand it. And when you try to, and present arguments to people who DO understand it -- well, it will become painfully obvious that you do not. That's what's happened here, I'm afraid.



It's not education in the same sense as factual knowledge. (such as mathematics.....)


Goodness. You consider mathematics to be "factual"?

Mathematics is logical, but it is hardly factual. Every system of mathematics begins, not with facts, but with postulates -- stuff that's made up -- and goes from there. A statement of mathematics doesn't have to be true, in the sense of having anything to do with the real world we live in. It only has to follow logically from the stuff that was made up to begin with. Mathematicians, as mathematicians, don't care whether their conclusions fit the real world or not.

You think evolution is fictional, but mathematics is fact? The reverse is true. Mathematics is the most elegant and potentially useful fiction ever written.



So it does all boil down to personal beliefs.
Darwinism has it's arguments, & creationism has it's own as well.


But quite obviously, you don't have a clue what the arguments in favor of evolution are -- or even what evolution itself is. How, then, can you hope to form an intelligent opinion about it?



"Scientists" STILL cannot eliminate the possiblity of Divine Creation, because there are many things that they can't explain, & don't understand.


"Divine Creation" is such a vague, all-encompassing phrase that, in one possible meaning, it AND evolution could be true at the same time. In that sense, of course it cannot be ruled out; it's not a testable hypothesis, and therefore outside the realm of science altogether. When you start talking about specific creation ideas, though, I've yet to see one that holds up under examination. Perhaps you have. If so, please share them with us.



I believe evolution happens to an extent..... but not on a level that could bring about humans, & self-aware, sentient exsistence.


Why not?



posted on Aug, 3 2006 @ 01:24 PM
link   
If there are an infinite number of universes, expressing all of the possibilities in all of the universes, and it's possible for God to exist in one of them, then God exists in all of them, ipso facto.

The truth is, we are God. From the tiniest little bacterium or virus to huge lifeforms spanning planets in some distant galaxy, every living thing that interacts with reality on a quantum level becomes an observer that collapses the wave function and defines existence. Without us here, there would be no universe, just a virtual mass of probabilities. So we are responsible for its creation and continued existence, therefore we are God.



[edit on 3-8-2006 by Enkidu]



posted on Aug, 3 2006 @ 02:25 PM
link   
1st-

Two Steps.....
I'll give you props for a good debate. You raised good points & questions, & I can admit that.

I also think you misunderstand as much about God/creation, as I probably do about evolution. But that gives room for "learning".
fair enough.

2nd- (this is for shenroon as well)
Concerning the need for me to be "embarrassed".....
......perhaps I WOULD be embarrassed if I took this debate personally, rather than subjectively. But I don't.

To me it's just a couple people trying to explain why they believe, or disbelieve a subject.

Now, I COULD call someone "STUPID" (as I think I was called) for not knowing enough about the Bible as I think they should know...... but that's going beyond subjective discussion.
I'd put it in the same category as 4th grade banter......

BUT.... this discussion does not affect me on a personal level, to the point of feeling embarrassed, or mad, or whatever.
I'm just trying to give MY opinions, & get other people's.

Whether we agree on a subject or not, it's still JUST a discussion.

Lastly-

Two Steps- Because I thought your last post was VERY WELL put together, & gave me some things to dig deeper into, I can't help but give you one of my WATS votes.



Like I said, it's all discussion to me.
I'm not going to get mad, or make enemies because I don't see eye to eye with every schmo on this site!
LOL!

Whether I feel like I "WON" a debate, or otherwise, I admire good conversations.



posted on Aug, 3 2006 @ 03:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by deathtoallme
im not religious but i need to know what god there is and what proof is there? i've never been contacted by him. thre are other gods that i belive in but not the chiristian one.


Ummm your not religious but "thre are other gods that i belive in"

Well truth is there is LOTS of proof if you are religious, though you don't NEED proof if you are religious...and there is LOTS of evidence if your not, but that evidence shows the Gods all got into a spaceship thousands of years ago and left this messed up rock...
They are coming back though 2012... and I hear they are not nice...Its all over ATS so it must be true...

Hope that helps your obvious confusion:shk:



posted on Aug, 3 2006 @ 04:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Burnt Offering
Other than that I don't know how one would prove it.


Very simple really...quaranteed absolute proof

DIE

Then you will know for sure...

Just hard to convince your buddies though

Now one more thing... why do we always have to prove that God exists or that Aliens exist or whatever? I mean believers KNOW


So I say its time we stopped wasting time and DEMAND that the debunkers PROVE their side.

I want to see books, and photos that can be handled tangebly, I want documents to examine that there is no god, that their are no aliens and spaceships, that evolution is wrong. Time to stop using the cop out "well you can't prove it exists so I am right" excuse. That went out in kindergarten

Time to put up or shut up...


If you don't have any proof to back you up, you are no different than the bible thumpers and UFO crowds, but they at least have a book thousands of years old to hit you over the head with:shk:



posted on Aug, 3 2006 @ 04:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by marko1970
I also think you misunderstand as much about God/creation, as I probably do about evolution. But that gives room for "learning".


Why don't you explain to me, then, what you think I misunderstand about creation?

(If I do misunderstand about God, which, of course, everyone does, that, intrinsically, is something neither you nor anyone else CAN explain, God being beyond human comprehension or description in any human language, so that part I won't ask you about.)



Concerning the need for me to be "embarrassed".....
......perhaps I WOULD be embarrassed if I took this debate personally, rather than subjectively. But I don't. To me it's just a couple people trying to explain why they believe, or disbelieve a subject.


What you believe isn't what is, or should be, embarrassing. But what you have done, is to reject an idea without understanding it. In effect, you said, "I know, without even bothering to look at it, that this is all malarky. I know because I know that it says this [which it doesn't] and that's just nonsense."

There are many subjects on which I am ignorant and will admit ignorance. But you won't find me on this or any other forum blathering on about those subjects as if I knew what I was talking about. On the subject of evolution, though, you do.

And THAT is what you should be embarrassed about. If you don't find evolution interesting and don't want to study it, fine. But in that case, you don't know what you're talking about, and you have not earned the right to express an opinion that will be taken seriously. In which case, you really shouldn't express any opinion at all.

Let me put it another way. Obviously you ARE interested in evolution at least enough to argue against it. That being the case, you have a responsibility to inform yourself about it well enough so that you can argue against it coherently and without tripping over your own verbal feet.



Now, I COULD call someone "STUPID" (as I think I was called) for not knowing enough about the Bible as I think they should know...... but that's going beyond subjective discussion.


How about if someone who had never cracked the pages of the Bible held forth in very detailed opinions about passages of it that you know perfectly well don't even exist? Would you consider them stupid then?



Two Steps- Because I thought your last post was VERY WELL put together, & gave me some things to dig deeper into, I can't help but give you one of my WATS votes.


Thanks, I do appreciate that.



posted on Aug, 4 2006 @ 02:25 PM
link   
First off I like Marko am not here to make enemies,
when I said 'make yourself look stupid' I didnt mean you sit there babbling while lickin your elbow,
I meant you obviously have no idea what evolution is so please get off it or this thread will be completly derailed.

O.K where were we before all this.
Proof of evolution??????? how about the galapagos islands (or really most other isolated islands) there is one hell of a lot of proof there and no-one use the bs that god made these islands to 'test the faithful.'
Or another example is dogs, once upon a time all dogs looked very simular then one day some humans realised that if they bred togetehr dogs with simular unusual characteristics there was a chance they would be passed onto the next generation. Eventually this would lead to a new sub-species, its the same with cats(although much cuter.) Over a long amount of time this would lead to the differences becoming much greater until eventually they are completly different to that of their parent species.



posted on Aug, 4 2006 @ 02:55 PM
link   
I do think evolution happens on SOME level.

I can see how bacteria "evolve" into more resistant strains.
I also see how certain animals evolve to adapt to specific change, dependent upon the needs. (look at the cave fish who "evolved" to have no eyes, because of living in total darkness, & had no need for them)

On small scale evolution, I totally see that & understand it.
There is PROOF beyond a doubt for this typem of evolution.

BUT.....

Concerning evolution of MAN from a primate, or primate type of anscestor, I just don't buy that one.

THAT is the point I'm trying to make.
I do apologize if I was unclear on that before.

I don't discount eveolution completely. But again, I can't be convinced that HUMANS evolved from a lower form of species. (THAT is the area I haven't seen enough "proof" on.) Sure I've seen the "artist renditions" of their hypothetical transformation from ape to man..... but we still have not seen all the fossil evidence to fully support it.

Yes, they have some strange skulls that appear to be some hominid/early human..... but there are too many gaps between those, & US NOW.
There should be skulls showing the complete transformation all along the way.

NOW..... If by chance they find the mother-lode of fossil evidence that can fill in the gaps, I might give it more credibility.

But until then, my opinion of evolution remains on a small scale. (based on evidence).

AND... before you ask.....
Do we have EVIDENCE to support Creationism/Intelligent Design?
Yes, there is some. But people DO look at it as subjective to interpretation & opinion..... much like the minimal human evolution "evidence".








new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join