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.

 

Where do people on ATS stand on this?

page: 14
7
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 30 2007 @ 05:07 PM
link   


Well I think it's funny that you require to be shown massive amounts of scientific evidence for you to believe in evolution, you yourself believe in micro evolution however you refuse to hold creationism to the same scientific standard by requiring you to see scientific evidence to prove creationism exists. It makes NO sense. This is where your whole argument is fundamentally flawed.


I believe in micro evolution because its scientific (observable, demonstrable) we have seen it happen. thats why I believe in it... it proves what the bible says, "they will bring forth after their kind." and thats exactly what they do. no contradiction whatsoever.
micro evolution is actually evidence more for creation than evolution. you would like to think that micro can lead to macro but you have no proof. the bible says that macro doesnt happen. and thats all we see, is micro evolution (what a bad term).



Everyone else, but YECs. Heh. The group who hold true a 6000 year old earth, a magic-man creating the earth in 6 days, and a magical world-wide flood. Even though all the evidence suggests you are clearly wrong.


hm, its funny how a river had to flow uphill to start Grand Canyon. that is clearly wrong. its evident that a lot of water formed grand canyon and the Colorado river is what is left.

6,000 years old? the earths magnetic field shows its less than 30,000. the population curve shows that humans havent been around that long at all. the oldest tree and the oldest desert are both around 4400 years old, evidence of a world wide flood.




posted on Jul, 30 2007 @ 05:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Methuselah
the population curve shows that humans havent been around that long at all.


Can you explain this in detail, it sounds very interesting...



posted on Jul, 30 2007 @ 05:25 PM
link   
From The Herald Sun NEWS

POPE Benedict has said there is substantial scientific proof of the theory of evolution.

The Pope, speaking as he was concluding his holiday in northern Italy, also said the human race must listen to "the voice of the Earth" or risk destroying its very existence.

In a talk with 400 priests, the Pope spoke of the current debate raging in some countries, particularly the US and his native Germany, between creationism and evolution.

“They are presented as alternatives that exclude each other,” the Pope said.

“This clash is an absurdity because on one hand there is much scientific proof in favour of evolution, which appears as a reality that we must see and which enriches our understanding of life and being as such.”

Please visit the link provided for the complete story.


Wow, even this guy is starting to come around.

I don't know my religions but isn't the pope some kind of big GOD GUY?
Well, I guess the pope is wrong too now


By the way, please present your evidence for your whole magnetic field idea. Please keep in mind, we know that the magnetic field has reversed a number of times on earth.



posted on Jul, 30 2007 @ 06:07 PM
link   
Apparently I need to repeat myself so

Well I think it's funny that you require to be shown massive amounts of scientific evidence for you to believe in evolution, you yourself believe in micro evolution however you refuse to hold creationism to the same scientific standard by requiring you to see scientific evidence to prove creationism exists. It makes NO sense. This is where your whole argument is fundamentally flawed.


Now just in case you are missing something let me RE-RE-QUOTE the important part you apparently missed or ignored

"you refuse to hold creationism to the same scientific standard by requiring you to see scientific evidence to prove creationism exists."

Also, keep in mind that simply disproving evolution doesn't prove creationism. So please present a scientific argument that proves creationism is correct. Please don't tell me that you're not here to prove creationism because we all know that isn't true. You believe in creationism and do not believe in evolution.



posted on Jul, 30 2007 @ 07:46 PM
link   


I don't know my religions but isn't the pope some kind of big GOD GUY?
Well, I guess the pope is wrong too now

the pope probably doesnt want to lose his position as pope. or he doesnt believe in Genesis.



By the way, please present your evidence for your whole magnetic field idea. Please keep in mind, we know that the magnetic field has reversed a number of times on earth.

and how exactly did it reverse itself? that would take switching the direction of the flow of magma.
how many times exactly? and how did it do that?



Also, keep in mind that simply disproving evolution doesn't prove creationism. So please present a scientific argument that proves creationism is correct. Please don't tell me that you're not here to prove creationism because we all know that isn't true. You believe in creationism and do not believe in evolution.

I already know that creation is based on faith a some evidence supported by science. I am not here to prove it to be true. I believe it to be true and I hate when someone tries to push lies as if they are fact. micro evolution is a bad term for variation within species/kind. its simply a variation.



Originally posted by Methuselah
the population curve shows that humans havent been around that long at all.

Can you explain this in detail, it sounds very interesting...


the population growth chart shows that the earths population has grown increased in over 6 billion people within just 200 years.



Gorman, you have some of your facts very wrong. We've had language longer than 20,000 years, the last "other" species of human, the Neanderthals, died out approximately 65,000 to 30,000 years ago, etc.

well im glad you built a time machine to confirm that one, there is no evidence that man was around back then, that long ago. you dont know when man arrived on the scene.

google it, in just 200 years we increased by 6 billion people. if we have been around for that long... we should have more than 6-7 billions people. we should have like a trillion people. it doesnt fit.



The current human species is known as Homo sapien sapien.

you know the word sapien means "wise" in latin I believe. you think we are getting wiser?
the bible says this "Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools." Romans 1:22.
people think they are wise, think of all the things people do these days that cause so many problems because they think they are wise. drinking problems, drugs, marriage for the wrong reasons, divorce for the wrong reasons, (these two happen a lot). pornography, murders..etc.
im not saying we didnt have these problems before, im saying these have become more of a problem. kids are bringing guns to school and killing people. why?
people think that evolution uses natural selection as a creating process accelerate life. people have dreams to speed up the process. people like Hitler and others. thats just something to think about. evolution teaches us that the weaker or less superior need to die off in order for life to develop and accelerate.



Now just in case you are missing something let me RE-RE-QUOTE the important part you apparently missed or ignored


I gave the evidence, you didnt like it. your loss



posted on Jul, 30 2007 @ 07:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by Methuselah
Originally posted by Methuselah
the population growth chart shows that the earths population has grown increased in over 6 billion people within just 200 years.


And that proves what?

That in 200 years the human population has increased exponentially. OK. Seems a pretty naff argument so far...

ABE: Ah, here's a bit more:


if we have been around for that long... we should have more than 6-7 billions people. we should have like a trillion people. it doesnt fit.


And if rabbits had been around for more than 1000 years the whole world would be bunnitastic.

It doesn't fit because many things affect population size and your argument is specious. For instance, the black death is suggested to have wiped out about 1/3 to 2/3 of the total population of europe. Diseases are just one of many variables that mediate the population of organisms.

It is only in the last 200 years that technology and scientific knowledge has overcome many of the restrictions holding the human population down (i.e. improved hygeine, improved agriculture, improved medicines, improved child-care, improved science, etc etc etc).

[edit on 30-7-2007 by melatonin]



posted on Jul, 31 2007 @ 05:44 AM
link   

the pope probably doesnt want to lose his position as pope. or he doesnt believe in Genesis.


Why would he lose his position as pope for not coming down on the side of evolution. More people believe in god then don't.

Although that statement makes no sense, basically what you're saying is that the pope, the highest ranking christian religious leader in the world, is now a conspirator against god? WOW! Thats incredible!
Again, you're saying the pope is afraid of losing his job if he doesn't lie and state evolution is true. Who could/would force the pope to do this?



posted on Jul, 31 2007 @ 06:07 AM
link   
Hi, I would like to throw my 2 cents in, if i may.
I believe that the story of creation is very ancient, far older than any Historian or Scientist would like you to believe. We have to rember that stories such as these were handed down long before the written word even existed. The stories might have changed countless times, even before it was ever written down.
Exactly how long ago did creation happen? That is the argument. To follow the bible, literly, it took 6 days. According to scientists it took 14 to 17 billion years. I don't know, I wasn't there, nor was anyone else for that matter. By the way, just how long is a day to God? He exists outside of time.
To hear of the so-called,'age of the universe', is a farce at best. I don't care how good you think that your measurements of the backround radiation are, the fact remains is that we are only looking and measuring from our tiny vantage point, we haven't even ventured into interglatic space yet! How bold of a claim for one to even think that we have the smallest grasp on our universe.
Sadly, people will make claims on one side or the other of this argument, when we are still infants in our universal community. Arguments can be made on each side of this topic, both logical, and seemingly irrifutable, but, as we gain more and more knowledge, our picture of what actuallly happened in the begining gets clearer to some and fainter to others.
The belief in God,or Gods, is common throughout mans history, for this reason; we cannot comprehind infinity, or even, just the unknown, to which we attribute these things to the actions, or realms of God.
I believe in God, whole heartedly, and scientifically. I would put fourth this argument; How, with our limited knowledge of our universe, would we be able to prove, or disprove, the existance of a greater being?
Just as our ancestors believed that the world was flat, I believe that some people have already decided that we already understand enough about our environment and existance to explain-away God, and are unable to understand that we are still on a journey of exploration and of learning.
If you don't belive in God, I suggest that you talk to a person that has had a "near death experience", I believe that it will open your eyes to the fact that, there is alot more going on than just what you merely percieve in this reality. I must say though, that , if you so choose not to believe in God, it is your choice, and I respect that. I do not condone the pushing of ones religion on anyone, it is a personal choice. In all honesty, God would want you to believe in him by your own choice, not by any means of pressure or brainwashing.
I believe that we are hear to learn how to love one another, nothing more ,nothing less. How far could mankind go, or achieve if we were to all love one another?




posted on Jul, 31 2007 @ 07:21 AM
link   


Why would he lose his position as pope for not coming down on the side of evolution. More people believe in god then don't.

Although that statement makes no sense, basically what you're saying is that the pope, the highest ranking christian religious leader in the world, is now a conspirator against god? WOW! Thats incredible!
Again, you're saying the pope is afraid of losing his job if he doesn't lie and state evolution is true. Who could/would force the pope to do this?


The same reason teachers and professors get fired for their disbelief and broadcast of disbelief of evolution theory. that is the requirement for most teaching positions.

plus the pope is Catholic, their doctrine state that man can one day be God and thats simply not true according to scripture.



posted on Jul, 31 2007 @ 11:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by mmonty68

I believe in God, whole heartedly, and scientifically. I would put fourth this argument; How, with our limited knowledge of our universe, would we be able to prove, or disprove, the existance of a greater being?


But that's a serious problem. The concept that one needs to disprove God's existence. The burden of proof falls on the believer to prove God's existence. Not the disbeliever to disprove. That's not the way a logical case is built.



posted on Jul, 31 2007 @ 05:20 PM
link   

The same reason teachers and professors get fired for their disbelief and broadcast of disbelief of evolution theory. that is the requirement for most teaching positions.

plus the pope is Catholic, their doctrine state that man can one day be God and thats simply not true according to scripture.


HUH??

So you're saying the pope will get fired for believing in god? That makes NO sense on ANY planet.

I was raised catholic and not once ever was I told that one day I could be god.



posted on Jul, 31 2007 @ 05:25 PM
link   
methusela wrote

6,000 years old? the earths magnetic field shows its less than 30,000.


WRONG AGAIN MY FRIEND.

FROM NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC

Earth's magnetic field has flipped many times over the last billion years, according to the geologic record. But only in the past decade have scientists developed and evolved a computer model to demonstrate how these reversals occur.

"We can see reversals in the rocks, but they don't tell us how it happens," said Gary Glatzmaier, an earth scientist and magnetic field expert at the University of California, Santa Cruz.

Our planet's magnetic field reverses about once every 200,000 years on average. However, the time between reversals is highly variable. The last time Earth's magnetic field flipped was 780,000 years ago, according to the geologic record of Earth's polarity.

The information is captured when molten lava erupts onto Earth's crust and hardens, much in the way that iron filings on a piece of cardboard align themselves to the field of a magnet held beneath it.

Please visit the link provided for the complete story.





posted on Jul, 31 2007 @ 06:25 PM
link   


I was raised catholic and not once ever was I told that one day I could be god.


you want the official doctrine? I can find that for you...

as for the earth reversing its magnetic field. I already told you that it would require change in direction of the flow of magma. its impossible and never happened. the geologic record show signs of strong and weaken magnetic strength, not reversals. and that still doesnt prove anything, the earths magnetic field is still losing its strength... which means it used to be stronger. get that through your head.



posted on Jul, 31 2007 @ 06:53 PM
link   
Although I would like to see the OFFICIAL DOCTRINE, I'm afraid your sources will be as incorrect as they have been so far.

Obviously you just aren't getting this. It's proven. You can say it's not but that only means you're once again wrong.

GET THAT THROUGH YOUR HEAD.

You can say all these scientists are wrong with mountains of proof but it doesn't make them wrong, it makes you brainwashed.

So once again, READ BELOW and hopefully, FINALLY learn something.
This is correct.
You are wrong.
Say it like a chant if you like.


FROM NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC

Earth's magnetic field has flipped many times over the last billion years, according to the geologic record. But only in the past decade have scientists developed and evolved a computer model to demonstrate how these reversals occur.

"We can see reversals in the rocks, but they don't tell us how it happens," said Gary Glatzmaier, an earth scientist and magnetic field expert at the University of California, Santa Cruz.

Our planet's magnetic field reverses about once every 200,000 years on average. However, the time between reversals is highly variable. The last time Earth's magnetic field flipped was 780,000 years ago, according to the geologic record of Earth's polarity.

The information is captured when molten lava erupts onto Earth's crust and hardens, much in the way that iron filings on a piece of cardboard align themselves to the field of a magnet held beneath it.



posted on Jul, 31 2007 @ 06:58 PM
link   

I already told you that it would require change in direction of the flow of magma. its impossible and never happened.


PROVE IT IS IMPOSSIBLE
PROVE THAT A MAGMA FLOW IS REQUIRED

You believe a being which has existed forever, created the universe and everything in it in a week? How impossible is that ?

By the way, why couldn't god have reversed the magma flow? wouldn't it be possible then? All of a sudden the impossible is now possible. So I guess it's not really impossible at all.

If it's not impossible for god to do it, it's possible.

You really need to go to logic school I'm afraid.
You just keep spewing rhetoric without evidence when all around you have provided EVIDENCE.

Unless you're god, that simply doesn't work.



posted on Jul, 31 2007 @ 09:32 PM
link   


PROVE IT IS IMPOSSIBLE
PROVE THAT A MAGMA FLOW IS REQUIRED


well I can see you dont know much about electronics.

THATS HOW INDUCTION WORKS!!!

ask any electronics expert, they will tell you that in if you had an inductor like that of the earth, it would require a change in direction of that which is going around the core in order to reverse poles.

THAT IS PURE SCIENCE.

as for your reference, I will find it, and it actually references the actual doctrine itself, not just a something that was written in a book by a certain group. if you really want it, let me know and I will find it for you.



posted on Jul, 31 2007 @ 11:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Methuselah
can you show me that a monkey can produce a human after a couple generations of breeding


We are not from monkies, we and monkies are from other creatures before. It's all inteligent design if you ask me, but there is evidence either way, Waith for the time machine, then we will know.



posted on Aug, 1 2007 @ 05:31 AM
link   
Definition for Electromagnetic Induction

Faraday and Henry discovered that a voltage can be induced in a conductor which is moving relative to an external magnetic field. A current will flow if a complete circuit is present.

Whenever the magnetic field in the region of a conductor is moving, or changing in magnitude, such that magnetic field lines are moving across the conductor, an electric current is induced in the conductor, if the conductor is part of a complete circuit.

The current induced is a cross product of the directions of movement of the conductor and the magnetic field. The current is proportional to sin theta, where theta is the angle between the direction of the conductor and the direction of the field. The maximum current will be induced when theta = 90° (perpendicular), but will still be produced at other angles, diminishing from a maximum at theta = 90° to 0 for theta = 0°.

Please visit the link provided for the complete story.


Electromagnetic induction results in a temporary change in the external magnetic field. An interaction occurs between the induced field (formed when the current is induced in the conductor) and the inducing field.

Show me how this relates to a magma flow and why a magma flow cannot reverse USING SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE. Simply writing "It's pure science". doesn't cut it.

Lets see equations.



posted on Aug, 1 2007 @ 01:59 PM
link   
"""google it, in just 200 years we increased by 6 billion people. if we have been around for that long... we should have more than 6-7 billions people. we should have like a trillion people. it doesnt fit."""

of course it fits.
-god has always been happy at wiping ppl out! The Flood!! now there's population control for ya!

and 200yrs=6 billion.uhm,don't think so mate




earth is a planet that lives on cycles,the evidence for this is all around us.many cultures believe that the earth destroys itself and creates itself in a never-ending cycle.that is why the flood myth can be found all over the world! evidence for human existance goes back further than most religious ppl are willing to believe.i've heard it said that the caveman theory proves that god doesn't exist.personally i think that yes,there were cave ppl,but not all humans lived like that.look at the diversity of culture,technology and progression in todays world.the distant past could have had a very similar way of life.....well,actually we don't have to go that far back to see something similar.egyptions were light years ahead of those that lived in the british iles.for example.

i've been wondering,why is creationism now called intelligent design? is it a way of making it sound more ligit? less magical,mythical?



posted on Aug, 1 2007 @ 02:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by jakyll

i've been wondering,why is creationism now called intelligent design? is it a way of making it sound more ligit? less magical,mythical?


Exactly. It's to make it sound scientific so that creationists can continue to argue against real science and sound like they know what they're talking about. And not get laughed at.

I still laugh though.




top topics



 
7
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join