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.

 

creationism, where is the evidence???!!! i see none

page: 10
5
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 5 2008 @ 03:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by Conspiriology
Ahh mel you are very welcome my astute opponent. Sorry the slant on the last post, you understand I just get rather disgusted by posts like that.

I have to ask,, you mean you have never read anyone other then Dawkins? I mean is that your favorite because? or do you really think he is of the same calibre science as Royal Truman or Hawkings?


I've read tonnes of science books. I sort of need to, indeed I am sitting next to a pile that would a few foot high.

I think Dawkins' scientific credentials are good enough. And I think they easily outweigh those of an organic chemist and a cosmologist on the issue of evolutionary biology.


I can show you on Dawkins own website his refusal to discuss this very topic. When I see statements like "religion" is a parasite on science,, I just don't see the point. Would you?


A link would be good, I'm not sure what this Dawkins bit refers to.

Don't take my colourful language so seriously. What I mean is that many of the theists in science take the scientific position which is evidence-based reason, then place faith-based beliefs on top, like a little synthetic cherry on a cake. It must take some compartmentalising.


I usually respond in kind and when mutual respect is given I will stay for the debate. O by the way,, I read your thread you made linked to your sig. You got a pretty clever wit when responding to some of them, had me cracking up.


Heh, I'm confused. What thread?

Yeah, I try to be humourously bittersweet, but I actually think we would get on well enough in real life. I don't take these debates seriously, just to pass time between stuff. I'm stuck marking undergrad projects at the moment, so I need all the laughs I can get.

You should ignore most of my more colourful remarks. For instance, if I call your god a sky-daddy it isn't meant to hurt you any, just my way with words.


I don't know who "Dembski" is and I have no idea what you mean saying what is falsefiable. I think I have a very good grasp of falsefiability and I am not aware of tests where your post has a referance?

Always good to hear from you mel whether we agree or not

- Con


Well, this is the thing. I do respect your right to have these beliefs. And I respect almost all the users on this site (there's a couple that have really infuriated me though, heh), and people in general. So, I'm easy on agreeing to disagree. I wouldn't want anyone to change their position to satisfy me. All just something to do between stuff - mortigo tempo




posted on Jan, 5 2008 @ 03:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123



Might I bring your attention to the following portion of the definition:
"It's as close to proven as anything in science can be."


Nice try,, but how close is that and to what?





No that is not what I'm saying. I'm saying that people are misusing the word and it can be sometimes ironically amusing
A more appropriate word would be hypothesis or idea.


Ahh I see,, well then, I stand corrected


Unless you add another qualifier to make the verbal distinction that they agree to it's "correctness" , they are merely reminding you what it is.

A scientific theory is a scientific theory. Misusing the phrase doesn't change it's definition.

He didn't misuse it, you assume he didn't understand it. To suggest that something has many documents by those who support explanations of scientific observation is far from making exhalting it to the level of the laws of evolution if I may use the word law to imply the same difficulty one would have debunking the laws of physics or gravity watching an apple fall UP instead of down.



My point is that if people can't understand what their argument comprises, how can they understand whether it's valid or not?


I agree and welcome to my world

To those who are blind, we can scientifically explain how color is created by varying wavelengths of light and how those wavelengths are detected by the optic nerve and interpreted by the brain etc , but we can't tell them what colors look like or say this is blue and expect them to pick blue out of a crayola box.

To those who are deaf, we can scientifically explain how sound waves are made and picked up by the ear , but we can't explain what music sounds like.

It is no different with the spiritually blind or deaf. We can try to explain but we can't make a non-believer recognize the truth that has become obvious to us.

No one can transfer a perception to another, all we really can do is remove the intellectual or spiritual barriers that allow people to remain blind to that truth.

It isn't that I am incapable of seeing truth my obstinacy wouldn't allow me to see it. I was too full of myself and too blinded by what I thought were logically sound arguments to see that which was right under my nose. Just as God can be perceived,

He can also be shut out.

I don't know how else to say it.



Well I think most people would agree that someone can live as a non-atheist.
Yes I do




You're making way too much out of this. Atheists don't hate god, they simply don't believe in the entity.



Really? I can say just as easily their are many that do and many more with an agenda to have the mere mention of the word removed from currency and pledges. Some calling it a form of child abuse to teach this God to our children. Dawkins own site has an essay about how Faith itself is what killed Benazir Bhutto.



Again, evolution has not been debunked. You may need to believe this but it doesn't make it any more true.


Yes it has been and I never said my opinion makes it true,, unless that was some subtle ad hom.




Evolution may not be taught if we fall back into the dark ages where people are pursecuted for believing that our planet revolves around the sun and is not the center of the universe.



Oh I think their are much more directions to take that rather then using reverse as the one and only alternative. I agree with your statement, I just don't see that as the result.

To be honest, I don't care what anyone believes as long as it doesn't hurt anyone else.

Denying the truth of evolution hurts others.

I am only denying it is a truth, I could care less who wants to believe it. That's their business and in that regard you would have me right with you. I see denying someones right to research that as I would freedom of religion. We have many areas we share common ground and I realize what you are trying to say. It goes both ways.

- Con








[edit on 5-1-2008 by Conspiriology]



posted on Jan, 5 2008 @ 03:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by melatonin
If it did, then great. But it didn't. You are using the bible like a rorschach blot.


Are you sure? The Bible mentions many medical and social instructions as well as scientific matters previously thought to be insane before science confirmed them.

For instance, insisting a foreigner shave their head before being allowed to enter Jewish society. Why is this? This is nonsense. To prohibit the spread of lice. Why were diseased people separated from the camp and told to douse themselves in water and herbs before they could return? If only the Europeans had done this maybe we wouldn't have had the bubonic plague. Quarantine, bathing, and herbal germicides.

Why did the Jews have to leave the camp when they had to go to the bathroom... then either bury or burn their excrement. Nasty! Who wants to go to all that trouble? If only the Europeans had done this instead of having open sewer lines running through the city (which still exist today in historical quarters but of course are no longer in use).

Why did Genesis mention the division of the continents? They didn't have satellite imaging and evolution states "Pangaea" was divided 250 million years before intelligent humans made their appearance. And along this line, we can still see the effects of continental division looking at a map. If this had occurred 250 million years ago, we would expect to see more signs of of erosion (compounded by the increase of ocean levels secular science asserts and continental drift) to where things would not have fit together so perfectly as we can see.

How did Job, Solomon, and Jeremiah, understand the hydrological cycle so well? This was considered poetic nonsense until the hydrological cycle was confirmed. Precipitation, evaporation, cloud formation, etc.

Compare the act of bleeding a patient in the middle ages and the belief it was beneficial to the patient (but instead often killed them) when the Bible says our life (health, vitality?) is in our blood. Our immune system cannot function properly to ward off infection with inadequate amounts of blood.

Why were the Jews so insane about washing hands before eating, showering regularly, and burning metal for purification but destroying infected wood? Sanitation and human hygiene. Many claim the Jews simply ripped off the laws of the Egyptians or Babylonians but do some research and see what their medical treatments consisted of. It was madness (one example is rubbing animal excrement and crushed insects into wounds. Can we say septic shock?).

The Bible even says follow these laws and these diseases that affect other cultures will not affect you. The principles behind these "idiotic" laws were confirmed by science only centuries ago.

And these are just the few examples I can think of off the top of my head- there are many more. As we discussed in the other thread, the Bible is mostly silent on scientific matters due to it being religious in its theme but that doesn't mean it is wholly silent.


We went over this in t'other thread, genesis is wrong in many ways.


And I believe I rebutted your argument using secular and internal Biblical evidence. What we are also discussing in this topic brings up new perspectives as well.


Well, how old then? You just appear to be taking a middle ground for the fun of it.


No, I'm taking the middle road because both sides of the spectrum make no sense to me in light of the evidence.


Saying YEC is wrong, but so is science. Why is it an issue? Why can't the earth be billions of years old


Sure. It could be trillions of years old for all I care. I don't think it would challenge theism. The same with a 6,000 year old earth. But again, taking the evidence collectively, a mutli-billion year old age is nonsense in my opinion. Completely separated from theology because I don't think the age of the earth is relative to a Creator. I'm saying it doesn't make sense due to collective scientific laws and the constant flux of age measurements. Theology is completely set aside.


It is strongly supported by what we know, and it doesn't kill your golden theistic goose - you can murmur amen if you like, it want stop you.


Exactly. Six thousand or six billion doesn't matter in terms of God's existence. But no, all of science does not support billions of years unequivocally as many methods of measurements contradict each other. HERE is a menu of dozens of articles that provide evidence to negate both theories. Not absolute proof, but enough information to plant a seed of doubt.

[edit on 1/5/2008 by AshleyD]



posted on Jan, 5 2008 @ 04:09 PM
link   
Yes I have where one science in astronomy cancels another in biology and vice versa. Stephen Hawkings says he can prove time was created

www.cosmicfingerprints.com...

as an example

- Love Con

hehe



posted on Jan, 5 2008 @ 04:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by ppkjjkpp
I don’t decide who’s a Christian or not. In the end God does. If you read the Bible you would know this.

[edit on 5-1-2008 by ppkjjkpp]


Depends on whether or not you're a Calvinist...I personally choose to think it doesn't matter as our mission as Christians is to still be salt and light unto the world, and spread the Gospel of Jesus Christ.



posted on Jan, 5 2008 @ 04:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by AshleyD
Are you sure? The Bible mentions many medical and social instructions as well as scientific matters previously thought to be insane before science confirmed them.


And many old-wives tales also contain an element of truth and insight. Eating carrots helps you see in the dark etc etc (they don't, but can help protect against eye diseases).

None of this really validates that this is some sort of divine truth, just that we are all folk scientists to a degree. We have likely been learning and testing ideas since the dawn of mankind. I don't doubt the bible contains the wisdom of people learned from experience over time.

It also contains rubbish like not mixing cloths of two fabrics and not eating creepy things. People in some parts of the world need this source of protein.


And I believe I rebutted your argument using secular and internal Biblical evidence. What we are also discussing in this topic brings up new perspectives as well.


Eh? You showed that birds preceded land animals and seed- and fruit-bearing plants preceded animals?

Don't think so.


I'm saying it doesn't make sense due to collective scientific laws and the constant flux of age measurements.


Yup, the more we have looked, the older it has old got.

The evidence for a billion old earth and universe is pretty solid.


HERE is a menu of dozens of articles that provide evidence to negate both theories. Not infallible, but enough information to place a seed of doubt according to the scientific methods of age testing.


It's just some random site containing rubbish like the Ica stones, more canards from the engineer, Do-While Jones.

I have numerous posts about excellent correlated dates provided by the various methods of dating, if I get time, I'll dig them up for you.

[edit on 5-1-2008 by melatonin]



posted on Jan, 5 2008 @ 04:57 PM
link   
reply to post by melatonin
 


We all agree that the universe had a beginning. Basically, there is only two choices it comes down to. Either the world created itself from nothing for no apparent reason all of a sudden (the Big Bang) or something did it. Evolution scientists say all of a sudden space, matter, time, energy came from the Big Bang and the world created itself. Only difference between creationists is they say God created the world from nothing.
Enjoy randallniles.com...



posted on Jan, 5 2008 @ 05:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by joesomebody

Originally posted by ppkjjkpp
I don’t decide who’s a Christian or not. In the end God does. If you read the Bible you would know this.

[edit on 5-1-2008 by ppkjjkpp]


Depends on whether or not you're a Calvinist...I personally choose to think it doesn't matter as our mission as Christians is to still be salt and light unto the world, and spread the Gospel of Jesus Christ.


I'm not sure what you mean. I meant to say that only God knows our hearts. I agree that Christians are here to spread the Word.



posted on Jan, 5 2008 @ 05:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by ppkjjkpp
Enjoy randallniles.com...


I'll pass on that one, the others were bad enough, heh.

But, yeah, you say tomayto, and I say tomato. You have a final unmovable conclusion without evidence, and I have made a tentative inference due to lack of evidence.

[edit on 5-1-2008 by melatonin]



posted on Jan, 5 2008 @ 05:08 PM
link   
Creation is simply one good idea repeated endlessly with only minute differences. Get out you dictionary, check out microcosm, cosm, macrocosm (they are sizes that creation) comes in. Dimensions are the consistancies of creations. Your blindness to creation must mean that you are not a creative person or you don't realize that creation is an ongoing event and that it is expected that you participate. The Bible is not the complete history of creation, it is just a short story and believe it or not the best chapters were left out. I personally think it was done on purpose because Adam and Eve did not need a church, even after they were evicted from Eden. Consider this, aliens have a God too.



posted on Jan, 5 2008 @ 07:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by ppkjjkpp
We all agree that the universe had a beginning. Basically, there is only two choices it comes down to. Either the world created itself from nothing for no apparent reason all of a sudden (the Big Bang) or something did it. Evolution scientists say all of a sudden space, matter, time, energy came from the Big Bang and the world created itself. Only difference between creationists is they say God created the world from nothing.
Enjoy randallniles.com...


I think you should do some research about the Big Bang before you include it in your argument.
Flaw: The Big Bang wasn't from 'nothng' and also the 'reason' is unknown. The worlds didn't create themself, the laws of physics did.

Also there's another difference. There's proof of the Big Bang while there's none for creationists.

[edit on 5-1-2008 by AncientVoid]



posted on Jan, 5 2008 @ 08:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by AncientVoid

Originally posted by ppkjjkpp
We all agree that the universe had a beginning. Basically, there is only two choices it comes down to. Either the world created itself from nothing for no apparent reason all of a sudden (the Big Bang) or something did it. Evolution scientists say all of a sudden space, matter, time, energy came from the Big Bang and the world created itself. Only difference between creationists is they say God created the world from nothing.
Enjoy randallniles.com...


I think you should do some research about the Big Bang before you include it in your argument.
Flaw: The Big Bang wasn't from 'nothng' and also the 'reason' is unknown. The worlds didn't create themself, the laws of physics did.

[edit on 5-1-2008 by AncientVoid]


Who created the laws of physics? They simply don't "just exist." Who enforces the laws of physics?



posted on Jan, 5 2008 @ 08:45 PM
link   
reply to post by joesomebody
 


Scientist just know that everything in this universe came from the Big Bang but they don't pretend to know where the singularity came from.

Now i'll ask you this. What/who created god, since you guys don't need proof you should know the answer.



posted on Jan, 5 2008 @ 08:52 PM
link   
God is a self perpetuating all-powerful spirit being. All things come from Him, nothing would exist without Him. He in a sense causes His own being.



posted on Jan, 5 2008 @ 09:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by joesomebody
Who created the laws of physics? They simply don't "just exist." Who enforces the laws of physics?


The universe fairy?

Ok, seriously, don't you think you've sort of biased the question a bit by using 'who'? Why not just 'what'?

The answer is actually 'we don't know'.

Don't be scared, not knowing the answer is no great crime. Embrace ambiguity.



posted on Jan, 5 2008 @ 09:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by melatonin

Originally posted by ppkjjkpp
Enjoy randallniles.com...


I'll pass on that one, the others were bad enough, heh.

But, yeah, you say tomayto, and I say tomato. You have a final unmovable conclusion without evidence, and I have made a tentative inference due to lack of evidence.

[edit on 5-1-2008 by melatonin]
'

You have no evidence that the big bang happened or don't know where the singularity came from and don't know why it exploded. You say that the big bang came from nothing. I say the universe came from God.
Also the only part of evolution we have observed is microevolution which no one has a problem with.



posted on Jan, 5 2008 @ 09:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by ppkjjkpp
You have no evidence that the big bang happened or don't know where the singularity came from and don't know why it exploded.


OK, the first bit is wrong - of course we have evidence. However, 2 and 3 are correct.


You say that the big bang came from nothing. I say the universe came from God.


But this is incongruent with your last statement. You said before that we didn't know where the singularity came from, that's true, but therefore the big-bang didn't come from nothing. It came from something.


Also the only part of evolution we have observed is microevolution which no one has a problem with.


OK, define microevolution for me.

[edit on 5-1-2008 by melatonin]



posted on Jan, 5 2008 @ 09:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by Fromabove

Originally posted by mamasita
there are so many posts about creationist debunking evolution - but they never actually back up their beliefs with evidence.
I am curious - wat evidence besides the bible actually exists regarding creationism?



Let us say that you are in a house. Someone says to you that the house was created by someone called Gawd. You say, "but where's the evidence", and he says to you, "We have the house.. the house didn't just come from nothing.." And you say, "But I can't see this Gawd person.." and he then says, " This is true, but we know that an intelligence has built it and set it into order... so the builder was intelligent... we shall call Gawd Intelligent Design instead of by his name.." and you say, "yet for all that, if I can't see him, I won't belive... I will believe in evolution and say that in the process of time the house improved and modified as it needed to adapt to weather changes and climate and went from a hay shack to a bungalo, to the mansion we see here..." Then he will simply sigh and walk away because you cannot say that a picture needs a painter, and a house needs a builder, and a universe needs a Creator.


hahaha now you tell me if you really went to a mansion and asked who it belonged to and the owners told you it is a creation of "gawd" and it really was a hayshack but evolved into this mansion - would you believe it? i wouldnt! and what happens when you find evidence of building tools lying around the yard?
thanks but i'm not that gullible.



posted on Jan, 5 2008 @ 10:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by joesomebody
Analogy: To most, seeing is believing...seeing something and witnessing it first hand produces iron clad faith. You see someone build a house. You then know that that house was built by a person. The next house you see will be in your assumption to have been built by a man. What if a robot built the house? In that sense your faith is flawed.


if we don't see the house being built then we use commonsense and evidence to figure out how the house was built



In my faith, I believe that God created the heavens (the universe), earth, and everything else we know. I don't know what God the Father is, except that he is the original spiritual being, but I know He exists. You can see His signature upon all of His work. When one examines subatomic particles and their design, or the complexity of a living cell and it's resemblance to a mechanical motor, one can only conclude that an intelligent Creator made it. No random event could in one explosion could create such a complex order, from the very smallest atom to the largest heavenly body.


creationist always ask how the universe was created - which is so enormous the possibility of life is huge - however i'd like to know how the "creator" was created seeing as this question is so popular



posted on Jan, 5 2008 @ 10:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by ppkjjkpp
You have no evidence that the big bang happened or don't know where the singularity came from and don't know why it exploded. You say that the big bang came from nothing. I say the universe came from God.
Also the only part of evolution we have observed is microevolution which no one has a problem with.


You need to read this

As metioned above, there is evidence and it didn't come from nothing. Not knowing where the singularity came from does not relate to how the universe was formed. You can say that the universe came from 'god' but it's kind of unless without evidence. Why are you using the point there's no evidence of the Big Bang (which is wrong) when 'universe came from god' has no evidence?




top topics



 
5
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join