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: 11
5
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 5 2008 @ 10:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by melatonin

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]


You continue to say there is evidence for the Big Bang. What is it? Before you answer think about if this evidence has actually been observed and tested through scientific method.
I meant to say mainstream science can't explain where the singularity came from. The general idea is that it was just there but remember that matter cannot be created so it can't 'just be there'. If it didn't come from nothing where did it come from?
Microevolution-'Evolution resulting from a succession of relatively small genetic variations that often cause the formation of new subspecies.'




posted on Jan, 5 2008 @ 10:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by AncientVoid

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?


So if it didn't come from nothing, where did it come from? Remember that matter can't be created. Everyone agrees that there was a beginning. Your source states that we don't know where the singularity came from and uses the phrase 'thought to be...' numerous times. It seems like it is basing evolution on thoughts and unknowns.

[edit on 5-1-2008 by ppkjjkpp]



posted on Jan, 5 2008 @ 10:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by ppkjjkpp
reply to post by melatonin
 


My point was not to say ‘we don’t know’ if it was random chance, my point was to say random chance is the driving force of evolution until you can prove otherwise, which you can’t.


of course life is a random chance - it was random that we are at the right distance from the sun to keep warm random chance we have jupiter in the way to block us from meteorites and astroids and random chance that life was sparked.


If I blended a frog up and left it outside somewhere so it can be hit by radiation, the sun, lightning or however evolution explains it, for billions of years would it turn into a frog? No because it’s impossible.


of course the frog wouldnt evolve - its dead!
you might want to find out how life was started - they've replicated the process in labs for many years now creating life - how do you think the mary got the story for frankenstein? another scientest creating life - oh i'm sorry didnt you know "god" wasnt the only one who could do that?


Everybody uses faith to fill in a gap at some point, even the greatest scientists.


you might use faith to fill in the gaps. i for one admit i dont know how something has happened if i cant prove it


There’s no evidence that the Big Bang happened.


apparently theres no evidence to support creationism!


This is what I wanted you to see.

"Now let us examine the possibility of the spontaneous formation of protein
molecules from a non-living system. We may assume, for purposes of argument,
that, in the course of chemical evolution, there had already come into
existence a mixture containing a great quantity of various amino acids. As
we have seen, the free energy change for formation of the peptide bond is
such that, at equilibrium, about one percent of the amino acids would be
joined together as dipeptides, granting the presence of appropriate
catalysts.. The cances of forming tripeptides would be about one hundredth
that of forming dipeptides, and the probability of forming a polypeptide of
of only ten amino acids as units would be something like 10^-20. The
spontaneous formation of a polypeptide of the size of the smallest known
proteins seems beyond all probability."~Harold Blum, Time's Arrow and
Evolution (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1955) cited by
A.E.Wilder-Smith Man's origin, Man's Destiny, (Wheaton: Harold Shaw
Publishers, 1968), p. 60.


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]

[edit on 5-1-2008 by ppkjjkpp]


of course chances are slim - thats why it took literally a billion years to eventually spark life.



posted on Jan, 5 2008 @ 10:20 PM
link   
reply to post by ppkjjkpp
 


The Big Bang is the expanding(not explosion) of the singularity thus creating the universe. We don't know where or how that singularity came about but that's another topic not relating to how the universe was formed.

[edit on 5-1-2008 by AncientVoid]



posted on Jan, 5 2008 @ 10:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by ppkjjkpp
You continue to say there is evidence for the Big Bang. What is it? Before you answer think about if this evidence has actually been observed and tested through scientific method.


Here's a primer from the CERN website. I think it's likely that the big-bang is part of a bigger more detailed theory.


I meant to say mainstream science can't explain where the singularity came from. The general idea is that it was just there but remember that matter cannot be created so it can't 'just be there'. If it didn't come from nothing where did it come from?


We are in the realm of hypothesis now, but there are many ideas. I actually like the cyclic theories, but that's purely an opinion. There are a few good testable hypotheses using such cyclic universe ideas (e.g., Turok & Steinhardt). And the big-bang is likely just a part of such a bigger theory to come.

They should be able to be tested very soon.


Microevolution-'Evolution resulting from a succession of relatively small genetic variations that often cause the formation of new subspecies.'


But not species? And what is a subspecies? Can it mate with its parent species?

What would stop the succession of small genetic variations becoming big variations over big periods of time?

[edit on 5-1-2008 by melatonin]



posted on Jan, 5 2008 @ 10:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by AncientVoid
reply to post by ppkjjkpp
 


The Big Bang is the expanding(not explosion) of the singularity thus creating the universe. We don't know where or how that singularity came about but that's another topic not relating to how the universe was formed.

[edit on 5-1-2008 by AncientVoid]


So your essentially basing evolution on unknowns?



posted on Jan, 5 2008 @ 10:28 PM
link   
reply to post by jfj123
 



or even better when they push their beliefs onto others and criticise everyone else and they cant even answer logic let alone question themselves
do you know the difference between a religion and a cult by legal definition is the tax status?!



posted on Jan, 5 2008 @ 10:31 PM
link   
reply to post by ppkjjkpp
 


Like i said, where the singularity came from is another unrelated topic and i don't get why or how that is related to evolution.

reply to post by jfj123
 



Edit: Spelling
[edit on 5-1-2008 by AncientVoid]

[edit on 5-1-2008 by AncientVoid]

[edit on 5-1-2008 by AncientVoid]



posted on Jan, 5 2008 @ 10:37 PM
link   
I made a new post because I kind of got bumped out of the topic but what if evolution is actually verification of the Genesis creation account and not a contradiction of it? Check out the link for a possible (literal?) interpretation. Maybe there is proof of creationism after all as the O.P requests.



posted on Jan, 5 2008 @ 10:41 PM
link   



This is why there is absolutely no logic or reason to support or believe in evolution at all. It is so unprovable and impossible. Rather, a Creator as the source is reasonable. A source that exists outside of this universe yet the universe exists beause of the Creator. A Creator that is not made of energy, or matter, but spirit. The physical from the spiritual.


oh yes ignorance is bliss. dont go eating the fruit of knowledge now!



posted on Jan, 5 2008 @ 10:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by melatonin

Originally posted by ppkjjkpp
You continue to say there is evidence for the Big Bang. What is it? Before you answer think about if this evidence has actually been observed and tested through scientific method.


Here's a primer from the CERN website. I think it's likely that the big-bang is part of a bigger more detailed theory.


I meant to say mainstream science can't explain where the singularity came from. The general idea is that it was just there but remember that matter cannot be created so it can't 'just be there'. If it didn't come from nothing where did it come from?


We are in the realm of hypothesis now, but there are many ideas. I actually like the cyclic theories, but that's purely an opinion. There are a few good testable hypotheses using such cyclic universe ideas (e.g., Turok & Steinhardt). And the big-bang is likely just a part of such a bigger theory to come.

They should be able to be tested very soon.


Microevolution-'Evolution resulting from a succession of relatively small genetic variations that often cause the formation of new subspecies.'


But not species? And what is a subspecies? Can it mate with its parent species?

What would stop the succession of small genetic variations becoming big variations over big periods of time?

[edit on 5-1-2008 by melatonin]


So basically what you are saying is the Big Bang is an unproven theory. All the evidence you gave could fit in to creation ie the universe is expanding, microwaves. The fact that light would have taken billions of years to reach earth is not very compelling because if God created the Earth, he wouldn't have waited billions of years for light to reach the Earth. These are just facts that could fit into both evolution and creation.
Your general point is that you don't know where the singularity came from as of 'yet'. If this is true then you are basing evolution, on theory and hypothesis.
Subspecies- Example- All the different types of dogs from the species dogs. yes many dogs crossbread but they are still dogs.
All dogs have 78 chromosomes. All humans have 46. Any other number is usually lethal or leads to a gentic disorder. Besides this, macroevolution has never been observed and therefore not science. Dogs produce dogs, nothing else.



posted on Jan, 5 2008 @ 10:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by AncientVoid
reply to post by ppkjjkpp
 


Like i said, where the singularity came from is another unrelated topic and i don't get why or how that is related to evolution.

reply to post by jfj123
 



Edit: Spelling
[edit on 5-1-2008 by AncientVoid]

[edit on 5-1-2008 by AncientVoid]

[edit on 5-1-2008 by AncientVoid]


The Big Bang is the basis of the theory of evolution. Be specific what type of evolution are you referring to?



posted on Jan, 5 2008 @ 10:54 PM
link   

There were never any dinosaurs.


Maybe I don't get out often enough but who in the world denies the existence of the dinosaurs? Not only do I believe they existed, I believe they were cohabitants with man. Job, the oldest book of the Bible, mentions a beast with "a tail like a cedar." Some say this is a hippo, elephant, or rhino but everyone knows they have little stubs for tails.

But our evidence is greater than this single verse in the Bible. Remember, and this is very important, Paleontology originated in the 18th/19th century. Many, many depictions of dinosaurs turned up in ancient artwork. Prior to the 19th century, these depictions were believed to be mythological creatures of these pagan religions.

So no, I do not believe dinosaurs preceded humans by tens of millions of years.

[edit on 1/5/2008 by AshleyD]

i too have heard about christians denying the existence of dinosaurs many of times - some even claiming the bones dug up were caused by animals with athritis! true - someone gave my mother an actual catalogue on the subject.
can i ask a question pertaining to dinosaurs and humans co-existing?
then why havent any dinosaur bones and all other extinct animals been unearthed in this timeline? why do we do dating on the bones and they affirm that dinosaurs existed 100 million yrs ago and humans 100 thousand yrs ago? this is what we call evidence to support a theory and lack of evidence to support a faith



posted on Jan, 5 2008 @ 10:54 PM
link   
reply to post by ppkjjkpp
 


......

I'm not even going to bother with your last comment (the one with Big Bang proof), as i can see you don't read previous posts properly or don't seem to realise what your talking about.


Originally posted by ppkjjkpp
The Big Bang is the basis of the theory of evolution. Be specific what type of evolution are you referring to?


What does the singularity and where it came from have to do with it?

Also on another note: This is a creationism thread and not about Big Bang.

[edit on 5-1-2008 by AncientVoid]

[edit on 5-1-2008 by AncientVoid]



posted on Jan, 5 2008 @ 11:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by AshleyD
But also, just like I have my doubts the earth is only 6,000 years old (due to the original Hebrew of the Bible) I also don't believe our universe is billions of years old either. The laws of physics state our universe is entropic. We already know the sun's energy is decreasing, the speed of light has deteriorated in the 150 years we have been measuring it, etc.

At the sun's rate of entropy, it would be a lot smaller than it is now if it was billions of years old as evolution asserts. At this rate of entropy, the sun should either have burned our ancestors to a crisp or have shrunken in size by our time to not be capable of supporting life on earth. And if the speed of light is decreasing as has been proven, it didn't take quite as long for the light from a distant star to reach us as previously believed. This is the laws of physics we're talking about- not spiritual mumbo jumbo.

[edit on 1/5/2008 by AshleyD]


actually the sun is getting hotter and will remain to do so till it reaches it's peak. it is still only very young
they're just researching the sun now - you should check it out on nasa.



posted on Jan, 5 2008 @ 11:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by mamasita

Originally posted by ppkjjkpp
reply to post by melatonin
 


My point was not to say ‘we don’t know’ if it was random chance, my point was to say random chance is the driving force of evolution until you can prove otherwise, which you can’t.
of course life is a random chance - it was random that we are at the right distance from the sun to keep warm random chance we have jupiter in the way to block us from meteorites and astroids and random chance that life was sparked.


Very wishful theory. Ask any mathematician what the chances are.


If I blended a frog up and left it outside somewhere so it can be hit by radiation, the sun, lightning or however evolution explains it, for billions of years would it turn into a frog? No because it’s impossible.

of course the frog wouldnt evolve - its dead!


That is my point, dead things can't form life. And yet you argue that chemical soup (dead) can form a simple cell (alive). The blended frog is much more probable to form life than chemical soup as stated in the theory of evolution because you already have proteins.



posted on Jan, 5 2008 @ 11:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by AshleyD
Again, who can say God didn't use cellular mitosis to create Eve out of Adam's rib? Why on earth would He use a part of Adam to create Eve instead of making her appear? Why is the creation of plants -> animals -> humans in the Bible consistent with the evolutionary theory of plants -> animals -> humans? Intelligently programmed coding?

We are told God "breathed the breath of life" into animals and humans. Did He develop one from the cells of another then give it life? We're we intelligently encoded this way?

This would mesh with Darwin's theistic beliefs and answer the question that puzzles evolutionists: how did inorganic matter convert to organic matter? How did the consciousness of life come to be?

This would explain why God used Adam to make Eve. This would explain the order of creation and its similarity between evolution. The Bible already refers to genetic mutations in terms of degeneration that can be verified in a lab. It would also answer some of the complexity and order questions. Maybe its not an issue of either or but both!

It certainly seems the Bible endorses some concepts of evolution. Could this be more advanced scientific knowledge in the Bible? Don't dismiss it right away. Reading between the lines, this seems this is exactly what is going on.


yet another example of stories changing to fit evidence



posted on Jan, 5 2008 @ 11:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by ppkjjkpp
That is my point, dead things can't form life.


So 'god' is alive then?



posted on Jan, 5 2008 @ 11:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by AncientVoid
reply to post by ppkjjkpp
 


......

I'm not even going to bother with your last comment (the one with Big Bang proof), as i can see you don't read previous posts properly or don't seem to realise what your talking about.


Originally posted by ppkjjkpp
The Big Bang is the basis of the theory of evolution. Be specific what type of evolution are you referring to?


What does the singularity and where it came from have to do with it?

Also on another note: This is a creationism thread and not about Big Bang.

[edit on 5-1-2008 by AncientVoid]

[edit on 5-1-2008 by AncientVoid]


Once again could you be specific in telling me what I don't understand.

The Big Bang has not been observed and proved scientifically as I pointed out. Do you agree it is a just a theory?

There is a lot of evidence for creation but you are no opening up your eyes to see it. I'm trying to figure out what you believe first so I can help take the shades off.



posted on Jan, 5 2008 @ 11:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by AncientVoid

Originally posted by ppkjjkpp
That is my point, dead things can't form life.


So 'god' is alive then?


All I stated was a true scientific fact that has been observed and proven. I didn't mention anyting about God at this point in the argument. Before I answer this, do you agree that something created the world or do you still believe it created itself for no apparent reason?



new topics

top topics



 
5
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join