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: 13
5
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 6 2008 @ 12:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by Clearskies
reply to post by vox2442
 


Yes, but the flood caused a HUGE change in the plates (possibly)
When some were forced together in the "breakup"
the sediment would have just slid to somewhere else, like the middle of the Canadian shield. Or the outside.


An interesting hypothesis, but it doesn`t fit with the evidence of geology (ie. what you can see by hopping a plane and having a poke around with a shovel)- either with regard to the plate boundaries, or the "middle" of the shield. As for it going to the outside - if we`re talking about water flowing away from the precambrian shield and depositing sediment elsewhere, again, this makes no sense: how would it be possible for a sedimentary layer to attain an elevations 500m higher (1600 feet) or more than land only a few hundred km away?

What you seem to be proposing is that there was a massive earthquake that shifted a layer of sedimentary rock off an area roughly the size of Brazil and deposited it on the rest of the North American continent.

Given that the largest quake in recorded history was a 9.5, and it did nothing even close to that, we`d be talking along the lines of a M25 - and I`m sure Noah would have recorded something along the lines of: "day 250 - a lot of noise and shaking earlier today, followed by a 10,000 metre wave that had us scrambling back into the ark. "




posted on Jan, 6 2008 @ 12:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by mamasita
how do the stars prove god - i think it completely contradicts god and proves the size of the universe and the possibility of more life out there.


There was a book written in the 19th century called The Gospel in the Stars. It was very, very hard to read due to the 19th century English but it was still interesting nonetheless. Many think Biblical story is actually embedded in the constellations and was later perverted through astrology.

This is purely anecdotal but it is said there was a missionary preaching the Gospel to tribes in Africa when they replied, "We know this story. We saw it in the stars but never knew his [Jesus'] name"

I tend to think that story is apocryphal for various reasons but it is interesting how the constellations relate to the story in the Bible. And don't even bring up the possibility Christianity was plagiarized from pagan astrology. There is simply too much to verify New Testament history and personalities to say they were taken from pagan legends.


But simply put, I think the very complexity, size, and order of the universe is a testament to the Divine. I tend to agree with the Psalmist, "The heavens declare the glory of God and the skies proclaim the work of his hands." The vastness and unfathomable amount of mass in the universe along with the precise order is evidence of intelligent designs and placement. Not a big bang and big crunch. And this argument sucks because I'm exhausted and can't think straight so I'm off to bed. Good night everyone.



posted on Jan, 6 2008 @ 12:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by Clearskies
reply to post by mamasita
 

Have you ever heard of the constellations?
I know you have.
Well, they map out the entire gospel!

The Bible in The Constellations

There's a Lot more than that.



hahaha mapping out the entire gospel?! they're billions of dots out there - i bet i could play connect the dots and see my name!



posted on Jan, 6 2008 @ 12:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by mamasita

Originally posted by ppkjjkpp
reply to post by mamasita
 


Do you believe something created life or life created itself for no apparent reason? This is what you need to ask yourself.


Well obviously i believe something created life because life cant create itself if its not already created. this is the definition of life according to dictionary.com - the condition that distinguishes organisms from inorganic objects and dead organisms, being manifested by growth through metabolism, reproduction, and the power of adaptation to environment through changes originating internally.
now what we believe created life doesnt fit in the definition of life - its more the force of life.
now can i ask you how god was created?


This should your answer to how God was created. Easier than me trying to explain it. www.randallniles.com...

Evolution does not state that something created the universe and therefore life. Matter cannot be created therfore the singularity can not be there. In fact evolution doesn't even have an answer for where did the singularity come from.
Also you already stated that 'obviously the frog won't be alive - it's dead'
You contradict evolution here because according to evolution it would become alive. Moreover, evolution states that life created itself.



posted on Jan, 6 2008 @ 12:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by AncientVoid
reply to post by ppkjjkpp
 


.....!?


Wow that statement is so screwed up.

[edit on 6-1-2008 by AncientVoid]


So you are saying that most of the people in the world believe in evolution? Think about it. Not even close.



posted on Jan, 6 2008 @ 12:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by ppkjjkpp
Evolution does not state that something created the universe and therefore life. Matter cannot be created therfore the singularity can not be there.


Then how did 'god create matter?
This is a stupid question. First of all the laws of physics we see today did not apply then, before the Big Bang so yes it could have.


Originally posted by ppkjjkpp
In fact evolution doesn't even have an answer for where did the singularity come from.


Do you seriouly have memory loss or something?


Originally posted by ppkjjkpp
Moreover, evolution states that life created itself.


Love the ignorance your whole post shows



posted on Jan, 6 2008 @ 12:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by ppkjjkpp

Originally posted by AncientVoid
reply to post by ppkjjkpp
 


.....!?


Wow that statement is so screwed up.

[edit on 6-1-2008 by AncientVoid]


So you are saying that most of the people in the world believe in evolution? Think about it. Not even close.


What does that have to do with what i said? I'll expain why your post is so screwed. Just wait


Originally posted by ppkjjkpp
Much evidence has already been posted. Evolutionists have been posting evidence for years and most of the world doesn't believe it because they have contradicting evidence. What seems as evidence to some is not to others. Anyways, just believing that something caused the universe to be made (most of the world) is evidence because your alternative is that the universe created itself for no apparent reason.


Look up definition of evidence!
Are you thick in the head? Why do you keep on repeating 'universe created itself for no apparent reason'?
Your last statement is the most screwed up part, especially the logic. There's infinite other alternative.



[edit on 6-1-2008 by AncientVoid]



posted on Jan, 6 2008 @ 12:30 AM
link   
If everyone here used their logic they would say that something caused the universe to form not that the universe created itself for no apparent reason.

The first choice is for all people thinking clearly.
The latter is for evolutionists.

Prove me wrong.



posted on Jan, 6 2008 @ 12:37 AM
link   
reply to post by ppkjjkpp
 


k i'm not going to continue aguring with you, so pointless when you repeat false information x amount of times and you never learn.



posted on Jan, 6 2008 @ 12:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by AncientVoid

Originally posted by ppkjjkpp

Originally posted by AncientVoid
reply to post by ppkjjkpp
 


.....!?


Wow that statement is so screwed up.

[edit on 6-1-2008 by AncientVoid]


So you are saying that most of the people in the world believe in evolution? Think about it. Not even close.


What does that have to do with what i said? I'll expain why your post is so screwed. Just wait


Originally posted by ppkjjkpp
Much evidence has already been posted. Evolutionists have been posting evidence for years and most of the world doesn't believe it because they have contradicting evidence. What seems as evidence to some is not to others. Anyways, just believing that something caused the universe to be made (most of the world) is evidence because your alternative is that the universe created itself for no apparent reason.


Look up definition of evidence!
Are you thick in the head? Why do you keep on repeating 'universe created itself for no apparent reason'?
Your last statement is the most screwed up part, especially the logic. There's infinite other alternative.



[edit on 6-1-2008 by AncientVoid]


I keep repeating 'universe created itself for no apparent reason' because that is what you believe in, evolution. Why can't you understand that?




[edit on 6-1-2008 by ppkjjkpp]



posted on Jan, 6 2008 @ 12:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by AncientVoid
reply to post by ppkjjkpp
 


k i'm not going to continue aguring with you, so pointless when you repeat false information x amount of times and you never learn.


Explain to me how I am wrong?
According to you, you want me to believe that the singularity from no where just exploded for no reason at all and gave us everything. Do you expect me to believe this?
I believe that something caused the formation of the universe.


[edit on 6-1-2008 by ppkjjkpp]

[edit on 6-1-2008 by ppkjjkpp]

[edit on 6-1-2008 by ppkjjkpp]



posted on Jan, 6 2008 @ 01:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by ppkjjkpp
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.


We leave proving stuff to mathematics. In science we provide evidence to support theories.

Anything can fit creation. Expanding universe? Goddidit! Static universe? Goddidit! Purple and pink spotted universe? Goddidit!

It is a vacuous answer that answers everything and therefore nothing.


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.


You keep trying to equivocate here. Biological evolution stands alone. Cosmic evoluton stands alone.

We are basing biological evolution on evidence. It is a theory.


Subspecies- Example- All the different types of dogs from the species dogs. yes many dogs crossbread but they are still dogs.


Some examples would be nice.

Can you tell me some of the subspecies of the species 'dogs'.

We need to be on the same page with this, with your tendency to consistently equivocate. Cheers.

And, again, can a subspecies and its parent species interbreed? If they can't what does this mean? Are they different species?


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.


Yes, if a dog produced a cat, that would not be biological evolution as we know it.

Now define macroevolution please...

You also never answered my question. What stops a lot of small variations becoming big variations over a long amount of time?

[edit on 6-1-2008 by melatonin]



posted on Jan, 6 2008 @ 01:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by ppkjjkpp
This should your answer to how God was created. Easier than me trying to explain it. www.randallniles.com...

Evolution does not state that something created the universe and therefore life. Matter cannot be created therfore the singularity can not be there. In fact evolution doesn't even have an answer for where did the singularity come from.
Also you already stated that 'obviously the frog won't be alive - it's dead'
You contradict evolution here because according to evolution it would become alive. Moreover, evolution states that life created itself.


no please explain it - i'm at a friends place i'm not going to bore them with a video.

you have completely quoted me wrong - i did not say 'obviously the frog won't be alive - it's dead' is said 'obviously the frog won't EVOLVE its dead' get it right

-------------------------------
Trimmed triple nested quote

please read ABOUT ATS: Warnings for excessive quoting, and how to quote

www.abovetopsecret.com...

[edit on 6/1/08 by masqua]



posted on Jan, 6 2008 @ 01:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by ppkjjkpp
If everyone here used their logic they would say that something caused the universe to form not that the universe created itself for no apparent reason.

The first choice is for all people thinking clearly.
The latter is for evolutionists.

Prove me wrong.


hello have you read the topic of this thread?



posted on Jan, 6 2008 @ 02:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by ppkjjkpp
Explain to me how I am wrong?


OK, I'll try to help. You keep misrepresenting what people are telling you. Someone explains a misrepresentation, then you repeat it as if it was never explained.

For example, no-one is saying that the universe came into being for no reason. Myself I am trying to say that we don't know the reason. That's not the same thing as no reason.

Moreover, you keep equivocating. Language can be a slippery customer. When people generally talk of evolution, they mean biological evolution. But evolution can also be used for the cosmic type.

However, they are two distinct theories and are not dependent on each other. For instance, the universe could have been a static form, always existing. Thus, the big bang would not be relevant. But biological evolution would still stand.

From a different persepective. If for the sake of argument, your god did exist, he could have made the universe with his ACME universator, then allowed abiogenesis and biological evolution to take place naturally. On the other hand, he might have let the universe develop naturally, and created the first life on earth, then let biological evolution take over naturally. Furthermore, he might have let the universe and the first life develop naturally, then decided at some point to create humans for a laugh. Indeed, with such a concept as this god-stuff, we can make any old sh!t up.

So, you need to be careful with the words you use. I have tried to point this out to you, and now I am tending to use 'biological' evolution to denote the theory of evolution as is generally known. It will help a lot if you would read, understand, and also be careful with your use of language.

[edit on 6-1-2008 by melatonin]



posted on Jan, 6 2008 @ 06:39 AM
link   
Just my personal opinion here. I think God created the universe and set it up so that evolution occurs.



posted on Jan, 6 2008 @ 06:57 AM
link   
There is a video on Youtube I saw a while ago which basically explains evolution......

www.youtube.com...

If you didn't understand it before...now you do...

[edit on 6-1-2008 by andre18]



posted on Jan, 6 2008 @ 07:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by Conspiriology

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?

Really? Do I honestly need to paraphrase? OK it means there is tons and tons and tons of evidence to support the theory of evolution.


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.

A law is less then a theory


Some people think that in science, you have a theory, and once it's proven, it becomes a law. That's not how it works. In science, we collect facts, or observations, we use laws to describe them, and a theory to explain them. You don't promote a theory to a law by proving it. A theory never becomes a law.
A theory never becomes a law. In fact, if there was a hierarchy of science, theories would be higher than laws. There is nothing higher, or better, than a theory. Laws describe things, theories explain them.




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.

Well when I see massive amounts of scientific information supporting evolution and you tell me it's wrong, and science can prove it's not wrong, what do you expect?


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.

Perception of reality and actual reality are two completely different things.


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.

There are always extremists.
I do think it should be removed from currency as there is a separation of church in state in the united states.
I think anyone should be able to raise their children to believe anything they want as long as it doesn't harm the children. For example, some religious people refuse medical care for their children and they die when simple medical intervention could have saved their lives.
Satanism is a religion. I don't think human sacrifices are appropriate.
Children should not be raised to hate people because they are not part of their religion. It sometimes ends with suicide bombing.
ETC...



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.

Mounds of scientific evidence says you're wrong. Once you can debunk all that scientific evidence from geologists, geneticists, anthropologists, etc.. let me know. Belief cannot change reality only your perception of it.




[edit on 6-1-2008 by jfj123]



posted on Jan, 6 2008 @ 10:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by mamasita

Originally posted by ppkjjkpp

you have completely quoted me wrong - i did not say 'obviously the frog won't be alive - it's dead' is said 'obviously the frog won't EVOLVE its dead' get it right


Ok, it won't evolve. it still has to be alive to evolve so I essentially said the same thing.



[edit on 6-1-2008 by ppkjjkpp]



posted on Jan, 6 2008 @ 10:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by melatonin

Originally posted by ppkjjkpp
Explain to me how I am wrong?


OK, I'll try to help. You keep misrepresenting what people are telling you. Someone explains a misrepresentation, then you repeat it as if it was never explained.

For example, no-one is saying that the universe came into being for no reason. Myself I am trying to say that we don't know the reason. That's not the same thing as no reason.

Moreover, you keep equivocating. Language can be a slippery customer. When people generally talk of evolution, they mean biological evolution. But evolution can also be used for the cosmic type.

However, they are two distinct theories and are not dependent on each other. For instance, the universe could have been a static form, always existing. Thus, the big bang would not be relevant. But biological evolution would still stand.

From a different persepective. If for the sake of argument, your god did exist, he could have made the universe with his ACME universator, then allowed abiogenesis and biological evolution to take place naturally. On the other hand, he might have let the universe develop naturally, and created the first life on earth, then let biological evolution take over naturally. Furthermore, he might have let the universe and the first life develop naturally, then decided at some point to create humans for a laugh. Indeed, with such a concept as this god-stuff, we can make any old sh!t up.

So, you need to be careful with the words you use. I have tried to point this out to you, and now I am tending to use 'biological' evolution to denote the theory of evolution as is generally known. It will help a lot if you would read, understand, and also be careful with your use of language.

[edit on 6-1-2008 by melatonin]


So you are saying that the universe came into being for an unknown reason and therefore base the rest of evolution, at least up to biology, on that unknown. So the only thing you actually know is biologcal evolution, more specifically microevolution. Again no macroevolutionary changes have ever been observed. The theory you mentioned, that the singularity has always existed is supernatural and pure belief. Everyone knows that there was a beginning. Only the supernatural is not limited by time, ie God. Therefore it is more logical to believe that God always existed, unlimited by time, then to believe that a singularity always existed unlimited by time. My point is that something did it or it did itself.
Also if you say cosmic evolution and biological evolution are not related than where did the Earth come from, to form the first cell?




top topics



 
5
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join