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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
Originally posted by AncientVoid
reply to post by ppkjjkpp
.....!?
Wow that statement is so screwed up.
[edit on 6-1-2008 by AncientVoid]
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.
Originally posted by ppkjjkpp
In fact evolution doesn't even have an answer for where did the singularity come from.
Originally posted by ppkjjkpp
Moreover, evolution states that life created itself.
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.
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.
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]
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Originally posted by ppkjjkpp
Explain to me how I am wrong?
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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]
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]