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: 17
5
<< 14  15  16    18  19  20 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 15 2008 @ 11:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
Version A is from Genesis 1:1-2:3

Version B is from Genesis 2:4-25


I have answered this question on possibly four separate threads already. I'm starting to get scared I'll be accused of spamming ATS since the same question keeps coming up again and again.
Allow me to paste it here one last time:

You're possibly referring to the typological order in Genesis 2. Since I already answered this in another thread, allow me to copy and paste from another one of my comments on ATS about the alleged contradiction between Genesis 1 and 2:

When reading Genesis 1 and 2 in the original Hebrew, it becomes self explanatory.

Genesis 1 Chronological Order of Creation:
-Light and darkness
-The heavens, and water
-Dry ground, oceans, and seas
-Vegetation of all kinds
-Sun, moon, and stars
-Animals, birds, and fish
-Humans

Genesis 2 Topological Rehash and Detailed Version of Man's Creation:
-Verses 1 and 2: Gives a rehash saying all things were at this point created.
-Verse 4: Shows the earth, sky, planets, land, and oceans were already created.
-Verse 5: Shows that vegetation came after the creation of verse 4.
-Also verse 5: Shows that man again came after all of the above steps and that the water God sent tended to the plants because man was not yet in existence.
-Verse 6: NOW man is created after all of the above is already in existence.
-Verse 7: God places the man he created in the garden that was already in existence.
-Verses 8 and 15: Shows vegetation that has already been planted/created growing from the ground to provide sustenance for man.
-Verse 19: God brought the living creatures to Adam that were already in existence (look at the original Hebrew using a lexicon).

Nothing in Genesis 2 contradicts the creation account of the chronological order in Genesis 1. No manipulating the Scripture for we only used the plain text to verify this.

[edit on 1/15/2008 by AshleyD]




posted on Jan, 15 2008 @ 11:26 PM
link   
reply to post by AshleyD
 


Nope, sorry....BUZZZZ!

You lose all of your points.

There are two distinct 'voices' in the battle for authorship of Genesis. Please pay attention.

In the first account, there is no Eden nor forbidden tree. 'god' creates both sexes in 'his image'. No 'woman out of' man's rib...

Second account...god 'creates' Adam "from the dust of the ground".
(woman to follow, obediently of course...with a side of ribs...)...because adam is 'lonely'...

Did you know that 'adam' is derived from the Hebrew for 'man'? AND, is related to the Hebrew word for 'ground' and 'earth'?

I'd rather believe that the Earth is flat...as many Fundamentalists still believe, hard as it is to imagine...



posted on Jan, 15 2008 @ 11:38 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


Uh oh. Sounds like someone is nostalgically stuck in JEDP Hypothesis land. You might as well save some time as you are fighting a lost cause.



posted on Jan, 15 2008 @ 11:41 PM
link   
Can anyone explain with scientific evidence how life started on planet earth that is more credible than Creationism?



posted on Jan, 15 2008 @ 11:48 PM
link   
reply to post by Xtrozero
 


The area scientist are looking into is if life came from outer space or from other planets through meteors. I saw part of a doco on it and it shows that these life (or bugs as they call it) can survive the impact on Earth.

I haven't followed this at all but heard about once or twice. Try Google for more information.



posted on Jan, 15 2008 @ 11:51 PM
link   
reply to post by AshleyD
 


AshleyD,

Once again, you post something that makes no sense.

Oh, by the way, I am not 'fighting'...that is YOUR word.

If I had a choice of beating my head against a wall, or stopping the beating...I choose stopping.

I invite others to read through the last several posts, and decide how best to respond to an individual who does NOT provide the evidence requested by the OP of this thread. I am not going to indulge in the circular argument dance, it wastes server space.

And, as I believe I have make it clear many times over, a person's faith is for them to decide. Yet, this is not about your faith, it's about evidence.

Nonetheless, a person or persons wish to come in and tilt it in another direction.

Only the OP has the right and authority to steer this thread back to where it belongs.



posted on Jan, 15 2008 @ 11:54 PM
link   
reply to post by Xtrozero
 


Xtrozero,

Please indulge, read all of the pages, then see if you want to really ask that question again...



posted on Jan, 16 2008 @ 12:04 AM
link   

Nope, sorry....BUZZZZ!

You lose all of your points.


You are just trying to be annoying, now.




In the first account, there is no Eden nor forbidden tree. 'god' creates both sexes in 'his image'. No 'woman out of' man's rib...


Where does this 'theory' come from???


Second account...god 'creates' Adam "from the dust of the ground".
(woman to follow, obediently of course...with a side of ribs...)...because adam is 'lonely'...


She was to be his 'help-meet', NOT his slave!
That's why God took her out of his side, not his head or foot. To be BESIDE him!

After Eve sinned, it plummeted women to where we are today.



Did you know that 'adam' is derived from the Hebrew for 'man'? AND, is related to the Hebrew word for 'ground' and 'earth'?


DISTANTLY related.
Where did you get that?
Adam comes from the hebrew ; 'ruddy', to show blood, in the face. rosy or flushed.


I'd rather believe that the Earth is flat...as many Fundamentalists still believe, hard as it is to imagine...


O.K., who thinks the Earth is flat???
Also, who thinks there were NO dinosaurs?



posted on Jan, 16 2008 @ 12:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
Nope, sorry....BUZZZZ!

You lose all of your points.


There's no real reason making the effort. You'll reach the point where you point out an explicit and irrefutable piece of evidence, then it will be ignored.

Amazingly, the same vacuous points will be made repeatedly without any indication you even said a thing.

Example - I've pointed out that 'all kinds of vegetation' never preceded animals. Indeed, there were animals before both seed-bearing and flowering plants by a very long period of time.

Thus, we have a clear falsification of the genesis story. But that don't matter, as for some storybook comes first, then reality. If reality don't fit, it must be contorted beyond recognition to make it so.



posted on Jan, 16 2008 @ 12:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by AncientVoid
The area scientist are looking into is if life came from outer space or from other planets through meteors. I saw part of a doco on it and it shows that these life (or bugs as they call it) can survive the impact on Earth.

I haven't followed this at all but heard about once or twice. Try Google for more information.


So are they saying it is easier for life to start somewhere else then get a ride on a meteor to earth than to just start on earth in the first place? This, like EVERY other example of how life started on earth are all hypothesis’ with zero empirical data backing any of them up.

Because of that you can make the OP’s title of this topic to read...

Origins & ( insert your favorite hypothesis here)Conspiracy » ( insert your favorite hypothesis again here), where is the evidence???!!! I see none »

If we go back to the point that there was zero life on earth what was the spark that set it all off? You could say a lightning bolt into primordial goo, or bacteria in a meteor, or a super advance alien race seeded earth, or you could say divine power made it, and in all these cases anyone is as correct as the other.


[edit on 16-1-2008 by Xtrozero]



posted on Jan, 16 2008 @ 12:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by Xtrozero
If we go back to the point that there was zero life on earth what was the spark that set it all off? You could say a lightning bolt into primordial goo, or bacteria in a meteor, or a super advance alien race seeded earth, or you could say divine power made it, and in all these cases anyone is as correct as the other.


Not really.

We know that chemistry exists. We see the basic building blocks for abiogenesis in space and on earth. It is not really a massive speculation that at some point increasing complexity in organic compounds led to a replicating molecule. So, that's not beyond reason.

Even the alien seeding life would not be massively beyond reason. The problem here is that then we need to explain where they came from. And so it pushes the real abiogenesis question further back. But it is still needing an answer.

Then we have magical think n' poof. An interdimensional superhero that moves between dimensions with his ACME abiogenerator.

As I said, we know chemistry exists. No big surprise it might lead to complex compounds. We also have evidence that this universe can support natural intelligent organisms, so that's not beyond the realms of possibility. Then we have magic.

One of these things is not like the other...

[edit on 16-1-2008 by melatonin]



posted on Jan, 16 2008 @ 12:31 AM
link   
reply to post by Clearskies
 


Clearskies...

genesis 1:1-2:3 talks about the 'six' days;

yadda, yadda... Day 6...'Male and female are created together, in god's image". (not usually talked about, nowadays)...

genesis 2:4-25 says, essentially, in one day the earth and heavens were 'created'. Man comes from 'dust of the ground'. Man is lonely, and a rib becomes a woman...yadda, yadda, mysogeny gets involved, two stories get merged and you come out with the ridiculous notion that a male has dominion over a female.

I know it's shortened, and paraphrased...but it was in all actuality written by a man, or men, so it is biased. If you are a woman, and wish to be subjugated, then that is your choice.

**edit to correct text...**

[edit on 16-1-2008 by weedwhacker]

But, second edit...this is NOT the place to debate biblical inconsistencies, it is supposed to be a place to provide proof for creationism. So far, all we see is a 'belief' in creationism, but not evidence.

[edit on 16-1-2008 by weedwhacker]



posted on Jan, 16 2008 @ 12:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by Xtrozero
So are they saying it is easier for life to start somewhere else then get a ride on a meteor to earth than to just start on earth in the first place? This, like EVERY other example of how life started on earth are all hypothesis’ with zero empirical data backing any of them up.


It's not about what's easier, but what's more likely. I told you i don't follow it so i wouldn't know. But there is support behind this.


Originally posted by Xtrozero
Because of that you can make the OP’s title of this topic to read...

Origins & ( insert your favorite hypothesis here)Conspiracy » ( insert your favorite hypothesis again here), where is the evidence???!!! I see none »


Well scientist aren't claiming their theories are facts and are out there testing it, unlike some people claiming things as facts without any foundation what so ever.


Originally posted by Xtrozero
If we go back to the point that there was zero life on earth what was the spark that set it all off? You could say a lightning bolt into primordial goo, or bacteria in a meteor, or a super advance alien race seeded earth, or you could say divine power made it, and in all these cases anyone is as correct as the other.


Yes you could say all that, and you could also say Santa created life, but without evidence or any logical reasoning behind it, it's not worth much. And no, the examples you gave aren't equally likely since some has more logic and reasoning behind it.



[edit on 16-1-2008 by AncientVoid]



posted on Jan, 16 2008 @ 12:43 AM
link   
I think this is something everyone needs to see.....lol

www.youtube.com...



posted on Jan, 16 2008 @ 12:52 AM
link   
you want this guy as president.....

www.youtube.com...




posted on Jan, 16 2008 @ 01:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by melatonin
Not really.

We know that chemistry exists. We see the basic building blocks for abiogenesis in space and on earth. It is not really a massive speculation that at some point increasing complexity in organic compounds led to a replicating molecule. So, that's not beyond reason.


Well actually we can not make nucleic acids in the laboratory, from non-living material, so how did nature do it?



Stephen Hawking in a lecture stated.

We do not know how DNA molecules first appeared. The chances against a DNA molecule arising by random fluctuations are very small. Some people have therefore suggested that life came to Earth from elsewhere, and that there are seeds of life floating round in the galaxy. However, it seems unlikely that DNA could survive for long in the radiation in space. And even if it could, it would not really help explain the origin of life, because the time available since the formation of carbon is only just over double the age of the Earth.




Even the alien seeding life would not be massively beyond reason. The problem here is that then we need to explain where they came from. And so it pushes the real abiogenesis question further back. But it is still needing an answer.


Well we would still need proof of the creation of life from non-living material for God could have created the aliens first, and many believe aliens are who we call angels.

The difficult part to this is that the creation of life is most likely extremely rare and the evolution of an intelligent species with space fairing capabilities from simple DNA is astronomically rare.



Then we have magical think n' poof. An interdimensional superhero that moves between dimensions with his ACME abiogenerator.


Who we might just call God?

In the end my point stands that the hypothesis of God creating life is as true as any other one.

[edit on 16-1-2008 by Xtrozero]



posted on Jan, 16 2008 @ 01:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by AncientVoid
Yes you could say all that, and you could also say Santa created life, but without evidence or any logical reasoning behind it, it's not worth much. And no, the examples you gave aren't equally likely since some has more logic and reasoning behind it.
[edit on 16-1-2008 by AncientVoid]


Where is the logic in the OPs title? "where is the evidence?" That is my point in that there is no evidence to any hypothesis on the creation of life.

Also who we call God could just as easily be the first life that formed from the big bang. It seems people have no problem with "aliens" seeding the universe with zero evidence but they have a hard time with God seeding the universe.

I’m not that religious but I can see that faith plays into both of these and they both are so similar that it is almost hypocritical to say one can be true and not the other.



posted on Jan, 16 2008 @ 01:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by Xtrozero
Well actually we can not make nucleic acids in the laboratory, from non-living material, so how did nature do it?


In a way we don't yet understand?


The difficult part to this is that the creation of life is most likely extremely rare and the evolution of an intelligent species with space fairing capabilities from simple DNA is astronomically rare.


Possibly. But still more likely than a interdimensional supernatural magic man.


Who we might just call God?

In the end my point stands that the hypothesis of God creating life is as true as any other one.


Call it Deborah for all I care.

Not really. Again, one line of thinking depends on natural processes, processes we know exist. We know that basic elements form complex compounds. We know that organic compounds are all around us. Life depends on the natural compounds we see around us.

These are the building blocks of life.

If life was based on some unnatural compound, one not found in wider nature, then it might be less convincing. But it doesn't. It relies on carbon-based organic materials.

I don't think it is as true. One depends on the supernatural. One depends on the natural. One is seen all around us. The other isn't. One has consistently provided answers that the other was a placeholder for. One is a gap filler and non-answer from ignorance, the other eventually provides the answers we want with time and effort.

[edit on 16-1-2008 by melatonin]



posted on Jan, 16 2008 @ 05:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by ppkjjkpp
First of all, what does intelligent design state? That all animals appeared all at once and fully formed.
What does the fossil record clearly prove? That all animals appeared all at once and fully formed.
Therefore, it is proof of a designer.


lolz what fossils prove that? in fact the fossils are dated for all different eras in the timeline and correspond with closely related species at the expected time and area.


This is obvious proof for creation. Don't try to argue that I am just debunking evolution, because, as you can see I didn't even mention evolution. If you do, you are ignorant of the fossils record.


i'm not arguing that you did debunk evolution but i am ignorant of "the fossil records" you mentioned.



Think clearly here and realize that the fossil record proves that all animals appeared all at once and fully formed. Because if you can't realize this than you are either ignorant of paleontology or you just don't want admit there is even the possibility of a designer.


then you are obviously ignorant of the fossils and the evidence they have left.



posted on Jan, 16 2008 @ 05:53 AM
link   
reply to post by mamasita
 



Hang on what…evolution’s been debunked…..…tell that to mainstream scientists.. lolololol

Evolution for Idiots….

www.youtube.com...



new topics

top topics



 
5
<< 14  15  16    18  19  20 >>

log in

join