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: 20
5
<< 17  18  19    21  22  23 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 19 2008 @ 05:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by GT100FV
reply to post by OzWeatherman
 


Please cite just one example where mutation in a species has been of benefit(the mutation produce a weak offspring which dies off). There has never been a case where the mutation was a positive thing. Natural selection and inherited traits aren't proof of macroevolution.
The offspring are still the same species. There is no evidence of a species evolving into another. The laws of Thermodynamics and entropy show that things do not go from the simple to the complex, but rather the other way around. These are but a few holes in the macroevolution theory.


Isnt bacterial mutations a positive thing?

they become far more resistent to drugs and then reproduce..continuing the resisitence.




posted on Jan, 19 2008 @ 06:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by Austin9599945

Isnt bacterial mutations a positive thing?

they become far more resistent to drugs and then reproduce..continuing the resisitence.


When was bacteria anything but bacteria? Bacteria can become resistant to something but does this then indicate it has mutated into another species or it is still bacteria? It would be something if that bacteria evolved into a more complex thingy, eh?



posted on Jan, 19 2008 @ 06:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by andre18
Ummmmm just wondering…why is this thread still going.. I mean….it’s not like a Christian is going to magically show actually solid scientific evidence that creation is the slightest bit feasible… and so why are you even wasting your time…al they’re going to say….faith….or some other BS….it’s honestly like talking to a brick wall


Your confused. Your presuppositions tell you that there is no God because you deny all things metaphysical. To you there is only "science" and "evidence".

To demonstrate this to you please take note of your statement.

"it's not like a Christian is going to magically show actually solid evidence....."

Why use the word "magically"? It's because you view it as a fable, fantasy and myth. You mock it. This would be your presuppositions. No amount of "evidence" would convince you that God is the Creator. Why? Well because any evidence would be seen by you as having another meaning or explanation, there is nothing other than our physical world to you, thus any and all evidence MUST have a physical or empirical basis.

You're then an empiricist and thus base your knowledge on the (empirical) observation of the world around you yet you cannot tell me how you gain knowledge through observation. Before you scoff at that think deeply upon it. Using only your empirical senses, how do you gain knowledge through observation? How did you come to learn the word "evidence" via empirical means?

In a nutshell, you have no idea what evidence would be for creation because your mind has already stated that any and all evidence MUST be that of evolution. Again your presuppositions will not allow it and to claim you have no presuppositions would then be your presupposition......that you have no presuppositions.



posted on Jan, 19 2008 @ 06:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by SilverSmith

Originally posted by Austin9599945

Isnt bacterial mutations a positive thing?

they become far more resistent to drugs and then reproduce..continuing the resisitence.


When was bacteria anything but bacteria? Bacteria can become resistant to something but does this then indicate it has mutated into another species or it is still bacteria? It would be something if that bacteria evolved into a more complex thingy, eh?


Well we cant "see" evolution.

it takes millions of years.

we're not gonna be able to literally witness it.

so idk man.
Science still has stuff to figure out.

no doubt about it.



posted on Jan, 19 2008 @ 06:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by SilverSmith

Originally posted by andre18
Ummmmm just wondering…why is this thread still going.. I mean….it’s not like a Christian is going to magically show actually solid scientific evidence that creation is the slightest bit feasible… and so why are you even wasting your time…al they’re going to say….faith….or some other BS….it’s honestly like talking to a brick wall


Your confused. Your presuppositions tell you that there is no God because you deny all things metaphysical. To you there is only "science" and "evidence".

To demonstrate this to you please take note of your statement.

"it's not like a Christian is going to magically show actually solid evidence....."

Why use the word "magically"? It's because you view it as a fable, fantasy and myth. You mock it. This would be your presuppositions. No amount of "evidence" would convince you that God is the Creator. Why? Well because any evidence would be seen by you as having another meaning or explanation, there is nothing other than our physical world to you, thus any and all evidence MUST have a physical or empirical basis.

You're then an empiricist and thus base your knowledge on the (empirical) observation of the world around you yet you cannot tell me how you gain knowledge through observation. Before you scoff at that think deeply upon it. Using only your empirical senses, how do you gain knowledge through observation? How did you come to learn the word "evidence" via empirical means?

In a nutshell, you have no idea what evidence would be for creation because your mind has already stated that any and all evidence MUST be that of evolution. Again your presuppositions will not allow it and to claim you have no presuppositions would then be your presupposition......that you have no presuppositions.


"You're" for the first word.




posted on Jan, 19 2008 @ 07:34 PM
link   
reply to post by Austin9599945
 


Thanks for the correction
Care to reply in greater detail to that same post?

Now, can you name something that has evolved from one species into another species? I'm not speaking of small changes within a species because I acknowledge that, what I am asking is do we have any testable and repeatable evidence of one species, say a frog, changing into another species, say a bird?

I'm sure you know of the Coelacanth correct? So what's that "evidence" say in regards to millions of years in terms of evolution? Well it could be that evolution stopped for that species or it could be that evolution doesn't work the way most claim or it could be that evolution is wrong.

I already know the answer of most evolutionists. What say you?



posted on Jan, 19 2008 @ 07:57 PM
link   
reply to post by SilverSmith
 


CAN YOU PEOPLE PLZ STOP TALKING ABOUT EVOLUTION? Especially in a thread that has nothing to do with it. If you want to, post in a evolution thread or make your own, but why in the world does it always come back to evo?



posted on Jan, 19 2008 @ 08:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by AncientVoid
but why in the world does it always come back to evo?


Purely because they have nothing but wishful-thinking and fuzzy feelings


Ashley mentioned earlier about what sort of evidence would be sufficent. We can readily take the Genesis story as a type of hypothesis about life on earth.

Thus, for instance, we would expect a young earth. But that's been falsified. We would also expect the order of species appearance in genesis to be expressed in the fossil record. But, again, that has been falsified. We might expect to see evidence for a world-wide flood, but that's been falsified. Thus, genesis is a falsified hypothesis.

However, the ambiguity and amorphous nature of these things leaves open multiple creation stories. It's totally unfalsifiable as a whole, but we can falsify particular 'hypotheses'.



[edit on 19-1-2008 by melatonin]



posted on Jan, 19 2008 @ 09:19 PM
link   
Ok... here we go again, let me take a try again at this. Let us say that about four billion years ago some chemicals and nutrients were just laying in a pool of premordial soup, and the time and place were right for a bolt of lightning to come down and in impossible odds, it hits the pool. Suddenly some basic organic blocks bind together, but then dissolve due to the inability to "do anything". now say this is repeated thousand of times randomly. But then say they bind, and then activate into a protein, but then the protein dies off because there is no "knowledge" to "do anything" except what it is currently doing which is nothing. So lets say this is repeated thousands of times randomly multiplied by the thousands of times randomly for a repeat lightning bolt and binding episode. Now lets say we get past the first two steps and we finally get a primative cell, but the cell dies off because it can't reproduce and because it has no "knowledge" to "do anything", and this step is repeated thousands of times randomly, upon thousands of times randomly, times thousands of times randomly. But lets say you get past that and you get the cell to divide, but it takes thousands of repeat episodes to change, and each change takes thousands of more repetitions to remain constant, then say it forms a creature, then an offshoot of that creature and so on and each step is thousands of episodes until the change happens, against the vast odds that each time the time and place will be exact in every respect that led to the initial event in the first place.

So that is thousands times thousands times thousands to establish a cell and thousands of ettempts to effect a change an improvement and there are possibly millions of variations. By the time you have the end run product the universe would have long since died in entropy being about a couple of trillion years old or so, and this not taking into account natural disaster and such.

Evolution is mathamatically "impossible"

The human body alone accounts for "Billions and billions" of specific functions, and there are "millions" of species on the planet.

So the proof of creationism is found in the arrogance of evolution.

[edit on 19-1-2008 by Fromabove]



posted on Jan, 19 2008 @ 09:41 PM
link   
reply to post by Fromabove
 


What is wrong with you? Just look up two post...



posted on Jan, 19 2008 @ 09:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Fromabove
and the time and place were right for a bolt of lightning to come down and in impossible odds, it hits the pool.


Heh, impossible odds?

Come on, you're not being serious? If this is the sort of event that is required, over a period of a billion years it would be impossible for a strike of lightening to hit one in any number of such pools?

Your argument shows it vacuity right at the start. I mentioned this earlier (in this thread or t'other), but this sort of post-hoc probability argument is naff. You don't even know the probability of such events, and even if you did, even at 1 in 128567639590400272652648902684932020029376192, it could happen on the very first trial.

Billions of galaxies, billions of habitable planets, billions of years, billons of simultaneous trials. One abiogenesis event required on one planet (although life could be all over the universe for all we know, time will tell).

But as AV points out, still not a positive argument for creation.

[edit on 19-1-2008 by melatonin]



posted on Jan, 20 2008 @ 08:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by SilverSmith
reply to post by Austin9599945
 


Thanks for the correction
Care to reply in greater detail to that same post?

Now, can you name something that has evolved from one species into another species? I'm not speaking of small changes within a species because I acknowledge that, what I am asking is do we have any testable and repeatable evidence of one species, say a frog, changing into another species, say a bird?

I'm sure you know of the Coelacanth correct? So what's that "evidence" say in regards to millions of years in terms of evolution? Well it could be that evolution stopped for that species or it could be that evolution doesn't work the way most claim or it could be that evolution is wrong.

I already know the answer of most evolutionists. What say you?


lol.Im just messing with you man.
you seem to be a pretty smart dude.

now..as others have said..this topic is getting off topic.
where is the evidence for creationism etc?

I personally dont see any.I would love to believe that when I die some part of me,some feeling,remembering part of me will continue on...but I find no evidence that suggests this is more than wishful thinking.

there are THOUSANDS of confident religions...they cant all be right.In fact,they all could be wrong.

when we kill a god out of history and theology(like old greek gods)we sure find a quick way to create new gods.
odd right?
I find the christiant god to be rather cruel.


[edit on 20-1-2008 by Austin9599945]

[edit on 20-1-2008 by Austin9599945]



posted on Jan, 20 2008 @ 10:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by melatonin
My opinion is that with such circumstances (billions of galaxies, billions of habitable planets in each, billions of years, billions of simultneous trials) life was pretty much inevitable solely via natural tedencies of chemistry and physics. The same reasons why the universe appears to be teeming with the building blocks even in relatively harsh environments like space.


But how does non-living building blocks come together to form life? There are no basic life forms teeming in space so I miss you point there.



Moreover, the point with playing with odds is that even if we pull odds out our asses of 1 in 10^-50, there is nothing stopping it happening the first time, and with multiple simultaneous events and long periods, it would be quite likely a few times


I think my points are more along the lines that if a person believes that random events create life then it would be hypocritical to also believe that intelligent Alien contact is plausible . My other point is since we have no proof as to how life started in the universe then all hypotheses are equally correct or incorrect since none can be proven, and so the OP’s title is moot.

The chances for other life is 100%, but as you add modifiers to what kind of life you are talking about the 100% quickly goes down to some, pull it out of my ass, astronomically low odds for other intelligent life that would ever have the capability to communicate with us in any form. This is mainly due to the lower numbers and the vast distances that we tend to ignore just how rare it would be while unable to comprehend the vastness of our own galaxy much less the universe for physical life to travel through.
I know this part is slightly off topic, but it strikes me funny that an atheist would believe that UFOs are alien design, or that we would ever be visited by one.


[edit on 20-1-2008 by Xtrozero]



posted on Jan, 20 2008 @ 10:58 AM
link   
So what are we debating here? The chances for intelligent design or whether the bible is written empirically for intelligent design or that it explains intelligent design using metaphors and symbolism?



posted on Jan, 20 2008 @ 11:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by Austin9599945

now..as others have said..this topic is getting off topic.
where is the evidence for creationism etc?

I personally dont see any.I would love to believe that when I die some part of me,some feeling,remembering part of me will continue on...but I find no evidence that suggests this is more than wishful thinking.

there are THOUSANDS of confident religions...they cant all be right.In fact,they all could be wrong.

when we kill a god out of history and theology(like old greek gods)we sure find a quick way to create new gods.
odd right?
I find the christiant god to be rather cruel.



I am arguing for creationism yet I am not doing so based on "evidence", at least not empirical at the moment.

You personally don't see any evidence because, once again, your presuppositions will not allow you to believe. What evidence are you seeking? Do you even know what to look for?

You use the word "evidence" but what does that mean to you? You're an empiricist so using empirical means how did you come to even know the word "evidence" and what it means? Were you able to touch it and know what it meant? Did you smell the word and grasp it, did you see the word and then understand it, did you taste the word and then comprehend it or did you perhaps hear the word and then realize what it meant?

The obvious answer is, "I learned it in school, duh!" That though is not what I'm seeking. Based on your empirical world view, how do you gain knowledge?

You are correct in not all religions or world views can be correct for Truth is absolute. Truth cannot be relative for to deny Truth is Absolute is to confirm it. Truth is never all inclusive but rather exclusive. To argue that truth is relative and everyone should believe that is to then make "relative truth" an absolute belief for everyone. Thus relativism crumbles into skepticism and skepticism cannot stand for one who is a skeptic would have to then be skeptical of being a skeptic. So *IF* Truth be Absolute, where did it come from?

You claim that God may just be another created myth. I would ask you to think deeply upon this then. Why would man create such a God as the one found within Scripture? Why a God that demands perfection from His creation, why such a Holy and Righteous God? Also, please create for me a God greater that the one revealed in Scripture.

Thanks



posted on Jan, 20 2008 @ 12:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by SilverSmith

Originally posted by Austin9599945

now..as others have said..this topic is getting off topic.
where is the evidence for creationism etc?

I personally dont see any.I would love to believe that when I die some part of me,some feeling,remembering part of me will continue on...but I find no evidence that suggests this is more than wishful thinking.

there are THOUSANDS of confident religions...they cant all be right.In fact,they all could be wrong.

when we kill a god out of history and theology(like old greek gods)we sure find a quick way to create new gods.
odd right?
I find the christiant god to be rather cruel.



I am arguing for creationism yet I am not doing so based on "evidence", at least not empirical at the moment.

You personally don't see any evidence because, once again, your presuppositions will not allow you to believe. What evidence are you seeking? Do you even know what to look for?

You use the word "evidence" but what does that mean to you? You're an empiricist so using empirical means how did you come to even know the word "evidence" and what it means? Were you able to touch it and know what it meant? Did you smell the word and grasp it, did you see the word and then understand it, did you taste the word and then comprehend it or did you perhaps hear the word and then realize what it meant?

The obvious answer is, "I learned it in school, duh!" That though is not what I'm seeking. Based on your empirical world view, how do you gain knowledge?

You are correct in not all religions or world views can be correct for Truth is absolute. Truth cannot be relative for to deny Truth is Absolute is to confirm it. Truth is never all inclusive but rather exclusive. To argue that truth is relative and everyone should believe that is to then make "relative truth" an absolute belief for everyone. Thus relativism crumbles into skepticism and skepticism cannot stand for one who is a skeptic would have to then be skeptical of being a skeptic. So *IF* Truth be Absolute, where did it come from?

You claim that God may just be another created myth. I would ask you to think deeply upon this then. Why would man create such a God as the one found within Scripture? Why a God that demands perfection from His creation, why such a Holy and Righteous God? Also, please create for me a God greater that the one revealed in Scripture.

Thanks


Im not trying to be scientific here.
Im simply saying...I find a lack of evidence.

Fulfilled prophicies...thats usually what christians point to.
I dont think this is enough.

I dont want to believe.. want to know.
faith isnt enough in this day and age.

And yes,I find physical evidence more compelling than faith.
Why do you think earlier gods we're sun gods.

or gods that controlled certain aspects of nature.
I dont respect how the religions change either.Im by no means an expert.But if christianity is so perfect why are animal scarafices gone these days?Back then they felt you had to savrafice somethin in order to show the gods respect..to basically show...hey..IM FOR REAL.
that aspect is obviously ludicrous..and dont give me crap like..."oh..well its practiced in the lower region of"yeah no...its dumb.

Did god tell them to do that back then?I know this is rather off topic to your last port but it confuses me.



posted on Jan, 20 2008 @ 12:32 PM
link   
You ask questions, I reply, you reply with more questions which lead to more rabbit trails and totally ignore my post and its context. Why?

In no way did you deal with any questions or statements in my last post to you but have asked more questions which can be found at most "skeptic" websites.



posted on Jan, 20 2008 @ 12:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by SilverSmith

Originally posted by Austin9599945

now..as others have said..this topic is getting off topic.
where is the evidence for creationism etc?

I personally dont see any.I would love to believe that when I die some part of me,some feeling,remembering part of me will continue on...but I find no evidence that suggests this is more than wishful thinking.

there are THOUSANDS of confident religions...they cant all be right.In fact,they all could be wrong.

when we kill a god out of history and theology(like old greek gods)we sure find a quick way to create new gods.
odd right?
I find the christiant god to be rather cruel.



I am arguing for creationism yet I am not doing so based on "evidence", at least not empirical at the moment.

You personally don't see any evidence because, once again, your presuppositions will not allow you to believe. What evidence are you seeking? Do you even know what to look for?

You use the word "evidence" but what does that mean to you? You're an empiricist so using empirical means how did you come to even know the word "evidence" and what it means? Were you able to touch it and know what it meant? Did you smell the word and grasp it, did you see the word and then understand it, did you taste the word and then comprehend it or did you perhaps hear the word and then realize what it meant?

The obvious answer is, "I learned it in school, duh!" That though is not what I'm seeking. Based on your empirical world view, how do you gain knowledge?

You are correct in not all religions or world views can be correct for Truth is absolute. Truth cannot be relative for to deny Truth is Absolute is to confirm it. Truth is never all inclusive but rather exclusive. To argue that truth is relative and everyone should believe that is to then make "relative truth" an absolute belief for everyone. Thus relativism crumbles into skepticism and skepticism cannot stand for one who is a skeptic would have to then be skeptical of being a skeptic. So *IF* Truth be Absolute, where did it come from?

You claim that God may just be another created myth. I would ask you to think deeply upon this then. Why would man create such a God as the one found within Scripture? Why a God that demands perfection from His creation, why such a Holy and Righteous God? Also, please create for me a God greater that the one revealed in Scripture.

Thanks


First paragraph-Im looking for hard evidence.Meaning something that can easily be believed.
I see no hard evidence in christianity...sorry.That is my answer

second-Ive heard this argument before...your god is different.
Why would women claim the empty tomb?People would not believe a women...so therefore its plausible...and the religion is more believable.

I find things like this weak arguments.

Our god demands the most...therefore he exists.Im sorry but I dont see this as evidence for God.

"there is no god but allah and muhammad is the messenger of Allah"
see?I find that the same as your argument...just different religion.

What other religion is as straightforward as christianity?"you shall have no gods before me"
I hear this all the time...but I find the answer to be Islam.
Its the same hardcore "down to earth there is no god but me" stuff.



posted on Jan, 20 2008 @ 01:00 PM
link   
reply to post by Austin9599945
 



Again you skirted my post and questions. There is a starting point in all things, even arguments, yet when one party continues to open more rabbit trails and avoids that starting point then no one gets anywhere.



posted on Jan, 20 2008 @ 01:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by SilverSmith
reply to post by Austin9599945
 



Again you skirted my post and questions. There is a starting point in all things, even arguments, yet when one party continues to open more rabbit trails and avoids that starting point then no one gets anywhere.



I told you my definition for evidence.
I told you what I was looking for.

I explained why I think the "christianity is different because our god is sooo straightforward" argument is weak.

so i thought I answered your questions.

what is the question,specifically,that you would like me to answer.

and let me ask you what is YOUR evidence...and your qualification for evidence.




top topics



 
5
<< 17  18  19    21  22  23 >>

log in

join