It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by euclid
reply to post by weedwhacker
Science is proliferated by what can be considered "blind-faith" by many. Science is only capable of categorizing, quantifying and observing things and/or processes. It is not able to understand them and thus is only able to create generalized theories of what is being categorized, quantified and observed.
As an example:
The sun as a thermo-nuclear chain reaction - theory
Macro Evolution - Theory
General Relativity - Theory
Physics in general - Theory
Stings/m-Branes - Theory
Science is nothing but theories that generally describe what the scientist observe.
As an example: No one can tell me what "electricity" is, not even a scientist. What is electricity? We can use it, generate it, store it, manipulate it; but NO ONE KNOWS "WHAT IT IS.
Scientist (and their lessor, uninformed minions known as skeptics/athiests) from all appearances and perspectives lack the ability, or capability, to think outside of their "faith" and blindly believe what ever theory Science presents to them is fact.
The truth is skeptics/athiests have just as much "faith & belief" that their beloved theories are "truth" as much as any fanatical muslim believes that if they strap a bomb to their chest and blow up a bunch of infidels that they will get harem of virgins to enjoy in their afterlife.
[edit on 3-1-2008 by euclid]
Originally posted by ppkjjkpp
Anyone chemist would know that 4Na + 4H20----> 4NaOH + 2H2. That’s not random chance that’s chemistry, science. It’s random chance (not science) that a dot the size of a period on this page exploded etc etc
Why do I have to stick to biology? This thread is for evidence of creation which is any type of evidence including geology.
So you admit that you don’t know how cells developed. Then how is it a fact that they evolved? You say it could have happened under water or on land with the aid of UV rays. These are completely opposite. Until now you are just theorizing and not providing any scientific facts.
If you don’t believe the calculations you should do them for your self and prove the mathematicians wrong. For a simple protein to form from organic soup is extremely improbable.
If that telephone is truly petrified then that proves petrification can happen in short periods of time not millions of years.
The oldest tree is 10 000 years old you say? That’s still shows a young earth plus scientists can only assume each season represents one ring.
Just like all your other examples of dating you assume the current living conditions are the same as the past.
This is not just with radiometric dating.
Of course if the earth cannot be billions of years old it means the Earth is young.
Originally posted by joesomebody
Theory: well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world
(1) the radioactive element decays at a constant rate
(2) the rock crystal being analyzed is not contaminated by infusion of excess end product
(3) the rock crystal contained no end product when it was formed
(4) leaching of the parent element out of the rock sample did not occur.
Creationists believe that rock strata were laid down in rapid succession, rather than over millions of years of time, they assert this because polystrate fossil trees are found to cross numerous different layers of strata: See Rupke, Berg, Morris, and Oard refs below. Also because such trees are found both in and around coals seams throughout the world, they believe that this is evidence for the Biblical flood described in Genesis: See "Scientific Evidence for a Worldwide Flood" ref. below.
Two of the reasons Creationists assert that massive amounts of strata must have been laid down rapidly is the fact that polystrate fossil trees are found crossing numerous layers of strata: including sandstone, shale, clay, and even coal seams; another is because some of the "layers" are the size of Texas.
They also assert this because of the absence of any visible sign of roots in the majority of these trees, and because the trees that do possess roots are almost always truncated. In addition, the stigmaria roots that are sometimes found attached to these type of trees are very commonly missing their rootlets. Stigmaria roots get their name from the fact that they often possess scar marks left behind from the missing (or broken off) rootlets. Stigmaria roots are also usually fragmented and not attached to a tree. Lesquereax described 30-foot thick deposits containing broken up stigmaria roots in Pennsylvania, and said that the strata containing them had no upright fossil trees at all. His conclusion was that they had to have been broken off and redeposited. In addition, most of the rootlets found in the coal strata are buried individually, (i.e. apart from being attached to larger roots or trees).
Only 1 out of 50 such fossil trees possesses both roots and rootlets. This figure is the result of counting the number of trees that were missing their roots as recorded by Dawson in his book, Acadian Geolody. Falcon-Lang also came up with about the same figure. See Berg, Randy S., "The Fossil Forests of Nova Scotia" Parts one and two.
One of the rare trees that did have both roots and rootlets is discussed in detail in Part Two of the above referenced article. The author concluded that it also was probably not in situ because it was filled with white sandstone, while none of the surrounding sediments that buried it, or that were above it were white sandstone, and because other trees in this section were said by Brown to be buried obliquely to the horizontal strata.
Leo Lesquereux said that: "Fragments of Stigmaria, trunks, branches and leaves, are generally found embedded in every kind of compound, clay, shales, sandstone, coal, even limestone, in Carboniferous strata ... They are always in large proportion, far above that of any other remains of coal plants..."
For these and other reasons, creationists argue that virtually none of the upright trees that are buried in the coal strata are in situ.
Originally posted by ppkjjkpp
I don’t know that cosmic evolution is a random event. It’s possible that nature had somehow caused it but there is no proof. Science has to be proved before it is considered fact so until there is proof you are theorizing. Maybe aliens caused it to explode, who knows? Until there is proof keep dreaming.
Why are you denying that evolution is based on chance? Even Dawkins in the God Delusion generally stated for atheists to embrace the amazing chance of life. You’re the first evolutionist I’ve seen deny the chance involved. The improbability has been proved over and over by mathematicians and scientists alike both creationist and evolutionist. You are denying a scientific and mathematical fact.
When you find evidence that the Big Bang happened
and that proteins formed from soup and that we came from cells let me know and I’ll accept evolution. Right now it is either random chance or God. I choose God.
You know which calculations I’m talking about. Books have been written about the improbability of an amino acid let alone a protein forming from soup. But here’s some proof from a simple search on google. www.asa3.org...
This illustrates what I have been trying to say about the phase
space of DNA systems. The problem is not as simple as is
often presented in our arguments against evolution.
Here’s some assumptions made for radiometric dating:
Good one but if this Roger Wiens was really Christian he would believe the Bible and believe in creation. The Bible is historically accurate. He says nothing new besides existing evolutionist arguments.
Originally posted by ppkjjkpp
Here’s something about the polystrate trees to help you understand what I'm trying to say
Originally posted by curiousbeliever
Just because the bible may be incorrect does not prove creationism does not exist, at least a nonstandard view anyway.