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.
In science, a theory is not a guess, not a hunch. It's a well-substantiated, well-supported, well-documented explanation for our observations. It ties together all the facts about something, providing an explanation that fits all the observations and can be used to make predictions. In science, theory is the ultimate goal, the explanation. It's as close to proven as anything in science can be.
Originally posted by mamasita
there are so many posts about creationist debunking evolution - but they never actually back up their beliefs with evidence.
I am curious - wat evidence besides the bible actually exists regarding creationism?
Originally posted by Fromabove
Originally posted by mamasita
there are so many posts about creationist debunking evolution - but they never actually back up their beliefs with evidence.
I am curious - wat evidence besides the bible actually exists regarding creationism?
Let us say that you are in a house. Someone says to you that the house was created by someone called Gawd. You say, "but where's the evidence", and he says to you, "We have the house.. the house didn't just come from nothing.." And you say, "But I can't see this Gawd person.." and he then says, " This is true, but we know that an intelligence has built it and set it into order... so the builder was intelligent... we shall call Gawd Intelligent Design instead of by his name.." and you say, "yet for all that, if I can't see him, I won't belive... I will believe in evolution and say that in the process of time the house improved and modified as it needed to adapt to weather changes and climate and went from a hay shack to a bungalo, to the mansion we see here..." Then he will simply sigh and walk away because you cannot say that a picture needs a painter, and a house needs a builder, and a universe needs a Creator.
Originally posted by jfj123
Originally posted by Fromabove
Originally posted by mamasita
there are so many posts about creationist debunking evolution - but they never actually back up their beliefs with evidence.
I am curious - wat evidence besides the bible actually exists regarding creationism?
Let us say that you are in a house. Someone says to you that the house was created by someone called Gawd. You say, "but where's the evidence", and he says to you, "We have the house.. the house didn't just come from nothing.." And you say, "But I can't see this Gawd person.." and he then says, " This is true, but we know that an intelligence has built it and set it into order... so the builder was intelligent... we shall call Gawd Intelligent Design instead of by his name.." and you say, "yet for all that, if I can't see him, I won't belive... I will believe in evolution and say that in the process of time the house improved and modified as it needed to adapt to weather changes and climate and went from a hay shack to a bungalo, to the mansion we see here..." Then he will simply sigh and walk away because you cannot say that a picture needs a painter, and a house needs a builder, and a universe needs a Creator.
I don't need to meet the builder of the house to know a builder built the house as it shows signs of being made. Lumber has been cut, nails have been pounded, foot prints left behind in the dirt and dust, etc, etc, etc...
There is no evidence the universe was designed by an intelligent being.
Originally posted by Fromabove
Then he will simply sigh and walk away because you cannot say that a picture needs a painter, and a house needs a builder, and a universe needs a Creator.
Originally posted by melatonin
Originally posted by Fromabove
Then he will simply sigh and walk away because you cannot say that a picture needs a painter, and a house needs a builder, and a universe needs a Creator.
I love this Comfort and Cameron canard, it shows their poor logic.
We can watch a painter paint. We can watch a builder build. We can watch a universater universe...oh no, we can't. This is just a badly framed argument.
Moreover, if we want to play with such bad logic, we could easily say builder = human; painter = human; therefore universater = human. At least we know human designers exist.
When this absent universator can actually show us creation in action, then I might buy the BS, but you know, BS needs a BSer. We'll wait patiently for the magical species speciator to speciate:
[edit on 4-1-2008 by melatonin]
Originally posted by Fromabove
And in your application of logic, it is not possible to understand that, not seeing a human building a house is the frame of mind, not a painter painting a picture, But the universe exists, and it did not come from nothing at all but was made. So like I said, it depends upon how you see it. It's not builder = human, painter = human, it's house = creator, painting = creator, and universe = creator.
"Now let us examine the possibility of the spontaneous formation of protein
molecules from a non-living system. We may assume, for purposes of argument,
that, in the course of chemical evolution, there had already come into
existence a mixture containing a great quantity of various amino acids. As
we have seen, the free energy change for formation of the peptide bond is
such that, at equilibrium, about one percent of the amino acids would be
joined together as dipeptides, granting the presence of appropriate
catalysts.. The cances of forming tripeptides would be about one hundredth
that of forming dipeptides, and the probability of forming a polypeptide of
of only ten amino acids as units would be something like 10^-20. The
spontaneous formation of a polypeptide of the size of the smallest known
proteins seems beyond all probability."~Harold Blum, Time's Arrow and
Evolution (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1955) cited by
A.E.Wilder-Smith Man's origin, Man's Destiny, (Wheaton: Harold Shaw
Publishers, 1968), p. 60.
Originally posted by ppkjjkpp
My point was not to say ‘we don’t know’ if it was random chance, my point was to say random chance is the driving force of evolution until you can prove otherwise, which you can’t.
www.randallniles.com...
If I blended a frog up and left it outside somewhere so it can be hit by radiation, the sun, lightning or however evolution explains it, for billions of years would it turn into a frog? No because it’s impossible.
www.randallniles.com...
Everybody uses faith to fill in a gap at some point, even the greatest scientists.
www.randallniles.com...
There’s no evidence that the Big Bang happened.
This is what I wanted you to see.
Originally posted by AncientVoid
reply to post by Fromabove
Seriouly your flawed logic has been used to many times it's getting very stupid now.
Let me ask you a question. Who/what built/made the house? Man? Ant? Nature? Alien? The possibility is endless but your poor logic only comes to one conclusion about the universe.
Originally posted by jfj123
For the analogy to be reasonable, you must be able to show evidence of intelligent building just like with a house. I sigh also
In 1879 a letter came asking if he believed in God, and if theism and evolution were compatible. He replied that a man "can be an ardent Theist and an evolutionist", citing Charles Kingsley and Asa Gray as examples, and for himself, he had "never been an Atheist in the sense of denying the existence of a God". He added that "I think that generally (and more and more as I grow older), but not always, that an Agnostic would be a more correct description of my state of mind."
It really doesn't help when you hear things like the earth is 6500 years old.
There were never any dinosaurs.
Originally posted by Fromabove
Originally posted by AncientVoid
For the purposes of "not knowing if you haven't seen it", what built the house had to be..
1. intelligent
2. creative
3. specific
4. intentional
The universe is far to complex and follows strict laws to exist. Even the smallest of particles and atoms behave a specific way. The "chance" that on one stormy day in the distant past that a bolt of lightning struck a puddle of primordial soup and "presto - chango" a living organism jumps out are astronomical and almost infinate.
Additionally, the chances of that "living organism" being able to retain knowledge of any kind to "know" to do anything is also next to impossible
to calculate the odds, then, let us say that the organism does live and then does "beyond infinate odds" know to do, the odds of that organism reproducing are then even greator than the next to infinate odds of being able to know, and being able to actually exist.
Now let's say that that organism does all of the above, yet the odds of survival are so vast that a bit of cold air or another element of chemical or acid kills it, or naybe just a change in water or air, and it dies. The chances of a repeat performance are then so infinately vast and hard to imagine it would be nearly impossible to actually happen a second time as the first. But let's say it does, and fails seven times in a row but then is able to get started. The universe would be one million times a trillion years old, and probably not even exist anymore.
This is why there is absolutely no logic or reason to support or believe in evolution at all. It is so unprovable and impossible. Rather, a Creator as the source is reasonable. A source that exists outside of this universe yet the universe exists beause of the Creator. A Creator that is not made of energy, or matter, but spirit. The physical from the spiritual.
Maybe I don't get out often enough but who in the world denies the existence of the dinosaurs?
Not only do I believe they existed, I believe they were cohabitants with man. Job, the oldest book of the Bible, mentions a beast with "a tail like a cedar." Some say this is a hippo, elephant, or rhino but everyone knows they have little stubs for tails.
But our evidence is greater than this single verse in the Bible. Remember, and this is very important, Paleontology originated in the 18th/19th century. Many, many depictions of dinosaurs turned up in ancient artwork. Prior to the 19th century, these depictions were believed to be mythological creatures of these pagan religions.
So no, I do not believe dinosaurs preceded humans by tens of millions of years.
Originally posted by jfj123
So based on your analysis, you are saying a creator has manufactured everything from beginning to end including cancer and random genetic mutations that can and have been very harmful to the host organism. Why would a being that can create and maintain absolutely everything in the universe, cause cancer and many other FATAL illnesses?