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.

 

Creationists - Explain this please

page: 10
4
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 17 2008 @ 01:33 PM
link   
reply to post by Lasheic
 


nice reply to the OP and thanks for some interesting, well written posts. i learned something and appreciate the time and effort you took to write. i have subscribed to scientific american and discover magazines for quite some time, as they tend to be well written and informative..well.. discover alot less so on the last point. and at the age of 55 i'm still intrigued by what the scientific community discovers and shares. thanks again




posted on Jun, 17 2008 @ 04:34 PM
link   
Henry W. Beecher was one of the first people to discuss and debate this topic in detail. He had a good resolution to this debate as well. I suggest the OP (and others if they are interested of course
) do some research on the late Reverend Henry W. Beecher and his views on Evolution and God.

I think all the users here no matter what side of the argument they are on will find his views interesting.


Note: Wikipedia doesn't help much for this one ; )



posted on Jun, 17 2008 @ 06:38 PM
link   
Easy answer: The 6 days it took God to create everything could in reality have been 6 million or billion years to us humans. Time is nothing to God and billions of years mean nothing to Him. Yes, God could have created everything in 6 24 hour days, but He also could have done it in million of years, but the word "day" was used when the Bible was written.



posted on Jun, 17 2008 @ 06:45 PM
link   
reply to post by redshirt0202
 


If God is so great, what reason would there be needed?



posted on Jun, 17 2008 @ 07:13 PM
link   
reply to post by redshirt0202
 

were did that animal come from and th answer is this God made them and if you have any questions about the other theories against the account of gen you should look up Finis Jennings Dake on his theology of the bible if you cant find any good info on him hit me with anything you got and ill answer it



posted on Jun, 17 2008 @ 07:17 PM
link   
reply to post by Lookinglassman
 
not true those days were six literal days god made a race before adam we can conclude it took god much longer to make the earth and its inhabitants this time but in creating adam and eve etc he already had everything planned out

how could those plants good crated survive so long without light



posted on Jun, 17 2008 @ 07:20 PM
link   
Creationism is nonsense. It is more a statement on the psychology of the believer than on reality.



posted on Jun, 17 2008 @ 07:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by redshirt0202

I'm going to make this short as it's already very late, so here it goes :

Assuming that Creationism is right and evolution is wrong, how do you (creationists) explain that we have found fossils of animals that have been living only in a certain time period and not before that time. What I'm trying to say is, where did that animal come from if it hadn't always existed?

Clearly it didn't pop up out of thin air, so my guess is it must have evolved from another animal.

Any thoughts on this?

then where did that animal come from pastuer already proved spontaneous generation wrong already

the answere is this there is a gap of possibly thousands of years btwn gen1:1 and 1:2 look up the gap theory on the internet

if you have any other questions ask them to me but i beleive everything in Finis Jennings Dake and his theology



posted on Jun, 17 2008 @ 07:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by Straight Razor
Creationism is nonsense. It is more a statement on the psychology of the believer than on reality.
im sorry you feel that way



posted on Jun, 17 2008 @ 07:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lookinglassman
Easy answer: The 6 days it took God to create everything could in reality have been 6 million or billion years to us humans. Time is nothing to God and billions of years mean nothing to Him. Yes, God could have created everything in 6 24 hour days, but He also could have done it in million of years, but the word "day" was used when the Bible was written.

not true those days were six literal days god created a race before adam

this was the 1st tome god created the world we can conclude it took god much longer this time but he already had the layout plan whan he created adam



posted on Jun, 17 2008 @ 07:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lasheic
reply to post by atlasastro
 


Hey, the religious are'nt the only ones to claim that stuff just poofed into existence. How is the big bang theory any different to stuff just poofing into existences.

The Big Bang theory doesn't postulate that the universe and everything within just *poofed* into existence. We just don't know what happened before the Big Bang. There's really no way we can tell at this time, so it's usually just glossed over as an unanswered question. However we have observed that the universe is expanding at a phenomenal rate. So if it's expanding, then it must have been smaller in the past. Go back far enough, and it becomes a singular point.

That's all, really.

[edit on 14-6-2008 by Lasheic]
that would make the singular pnt youre god and youre creator and where did he come from our god was created by himself this is possible by the science of Quantum mechanics



posted on Jun, 20 2008 @ 06:57 PM
link   
This is not a debate, or even a discussion. It is a political jihad waged by religious psychotics against western civilization.

There is no difference between the mentality of fundamentalists of Christianity, Islam, or any other religion of the Big Black Book. They believe what they believe simply because they believe it. End of discussion. Nothing else is possible because they believe the Book itself is infallible and that they are also infallible merely because they believe in it.

They believe in a violent, self-created END, as the only possible outcome of their magical, incestuous, creation mythology. They believe they are called to bring about this violent ending by any means necessary in order to destroy all those who do not believe as they do.

Reason and logic are meaningless to them. They have no understanding of evidence, science, or of the scientific method, and have no interest in learning it because they can only see it as a threat to their beliefs. Without the security blanket of those beliefs, they feel hopelessly lost and afraid.


[edit on 20-6-2008 by Eyemagistus]

[edit on 20-6-2008 by Eyemagistus]



posted on Jun, 21 2008 @ 09:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by dave420
reply to post by redshirt0202
 


If you ask a religious person a question that is designed to highlight a highly illogical situation, the answer is always some version of "God did it". When asked why, they will reply "God works in mysterious ways; it's not possible for us to understand".

That's why you can't have a decent conversation with a creationist about science, because they can point at the most rational, supported evidence, and say "That's God testing you, that is". It's no wonder the ignorance is so deeply ingrained - their only route out of ignorance is blocked by a massive bible. It must be so easy living in a world where if you don't understand something, just say "God did it", and then you don't have to bother learning anything.
not all religious people do that i dont thinkk god is testing you with logical knoweledge i think your logic is 99.99% likely to fit the bible in its meant interpretation



posted on Jun, 21 2008 @ 09:24 AM
link   
reply to post by Eyemagistus
 

everything you said was a bunch of crap. ooh im a jesus freak and i just said crap! the bible is 100% fitting with science and such read the books by Sott M, Huse and the interpretation of the bible by Finis Jennings Dake you must understnd both sides before you can fight for any if the evidence leads you to a result that shake everyrthing you believe in you must believe it or you are not denying ignorance there is too little proof for evolution and to much proof for the account of things happening in the bible to be true there is less proof for evolution than we have now

see for most pople youve got to not only prove youre side but prove their side wrong



posted on Jun, 21 2008 @ 09:27 AM
link   
there is no evidence on this thread. evolutionists want to say they are right but not giving any evidence for creationists to either proof it or gett stumped



posted on Jun, 21 2008 @ 10:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by Ferdane
How can you say that animals hadn't been living before a certain time? They must have come from something.. Like their mum and dad.. And evolution also supports this fact.

God only created the beginning for us all, like all plant species, animal species and humans, and from there we varied.

Ferdane,
How do you know that? Who told you, and why does every living thing produce only according to its own "kind?"

“And God went on to say: “Let the earth put forth living souls according to their kinds, domestic animal and moving animal and wild beast of the earth according to its kind.” And it came to be so.” (Genesis 1:24)

Now don't go "knocking" the Bible! The discreet thing to do is to consider the actual words themselves, regardless of their origin, and see if they are factual or makes any sense.


Wilson.



posted on Jun, 21 2008 @ 11:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by Eyemagistus

Reason and logic are meaningless to them. They have no understanding of evidence, science, or of the scientific method, and have no interest in learning it because they can only see it as a threat to their beliefs. Without the security blanket of those beliefs, they feel hopelessly lost and afraid.


[edit on 20-6-2008 by Eyemagistus]


Evidence? ha ha ha yeah riiight Just tell me smart guy,, Just what IS the "scientific method" how many steps are there?

You like the evidence all right,, no matter where it is made

- Con



posted on Jun, 21 2008 @ 11:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by Eyemagistus
This is not a debate, or even a discussion. It is a political jihad waged by religious psychotics against western civilization.
There is no difference between the mentality of fundamentalists of Christianity, Islam, or any other religion of the Big Black Book. They believe what they believe simply because they believe it. End of discussion. Nothing else is possible because they believe the Book itself is infallible and that they are also infallible merely because they believe in it..........
Reason and logic are meaningless to them. They have no understanding of evidence, science, or of the scientific method, and have no interest in learning it because they can only see it as a threat to their beliefs. Without the security blanket of those beliefs, they feel hopelessly lost and afraid.

Eye,
Jihad? Against Western civilization? Where's your proof?
By hinting that all religious people are certifiable kooks, you are attempting to stifle meaningful discussion. Some of us are scientists who have studied religion and still work in the scientific field on a daily basis. So - how "factual" is this last paragraph of yours? What is your field of expertise? Psychoanalyst? Or are you really attempting to conceal your own fears?
Let's see just how reasonable you are:

In his book The Selfish Gene, Richard Dawkins speculates that in the beginning, Earth had an atmosphere composed of carbon dioxide, methane, ammonia and water. Through energy supplied by sunlight, and perhaps by lightning and exploding volcanoes, these simple compounds were broken apart and then they re-formed into amino acids. A variety of these gradually accumulated in the sea and combined into proteinlike compounds. Ultimately, he says, the ocean became an “organic soup,” but still lifeless.

Then, according to Dawkins’ description, “a particularly remarkable molecule was formed by accident”—a molecule that had the ability to reproduce itself. Though admitting that such an accident was exceedingly improbable, he maintains that it must nevertheless have happened. Similar molecules clustered together, and then, again by an exceedingly improbable accident, they wrapped a protective barrier of other protein molecules around themselves as a membrane. Thus, it is claimed, the first living cell generated itself." (Creation, chap. 4 pp. 38-39 pars. 3-4)

Is this scientific fact? Do you think that Dawkins arrived at this conclusion by the "scientific method?"


Wilson.



posted on Jun, 21 2008 @ 11:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by wilsoncole


Then, according to Dawkins’ description, “a particularly remarkable molecule was formed by accident”—a molecule that had the ability to reproduce itself. Though admitting that such an accident was exceedingly improbable, he maintains that it must nevertheless have happened. Similar molecules clustered together, and then, again by an exceedingly improbable accident, they wrapped a protective barrier of other protein molecules around themselves as a membrane. Thus, it is claimed, the first living cell generated itself." (Creation, chap. 4 pp. 38-39 pars. 3-4)

Is this scientific fact? Do you think that Dawkins arrived at this conclusion by the "scientific method?"


Wilson.


Jeez, Wilson,, when you put it like that, it pretty much sums up the way evolutionists arrive at MOST of the things they say.

Then I guess they just figure "Mmm might as well add that to the mountain of evidence!" HA HA HA

The mountain is a landfill full of garbage they make up as they go and everytime they get busted for that bunk, they change the theory again and say "Science is self correcting!"

and they say God is a delusion

sheesh

- Con



posted on Jun, 21 2008 @ 04:21 PM
link   
You people can't even follow the comments on this thread. How can anyone rely on you to follow anything?

Wilsoncole:
I never said ALL religious people are "certifiable kooks," I specifically said religious FUNDAMENTALISTS! (Please read more carefully before blasting someone for what they did not say. It only hurts your own credibility.)
What is wrong with SPECULATION? Dawkins clearly was SPECULATING!
The most valuable part of the scientific method is using the results to make accurate predictions. Evolution is one of the most successful scientific theories because of the enormous number of accurate predictions it has made.
Is it reasonable to expect every fossil to have been discovered in barely 150 years? Thousands of new species are discovered every year and thousands more go extinct before they can be found. Amino acids have been detected in interstellar clouds and in meteorites, and we just discovered water ice on Mars yesterday!
How does finding tiny perceived flaws in evolution theory, automatically disqualify it and make Biblical creationism correct by default? I would call that certifiably kooky reasoning!

jesus_freak:
Please stop pretending you even have a clue about quantum mechanics. No one has ever found a way around the second law of thermodynamics. I am going to make you look that up all on your own. (Don't worry, it is really simple.)
If you believe everything Finis Jennings Dake said, then you probably believe Benny Hinn produces miracles on command for his TV show. If Benny would just allow himself to be tested by a reputable medical research center, we could resolve this issue once and for all!

This is what I actually said:

Originally posted by Eyemagistus
...
The most recent heinous attempt to destroy science education came from the Christian fanatics in the Oklahoma State legislature. HB 2633 proposed to make it illegal for a public school teacher to give any student a lower grade for giving test answers based on religion!
This monstrosity passed both houses and only the veto of a sane governor prevented this from becoming law.

See any problems?
HB 2633 regarding public schools — VETO MESSAGE...
www.gov.ok.gov...


Originally posted by Eyemagistus
Apparently there are no objections to genetic engineering when it serves Biblical prophecies:
...
A perfect one has to be born and then, once that happens, it will be sacrificed and the temple will be ready to be built."
transcripts.cnn.com...

Do any of you Creationists even know who George Lemaitre was? Duh, the person who proposed the Big Bang theory, was really a Catholic priest! He even had the integrity to chastise the Pope for trying to use it to score political points!
en.wikipedia.org...

Another Catholic priest, Gregor Mendel, is the father of genetics! To believe in Biblical creationism, you must accept that we are descended from incest!
en.wikipedia.org...

[edit on 15-6-2008 by Eyemagistus]

The temple they are talking about, is the Temple Mount in Jerusalem. Sacrificing a genetically engineered cow will bring Jesus back? I don't know what you call bringing on Armageddon intentionally, but Jihad works for me.

Originally posted by Eyemagistus


...
Scientists, including evolutionists, have no opinion on the existence or non-existence of any alleged God. Many scientists, including many evolutionist, are indeed religious people who see no conflict. It is purely a personal choice that may not be coerced.
No one has ever produced any evidence that can be tested one way or the other for a "God." It requires the wholesale abandonment of reason and logic, which happens to be the very cornerstone of western civilization.


The Wedge document exposed the conspiracy behind the ID movement. They are a congregation of LIARS!

[edit on 21-6-2008 by Eyemagistus]



new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join