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: 5
4
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 11 2008 @ 08:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by dave420
reply to post by sir_chancealot
 


Simple - it's very difficult to make a fossil. An animal has to die in exactly the right place, not be eaten or otherwise abused, until natural processes around it can envelop it in some sort of sediment, when it eventually fossilises.



Now come on... You are making my point for me... If I threw a chicken bone out in the street tonight, it would be there for about 10 minutes before some other animal came and ate it... And you expect me to believe that thousands of animals died, and laid there for the thousands of years it would take for an animal to be completely buried, and no other animal picked it apart and ate it, and the sun didn't cause it to rot and biodegrate?????????

Please, The ONLY explanation for fossils is the FLOOD, where animals would have been killed and buried very quickly...

Now, If you would like to debate whether God created the flood or if it was caused by global warming, I will debate you, but come on.......




posted on Jun, 11 2008 @ 08:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by sobek52
reply to post by sir_chancealot
 


Well, the fact that life came out of nowhere at the precambrian explosion can be explained. Usually, evolution is slow and steady (Gradualism.) But occasionally, rapid changes in an organism's DNA occur (Punctuated Equilibrium.) It is possible that a great burst of Punctuated Equilibrium among a wide swathe of organisms, caused life to come crawling out of primordial soup.

You do realize that punctuated equilibrium is considered a "theory" with ABSOLUTELY NO DATA TO BACK IT UP? You do realize that it cannot be falsified, right? It is a "theory" that DEPENDS on missing data.

Anyone else see a problem with that?



posted on Jun, 11 2008 @ 08:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by Twilly
...Please, The ONLY explanation for fossils is the FLOOD, where animals would have been killed and buried very quickly...

I disagree somewhat with you on this. A agree that a worldwide flood would explain fossils being EVERYWHERE. What I would disagree with is that ALL fossils are the result of the great flood.

We know for a fact that full fossilization can occur in less than 50 years. Some dude found a fossilized leg bone in a boot. On the boot's heal was the date it was made, which was like in the 1950s.



posted on Jun, 11 2008 @ 09:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by uknow_me72
reply to post by redshirt0202
 



Easy answer and you will get what I mean if you followed anything I said in the 100 other post I have....

Some are transplanted from other planets in the universe

They become fossils and not around because

Destruction kills them off, VIA natural, or Intentional

........

The possibilities, and an answer that completely nullifies Evolution.





So is my idea a few pages back as an explaination for the OP does not have a chance to be right?

I mean it answer the question on why things are gone and why there are some odd spieces here.....

I did not mention the flood but I could of added it...



posted on Jun, 11 2008 @ 09:18 PM
link   
reply to post by Lasheic
 


OMG I love this video about evolution you posted, Your the man!

en.wikipedia.org...
Everyone should watch that video and read this wikipedia page and there would be a lot less confusion. Creationists are ignorant of the facts or choose to ignore them.

So whats really really happening is that the elements just naturally form into organic molecules and eventually into evolving lifeforms when the conditions are right. Its like a magic trick, its like god saying let there be life and it just sort of happens. Mind blowing stuff. Really think about it, inorganic matter which complexifies and becomes a living organism. It really blurs the line of what you think of as life. When you think about it you see that there isnt a huge difference in what the two sides of this argument are saying. life still sort of magically just happens, so really what is the argument?

its one group of people full of religion trying to enlighten others vs another group of people full of science trying to enlighten others and the problem is both sides are saying the same thing in a different way.

I prefer science because scientists tend to be pretty smart and I like to listen to smart people. Religion on the other hand encourages you not to ask questions and just have faith and really the people behind that kind of message only have their own interests in mind. Its a scam to hold some level of control over the flock. People love to be conned, again its a magic trick. suspend belief and feel some elation about the universe and how magical it is. I think most people are religious because they are so scared about death or sad about dead loved ones but why close your mind to the wealth of knowledge the world has to offer. do you really want to be in the ignorance is bliss mindset?

My concept of the world has changed a lot over the years. It was hard to deprogram myself and cast off all the preconceptions the world piles on us as kids. theres an onslaught of propeganda and dogma mixed with education and entertainment into this soup of social programming that gives rise to the modern psyche. Its a program and its got a lot of bugs.



posted on Jun, 11 2008 @ 09:38 PM
link   
I'm not a believer in creationism, at all, I'm 100% atheist and I find religion to be just as harmful as it is good, not just in the warring sense but also in the damage it does to a person's thinking process.

BUT!

This can all be explained under the theory of guided evolution (a.k.a. creationist evolution). Basically is says that God guided evolution. And given that the bible never says how long a day is, it's possible that a day according to God could be millions of years.

I can tell you as an atheist and someone who scrutinizes the bible and it's books very heavily, there is no proof that anything in the bible is wrong in conjunction with modern day evidence. There are only contradictions and things that defy logic. Under the faith system anything is possible, and that's one of the amazing things about religion. Despite the irrational beliefs people have in their religion, and are pinpointed directly on faith in God, many of these same people refuse to believe that other being existing in the universe, intelligent or not.

It's a great subject to research lemme tell ya
, lots of interesting things that you'll find that are a true phenomena.



posted on Jun, 11 2008 @ 09:50 PM
link   
If there was a God, there would not be a Willie Randolph!



posted on Jun, 11 2008 @ 09:59 PM
link   
reply to post by SkepticPerhaps
 


You know, as a Christian believing in "creationism", this is a very smart answer. I really don't believe that the earth was created in 7 literal 24 hour days. There is substantial evidence that the earth has been along for a long time. (tectonic plate movement being one of the most convincing for me) I believe that God did create animals and humans, etc, and I don't really believe we evolved from apes, but I do believe that certain animals have evolved by breeding with other animals, which would support your question and the creationsim theory. I don't know if this really pertains, but look at all the breeds of Dogs. Anyone should know that there are hundreds of different types of dogs these days, I myself have a Shi Tzu - Pomeranian, and it probably never exsisted a thousand years ago.

Slightly off topic, but in believing in God, I believe that he created science and all the laws of the universe, etc. He created us to discover stuff, create stuff, and advance ourselves. He wanted to see us flourish as a species. Why wouldn't he? If you're a father, wouldn't you want to see your children grow up to do great things? What is unfortunate is that often Science and Christianity like to clash because most Christians say "God is in control of everything, so there are no official "laws" and because the bible says the earth was created in 7 days, then it must be so." These people are close minded. But on the contrary, scientists say miracles are impossible, but if God holds time and everything in his hands, who says he can't do miracles without breaking the laws he created himself in the universe to do great things?

Sorry to go off topic, but sometimes I really wish people would realize how much Science and Christianity do go hand in hand. Ignorance from either side is unacceptable. God doesn't want us suppressed in ancient times, he wants us to advance as much as we can, making life more enjoyable, but he intended us to Glorify him as we did it, not as so much glorfy ourselves for our discovery in his universe.
Just my $0.02 anyways.

[edit on 103030p://333 by For(Home)Country]

[edit on 103030p://333 by For(Home)Country]



posted on Jun, 11 2008 @ 10:04 PM
link   
life is like a tree, it grows from a seed, then it dies from its own seed, same with the humans,

if god did make us all, then i have another question, how made him ? or her or it ? whatever , this question will never end



posted on Jun, 11 2008 @ 10:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by williebear
How many of these evolution vs. creationism threads are we going to have to endure? .... PLEASE!
I'm begging you!! Let this debate die.


How many more? About as many more as there are inquisitive minds in our species, and until humans evolve into some other species. That's my guess.

I'm always perplexed with these people who live their lives on ATS — which is supposed to be a nexus of peculiar thoughts and discussions — but who lose their tempers when The Great Questions are asked. As if what? As if they have already resolved the great questions for themselves and simply can't tolerate the learning processes of others?

And, you know, this relates right back to the teaching of Evolution but not Creationism in schools. Who decides which fairy tales to tell our children? The angry atheists who insist on Evolution only, without even a tentative explanation of how Life originated? Or the Creationists, whose folklore of Life fabricated out of nothingness is every bit as valid as the best theories (read "fairy tales") that Science can offer?

Seriously, Science has no answers. All Science does is sort through and categorize the pebbles and grains of sand at the foot of a mountain of mystery. Science doesn't have a clue, and will never resolve The Great Mysteries in the lifetime of our species. And they know this.

But it doesn't stop scientists from manufacturing these elaborate explanations (read "fairy tales") of natural phenomena and natural processes without a grain of evidence to support them. Examples? The Big Bang Theory — Pure fiction, and it doesn't even have a beginning! Black Holes — Intellectual gymnastics with no hard evidence whatsoever. Quantum Physics, String Theory, Tachyon Universes, et cetera — One long, interminable bedtime story that dwarfs Harry Potter for sheer unsubstantiated absurdity.

And, as much as Evolution appears to contain elements of fact, it's still missing the most critical bit — a beginning. How did Life begin?

So, why is Evolution touted as "the answer" to Creationism? It's not an answer, it's only a partial description of processes that occur after Creation. Evolution is an incomplete work-in-progress that in no way answers our children's most urgent questions.

Point is, if we're telling our kids that Evolution is right and Creationism is wrong, then we're lying to them. And that is a conspiracy.





posted on Jun, 11 2008 @ 10:58 PM
link   
Tell you what, I'll tell you what I believe.

Both creation and evolution are correct. They're not mutually exclusive. They can coexist.

Life began. The motive force that set life into motion is God or whatever name you choose to call the creator. After that evolution reigns more or less as the creator continues to influence life as it changes and develops.

The story of creation was put into terms that people of the time could understand. That's why it doesn't seem to make sense anymore. We've matured, but the stories written back then haven't changed.

If God were to make himself 100% undeniably apparent then where is the faith. Faith is the basis of understanding.



posted on Jun, 11 2008 @ 11:18 PM
link   
reply to post 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?

--------------------------

Yes, there were multiple series of creations (days), it has ceased as of human beings (day 6) but will commence in earnest again after the end of this age. Go read Genesis and note the days (periods of multiple eons) have a definitive beginning and end stated, except this current day (of rest) which has not yet ended.

The earth and the universe are very ancient, the word translated into english as 'day' can also be accurately translated as 'a very long indeterminate period of time'.

Why is all life and matter designed according to phi (golden mean), why would a strict mathamatical constant factor into random evolution.

Your thoughts on this?



posted on Jun, 11 2008 @ 11:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by Doc Velocity

Originally posted by williebear
How many of these evolution vs. creationism threads are we going to have to endure? .... PLEASE!
I'm begging you!! Let this debate die.


How many more? About as many more as there are inquisitive minds in our species, and until humans evolve into some other species. That's my guess.

I'm always perplexed with these people who live their lives on ATS — which is supposed to be a nexus of peculiar thoughts and discussions — but who lose their tempers when The Great Questions are asked. As if what? As if they have already resolved the great questions for themselves and simply can't tolerate the learning processes of others?

And, you know, this relates right back to the teaching of Evolution but not Creationism in schools. Who decides which fairy tales to tell our children? The angry atheists who insist on Evolution only, without even a tentative explanation of how Life originated? Or the Creationists, whose folklore of Life fabricated out of nothingness is every bit as valid as the best theories (read "fairy tales") that Science can offer?

Seriously, Science has no answers. All Science does is sort through and categorize the pebbles and grains of sand at the foot of a mountain of mystery. Science doesn't have a clue, and will never resolve The Great Mysteries in the lifetime of our species. And they know this.

But it doesn't stop scientists from manufacturing these elaborate explanations (read "fairy tales") of natural phenomena and natural processes without a grain of evidence to support them. Examples? The Big Bang Theory — Pure fiction, and it doesn't even have a beginning! Black Holes — Intellectual gymnastics with no hard evidence whatsoever. Quantum Physics, String Theory, Tachyon Universes, et cetera — One long, interminable bedtime story that dwarfs Harry Potter for sheer unsubstantiated absurdity.

And, as much as Evolution appears to contain elements of fact, it's still missing the most critical bit — a beginning. How did Life begin?

So, why is Evolution touted as "the answer" to Creationism? It's not an answer, it's only a partial description of processes that occur after Creation. Evolution is an incomplete work-in-progress that in no way answers our children's most urgent questions.

Point is, if we're telling our kids that Evolution is right and Creationism is wrong, then we're lying to them. And that is a conspiracy.




My friend, you make excellent points - well thought out and succinctly written. My only point is that the debates on this subject on ATS almost never stick to the issue or the initial question. It always reverts to name-calling and trampling the beliefs that others hold dear - in a word: disrespect.
This thread is a question being asked of creationists. Now, should one answer and give their opinion or educated guess, someone else with a bigger scientific phallus will come along and attack not just the evidence (which is fine if the presenter can back it up), but they also attack people's personal religious beliefs. One can discuss creationism without hurling personal, derogatory and disparaging insults. It's just so old and juvenile, and it detracts from the truth-seeking mission I thought most of us were on...

I love talking/debating this issue face-to-face, but on this board - no way. I've read a thousand threads like this one, and they are all the same. I will be avoiding them at all costs from now on because they never go anywhere.



posted on Jun, 11 2008 @ 11:33 PM
link   
I'm rather curious as to why most of the evolutionists on the forum are so damn angry and feel they must bash Christians at any given chance. - alkali

I really don't know too many "angry evolutionists". I know some "angry" Atheists, usually those who just broke free of religion. No, if anything, most people who believe in Evolution are more or less frustrated and concerned about the direction the US and it's often anti-intellectual attitudes, which includes Creationists. But this isn't necessarily associated with Christians. Poll after poll in the US concede that most Christians accept Evolution, and most people who accept Evolution are Christian. This includes Scientists. Even the last three popes we've had, Benedict, John Paul, and Pius all described Evolution as NO threat to the Catholic faith and should be considered as an enriching reality.

Now, we know that Zeus doesn't throw down his lightning bolts to strike our Earth, because we KNOW what Lightning is. We understand how it works. We have harnessed it. In this regard, it is no different than Evolution. So why the reluctance to even look at the evidence with a sober and rational mind?

Point the old finger all you like. But their is water still floating around other planets in our solar system. In the form of ice! So put that in your pipe and smoke it. - Howie47

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. Do you have any evidence of a planet which has a water canopy resting on it's atmosphere, or a "Hovind Ice Sheild", lol? Certainly such a planet would have made world-wide news, because it would break every known rule of physics we know about.

Why limit your beliefs to assuming one is right and one is wrong and that there are TWO perspectives! - nerbot

Honestly, provided the proper oversight, I believe that Creationism should be taught in schools. Just not the science class, and not just Christian creationism. I think an electoral and non-bias religion class may be a good idea, considering how important a role religion plays in the world. So lets teach Creationism, from all religions. Ancient Egyptians, Sumerian, Babylonian, Jewish/Christian/Islam, Buddist, Greek/Roman, Druidic, Shamanistic, etc. Because even if they're not true, they are still an important part of our collective culture and heritage.

They ALL deserve equal footing, right??? Somehow, I feel that's not what most Creationists want.

Its obvious that both creationism and evolution are inadequate to explain this world completely. - bruxfain

Evolution makes no attempt to explain the world completely. It ONLY explains the mechanisms behind the diversity of life. It doesn't even explain the ORIGIN of life, which is a different field called Abiogenesis.

At least creationism keeps everything simple. - bruxfain

Yes, "Simple" is what I would use to describe Creationism.

jalien
Thank you for the comments, but I don't consider myself that smart. That's part of what I like about these threads is that it throws up questions, absurdities, and if I don't know the answer off the top of my ., I research it. So it gives me a chance to refresh on things I know, or learn new things. Then I can share this knowledge with others. Plus, just the engagement in a debate, even if one-sided, is entertaining.



posted on Jun, 11 2008 @ 11:40 PM
link   



posted on Jun, 12 2008 @ 12:02 AM
link   
If you research your facts entirely.
You will find that the creationist / evolutionist argument is pointless.

They are not excluded from each other but one and the same.
It is design for evolution, plain and simple.
There is no need to argue.

Ask the right questions and the right answer will come.
We did evolve yes, we were "created" to do so.
What is so hard to understand
Wake up

Peace



posted on Jun, 12 2008 @ 12:22 AM
link   
Go to any library and pick up a comprehensive textbook on human biology. Flip through the photos. As you will observe, human beings pass through what is obviously an accelerated “evolution” from single-cell to multi-cellular organism, from an invertebrate jellyfish to a vertebrate amphibian with gills, from a reptile-like fetus with a long tail to what is a recognizable primate - Doc Velocity

That's not quiiiiite right, but you do hit on something. Even though a fetus doesn't "evolve" to a human a fetus will show some signs of past evolutionary atavisms - such as tails, that are later absorbed.
Embryology and Evolution

It is possible that a great burst of Punctuated Equilibrium among a wide swathe of organisms, caused life to come crawling out of primordial soup. - sobek52

I never liked the "primordial soup" concept. I think it's far more likely that life first formed around the hydrothermal vents under the ocean. But, complex life didn't just appear out of a soup of chemicals. For the vast majority of time life has been on Earth, it was single celled organisms. It was the increasing O2 in the atmosphere due to photosynthetic plants which really kicked up metabolism and lead to the "explosion" of multicellular life (which took many millions of years). The first organisms to populate land were probably simple fungi.
Amazing Fungus
This video is part of a different population, but he touches on the subject.

so far noone has proved to me the carbon dating and so on are accurate - pureevil81

So go to collage and study radio carbon dating, as well as other dating methods. What's the worst that can happen, you'll lose a bit of money and gain a higher education. At least you'll be far better off in debating WHY you don't trust it's accuracy.

I mean, nobody is going to be able to provide you with proof that is already available for free, because you'll just ignore it. So get the experience and knowledge for yourself. Get your hands dirty, do some lab work. See for yourself.

If I threw a chicken bone out in the street tonight, it would be there for about 10 minutes before some other animal came and ate it... And you expect me to believe that thousands of animals died, and laid there for the thousands of years it would take for an animal to be completely buried, and no other animal picked it apart and ate it, and the sun didn't cause it to rot and biodegrate????????? - Twilly

The sun doesn't bio-degrade bone.

Please, The ONLY explanation for fossils is the FLOOD, where animals would have been killed and buried very quickly... - Twilly

This, and your above statement, actually work out far more well in favor of an old Earth than a young Earth. See, if a Flood HAD killed all the creatures on Earth - then we would expect to see a FAR richer and FAR more complete fossil record than what we currently have, because all of those animals would have buried under tons of silt and debris. There would have been FAR more instances of fossilization. Even fish wouldn't have survived due to the desalination of the oceans from all that rain water. Freshwater fish would have died as well due to the increased salt water from the oceans. Nothing would have been left to disturb the fossils which were buried.

That's not what we find. We find very few specimens of any specific species we've discovered (compared to what would be necessary for a healthy population), and often incomplete fossils. What we find is consistent with fossilization being a very rare event.



posted on Jun, 12 2008 @ 01:01 AM
link   
If you believe the Bible is true, you are only worshiping translators.



posted on Jun, 12 2008 @ 01:01 AM
link   
We know for a fact that full fossilization can occur in less than 50 years. Some dude found a fossilized leg bone in a boot. On the boot's heal was the date it was made, which was like in the 1950s. - sir_chancealot

Eeeehhhhhh... bad choice of an example. The fossilized boot has been debunked several times.
Limestone Cowboy Boot
Further, I have to ask, has the "fossil" ever been subjected to a mass spectrograph to determine whether or not the bones actually ARE fossilized? And has it been confirmed by other scientists?

Its like a magic trick, its like god saying let there be life and it just sort of happens. Mind blowing stuff. - guyopitz

It's more like standard chemistry, by amazing and mind boggling none-the-less.


and I don't really believe we evolved from apes - For(Home)Country

You don't understand, you aren't merely evolved from apes, you ARE an ape. This is NOT up for debate. Even if you suppose a "special creation", you and every other human are taxonomically identified both Apes and Primates because of shared physical, social, developmental, and other characteristics. This isn't a part of Evolutionary theory, this was defined by Carl Linnaeus - a Christian creationist from the 1700's, well before Darwin's time.

Ever hear the phrase "God Creates, Linneas Arranges." ?

Doc Velocity
The Big Bang Theory — Pure fiction, and it doesn't even have a beginning!
WMAP maps background microwave radiation
Hints of Structure beyond visable universe
The Big Bang certainly isn't a iron clad case by any means, but to ignore the evidence for it and pass it off as pure fantasy?

Black Holes — Intellectual gymnastics with no hard evidence whatsoever.
We have not only seen Black Holes, but have seen them collide.

Quantum Physics
We've tested and proven it
Quantum Computers work, and are weird.

String Theory
We'll find out when the LHC comes online.

Tachyon Universes
Dunno much about this at the moment. I'll have to look it up.

And, as much as Evolution appears to contain elements of fact, it's still missing the most critical bit — a beginning. How did Life begin?

Evolution has nothing to say, nor will ever have anything to say about the origin of life. It only explains the diversity of life. You want Abiogensis.



posted on Jun, 12 2008 @ 02:32 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.

Nor for that matter facing up to the consequences of action or lack of. If something goes ape you can sit back and say it's god's will. This then allows you to do whatever you like as long as you don't contradict the no no's in the bible. That said the bible ensures enough contradiction to allow you to interpret anything anyway you wish and ....it's all God's will.



new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join