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: 7
4
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 12 2008 @ 12:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by melatonin
Just don't expect others to buy into such a vacuous assertion.


that right there is the part im not understanding. why is saying a being of infinite power exists a vacuous assertion.

i just dont understand what is so outlandish about it.




posted on Jun, 12 2008 @ 12:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by miriam0566
that right there is the part im not understanding. why is saying a being of infinite power exists a vacuous assertion.

i just dont understand what is so outlandish about it.


I suppose it depends whether you have evidential standards. That is, hold to an evidence-based worldview. If not, then saying invisible pink unicorns, the flying spagetti monster, and fairies who drop rain from pipettes exist are as reasonable as anything else you can extract from the depths of the imagination.

But then you go further, you also suggest you know the mind and motivations of such things. All you are really doing is saying, 'look, a is like this, that's what y wanted' and if a & b were mutually exclusive, you would just apply the same to b.

No reason, no rhyme. It can apply to everything and anything. No need for real evidence-based explanations. For all you know 'a' might not be the way he wanted it, he might have wanted 'b', but decided 'oh, sod it, it doesn't matter'. Unless you are able to read the mind of supernatural godbots.

Essentially, in your case, you are just happy to say 'goddidit, and that's the way he wanted it'. Intellectually bankrupt.

Bleugh!

But I'll repeat myself again, if it makes you happy. It's fine by me.

[edit on 12-6-2008 by melatonin]



posted on Jun, 12 2008 @ 01:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by melatonin

I suppose it depends whether you have evidential standards. That is, hold to an evidence-based worldview. If not, then saying invisible pink unicorns, the flying spagetti monster, and fairies who drop rain from pipettes exist are as reasonable as anything else you can extract from the depths of the imagination.


ok, this is going to sound like a really stupid simplistic question, but im trying to get into your head and understand you.

basically what you are saying is that because you cant see god ("see" being figurative for evidence) you dont believe in him?



posted on Jun, 12 2008 @ 01:32 PM
link   
How do you know these animals evolved? Where are the transitionals? If evolution is true then where are all the transitionals showing where every animal began and all of their different forms. As far as I can tell there are only a handful of "supposed transitionals". And these have yet to be proven to be true transitionals. Evolutionists have stated that they look like they fit but the rest of the scientific/atheistic community automatically assumes that they have another smoking gun. This is what drives me crazy about evolutionists. They continually beg the question.
Logically if one belief system is proven false then the other must be true correct?
If evolution is correct then there can be no gaps between when an animal first evolved and it's present state or the state when it went extinct. Oh wait, there are gaps.
If creationism is true then there are going to be gaps in the fossil record. Oh wait, there are gaps. Hmmm...



posted on Jun, 12 2008 @ 01:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by miriam0566
basically what you are saying is that because you cant see god ("see" being figurative for evidence) you dont believe in him?


Actually, more a case that there is absolutely no evidence for such a claim I also can't see oxygen, but I accept it exists (evidence, dear).(ignore that, I missed the qualifier).

However, it goes further than the lack of evidence. I also see how culture-bound such claims are, how each is somewhat different. How each essentially come down to either cultural transmission, or some sort of subjective experience, and even neurological deficits and 'events'. I see how people across the ages have used supernatural concepts such as gods/godesses to explain natural phenomena. And by extension, how people have a tendency (i.e., a cognitive bias) to falsely apply teleological explanations and agency in nature. Indeed, how this bias is an evolutionary adaptive trait in many ways. Moroever, the human tendency for magical thinking. How even when real-world evidence falsifies particular theological concepts, people still cling to them like Linus with his blanket.

That should do for now


Even then, I am not what you would perhaps call a 'strong' atheist, more an agnostic atheist. I am open to new evidence, I am a de facto atheist.

I guess I'll post this link as a short informative explanation of the approach I take:

Dragon in my garage

Again, I won't stop you believing whatever you want. Although I won't necessarily respect it, I will try my best to respect you.

[edit on 12-6-2008 by melatonin]



posted on Jun, 12 2008 @ 02:33 PM
link   
I know I am gonna catch a fire storm here for this, but I believe in Creation. I am devoutly Christian and I really do not see why this debate can be so heated. Neither side of the argument can prove their case with out a shadow of doubt. You can show me all the fossils and pictures of the universe you want to and it is compelling but it does not fit in with my beliefs. I will not discredit a scientific researchers work by simply implying that "God did it" but I sure do grow weary of people saying everything is science and expecting to change thousands of years of beliefs in "Divine God" (or in some cases Gods). If Creationism is wrong then tell me this. The big bang theroy as I understand it was caused by millions of atoms smashing together and friction caused this massive explosion that produced planets and stars and enerything else in the galaxy. If that is true then where did all the atoms come from in the first place. With that said is it just so unbelievable to assume that maybe that is the way it happened but maybe with some sort of divine intervention. I just cant see a bunch of atom materializing out of a complete void.



posted on Jun, 12 2008 @ 02:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Doc Velocity

Originally posted by sobek52
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. -Sobek52

And yet nothing that you just said explains where Life originated. Evolution is but a description of Life processes, given that Life already exists. Nothing in Evolution theory can even begin to explain how Life originated. Again, Creationism can encompass Evolution, but Evolution can never encompass (nor explain) Creation. -Doc Velocity





You make a strong point, yet I can apply the same tactic to your statement. Creationists believe that God created life, but who created him? If you say "He simply just is" than can't I say the same of life? Point is, our civilization has not advanced enough to enearth all the secrets of the universe around us, and the field is open to speculation. I do, however, support freedom of worship and all, and I am not trying to anger people, just voice my opinion.






[edit on 12-6-2008 by sobek52]

[edit on 12-6-2008 by sobek52]



posted on Jun, 12 2008 @ 03:03 PM
link   
reply to post by Doc Velocity
 


I think you've placed your Faith in Science.

Yes, I have. Know why? Because Science has a proven track record of being right, or correcting itself when it has been made apparent that it is wrong. The discoveries being made by Science are what has delivered us into our modern first world near paradise society. Not anything from the Bible.

God did not wipe out Polio and Smallpox. God did not create the internet for the free and open exchange of ideas. God did not provide me with clean water. God has not sent man to the Moon, nor will he send man to Mars. God did not create instantaneous worldwide communication. Etc.

Virtually everything we think we know about Nature, thus far, has been proven wrong or, perhaps worse, only half right.

And yet it's track record of success, a monument to which being the technologically advanced society you now live in, is far beyond what anyone in the Bible or any of our ancient ancestors could provide. To be sure, Science is not perfect, but as said, Science is a self correcting process that grows over time. It grows exponentially over time because newer technology lays down enabling factors for either new discovery or refinement of knowledge already possessed.

Computer, for example, has been a MAJOR enabling technology which has lead to a virtual explosion of knowledge in the last 50 years because they are precisely good at what we are not. The accurate storage and retrieval of information as well as unparalleled number crunching. Your home desktop computer has more math skills than the entire population of humanity combined.

The internal combustion engine, with its century-old legacy of pumping pollutants into the atmosphere, is a good example of half-baked Science.

To be sure, the combustion engine and it's abuse over the years has had negative repercussions. It's also had equally potent positive repercussions. But the problems we are facing are those of poor foresight, rather than faulty science. Assuming eternal supply, considering it to be a "clean alternative". (Which, yes, cars were touted as a clean alternative. Before cars we used horses, and their dung piled in the streets of our major cities and in their dumps. It stunk horribly, and contributed to the spread of disease)

So is the continent-wide electrical power grid, which generates both profound and subtle electromagnetic disturbances in the biosphere.

Actually those disturbances are highly localized to the power lines themselves. I suppose you might be able to make a case for them slightly affecting birds which rely on the Earth's electromagnetic field for navigation, but they seem to be doing fine. The old wives tale about living under power lines is just that. Indeed, you can often buy new-age fru-fru "Magnet Therapy" treatments to "promote health" which are basically the same exact thing as standing under-neither a power line. Not that it has ever been shown to work, mind you.

Another great example of lousy Science are genetically modified foods which, for some as-yet-unknown reason, are a bit more toxic to the environment than we planned.

GM plants toxic to the environment? Perhaps the pesticides and such which the GM plants are designed to withstand. But it's not a case of the GM foods themselves. Indeed, most of the food you eat today is GM and aside from a few isolated incidences it has provided exactly what was claimed. Healthier and more plentiful crops, enriched nutrition, and cheaper food.

The astronomers themselves have the worst jobs, I think. Every day, they wake up in a new universe, their preconceived notions shattered by stunningly simple revelations.

You obviously don't know many astronomers. I'm sure the celebrations at command central for the Phoenix landing on Mars was just the joy of finally being able to go home for the day.


[edit on 12-6-2008 by Lasheic]



posted on Jun, 12 2008 @ 03:24 PM
link   
reply to post by Doc Velocity
 


As our various interplanetary probes go zipping about and relaying back one shocker after another for Earth-bound scientists, it becomes apparent that these guys were way off the mark in most of their theories regarding the Solar System.

Most of our solar system has been known for quite a long time, even before Nasa. Actually, the vast majority of our Space Probes have confirmed previous theories. In greater detail, generally, with new and puzzling evidence to go with it. That evidence is then compiled and joins the rest of our collective knowledge to help solve the new mysteries. This is called progress.

You make the baseless assertion that because Science doesn't know everything about everything, and isn't 100% correct 100% of the time - then it is worthless. This is bullox. Even if all of the mysteries of the universe were lain bare before us - there would still be a margin of error in it because the human mind will always contain some form of error. As AronRa put it,


Everything within the capacity of human understanding contains a degree of error, and everything men know to be true is only true to a degree. Everyone is inevitably wrong about something somewhere. We don’t know everything about everything. We don’t know everything about anything! And what we do know, we don’t know accurately on all points nor completely in every detail. Honest men admit this.


There is no such thing as an absolute truth, which is what you're basically requiring. Worse, an abasolute truth without the benefit of discovery. The only thing within the realm of human thought which claims "absolute truth" in religion, and they - ALL OF THEM - have been shown to be dead wrong about damned near everything they claim. They can't even come together on a consensus over what the "Absolute Truth" is, and instead point fingers and call each other deluded. At best, anyhow. Usually they just kill leach other.

So yes. As incomplete, as faulty, and as abused as Science can be - which never claims to have an absolute truth, I would still much rather put my faith in it because as said, it has a proven track history of results. It may stumble as it grows, but it progresses.

Religion does not. Has not. And never will.

The proof is in the pudding, as they say.



posted on Jun, 12 2008 @ 03:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lasheic
There is no such thing as an absolute truth, which is what you're basically requiring.


By the way, great responses. You have strewn them together in blithesome beauty.

I would have to say that an absolute truth does exist, as contradicting as it will be understood.

Saying for absolute certainty that there is no such thing as an absolute truth, is in effect an absolute truth. Sorry... I'll leave you guys alone now.



posted on Jun, 12 2008 @ 03:47 PM
link   
reply to post by redshirt0202
 




Other than to say, that there was an earth age prior to this one

I can't answer that in twenty five words or less, so ,

Perhaps you viewing this will answer your question.



video.google.com...#



posted on Jun, 12 2008 @ 05:27 PM
link   
reply to post by LastOutfiniteVoiceEternal
 


Saying for absolute certainty that there is no such thing as an absolute truth, is in effect an absolute truth.

Point taken. Hypthetically, it may be possible for someone to know an absolute truth. It's just never happened, and for all intents and purposes - it's so exceedinly improbable that it's safe to say it is impossible. I would consider this in the same league as the idea of the Sun revolving around the Earth. Philosophically, it may be possible. We MIGHT be wrong about celestial mechanics. Absolutely none of the evidence points to that, so we can safely take it as truth that the Earth revolves around the Sun until evidence appears otherwise.


Also, I thought I'd share this with everyone. It's a simple (fairly) explanation of Abiogenesis and how we think it operates. Please note that Abiogenesis is still a very contended field of study, and there's lots more to discover.


In case the link doesn't work

Note that Abiogensis isn't the only theory for the origin of life on Earth. For example, some of you might be familiar with the idea of Panspermia - microbial life arriving on Earth from elsewhere in the Universe. This isn't as well accepted because there's not as much evidence for it as there is for Abiogenesis - but it is still a valid and recognized hypothesis. The only problem being, all Panspermia does is add another step into the question. Life on Earth MAY have come from outer space, but it begs the question, what was it's origin, how did it come into being, and how did it get to Earth?

Mars, for example, is a contender for the Panspermia theory because there is evidence of both past liquid water on Mars' surface as well as confirmed Martian rocks which have landed on Earth. Some of these rocks inconclusively hint that life might have begun on Mars as well. That is at least SOMETHING, and that's the reason why people who posit that life may have originated on Mars are not railed against like Creationists.

Creationism isn't really a contender in this, because in order to factor a god into the equation - one would have to provide enough empirical evidence to prove or at least prove beyond a reasonable doubt the existence of a god. That in turn hasn't been possible yet because there is no presented evidence that has no other naturalistic explanation which fits our knowledge of how the universe works.

[edit on 12-6-2008 by Lasheic]



posted on Jun, 12 2008 @ 06:43 PM
link   
It's too bad Jesus, if such an individual actually existed, couldn't see into the future or he would have written a book himself and prevented so much of the needless confusion, suffering and chaos he left behind, by leaving it all to others who never understood him.



posted on Jun, 12 2008 @ 07:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by melatonin

Dragon in my garage


thank you for the post, it helped me to see a few things.



posted on Jun, 12 2008 @ 10:27 PM
link   
Miriam:

All is not lost. There is still plenty of room in sub-atomic physics for the Great Mystery to hide. It's just that science has to meet much higher standards than religion.
When people disagree about religion, they simply go their separate ways, establish separate domains, and keep disagreeing forever because nothing can ever be proven.
In Science, disagreements must be resolved by a specific test or experiment which clearly defines the disagreement. It may take many years before the experiment can actually be carried out, but it will ultimately be resolved one way or the other through independent verification, resulting in the ability to make accurate predictions. A standard religion always fails miserably.
I had a teacher once, who said that God is a mathematician. I can't disagree with that. It is the only language that is truly universal, omnipresent and omniscient.

You might find something in "Spooky Action at a Distance" you can relate to. Anything you read into it though, you must be prepared to abandon with the results of the next experiment. Faith has no value in science. Only the brutal truth has meaning.

www4.ncsu.edu...



posted on Jun, 13 2008 @ 05:20 AM
link   
reply to post by Lasheic
 


I was not saying that we know little of the solar system, I am speaking of The UNIVERSE AS A WHOLE, outside of the system



posted on Jun, 13 2008 @ 05:28 AM
link   
well i think both theories are incorrect, they have tried to recreate life out of a rich organic broth in labs and have been unsucessful, life only comes from life IE ecolution may be true but dna doesnt happen from mixing random chemicals and adding radiation perhaps genetics change but not something from nothing, you need life to create life and yes in the infiniteness of the universe it could have happened but perhaps not here as the variable were not likely perfect for the kind of life presently on this planet, our genes were probally made somewhere from another form of life that occured easier naturally, then after a few trillion years made its way here in simple forms on an ice asteroid so darwins wrong im wrong and so is the bible in its current translation and altered state



posted on Jun, 13 2008 @ 06:11 AM
link   
Animals adapt to their environment. We know that. However, what has happened is the scientist confuse the evolution of adpating to your environment as evolution as creation.

If we evovled out of nothing it would still be happening. This idea that there needs to be a perfect primordial soup is an excuse. Creatures would still be evolving into other creatures. New species would be evolving still.

There are too many missing links between each species that supposedly evovled into something else.

Male and female discount evoloution as creation. Are we to believe that every species evolved seperately into a male and female version that could procreate and make more? There would be a hell of a lot more a-sexual creatures (Creatures that can have offspring without a mate) if we all evolved from a single species or even a set of species.

In addition it seems like life has been embedded into this planet at the molecular level. No matter how deep they dig or how deep they go in the ocean they find living organisms. In environments we thought would be impossible to support life.

How many articles have you read that say "Scientists are having rethink" or "Scientits are re-evaluating the theory that".

Everytime they dig up something new they have to change their way of thinking. I don't know how any self respecting scientist could spout evolution as creation. It makes no scientific sense at all.

No matter what you believe the creator to be, something, or someone created life on this planet.



posted on Jun, 13 2008 @ 06:56 AM
link   
reply to post by Lasheic
 


Ever think of how convenient it is that everything we need is found in the dirt and rocks?

How close to the surface it all is compared to the size of the planet?

Everthing we need has been provided for us. Look around you...everything around you came from the dirt and rocks.

How the plants exhale oxygen we taken in and take in what we exhale? A perfect symbiosis right? This just happened naturally in the environment right?

You say God did not give us clean water? 70 percent of this planet os covered in water. It evaporates and fresh clean water falls from the sky. This is not water purification at it's finest.

Let's look at the ocean, for a second, where did all that salt come from? It has it's own built in purification system. If not for the salt, what would this nasty green pond scum covering most of the planet look like?

You can be a genius and know how to make a partical accelerator, but if you don't have the materials you aint making squat.

This planet has been designed to provide everything we need. Life has been embedded in this planet at the molecular level. No matter how deep they dig they find living organisms. In environments we thought was impossible to host life.



posted on Jun, 13 2008 @ 09:17 AM
link   
reply to post by Anonymous ATS
 


So you've made up your mind already. No amount of logical evidence can convince you something is true. Whereas you read the bible, which says "The bible is the word of god" and you believe that. No evidence, no rationality, you just believe it. To the extent that anything that contradicts that baseless belief is instantly wrong to you.

Damn straight you're gonna catch a fire storm for that - ATS's motto is "Deny Ignorance", and you seem to be wallowing in it, loving every second. Dear oh dear.



new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join