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.

 

Why creation?

page: 2
5
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 16 2008 @ 03:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by the_watcher
The reason I believe in Intelligent Design, and will defend it with authority, is that the infallible word of God clearly states that the earth was created in 6 literal days. It also states that man was created, and did not evolve from a lower form of life.

It's as simple as that.

I'm wondering.. why would a god use earth days to set his clock to when he has a whole universe? Setting his clock to our sun would be like a baker calling a breadcrumb dinner.




posted on Sep, 16 2008 @ 07:13 AM
link   
reply to post by riley
 


The other problem is that taking the Holy Bible literally (especially Genesis) is effectively calling God a liar.

To say that 7-day-creation is what actually happened as opposed to what the study of the universe (science) suggests happened is very backwards.

The bible was after all, written by man in a time of ignorance and any interpretation of it is subjective (at least for the most part).

On the assumption that God exists and created the universe, he must have also created everything in it and all the natural laws. The universe should there for should be considered the only infallible work of God, not some book authored by humans.

According to all that God has done in making the universe (if he exists at all), most of it contradicts the bible (considered by creationists as the one true, infallible and inerrant word of God). Creationists therefore have to deny just about all of science.

Creationists claim that God put fossils in the ground and stars 13 billion lightyears away just to test 'faith', which means that anything that 'appears' to have happened before 6000ya never really happened at all and is a deception- a lie.
And according to the "infallible word of God, the holy bible", God cannot lie!

Are you calling God a liar?!

Or are you simply putting your own work (bible- written by man) before God's work (the universe)?

I say Nay!

Creationism is thusly tantamount to idolatry (and even human-worship).



It's clear to me that creationist take evolution as a threat and a challenge (which is not what evolution is about at all) to their "faith" [in themselves] because they cannot discern doctrine form deity. Why else would the creationism movement exist?


People, wake up!
If you aren't going to believe in the tangible that's right in front of you, then there is no point in believing anything exists at all.

[edit on 9/16/2008 by Good Wolf]



posted on Sep, 16 2008 @ 01:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by Good Wolf
Creationists claim that God put fossils in the ground and stars 13 billion lightyears away just to test 'faith', which means that anything that 'appears' to have happened before 6000ya never really happened at all and is a deception- a lie.
And according to the "infallible word of God, the holy bible", God cannot lie!

Are you calling God a liar?!


Any Creationist that says that is obviously misguided. God didn't put fossils there to test our faith or any other kind of deception. I have no idea where you get this stuff, but it's not from a Christian/Creationist.

The fossil record, for starters, is simply misinterpreted by science. They see creatures at the bottom layers and assume there were here first, and continue that assumption with creatures seen higher and claim they were evolved from the lower creatures. That's not science!

If you think about it... many of the creatures on the lower levels are sea creatures. Their natural environment was the ocean, so it makes perfect sense they'd be found clear at the bottom! Land creatures would be found on higher ground because they lived on land. And don't give me "Then why are they laid out one after the other if perfect order?" because they're not. We've found modern day birds, birds still living today, in the same layers we've found prehistoric birds. So they're not in order. You simply place them in order and ignore the evidence to the contrary when presented with it. Most often then not scientist make up excuses for this. How is that science!?

And Archeopteryx wasn't even a dinosaur. It was a bird, and nothing else. The fossil record is there, but it is NOT as you say it is. It makes much more sense from a Creationist point of view because it's actually laid out how God created living creatures, and no other way.

[edit on 16-9-2008 by the_watcher]



posted on Sep, 16 2008 @ 02:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by riley
I'm wondering.. why would a god use earth days to set his clock to when he has a whole universe? Setting his clock to our sun would be like a baker calling a breadcrumb dinner.


This is not hard to explain. Earth, and the universe that contains it, were the very first of His creation. When God created days it was the beginning of time anywhere. A method had to be determined for keeping track of time passing; including seconds, minutes, hours, days, weeks, months, years, and so on. The first method was light (or the Sun) and days were the most important piece of time to keep track of in all of creation because it was the days that seperated each milestone.

You can keep track of hours with the sun, and all you need is a stick (The sundial works the same way). So it's all very simple if you put a little thought into it.

[edit on 16-9-2008 by the_watcher]



posted on Sep, 16 2008 @ 02:23 PM
link   
reply to post by the_watcher
 


Bwahaha



The fossil record, for starters, is simply misinterpreted by science. They see creatures at the bottom layers and assume there were here first, and continue that assumption with creatures seen higher and claim they were evolved from the lower creatures. That's not science!


Except that it is. There are many techniques (such as isotope dating) that can date different rock strata to respective times. They all also back each other, to disprove one you'll need to disprove them all, which you can't do. The laws of nature (which your god made) won't permit it. Of course then there is the very recently deceased organisms that we dig up can provide us with genetic material, which too can indicate a time of death. Plus geology tells us that your layering system doesn't occur, it's never been observed. But we have observed evolution occur on both the micro and macro levels.


And Archeopteryx wasn't even a dinosaur. It was a bird, and nothing else. The fossil record is there, but it is NOT as you say it is. It makes much more sense from a Creationist point of view because it's actually laid out how God created living creatures, and no other way.


You're absolutely right, the Archaeopteryx was a bird, but you forget that birds are dinosaurs.



The origin of birds has been a contentious topic within evolutionary biology for many years, but more recently a scientific consensus has emerged which holds that birds are a group of theropod dinosaurs that evolved during the Mesozoic Era.





Birds share hundreds of unique skeletal features with dinosaurs, especially with derived maniraptoran theropods like the dromaeosaurids, which most analyses show to be their closest relatives. Although harder to identify in the fossil record, similarities in the digestive and cardiovascular systems, as well as behavioral similarities and the shared presence of feathers, also link birds with dinosaurs. The ground-breaking discovery of fossilized Tyrannosaurus rex soft tissue allowed comparison of cellular anatomy and protein sequencing of collagen tissue, both of which provided additional evidence corroborating the dinosaur-bird relationship.


I might point out that you can't disprove what you don't understand. You idea that birds aren't dinosaurs show you don't know this stuff.

But it doesn't matter because no matter what you want to believe, scientists (who actually examine, research, investigate, test and submit findings to brutal peer review, so they know what they are talking about) are explicit and unanimous that the fossil record is not what you make out to be. There is no evidence that suggests that the universe is anything less that 13 billion years old.

But this thread is about why people convince themselves that these silly fables are true when they are wrong about damn near everything.



[edit on 9/16/2008 by Good Wolf]



posted on Sep, 16 2008 @ 05:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by Good Wolf
Except that it is. There are many techniques (such as isotope dating) that can date different rock strata to respective times.


There are no accurate methods for dating fossils. Each time you people date one it's suddenly millions of years old for no good reason.

Another, more accurate method must be applied. For example there was a experiment done that dated Mitochondrial Eve to about 6,500 years ago.

www.talkorigins.org...



You're absolutely right, the Archaeopteryx was a bird, but you forget that birds are dinosaurs.


Dinosaurs are not birds, they've never been birds, and they never will be birds. They are extinct, have been extinct, and always will be extinct; save for a radical experiment ala Jurassic Park (Won't happen in my life time I'm sure).

You have no proof to back up the claim that birds evolved from Dinosaurs. There are no fossil records whatsoever to back that up.

[edit on 16-9-2008 by the_watcher]

[edit on 16-9-2008 by the_watcher]



posted on Sep, 16 2008 @ 06:06 PM
link   
If this helps, the latest Catholic position, for around four decades now, is that genesis is an 'allegory' and I suppose you play a bit of topology on time and stretch it around a bit, and hey presto! Genesis was right all along.......



posted on Sep, 16 2008 @ 06:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by redled
If this helps, the latest Catholic position, for around four decades now, is that genesis is an 'allegory' and I suppose you play a bit of topology on time and stretch it around a bit, and hey presto! Genesis was right all along.......


The Catholic church is not any kind of authority; religious or otherwise.



posted on Sep, 16 2008 @ 06:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by the_watcher

Originally posted by redled
If this helps, the latest Catholic position, for around four decades now, is that genesis is an 'allegory' and I suppose you play a bit of topology on time and stretch it around a bit, and hey presto! Genesis was right all along.......


The Catholic church is not any kind of authority; religious or otherwise.


Yeah, but as lines go, it's pretty novel.....



posted on Sep, 16 2008 @ 06:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by redled
Yeah, but as lines go, it's pretty novel.....


no it isn't. The Catholic church can say whatever they want. Their word has absolutely no authority.

Infact the reason for them saying things liek this is because they're losing followers. In order for them to seem like a feasable religion they must adapt to society. That's a terrible way to do things. The Bible cannot be changed simply because society is wrong.



posted on Sep, 16 2008 @ 06:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by the_watcher

Originally posted by redled
Yeah, but as lines go, it's pretty novel.....


no it isn't. The Catholic church can say whatever they want. Their word has absolutely no authority.

Infact the reason for them saying things liek this is because they're losing followers. In order for them to seem like a feasable religion they must adapt to society. That's a terrible way to do things. The Bible cannot be changed simply because society is wrong.


So, a story created by an ancient people, passed down by word of mouth for centuries before finally being written down by Moses, from a people who thought Earth was the center of the universe (even though they had no concept of what the universe really was), is a reliable source?

What you are saying is that all science is just wrong, no matter how much proof there is! All we need is a collection of books from ancient peoples to explain everything? It is obvious that you suffer from anal-cranial inversion!



posted on Sep, 16 2008 @ 06:41 PM
link   
reply to post by JaxonRoberts
 


I am not saying science is wrong. Science is good, and factual.

What I am saying is that evolution is wrong. The reason it is not actually science is that no real science is being done. Where is the accurate dating? Where is the proof of the Big bang? Show me mathmatically undeniable proofs.

NOT RADIOMETRIC DATING! Don't you dare try radiometric dating because it is not a true method for dating. It's been fundamentally flawed from from the begining, and I wish I could find a better way.

If I could find a way that actually works... I would be working full-speed-ahead on getting my method scientically reviewed, tested, and published. The problem with coming up with a more accurate method is that there are so many unknowns in the equation. Unless something can be observed today and studied... and perhaps some experiments based on that... maybe unknowns could be elimated. Of course something like that could take decades... It's a fundamental problem... one the scientific community should have already been attempting to solve. I wish they'd get off their butts and do it.

[edit on 16-9-2008 by the_watcher]

[edit on 16-9-2008 by the_watcher]



posted on Sep, 16 2008 @ 06:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by the_watcher

Originally posted by redled
Yeah, but as lines go, it's pretty novel.....


no it isn't. The Catholic church can say whatever they want. Their word has absolutely no authority.


What on earth does that mean? No religion has any authority, except for the numbers of followers that trust it take act with authority over them.


Infact the reason for them saying things liek this is because they're losing followers.


Nope, they're growing.


In order for them to seem like a feasable religion they must adapt to society.


You can say that about most religions.


That's a terrible way to do things.


Well religions when they mix with the latest scientific data need to be prepared for the occasional upgrade....


The Bible cannot be changed simply because society is wrong.


The Bible doesn't need to be changed, just stick all of it except the Gospels (including Thomas), in a......... museum...............



posted on Sep, 16 2008 @ 06:58 PM
link   
reply to post by the_watcher
 


How much proof do you need? The fossil record and genetics both prove that evolution and natural selection are facts. They have enough evidence to move beyond theory to actual fact.

The stories in the Bible just don't pass the logic test. Even the Jews don't buy into the creation myth, and it's from their holy book! The Christians just used it as a begining for their own book.



posted on Sep, 16 2008 @ 07:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by JaxonRoberts
How much proof do you need? The fossil record and genetics both prove that evolution and natural selection are facts. They have enough evidence to move beyond theory to actual fact.


No they don't. I've already stated above how they don't.


The stories in the Bible just don't pass the logic test.


It makes a lot more sense than "In the beginning nothing exploded."



posted on Sep, 16 2008 @ 08:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by the_watcher

Originally posted by JaxonRoberts
How much proof do you need? The fossil record and genetics both prove that evolution and natural selection are facts. They have enough evidence to move beyond theory to actual fact.


No they don't. I've already stated above how they don't.


Your stating it doesn't make it so. On the other hand, show me any scientific evidence that supports the myth of creation.


The stories in the Bible just don't pass the logic test.



It makes a lot more sense than "In the beginning nothing exploded."


I would call the Big Bang as a pretty substantial explosion!

[edit on 16-9-2008 by JaxonRoberts]



posted on Sep, 16 2008 @ 08:26 PM
link   
reply to post by the_watcher
 


And the only science you disputed was radiometric dating, not the fossil record or genetics.



posted on Sep, 16 2008 @ 09:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by JaxonRoberts
reply to post by the_watcher
 


And the only science you disputed was radiometric dating, not the fossil record or genetics.


I have provided a link to an experiment to determine how old Mitochondrial Eve is, and the study said she live 6,500 years ago.



posted on Sep, 16 2008 @ 09:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by the_watcher

Originally posted by JaxonRoberts
reply to post by the_watcher
 


And the only science you disputed was radiometric dating, not the fossil record or genetics.


I have provided a link to an experiment to determine how old Mitochondrial Eve is, and the study said she live 6,500 years ago.


Using a creationist website as your source? Not exactly unbiased. Try this one which does not agree with your biased source at all!

sciencedaily.com



posted on Sep, 16 2008 @ 10:11 PM
link   
reply to post by JaxonRoberts
 


I could accuse you of using a bias source as well.



new topics

top topics



 
5
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join