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: 3
5
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 16 2008 @ 10:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by the_watcher
reply to post by JaxonRoberts
 


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


And how, exactly, is using an actual science site biased? The goal of this source is the truth, not to prove a myth!




posted on Sep, 16 2008 @ 10:17 PM
link   
[edit on 16-9-2008 by JaxonRoberts]



posted on Sep, 17 2008 @ 12:12 AM
link   
Watcher, get off this thread!

You come on here with presumed conclusions that you are willing to overlook a lot of solid science for (including gravity) and pointlessly argue.

THIS THREAD IS NOT FOR YOU, NOR WANTS YOU because you're just angering people.


Why young earth creationists have to deny gravity.

[edit on 9/17/2008 by Good Wolf]



posted on Sep, 17 2008 @ 12:18 AM
link   
reply to post by Good Wolf
 


Actually, his ignorance amuses me!



posted on Sep, 17 2008 @ 12:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by the_watcher

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.

The expansion of the universe says otherwise.. that and many of the stars we currently see burnt out some time ago. They are definently older than us.

I'd get more technical but given you're attitude I doubt you would be willing to learn anything that conflicts with your literal beliefs.

[edit on 17-9-2008 by riley]



posted on Sep, 17 2008 @ 12:23 AM
link   
reply to post by riley
 


Not to mention that our sun is a third generation star.



posted on Sep, 17 2008 @ 12:35 AM
link   
I would've said this on your profile page (but you haven't started the comments). You have a madsnake avatar!



posted on Sep, 17 2008 @ 12:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by JaxonRoberts
reply to post by riley
 


Not to mention that our sun is a third generation star.

I do not think he/she would be interested in such trivialities.. the answer I got for why a god would use earth time (a relatively new human concept) was basically "because we are special". Thats not exactly a logical argument.. in fact it's reliant on a narcassist outlook. Humans are the centre of creation? No wonder he is a jealous god.. he is obviously made in our image.


Being the centre of creation obviously means we are also at the centre of the universe. Does that mean Watcher thinks earth could be over 15 billion years old? Does that mean E=mc2 is wrong? Does that mean we are also at the centre of the milky way and not a blackhole? How did we get to the edges of the milky way then away from all our friends? Oh thats right.. the trillians of other planets in the universe would not have life on them because the universe was made just for us..

..around 6000 years ago.


How fortunate that god has people like the watcher to tell us how it was all done.


[edit on 17-9-2008 by riley]



posted on Sep, 17 2008 @ 01:37 AM
link   
reply to post by Good Wolf
 


I have now (comments). What is a madsnake avatar? I'm still very new on this site.



posted on Sep, 17 2008 @ 04:33 AM
link   
Go to your profile, I explain there.



posted on Sep, 17 2008 @ 10:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by the_watcher
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...


I read through this page, and I read all the data (which you don't appear to have done) and the rest of the website. It's really good. You should read it up some more.

But you have misrepresented or misunderstood the findings and the analysis of the experiment.

Let's look together:



Others who attempted to repeat Parson's results with pedigree data were unable to do so (10) and derived a rate little different from the rate given by phylogenetic data which yields an MRCA of 150,000 years


150,000 is no where near the same as 6500 ya.

In the 'Links' section there is a page that goes into far more detail of the study.


A study of a representative sample of humans from the worldwide population using whole genome analysis and excluding the D-loop yields an age for matrilineal MRCA (Mitochondrial Eve) of 150,000 to 200,000 years


It finished with the marvellous statement:


It seems to be the nature of creationist apologists to misrepresent and misuse scientific work. The fact that so many creationists and creationist websites latch on to the Parsons et al paper ,and claim that it is proof for a biblical Eve living 6500 years ago, (even though Parsons et al claim no such thing), demonstrates two things:


1. They do not understand or they deliberately misrepresent the concept of the matrilineal Most Recent Common Ancestor which does not point to the only female human ancestor

2. They ignore the fact that subsequent research has largely resolved the issues that the Parsons et al paper raised.

It is my confident prediction that both ill-informed creationists and those who should know better will be using this discredited argument 20 years from now. They will be as wrong then as they are now.


Ouch!



posted on Sep, 22 2008 @ 04:26 PM
link   
I just read this on Dave Rabbit's Is Religion Simply A Security Blanket? thread and found it to be truly profound! I thought I would share it on the other spiritual threads I'm following.


Originally posted by plato63
The story, although originating in India, is almost certainly a Buddhist parable, attributed the man - Gautama Buddha himself. The story is of 6 blind men wandering upon an elephant, one finding the tail, another the ear, another the leg, etc. feel exited that they have seen something new (elephants were common in India then
). They chance to meet up with a wise man (a non blind man) or the king and tell him the exiting news. However, they soon find that their individual descriptions do not match with the others, and therefore start fighting among themselves.

You certainly did get the moral of the story though (my respects). If GOD is so "huge", creator of the universe, beyond good or evil, beyond time, etc, how can we as mortals say that we "know" him. It is quite possible that we have touched only a part of HIM. If we accept that arguement then the only way in which we can "know" what GOD looks like is by amalgamating the information from all religions, and yes, even the athiests cause they may have touched a different part of HIM that the others did not. All roads lead to GOD (this idea is borrowed), but can only reach GOD once they have united and become one.


I would encourage all to visit Dave's thread, but PLEASE follow the 'NO FLAMING!' rule!



posted on Sep, 23 2008 @ 11:25 AM
link   
I posted this in an other thread and thought it would be good for here too.



If we assume that God exists and that he made the universe. Since the universe is made by God by hand (or equivalent), then why deny it? The bible contradicts what we know about the universe, but the Bible was written by man and there is no disputing that reality. Man, by an atheist opinion or a theist opinion, is not perfect and is subject to poor judgement. So considering that the mish-mash of self-contrasting/conflicting/contradicting parables, fables and psalms that is the bible, was written by bronze age humans who [some]were ignorant of simple realities of the universe, like the non-flat earth, why consider it more true than what we find when studying the universe.

Universe = God made.
Bible = man made.

Why put man's flawed word over the divine work of God, the universe?

Millions of people have thought God has spoken to them. Thousands have wrote about it. Hundreds have contributed to one of a dozen Holy books. All of these books claim to be the only true divine word of God and that the others are wrong. Since they are all written by man and have been continually edited since they were made, the only logical conclusion is that they are all wrong, at least to some degree.

So what should be held as ture-er that these alleged holy books? How about the universe itself, since god didn't use a fallible proxy to do it. Why not study his artwork to try and gain some kind of insight to his divine mind?

[Source]

[edit on 9/23/2008 by Good Wolf]



posted on Sep, 27 2008 @ 11:24 PM
link   
Now, I noticed in an other thread that there is a belief out there that man is the greatest species or design on earth.

I think that this is part of the "Why Creation" discussion, people don't like to think that they are animals but rather, we are above animals (as if there is something wrong with being an animal).

But of course we are part of the animal kingdom.

I think this view point is akin to racism (..or specism), and is just another narcissist by-product of religion. I think it's also why the religious have trouble with the possibility of extraterrestrial life, that we are some how special and unique.

Evolution demonstrates how animal we really are, like in our ancestors such as Homo Erectus. Our intelligence seems to be more of an evolutionary mistake IMHO.



posted on Sep, 28 2008 @ 12:00 AM
link   
Lets talk about a few things in a finer detail.

MICRO EVOLUTION is a fact. Macro evolution is not. We have no evidence of one species turning in to another species and don't give me that evolution of man crap, its is full of holes and gaps in time. Another problem with the evolution of man is this.

where are all of the animals that made up the steps and stages of man? Where are the different types of intelligent apes that are on par with humans?
If we use evolutionist theories cats and dogs came from the same animal and there are many species of each still alive some more primitive that others.... Ah, but the evolutionists would call this adaption. So lets again speak in terms of evolution; which I need to point out a NOT politically correct for this next bit....
THIS IS ENTIRELY ARGUMENTATIVE AND IS NOT MEANT TO BE RACIALY DEROGITORY IN ANY WAY, ANY ONE WHO USES THESE NEXT STATEMENTS IN SUCH A WAY ARE TAKING THEM OUT OF CONTEXT AND USING IN A WAY THEY WERE NOT INTENDED!!!!

Okay now that we have a disclaimer.

If we are evolutionist then we have no problem saying that the different races of humans are actually breeds akin to Darwin's finches...

which means that some races of man are going to be smarter, taller, faster, weaker, and so on.
Just like other animals. AHHH, there is the problem.

Now we are throwing a monkey (excuse the pun) wrench into the idea of equality. I mean would you use a donkey in the Kentucky Derby or a thorough bread to pull a plow? No, that is not what they have been adapted for. So, in they are literally not equals.

Apply that same reasoning to humans and you have racism and sexism and all sorts of bad anti social things.



Now, lets look at the six days that it took to create the earth. for those "creationists" out there; WHO THE F#$* ARE YOU TO TELL GOD HOW LONG A DAY IS? maybe for God six days is the approximate age of the planet earth. So, this is how I a creationist understand the age of the planet and the universe... Simply I do not understand the forces at work and I have no authority to place any higher being or power (God or natural forces) into any human paradigm such as evolution or a literal 6 X 24 hour day time schedule...After all time is a human device to measure the interval between two events.

As for dinosours, evolution, and Darwin. If God can speak light into existence and create mater, couldn't He design a system so perfect that it could trick more ignorent intelligence (great oxymoron right) into believing an untruth? after all that is how David Copperfield and Harry Houdini made millions right?

So, now prove to me that macro evolution is a fluke and a statistical anomaly and I will renounce my entire belief system.....

Now, I know this will never happen because 1: God is truth.

and
2: the best that scientists have come up with so far is to say that we have more fossil record of evolution, and close DNA relatives. Also, that creation is cannot be proven so it is not actually a theory.

Ahhh, now you say well your reason #1 proves that you are irrational and will not accept any scientific evidence. well for one I do accept micro-evolution. Which is why we have different finches and moths that have mutated in to a different color.

Also, let me give you a sort of testimonial...

I am a veteran of the Iraq war. I was there for the first year and will defend our actions there and say that we needed to liberate those people, and for that matter all oppressed people. However! I cannot argue the reasoning that we went to war. That sounds odd right. Well as a soldier I was told only that we were there to liberate the oppressed and get rid of a dictator that was highly sympathetic to al qaeda. We heard absolutely ZERO about WMD. Now, I fully understand that the American public and people around the world were in fact "sold" on the theory of WMD. This is why I cannot argue about the reasoning. I was sent over-seas for a different reason that most people apparently thought. And now because we do in fact know that we were un-able to prove that WMD existed in Iraq on the scale the President Bush spoke about, it is too late to enter that debate.

So, even though I am attached to the war and fully support it and think that you cannot support the troops and not support the war. I do understand why people feel that we should never have gone into Iraq in the first place.

But, that is only evidence of my ability to be rational and NOT the topic of this discussion, so if you want to talk about that start a new topic and u2u me.



posted on Sep, 28 2008 @ 12:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by irongunner
Now we are throwing a monkey (excuse the pun) wrench into the idea of equality.


Although it would be easy to deal with your entire post, I am tired and not in the mood, so let me deal with just this part. Who says we are all equal??? Would you put Einstein on the same intellectual level as Corky from 'Life Goes On'??? If you are refering to 'all men are created equal', which is a line from the Declaration of Independence and has nothing to do with science or religion, then I would point out the key word is 'created' as in the moment the sperm hits the egg. After that, equality goes right out the window. And if you have a theory that beats evolution, and is supported by the data like it is, well then, let's have it, Spanky! Science does not attack religion, it just states facts and theories that are supported by the facts. Religion, however, seems to make a sport of attacking science, and that's one game you will always lose in the end.

[edit on 28-9-2008 by JaxonRoberts]



posted on Sep, 28 2008 @ 02:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by irongunner
Lets talk about a few things in a finer detail.

MICRO EVOLUTION is a fact. Macro evolution is not. We have no evidence of one species turning in to another species and don't give me that evolution of man crap, its is full of holes and gaps in time. Another problem with the evolution of man is this.


No, I agree that human evolution is full of holes and is heavily debated among paleoanthropologists, but there is no debate that we evolved from old world apes. It's great then that we have lots of other animals whos' evolutionary tree's are more complete like snakes, whales and horses.


where are all of the animals that made up the steps and stages of man?


Where did you look? A creationist website?


Where are the different types of intelligent apes that are on par with humans?


Now there's a good question. Intelligence appears to be an evolutionary anomaly, a by-product of bipedal walking and tool use, propelled by social networks and eating fish.


If we use evolutionist theories cats and dogs came from the same animal and there are many species of each still alive some more primitive that others.... Ah, but the evolutionists would call this adaption.


And that's a problem? it ain't paradoxical.


If we are evolutionist then we have no problem saying that the different races of humans are actually breeds akin to Darwin's finches...


Yep.


which means that some races of man are going to be smarter, taller, faster, weaker, and so on.
Just like other animals. AHHH, there is the problem.


Woah waoh, hold on a minute. The subspecies of man (races) are adapted for their respective environments. For instance, I have really white skin and I would die of sun burn and heat stroke in the desert, but someone with black skin will not get sun burnt and subsequently will live to reproduce. The different environments that man has lived in for the last 100,000 years has shaped us into the way were now are. One race is superior to another race only when it is in it's respective home environment - and there you have you're equality, don't forget it.



Apply that same reasoning to humans and you have racism and sexism and all sorts of bad anti social things.


Not at all, that's not something that science does. Religion does that instead.


Now, lets look at the six days that it took to create the earth. for those "creationists" out there; WHO THE F#$* ARE YOU TO TELL GOD HOW LONG A DAY IS? maybe for God six days is the approximate age of the planet earth.


A being outside of time has no measure of time, there are no god years.


As for dinosours, evolution, and Darwin. If God can speak light into existence and create mater, couldn't He design a system so perfect that it could trick more ignorent intelligence (great oxymoron right) into believing an untruth? after all that is how David Copperfield and Harry Houdini made millions right?


Is this an argument for or against evolution?


So, now prove to me that macro evolution is a fluke and a statistical anomaly and I will renounce my entire belief system.


Science has no interest in making you renounce your entire belief system, science has no goal other than to build knowledge and an understanding of the natural laws of the universe.


Now, I know this will never happen because 1: God is truth.


Opinion.


and
2: the best that scientists have come up with so far is to say that we have more fossil record of evolution, and close DNA relatives. Also, that creation is cannot be proven so it is not actually a theory.


They also show it working in many lab studies.


Ahhh, now you say well your reason #1 proves that you are irrational and will not accept any scientific evidence.


Not necessarily. Most evolutionist are christians and most christians are evolutionists.


well for one I do accept micro-evolution. Which is why we have different finches and moths that have mutated in to a different color.


Only because you have to. If you have a dog, BAMM! Proof.


Also, let me give you a sort of testimonial...

*snip*

But, that is only evidence of my ability to be rational and NOT the topic of this discussion, so if you want to talk about that start a new topic and u2u me.


I'm glad you are proud of your self and your comrades, serving your country is a noble pursuit. It doesn't prove that you are rational, just that you are proud to follow your orders. Good for you.

Now back to evolution. You need to know that macro and micro evolution is the same thing, just on different time scales. Micro evolution will turn a wolf into every breed of dog out there. Over greater time, these different breed will get so genetically isolated that they will not be able to produce fertile offspring, like the mule (horse x donkey). With mutations in the mix, timesframes of millions of years will make things change form.

Simple as that.


But this thread is not about the theory, but rather why people refuse to accept solid proven science. The mentality of creationists.

[edit on 9/28/2008 by Good Wolf]



posted on Sep, 28 2008 @ 10:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by Good Wolf

Originally posted by irongunner
Lets talk about a few things in a finer detail.

MICRO EVOLUTION is a fact. Macro evolution is not. We have no evidence of one species turning in to another species and don't give me that evolution of man crap, its is full of holes and gaps in time. Another problem with the evolution of man is this.


No, I agree that human evolution is full of holes and is heavily debated among paleoanthropologists, but there is no debate that we evolved from old world apes. It's great then that we have lots of other animals whos' evolutionary tree's are more complete like snakes, whales and horses.

*SNIP*

Now back to evolution. You need to know that macro and micro evolution is the same thing, just on different time scales. Micro evolution will turn a wolf into every breed of dog out there. Over greater time, these different breed will get so genetically isolated that they will not be able to produce fertile offspring, like the mule (horse x donkey). With mutations in the mix, timesframes of millions of years will make things change form.

Simple as that.


But this thread is not about the theory, but rather why people refuse to accept solid proven science. The mentality of creationists.

[edit on 9/28/2008 by Good Wolf]


So wait how can your "solid proven science" be full of holes?

It seems rather presumptuous of a scientist to see a dinosaur and instantly think bird right? All scientists can say is that it is there theory (though strong) that dinosaurs evolved into birds, but if you can get them to say that it is a fact that dinosaurs turned into birds they cannot. They lack the full fossil record of the change. Now, it would be highly un-likely that some other chain of events happened, but we cannot say for 100% certainty that it do not.

this is also true for the evolution of man. Scientists agree that man most likely evolved from old world apes, but they have no scientific grounds from saying that it DID happen. They can only say that they have found no evidence to the contrary.

So, what does that leave? a slim (at best for evolutionists) chance that some other factor lead to man? Well that is all faith needs.

Think about how many people out live predictions of life expectancy of terminal ailments. Think about "miracles" of chance. This is the realm of religion. Furthermore the more I read and understand about the evolutionist case the more chasms I see that scientists need to cross.

Has anyone gotten to see the Lucy's Legacy exhibit? This fossil is touted a breakthrough in the study of evolution! But, if you go to the exhibit and see he Family tree of man Lucy is on a branch that does not lead to man. so, how can scientists say that she is a link between ape and man?

Has any one seen Expelled :No Intelligence Allowed Ben Stein does a great job of asking scientists the opposite question, and I would say that I am being more rational than they are.

So, why do I believe in creation? To me when I hear all of the evidence that scientists have shown all I see are more questions... I am anxiously waiting to see more proof and less theory, speculation, and assumption expressed as fact.



posted on Sep, 28 2008 @ 11:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by irongunner
So, why do I believe in creation? To me when I hear all of the evidence that scientists have shown all I see are more questions... I am anxiously waiting to see more proof and less theory, speculation, and assumption expressed as fact.


So instead you believe in a myth that has as many holes in it as the 'Santa Claus' myth, where a jolly old man who miraculously has stopped aging and has a group of elves making toys and flying reindeer. There is not one spec of data that supports the creation myth. And you use a Hollywood Movie, designed to put butts in seats, and someone whos expertise is in Economics, as a basis to say that over 200 years of science is just wrong because 'The Bible Says So!'. Not exactly riviting evidence, to say the least! To repeat myself, Science does not attack religion, it just states facts and theories that are supported by the facts. Your 'theory', and that is such a stretch of the word, has no evidence to support it other than the Jewish Holy Book, and even they think it's just a story!



posted on Sep, 29 2008 @ 08:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by irongunner
So wait how can your "solid proven science" be full of holes?


This may shock you, but evolution has been demonstrated dozens of times in the lab and the field.


It seems rather presumptuous of a scientist to see a dinosaur and instantly think bird right? All scientists can say is that it is there theory (though strong) that dinosaurs evolved into birds, but if you can get them to say that it is a fact that dinosaurs turned into birds they cannot. They lack the full fossil record of the change.


It's no a complete transition, but we fossilised remains of a dinosaur with flight feathers. Hmm? What could that mean. That combined with the fact that all bird have dinosaur morphology, the evidence points unanimously in a single direction- that birds evolved from dinosaurs.


this is also true for the evolution of man. Scientists agree that man most likely evolved from old world apes, but they have no scientific grounds from saying that it DID happen. They can only say that they have found no evidence to the contrary.


Well, I'll give you that one, the evolutionary path of man is fairly undefined. But that is no where near saying that thee is no evidence for it happening at all. That's like looking at a blurred image and saying because it is undefined that it isn't there, there most certainly is something there, but what is up for debate.


Well that is all faith needs.


Faith has nothing to do with science.


Think about how many people out live predictions of life expectancy of terminal ailments. Think about "miracles" of chance.


Think about how modern medicine has extended your life expectancy from 25-30 to 50-72, curing countless ills, helping mental people rather than condemning them for being possessed by demons. Science in action.


Has anyone gotten to see the Lucy's Legacy exhibit? This fossil is touted a breakthrough in the study of evolution! But, if you go to the exhibit and see he Family tree of man Lucy is on a branch that does not lead to man. so, how can scientists say that she is a link between ape and man?


It points to a more complicated family tree rather than a linear one. It means that rather than having one species that evolved into us, we have one species that evolved into lots of different species including us. Obviously most have been evolutionary dead ends, like the Neanderthal- extinct via competition.

But you should put aside man and birds since they aren't as well understood as we'd like and look to the other species' evolutionary paths that are well defined, like the horse/zebra/donkey or the cow/whale. The path of evolution for many species is well defined in the fossil record.

I hope you work out how bad of a movie Expelled is for yourself. Stein disagrees with evolution but it becomes fast apparent that he does not even understand it. It has been rated lower than Cat Woman (shudder).


So, why do I believe in creation? To me when I hear all of the evidence that scientists have shown all I see are more questions... I am anxiously waiting to see more proof and less theory, speculation, and assumption expressed as fact.


You obviously don't understand what "Theory" means in a scientific context.

The way of which scientists prove what they find is accurate is the ‘Scientific Method’.

Let’s look at that next:
1. Observe some aspect of the universe.
2. Invent a tentative description, called a hypothesis, that is consistent with what you have observed.
3. Use the hypothesis to make predictions.
4. Test those predictions by experiments or further observations and modify the hypothesis in the light of your results.
5. Repeat steps 3 and 4 until there are no discrepancies between theory and experiment and/or observation.


Here’s a flowchart.

Theory is the highest level of factuality science gets to. That is why Gravity is Theory, Atoms are Theory, General Relativity is Theory etc.

[edit on 9/29/2008 by Good Wolf]



new topics

top topics



 
5
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join