It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Show me infallible proof of creationism

page: 3
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in


posted on Jun, 24 2009 @ 09:36 PM

Originally posted by PrisonerOfSociety
Really? Try telling that to bible bashers who make you think you'll be condemned to Hell for being a non-believer.

Well I just did didn't I?

And why should I care what they think of my opinion?

But having said that even Bible bashers, the non-ignorant ones, will say the same thing.

Do Bible bashers take this literally?

"But if ... evidences of virginity are not found for the young woman, then they shall bring out the young woman to the door of her father's house, and the men of her city shall stone her to death with stones..." (Deuteronomy 22:20,21)

How many Bible bashers do you see doing this...

"If your hand causes you to sin, cut it off. It is better for you to enter into life maimed, rather than having two hands, to go to hell, into the fire that shall never be quenched." (Mark 9:43)

Or do all the Bible bashers claim to be sin free? Which we know the Bible says otherwise.

Chop chop...

posted on Jun, 24 2009 @ 09:37 PM
reply to post by JaxonRoberts that the game where you tell someone and they tell someone... so on and so on, until the last person....then you compare the first with the last?

posted on Jun, 24 2009 @ 09:39 PM

Originally posted by ufoptics
Than why is it called The Theory of Evolution? If it was not a theory, it would be called The Facts Of Evolution. Just me thinking in side the little box again.........

For something in science to be a theory it has to be based verifiable facts that can be tested and repeated, otherwise it is an hypothesis.

The common daily use of the word is not the same as the correct scientific use.

posted on Jun, 24 2009 @ 09:42 PM
reply to post by ufoptics

There are only theories in science. A scientific theory is based on the observable data, and always leaves room for revision if new data becomes available. Hence Atomic Theory, etc. The Creation Myth (notice I used Myth not Theory) has no observable data to support it. The OP is asking for such a correlation in regards to Biblical Creation.

posted on Jun, 24 2009 @ 09:44 PM
reply to post by Wally Hope

Cheers.....couldn't say it any better....that book is one seriously mixed up mumbo jumbo written texts. If given to a publishing house today for review they would laugh you out of their office.
If God did give a handbook on humanity I would think it would have been a little more straight forward, to the point kind of thing.

posted on Jun, 24 2009 @ 09:50 PM
reply to post by ufoptics

If you don't have a clue as to what the hell you're talking about, then why do you feel the need to chime in? Seriously, either get a basic education or get the hell out.

posted on Jun, 24 2009 @ 09:55 PM
There is no absolute proof of our creation in any form. There are specualtions theories etc. But no proof, if there was absolute proof of any of the available ideas, all others would be debunked. Until then we will go on with different people believing different things.

There is no absolute evidence against creationism and none for the abiogenesis theory either. So this argument/request is basically futile.

Each idea is possible and is up to each individual to decide for themselves.

On a side note I see equal disrespect from creationists and evolutionists. Neither can claim to be the more righteous of the two. Just more evidence of our infancy.

posted on Jun, 24 2009 @ 09:57 PM
reply to post by ufoptics

A Scientific Theory serves to explain and predict an observable phenomena. In this case, Evolution. We know Evolution happens, so the Theory explains why it happens. Evolution has to be real in order for there to be a Theory of Evolution.

Evolution = an observable and proven process
The Theory of Evolution = an explanation of how this process works

reply to post by Lasheic

As most of us know, most religious people cast out and condemn others for not accepting the same things that they do. We must not fall to this low, and indeed do the opposite: respect and try to educate those who do not understand.

Being rude will not help the situation, it will just turn people away.

[edit on 24-6-2009 by PieKeeper]

posted on Jun, 24 2009 @ 09:57 PM
Real quick:
Some evidence to support evolution-

Embryological development
Vestigial structures

There's more.

Evidence to support creationism -

[edit on 6/24/2009 by ravenshadow13]

posted on Jun, 24 2009 @ 10:02 PM
reply to post by JaxonRoberts

We can go down that road with both theory and myth. Theory is based on collected data.....Myth is based on collected stories.

If your data is unproven in your theory, you have no fact, only theory. If your data is proven in your theory, is becomes FACT, on longer theory.

If your stories are proven to be true in myth, it is a beleif based on FACTS. If your stories are not proven in your myth, it just is that, a myth. closing I would like to say...."we are only human, nothing more, nothing less....we really don't know the answers, but it is alot more fun searching and debating these questions than watching realityTV"...CHEERS!

posted on Jun, 24 2009 @ 10:03 PM
One man creates something, how does he explain his creation?
If I were to create something and no one saw me or forgot I have created something how would I convince everyone that I have created it?
I can write a book explaining to my creation at the time in a maner so my creation would understand that I have created it leaving out anything that my creation might not understand, deteails and science. It seems logical.

Is it possible to create something? YES
Is it impossible? NO
Is god out of the science fiction books? NO

What are the ods for something to work better?
Let's take it down to humanity.
If a human constructs something what would work better?
Things out of random events or out of a blue print that he has made.

So simple yet so complicated, some will simply refuse to accept anything.
Evolution might be possible, but evolution does not exclude creation in the first stage. It's possible to be created and then to evolve.

[edit on 24-6-2009 by pepsi78]

posted on Jun, 24 2009 @ 10:04 PM
You are and you are aware. Case closed in my opinion. So being aware and knowing that you are aware you, by supposition have to be created (and have already acknowledged it) or else, you would not have posited the question.

For some fun, let us ponder a garden. If I create a tomato plant and if that plant is "aware" enough to ask the plant next to him / her (s)he might ask the same question on perhaps an underground "internet" of intertwined roots. So, here I am the "creator" to the best of its knowledge, and it is fruitful and multiplies just as I (god) requested as its creator. So I tend that garden, love the plants in some manner of speaking, and eventually leave the garden. I mean really, in August, September, etc they become not useful as far as their "fruits". Soon thereafter they get welcomed to my compost "hell". Just to be turned around into my soil for the next year. Ashes to ashes... The real interesting question for me is whom created the seed that I planted that made me the "god" of that garden and this question to arise?

Chicken egg, seed plant, life death...

Good post thanks!

posted on Jun, 24 2009 @ 10:07 PM
reply to post by ufoptics

Untrue. The data is not in dispute. We have a fossil record. Dinosaur bones are fact. We can observe evolution in micro organisms as they procreate very fast, giving us countless generations in a period of a few years, etc. The data itself will not make a theory a fact. You need to educate yourself further on scientific theory.

posted on Jun, 24 2009 @ 10:07 PM
reply to post by Chemley

In a way, then, our parents are our creators, and we are all creationists.

It's all in perspective.

posted on Jun, 24 2009 @ 10:09 PM
All proponents of ideas defend them , sometimes a little too vigorously.

The beauty of the scientific process , is that it is capable of amending or outright rejecting a theory/ concept over time.
For something to stand as an accepted theory , paints a very large target upon the work . Eager young minds seek to make their name by scientifically refuting a widely held belief.
The longer a theory stands against the onslaught of testing , the greater its acceptance as representing an accurate model.

Religious inquiry lacks this internal dynamism. To question is frowned upon ,blind faith extolled as a virtue ~ the status quo is defended.

The tethering of a culture to an outdated world view will bring us neither peace /or a stable platform for human advancement IMHO.

The zietgiest shifts ~ humanity needs the dynamism to move as one .

This is just my simple take on the subject.

posted on Jun, 24 2009 @ 10:14 PM
reply to post by Chemley

Another double post out of me. My bad! Another thing that I would like to add is that it appears to me that individuals with these sort of questions are not looking for "proof" of a creator (God) out of believing in the absence but rather by not being convinced that the creator is loving. A possible absence of love is the most disturbing aspect of the question. It is easy for me to share that doubt and fear but with as much evidence as I have, I cannot consider anything other than a loving god, at least until I make it into the "compost"...

posted on Jun, 24 2009 @ 10:16 PM
reply to post by ravenshadow13

I think I got it...your a evolutionist and not a creationist, right. But you said you were an atheist didn't you? If so, that too is based on beleif and not on fact.
All the proof you listed is based on man being right in whatever the science applied. So, in theory if the science you qoute is prove to be wrong, say 20 years from now, we are back to theory.
So, I just leave it be and just admit that I, personally, will never know the real truth to any of this....but I have a theory, I maybe wrong....

posted on Jun, 24 2009 @ 10:26 PM

Originally posted by ravenshadow13
reply to post by Chemley

In a way, then, our parents are our creators, and we are all creationists.

It's all in perspective.

Absolutely. Of course they are. But who created them, and their parents, and theirs, forever backwards. It all comes back to the Chicken Egg analogy. So here we are as I suppose we always were in one form or another.

In a way, I believe that we are all just experiencing life as eternal beings. Consider nightmares and dreams. We awake from both but choose to re-enter a nice dream and avoid the nightmare. It becomes easy for me to assume that if this temporary home for our consciousness becomes too much of a nightmare, we will awaken and choose to not go back. We would naturally, choose a better dream state. In the meantime, we try to guard this wonderful one we were given... Enough out of me. Great thread!

posted on Jun, 24 2009 @ 10:34 PM
reply to post by JaxonRoberts

Ok, Mr. Roberts, you are one rude bugger. I have just presented a stance that is saying you or I know obsolutely nothing......we are in search of answers to questions we can only trust to human calculations, as flawed as they may be.
We love to kling to either our science or religous beliefs to reaffirm that we are the superior beings we think we are. Only in time these can prove to be wrong.
So, keep your rude comments to yourself, I need no education from you or anyone with such a closed minded additude. But, just to be the kind person that I am, I do appreciate your opions and comments just the same. Good luck in your quest........

posted on Jun, 24 2009 @ 10:36 PM
To the OP,

I can always offer you a bunch of men I made from Play-Doh. It's infallible proof of creationism.

top topics

<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in