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: 6
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in


posted on Jun, 25 2009 @ 04:00 PM

Adam's first wife was Lillith. After the divorce (she wasn't happy) she went and got busy populating the earth (implies incest I'm afraid - presumeably Adam got the garden and she got the kids) while Adam was running around showing Eve "The propeller".

Lilith is kabbalistic story and not from the book of the torah the only book given by God. However if in fact that God let Adam (first of spirit filled Mankind) have a wife named Lillith which came from the hominid precurser mankind than it was for the purpose of marrying the spirit with the hominid mankind. Since Lillith rebelled and sought power over unity with God and his first spirit filled creation than God made eve out of his Side) literal translation in hebrew would mean side or likeness of, it was because he intended for Adams next wife to be a spirit based mankind as Adam was so as to make a better union. Hominid mankind worshipped the sons of god and were of a different nature completely and learned existence in that they worshiped and sought after the creation and not the creator. Does this mean that God made a mistake? Hardly, it means that God purposed it for a reason and God grants true freedom of will to chose to worship the creation and power thereof of, or the Creator. There is much that has been hidden and modern christian religion is just a shadow of the truth of our orgins and the times before spirit based Adam(or mankind). To anyone that really wants to understand the truth of the Creator, You won't find it any church you must seek him in the private place of your obode and be sincere and if you continue to do so he will reveal his truths to you and your spirit will awaken from its slumber. The great masters that were here before the flood and the creation of Adam, are still here as they have been cast down to this earth where they rebelled against Gods next step in creation(the spirit based mankind), are in controll at this time and they have designed an earthly existence based on the flesh and it's desires in order to suppress the great gift God gave Adam, the spirit within. If you continue to fight the creator and try to find fault with Creation thats all you will ever be able to comprehend and no one will ever be able to tell you difference. Seek and you shall find, knock and it shall be opened unto you. Wisdom preceded creation and all things were created though wisdom but true wisdom of the creator and understanding can only found when it is sought in earnest and not debated. I always get a kick out of non believers as they fight and debate the existence of the Creator or the Creation as almost all of them when faced with thier mortality and death will find themselves crying out for help to the creaotor just in case they we're wrong. By then it may be too late. Modern christianity and the bible is ful of errors. Seek original texts and learn to search translation yourself with Gods help. You will find he's nothing like the freemason founded churchs teach, which they teach so you will be lukewarm and be spit out. I will leave you with a thought. What if God purposed the creation and allowed the possibility of corruption of the creation by Satan and the fallen son's of god so he could expose the true traitors in his council? He indeed had a council of El. It spoken of in deuteronomy. and not just expose them by accusation but thier evident self incriminating deeds? You see God love all his creation and all has equal chance even if we, mankind have to go through a corruption phase. Fair? Only God/Creator decides whats fair. We don;t really have a clue of what exists beyond this punely life we cherish so much. For all you know its as important in the scope of the greator universe and creation as a grain of sand is to the ocean. The problem is mankind thinks selfishly and not on the grand scale of the universe and the creation and Creator.

[edit on 25-6-2009 by Barkster]

posted on Jun, 25 2009 @ 06:44 PM
How about this? One day you will die. It's inevitable. Whether you die from cancer, a natural disaster or god forbid, the government, you are mortal. Don't you think it would be a wise decision to believe in something so that when you do die at least you have a chance at an afterlife?

posted on Jun, 25 2009 @ 07:23 PM
all you need is faith

posted on Jun, 25 2009 @ 07:54 PM
show me proof its possible for the Big Bang to create almost perfect spheres....the proof is all around we were created intelligently....why cant people see that

posted on Jun, 25 2009 @ 08:16 PM
reply to post by sobek52

The question can be answered in many ways in my opinion.

To what "reasoning set" would you like me to appeal to as far as an answer for you. Logic and reasoning perhaps focusing on science oriented answers? Would you like me to answer your question in a more spiritual approach?

If you say logic and reasoning I would most likely use one example off the top of my head is the "double slit experiment" well known in quantum physics. If you are not familiar with it the I suggest google'n it. At any rate the double split experiment results suggest with out much doubt that matter is ...well...mainly nothing, none existent at the very least I can say that particles contain more nothing than anything. So then here we have matter when scrutinized and of course the climax of the experiment is the "interference" patter created as a result of the electrons being "fired" through the slits. (take a big breath here)...

So...if matter is mainly a wave there must and always is get this... an AMPLIFIER! Jump to this.. A tree falls in the woods does it make a sound? Was there an amplifier? Yes in this case gravity is the amplifier that and basic erosion you know entropy man it's all around us. You can also say it this way, Cause and Effect! The creator is the obvious amplifier of all that is and all that was and all that will be. Resonate with him ehehe (that sounded cool eheh)Ok back at it.

Let's think about the implication of matter being a wave form.All that we known in our own existence being a wave and not a solid particle with mass like we think normally. Are you asking me to believe that something natural is being this magnificently orchestrated existence? You realize you would being more or less saying that evolution would be responsible for that neat little dare I say "trick"? I'm sorry but I myself am not buying it NO WAY! Now would you like to talk about how Hebrew letters are the syntax and part of language that is responsible for programming DNA. And that Hebrew is a hyper dimensional language that is a shadow of how the entire universe works. OK can go on for hours with fascinating things like this for some time. I'll chill on that for a second.

Now if you would like a more spiritual answer. I point out something obvious.

LOVE brother. Sentient life. Again it does not matter what we see on the outside and it really doesn't matter if Aliens/Angelic beings tampered with our carnal shell or our earth suite. I'm talking about the "inner man", the spirit being inside us.


You want me to believe thats natural .......HAHAHAHAHAHAHA OH PLLLLLLLLEEEEEEEAAASE all you atheist and agnostics I love you but I'm sorry it just really makes me crack up it really does.

May I be honest with you guys that happen to read this? In my opinion contrary to popular belief(I'm not trying to hurt you guys by saying what I'm about to say just trying to turn the tables and get you to think go deeper instead of letting your bias get the best of you when you review subjects on creation or Faith in God).

Ok honestly I think it's so completely shallow and narrow minded to believe we have no creator, not to mention pride based. Frankly I myself view the atheist as a sort of cop out to lifes harder questions many times rooted in a strong need of that person to stand out from the rest of society as a whole basically in need of attention.

I will quickly point out however I have done a vast amount of research on all this and I'm a deep person it's in my nature to get to the very bottom of things. I can however understand how looking at modern Christianity one can easily miss the truth. And even be repulsed in some cases.

I'm a believer but I am a follower of Christ and I clash big time with most modern believers if I could share some more biblical stuff without ruffling you it would be something like this...

The bible does not talk of any TALKING SNAKES thats crap and it does not teach us that the earth is only 6k years old thats more crap.. matter a fact take a look at Genesis... Creation goes like this ..Creepy crawly things, then you get sea creatures, then you get wales... just like science teaches right? Then you get what next ? Then you get birds.. just like science teaches, it's all there look for YOURSELF with a different attitude this time.

OK I'm getting fairly worked up over here I think I'll stop and reflect a bit more before I start saying anything that will really shake people up
and what was it you asked again? Something about proof ?Oh yea OK.. go outside on a clear night and look up. Why is it dark up there and not like...ummm all lit up?

HUMMMM seems the law of thermal dynamics is being broken every single night right in front of you. But Believers already knew that why? Because "The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament showeth his handiwork."

Need more?

EDITED because I felt I was to harsh on atheist and I tried to make it a bit clearer and less attacking. Thanks for your patience with me as we learn together.

[edit on 25-6-2009 by firegoggles]

[edit on 25-6-2009 by firegoggles]

posted on Jun, 25 2009 @ 09:06 PM
reply to post by OldThinker

OK, I'll bite. The site you referenced as containing 'proof',, states:

Our solar system appears to be near the center of the universe. Galaxies look the same, and are moving away from us in the same way, in all directions. The cosmic microwave background radiation comes to us very uniformly from all directions. These and other data strongly indicate we are located at a very special location by design.

As to the first sentence, that our solar system appears to be near the center of the Universe:

Now we know that not only are we humans not at the center of the universe, but there is no center of the universe!


The Big Bang cannot have happened at a particular place in the universe, because before the Big Bang there was no universe! The Big Bang happened everywhere at once, about 14 billion years ago, bringing space and time into existence. The Big Bang kicked off a rapid expansion of space, and space has been expanding ever since.

I stand corrected on my statement that all the galaxies are moving away from the center. I was unaware that it had no center until I found this. I just assumed it did. Learn something new everyday.

So, sentence one is false. Now for sentence two:

The first part states that all galaxies look the same. Do these galaxies look the same???

(View entire photo here. Didn't realize it was so large.)

The second part states that all of these galaxies are moving away from us in the same way in all directions. Then why is the Andromeda galaxy due to collide with the Milky Way galaxy in about four billion years???

So sentence two is false. Sentence three is actually true, but not because we are at the center of the universe, but instead because it is an echo of the Big Bang.

In cosmology, cosmic microwave background (CMB) radiation (also CMBR, CBR, MBR, and relic radiation) is a form of electromagnetic radiation filling the universe.[1] With a traditional optical telescope, the space between stars and galaxies (the background) is pitch black. But with a radio telescope, there is a faint background glow, almost exactly the same in all directions, that is not associated with any star, galaxy, or other object. This glow is strongest in the microwave region of the radio spectrum, hence the name cosmic microwave background radiation.

So no matter where you are in the universe, the CBR is the same, thus this sentence may be true, but it is true no matter where you are, thus is not proof that Earth is at or near the center of the universe.

With sentences one thru three being false, the last sentence is unproven and thus pure speculation.

Given that the first paragraph is proven Creationist propaganda, why would any intelligent person bother to continue to search for facts or truth on such a obviously biased and decietful website???

[edit on 25-6-2009 by JaxonRoberts]

posted on Jun, 25 2009 @ 09:30 PM
reply to post by

The Big Bang didn't create spheres. The early Universe was comprised of hydrogen and helium which formed the first generation of stars. These stars created the heavier elements through nuclear fission. These heavier elements were spread around when these stars died and went supernova.

As to why the Universe is full of spheres:

Of course, planets are not perfect spheres because mountains and valleys and even skyscrapers are all deviations from the spherical shape. However, as planets get larger, gravity gets stronger, until eventually large objects on the surface are crushed under their own weight. That's why we don't have mountains that are 50 miles high or skyscrapers that are 2,000 stories tall. Planets stay basically spherical because any large deviations get crushed.

Although gravity keeps planets close to spherical, there are other forces that cause deviations from the basic spherical shape. For example, the rotation of the earth once every 24 hours, causes an apparent centrifugal force which creates a bulge at the equator. In fact the earth's diameter at the equator is 7,926 miles while the diameter between the poles is only 7,900.

posted on Jun, 25 2009 @ 10:28 PM
actually here is a map of how nasa describs the universes start and timeline.
Now where we are out where the wmap is it is 13.7 billion years but as I posted before, Dr. Gerald Schroeder explains how time is releb=vent and if you were located at the beginning of this creation time would be compressed. He explains the math and would be around 6 24 hour days coinciding with the biblical creation. AS to the earth being 6thousand years old. Thats not true. It's been 6 thousand years since the creation of adam. The creation before him was 13.7 billion years give or take a few hundred million. check this out.
please check out his other videos on google.

posted on Jun, 26 2009 @ 10:57 AM
reply to post by sobek52

The short answer to your question is the Atom. I hope you understand the make up of it and how its existence is not only impossible from an evolutionary standpoint but from a scientific one, too.

If not, I will gladly explain it from science's own definition and description. Those who say they need proof need look no further than this one, tiny, unseen building block of everything.

For those of you who don't think there is proof of God, here's a good website for you to check out.

Smile, Jesus loves you!

[edit on 26-6-2009 by rocmonkey]

posted on Jun, 26 2009 @ 11:09 AM
reply to post by Barkster

Its great to see someone stand up for truth and evidence.

A lot of scientist believe Dinos died out 75 Million years ago. That man and Dinos never lived together. What a good laugh that one is- since we now know that Dinos did live with man (as the Bible states) and they didn't die out that long ago. See this for evidence. Btw, evidence is the truth of everything. Opinions, beliefs, wishful thinking and such are almost always updated as time goes by.

So, what else do they believe that is wrong? Also, the question we must ask folks like this is "Were you there?" (which is what God asked Job when he questioned God). Were they there when the Dinos died out? Were they there when time began? When man appeared? Or, when the Universe came into existence?

The obvious answer is, of course, No! So, their answers become opinions and not facts. Will you really base your eternal destination on the mere opinions of other men? I certainly hope not, especially when they always use words like 'maybe', 'possibly', 'could have', 'likely', 'might be', and such.
Sounds like they aren't as sure as they lead us to believe.

Maybe we should question 'their' evidence and results. Their science seems to be very unscientific.

[edit on 26-6-2009 by rocmonkey]

posted on Jun, 26 2009 @ 12:44 PM
reply to post by JaxonRoberts

Thank you JR for investigating...pls give me some time to look seem like a sincere person

I do take issue with you calling them website "deceptive" ... there are stating things as they interpret them, I merely am bringing it to your attention, no harm intended bro...ok?

When I read sentences on the site like..."appears to be near the center of the universe..." etc...

I see it as a hypothesis, for evaluation...not a statement damning those that don't to hell...fair?


posted on Jun, 26 2009 @ 12:59 PM
reply to post by OldThinker

I say that it is deceptive because it puts forth a hypothesis that is based on false assuptions to support it's point of view. Since it only took me a matter of ten minutes to google the information that disproves the hypothesis, it makes it apparent that the creators of the website did not research it's assumptions at all, or knowingly twisted the facts to suit it's needs.

I would also point out that you did post the link as "proof" of the Creation Myth, not as a possible hypothesis.

posted on Jun, 26 2009 @ 04:38 PM
reply to post by PieKeeper

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.

I feel it should be everybody's responsibility to educate themselves, at least in the basics, before deciding to give their opinion. An uneducated opinion is merely speculation, and speculation is bunk. It's worthless. Nobody has ever advanced an argument or technology based on speculation. It is the beginning of research, not the end.

Therein lies part of the problem. No matter what evidence or reasoned arguments you bring to the table - if someone doesn't want to accept the evidence, then there's nothing you can really do to convince them otherwise. The mental gymnastics of apologetics will allow for any desired fantasy, regardless of logical fallacy, redundancy, or contradictions they produce.

In the mean time, those who do not wish to acknowledge empirical evidence from well over a dozen different fields of science (and that's being conservative) keep spreading their BS and falsehoods - and it takes far more effort to clean up their mental diarrhea than it takes for them to spew it. Couple this with the multitude of falsehoods and misunderstandings even among those who accept evolution, and it becomes a real problem.

So yes, I will ridicule those who show utter contempt for the truth, and who willfully promote ignorance in both themselves and others. Because... forgive me if I am incorrect, but I thought being willfully and proudly ignorant was something to be disdained and avoided. Especially with a subject such as Evolution being under such attack by religious groups - information is highly promoted and distributed, well above and beyond other well established sciences such as cosmology, chemistry, and physics. No more (though more is always better) than two minutes doing some basic research and fact checking will correct any misconceptions. Even if one wants to critique the theory of evolution, one should at least have a solid grasp of what the theory states and what it's argument in favor is.

Setting up and attacking the same tired and worn out strawmen over and over again does nothing but beg ridicule. All the knowledge you could possible want on the subject is just a few clicks away and formatted for easy reading and beginners on the subject, and yes, it's our responsibility to point those who are thirsty for that knowledge to where that thirst can be quenched... help them along if they have trouble understanding certain concepts. But just because the cup of knowledge is offered, doesn't mean we should waste time trying to spoon feed it those who wish to remain in their ignorance... and I for one will show nothing but contempt for those who gleefully drag their fellow man into that pit of superstition and delusion.

posted on Jun, 26 2009 @ 05:26 PM
reply to post by rocmonkey

The presence of soft tissue in fossils does not negate the established age of the fossil, it merely means our understanding of the fossilization process may be incomplete. One of the major problems thus far is that each bone recovered is generally well preserved and handled carefully. In the case of the T.Rex bone (if I'm not mistaken) it was either broken in transport or had to be cut down for transport, wherein they found the soft tissue. It should also be noted that the soft tissue inside wasn't perfectly preserved - it was rather sparse and highly degraded. To the best of my knowledge, they can't even find a long enough chain of intact DNA to fully sequence - but from the sparse protines we have been able to analyze, it confirms the suspicion that modern birds are descended from Dinosaurs. I'm not sure if further study on other bones have turned up similar soft tissue deposits, or if there has been any further study on other bones as of yet. Other bones have been broken accidentally in the past - and this is the first time soft tissue has shown up, making this a very odd exception... but likely not the rule. Conditions during fossilization likely have a very large part to play - wherein bones that are fossilized in arid environments may preserve soft tissues better than those in moist environments.

Nat Geo: T.Rex Soft Tissue sequenced

I did a quick search over at the NCBI Genome database and didn't see any entries for Tyrannosaurus - so I don't think anything other than simple fragments of genetic information have been recovered from it. They do cover extinct species as well, such as Neanderthal.

Also, for a more detailed and peer-reviewed perspective on soft tissue preservation in fossils from the Cretaceous: check out this paper on PubMed.

Preliminary research indicates that as a general rule, matrix tissues remaining after demineralization are more extensively altered morphologically than blood vessels and/or osteocytes. The progression of degradation seems to occur as follows: in recent (less than 20 kyr) specimens, demineralization leaves a dense, stiff and flexible tissue with structural integrity. Fibres remain in tight association and possess 67 nm crossbanding characteristic of collagen under TEM (not shown). Vessels and osteocytes are enclosed within the matrix and cannot be separated without enzymatic digestion. After 100–300 kyr, the matrix thins, becoming almost transparent, less stiff and more flexible, but it is still fibrous under transmitted light microscopy, similar to fresh tissues after prolonged enzymatic digestion. In most cases, vessels and cells separate easily from the thin matrix. All demineralized matrices younger than 1 Ma including the Pleistocene mammoth and mastodon respond to collagenase digestion with definitive morphological change and, in most cases, complete dissolution of visible collagen. However, a small percentage of matrix from most of these samples, including recent ones, does not digest, but remains as a transparent, fibrous and very thin sheet associated with and attached to some vessels, in which osteocytes can be observed. This indigestible tissue is seen in fresh bone and is identical in morphology to similar material associated with some vessels recovered from fossil bone elements.

[edit on 26-6-2009 by Lasheic]

posted on Jun, 26 2009 @ 06:38 PM
reply to post by rocmonkey

Will you really base your eternal destination on the mere opinions of other men?

Which men's opinions on eternity are correct? The Muslims? The Mormons? The Christians? The Jews? The Hindus? The Buddhists? The Zoroastrians? The Luciferians? The Sumerians? The Shintoists? All of them have equal empirical evidence to support their claims. I.E. - None.

"But admitting, for the sake of a case, that something has been revealed to a certain person, and not revealed to any other person, it is revelation to that person only. When he tells it to a second person, a second to a third, a third to a fourth, and so on, it ceases to be a revelation to all those persons. It is a revelation to the first person only, and hearsay to every other person, and consequently they are not obliged to believe it." ~ Thomas Paine; Age of Reason.

I certainly hope not, especially when they always use words like 'maybe', 'possibly', 'could have', 'likely', 'might be', and such. Sounds like they aren't as sure as they lead us to believe.

Certainty is not an indicator of correctness. This is why Science will never, EVER, claim 100% understanding or knowledge on any subject. There is ALWAYS room for error, for falsification, and for the correction of mistakes.

I trust those who are willing to admit and amend their mistakes when they are discovered to be mistakes, not those who claim certainty in the face of a contrary reality and will not budge from their dogma.

This is why science makes corrections, and accommodates paradigm shifts, wherein religions rigidly fracture into divergent (sometimes violently so) opposing factions and employs extensive apologetics.

[edit on 26-6-2009 by Lasheic]

posted on Jul, 2 2009 @ 08:06 AM
The folks in the days Jesus was on earth wanted the same as you. Proof, a sign. Show us a sign that you are the son of God. This evil generation wants a sign as they did then. Jesus went to the cross once and for all. He was buried and was raised again on the third day. He sits at the right hand of the Father. Jesus did His Fathers Will. He raised the dead, caused the blind to see, He fed the hungry, There were many signs in the eyes of the multitudes and they still cried,"Crucify him". There are many signs of the Creators creation. The greatest sign or proof of God's love hung on the cross 2000 years ago. IT IS SO SIMPLE A CHILD CAN BE SAVED!

The spirit of God living on the inside of the believer is the believers proof that they are children of God.

posted on Jul, 2 2009 @ 08:25 PM
reply to post by Cor Leonis

So, are you stating that one cannot believe and follow the teachings of Jesus of Nazareth without believing in the Creation Myth? In other words, can someone who accepts evolution be a Christian?

[edit on 2-7-2009 by JaxonRoberts]

posted on Jul, 2 2009 @ 08:43 PM

Originally posted by shinjiikari2839
How about this? One day you will die. It's inevitable. Whether you die from cancer, a natural disaster or god forbid, the government, you are mortal. Don't you think it would be a wise decision to believe in something so that when you do die at least you have a chance at an afterlife?


My 'afterlife' involves the disintegration of my body and feeding worms and plants.

I don't need some pie in the sky dream of eternal bliss at the right hand of some zombie.

I treat this life as if it is the only one I have. To me, it is. I don't need to live 'on a promise' and have that hanging over every decision I make.

To me, there is no God. End of story.

posted on Jul, 3 2009 @ 02:48 AM
The simple fact of the matter is that we are responsible for what we believe. Using the personal volition with which God has endowed us, we may freely believe in Him, or we may just as freely reject Him. The choice is up to each individual. Once the unbeliever has closed his mind irrevocably, God will not deter him, as Paul made clear when he wrote his second epistle to the Thessalonians. In that letter, he spoke of those who “received not the love of the truth” (2:10), and then went on to say that “...for this cause God sendeth them a working of error, that they should believe a lie” (1 Thessalonians 2:11). Indeed, actions have consequences. And beliefs have implications.

posted on Jul, 3 2009 @ 03:09 AM
The scientific method is limited to telling us “how” a process works, not “why.” In his book, Questions of Science and Faith, J.N. Hawthorne remarked: “Science can give us the ’know-how’ but it cannot give us the ’know-why’,” (1960, p. 4). J.D. Bales has noted:

The scientific method is incapable of dealing with the realm of purpose. It can deal with cause and effect relationships; or as some would say, it can deal with the succession of events in time. It cannot deal with the “why” when one uses the term “why” with reference to purpose (1976, p. 37).

Science deals with mechanism, not purpose. “Why”—in regard to purpose—is not a question science is equipped to answer.

new topics

top topics

<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in