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: 7
<< 4  5  6   >>

log in


posted on Jul, 3 2009 @ 09:30 AM

Originally posted by Lasheic
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.

[edit on 26-6-2009 by Lasheic]

Actually, the soft tissue was veins and such. It was not (repeat- was not) bone tissue. And, yes, fossils tissue does negate the age of the thing- especially when its supposed to be 70 - 75 Million years old. For example, when something dies it immediately begins to deteriorate. Or, its eaten by other animals. Fossils can only form when the animal is immediately covered. For proof just throw a piece of raw meat out in the sun on the ground. It will rot or be eaten or, over a very short period of time (days to weeks at most) deteriorate to an unrecognizable state. Soft tissues in the form of veins and muscle cannot last 75 Million years. The facts (if you follow truth) is clear science is wrong, the Bible is right.

posted on Jul, 3 2009 @ 10:08 AM

Originally posted by Lasheic
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.Text I.E. - None.

Actually, that isn't true. I study religions, science and America's Founding Fathers.

Islam has no empirical evidence. It does teach Mohammad "split the moon in half" -

Mormons teach Jesus created his own dad and his own God. How can that even remotely be any kind of empirical evidence?

The others are just as ridiculous in nature, scope and teachings. The only book that has been time-tested and proved is the Bible. No other book has been so scrutinized and criticized and yet never disproved. Plus, the Bible was written by about 44 men on at least two continents over a 1600 year period of time and the entire book speaks of one main theme. It has prophecies, predictions and teachings that are just as relevant today , if not more so, than the time in which it was written. All of that taken as a whole (or any piece, even) is impossible without a timeless Being guiding its progress.

"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.

When it pertains the the entire human race (our sin nature) then it behooves all of us to verify its veracity or disprove it entirely. If we can't prove conclusively that it is a false book- or that it has false things in it from God- then we had better set up and pay attention- there's something bigger than all of us to it.

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]

Well, I find it ironic that this book, as I've stated, written over a 1600 year period of time and finished about 2,000 years ago never (ever, ever) says maybe, possibly, probably, could have, etc, etc when God is speaking. And, to top it off, it has never been disproved. In fact, science, more often than not when the facts are known, agrees completely with it. God doesn't have to say the "maybes" because He knew everything before He created anything. Only men have to constantly rewrite (read as change- which means they were wrong the first time and deceived the unknowing masses) and rethink their "theories".

Food for thought.

[edit on 3-7-2009 by rocmonkey]

posted on Jul, 3 2009 @ 10:21 AM

Originally posted by JaxonRoberts
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]

I'm saying that a person cannot be a Christian and believe in evolution because they are calling Him (Jesus) a liar. When one believes in evolution they are stating that God did not create everything the way He said He did. God can't be God if He is a liar. Therefore, why would one want to serve a known liar? What kind of person would believe that Jesus is "The Way, the TRUTH and the Life" if he thinks He (Jesus) is a liar?

Evolution in its simplest form is 'nothing times nobody equaling everything'.
Ever seen a design without a designer? Neither have I. Our Universe is no different.

[edit on 3-7-2009 by rocmonkey]

[edit on 3-7-2009 by rocmonkey]

posted on Jul, 3 2009 @ 11:12 AM
reply to post by rocmonkey

What a load of bunk! Show me one passage that Jesus himself verifies or endorses the story in Genesis. In fact he spent alot of time disputing the version of God in the Tenakh. His version of his "Father" is very, very different than the one described in the Tenakh. Why do you think the Jews rejected him? Absolutists are usually absolutely wrong. There are a great many Christians who accept the possibility of evolution and view the Tenakh contextually not literally. Welcome to the 21st Century!

posted on Jul, 3 2009 @ 11:38 AM
reply to post by rocmonkey


Evolution in its simplest form is 'nothing times nobody equaling everything'.

No, are not describing evolution at all. You are trying to describe abiogenesis.

Problem is, this thread seems to be discussion something called 'creationism', if I read the title correctly. Even so-called 'creationists' can't be pinned down to any one opinion, they disagree with each other so wildly!

Ever seen a design without a designer? Neither have I. Our Universe is no different.

When you say 'our' Universe, I hope you don't mean in the possessive sense. We are little more than accidental inhabitants.

Then, this 'design' flap-jack comes up, and again, this is a desperate attempt at ridiculing an idea that the 'creationists' or the 'intelligent design' crowd just cannot grasp. It is a Human trait to attempt to simplify, and pigeon-hole concepts that, in themselves, are so vast, and that span such incredible amounts of time.

I think creationists are afraid --- afraid to admit to themselves that things aren't easily tied up into a pretty bow to present to gullible kids in Sunday School class.

The 'design' baloney is a fallacy, being promoted by those who wish to push their specific, pet agendas of religious dogma forward, and camouflaging the dogmatic twaddle as pseudo-science, hoping no one will notice the deception.

Once more, your statement/question;

Ever seen a design without a designer?
is easily answered with just one example of randomness seen in nature (there are countless others...): The effects of ocean wave and water current action on sand. THAT can create a design, and I certainly don't think anyone wishes to propose some supernatural entity at work you?

posted on Jul, 3 2009 @ 07:40 PM
reply to post by weedwhacker

Good to read your Posts again...

The effects of ocean wave and water current action on sand. THAT can create a design

The effects of ocean wave and water current action on sand. THAT can create a design

Yes you are right in what you have written...

It is refreshing to see you recognise that things are Created

As you have confessed, in your own words quoted above.

But what is it, that Creates???

Yes you are right, things are Created, through the processing system, involving Physics...

But where, and what has produced the Laws, or Phenomena of Physics, that is in the process???

No it is Not, I repeat Not, a human invented god behind it all !

But something, has produced the Structure of the Laws of physics, that underlay this Little Universe you experience...

One thing for sure, something has produced All, but What???

Without Awareness or Consciousness, Nothing at all would be Aware that any thing exists at all.

Correct me if I am wrong..

You are Aware of your body and environment.

Does Your Body experience You???

Or do You Experience your Body???

Is Your Body Aware of You???

Or are You aware of Your Body???

So what is the Body???

And What is The You???

Once again Good to read your posts again...

[edit on 3-7-2009 by The Matrix Traveller]

posted on Jul, 25 2009 @ 09:19 PM
If people can believe that this current state of man can evolve to a level of complexity and intelligence from a series of random events based on survival of the fittest over thousand/millions of years then i can believe that an actual intelligent person created the earth and all the inhabitants therein. In fact believing that we were created by intelligent design is more sane than poof we upgraded ourselves from a pool of amino acids. There is a coherent intelligent design to the structure of our bodies, that is illrefutable. The millions of lifeforms that exists is proof that all life was created. We invent technology like sonar but bats already employ that technology integrated into their bodies. We have a computer in our heads that surpasses all computer knowledge that we currently hold. the list goes on, evolutionists can wallow in their pool of acid and i'll go to the throne room of God and develop a relationship with my Creator.


posted on Jul, 25 2009 @ 09:23 PM
Not sure you can handle the proof or the truth, but you can start with polonium halos here:

posted on Jul, 26 2009 @ 11:07 AM

Ill be making a thread on evidence when i have enough posts. For now enjoy part of the evidence that will be in my thread. Evidence that disproves evolution and the big bang.
Scientists tried to take the evidence off the website with the big bang disproval evidence on. The site in question won the law suit and its now back up.

The website have invited universities and scientists to disprove their evidence and they didnt even reply back to them.

because they couldnt prove the evidence was wrong

If you look carefully at the evidence for creation and research the lack of evidence for evolution (animals have convienantly stopped evolving, lack of evolutionary bone records. If evolution happened for millions of years then there should be fossils of it every where.)
Then you will see that the idea of a unintelligant acid creating a hugely complicated system of proteins and cells that interact in the right way is stupid.

This goes for enviroments aswell E.g. oxygen. Oxygen is highly flammable...and the big bang just happened to know the right balance to stop the atmosphere from exploding. (a nuke would set the atmosphere on fire if oxygen wasnt balanced etc..)

The further out into space you go the faster time is, things that are thought to be billions of years old are infact only thousands.

Just to add a few more things...why havnt humans and animals evolved to protect ourselfs from radiation, why dont virus' we're immunised against evolve to survive an immunised body?
Why isnt new life being created every day? why isnt my shampoo evolving when it touches the proteins in my hair? (contains amino acids which apparently helped make life from a pool of goop)

Why is there no creature on this planet in the process of evolving? if there was billions of years of evolution then surely we'd still have chimps in the process of defying their DNA and becoming a human or a monkey fish?

Why arnt things coming from the ocean, growing legs and becoming something they arnt? after all we all know that animals with defects are left for dead in the animal world.

And then of course another animal came along with the same changes and compatible dna to breed with......convienant.
What are the chances that they would change into the same creature?

So basicly, in evolution, retarded animals survive somehow

we all know evolution was invented because scientists refuse to answer to god. Hell, even stephan hawkings admits that there might be a god. There is evidence everwhere for creation.

There is evidence these days for creation, things predicted in the bible have come true. All of it. All i ask is you read the bible.

Well im not giving any more examples out, you should for look it up yourself...also i wont be replying to comments because i wont be here. Frankly evolutionists annoy me to no ends.....its quite sad that people believe that once you die you blink away into nothingness.
Excuse my grammer, im not very good at spelling.

[edit on 26-7-2009 by Redfield]

posted on Jul, 26 2009 @ 11:18 AM
how many times do you have to go thru this be fore you convinhce yourself.
it's really getting old.

[edit on 26-7-2009 by randyvs]

posted on Jul, 26 2009 @ 11:23 AM
reply to post by sobek52

Show me infalliable proof of anything.
The point is "proof" is dependent upon what you are willing to accept as proof.

posted on Jul, 26 2009 @ 11:27 AM
reply to post by Redfield

...and the big bang just happened to know the right balance to stop the atmosphere from exploding. (a nuke would set the atmosphere on fire if oxygen wasnt balanced etc..)

Out of all the inaccurate things you said, I only selected this one. Because it truly stands out in its ignorance.

After reviewing the links you provided, I can only say --- what a shame!

Now, I'm off to my alchemist's, he promised to turn my lead into gold. Later, I'll drop by and have some chicken bones read by the old crone up the street.

AH!!! I love the Dark worries from all that pesky science to distract us form the superstitions we know and love....

posted on Jul, 26 2009 @ 02:31 PM

Originally posted by Redfield
Evidence that disproves evolution
[edit on 26-7-2009 by Redfield]

We know that Evolution happens. It's been observed.

posted on Aug, 19 2009 @ 12:41 PM
infallable proof of creationism is that matter is made up of only atoms and molecules, and no particular assembly of these can produce consciousness.

consciousness is immaterial.


therefore only God could have created this immaterial effect consciousness.

you must turn to God before it is too late to.

you know the gospel and you will be judged according to that knowledge.

posted on Aug, 19 2009 @ 01:02 PM
reply to post by Watcher-In-The-Shadows

Show me infalliable proof of anything. The point is "proof" is dependent upon what you are willing to accept as proof.

We have a winner............. IMO this is probably the most intelligent comment in this thread.

new topics

top topics

<< 4  5  6   >>

log in