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.

 

Creationists, what is your case for proving creationism?

page: 14
9
<< 11  12  13   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 4 2009 @ 02:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by Conclusion
Absence of evidence does not mean evidence of absence.


What does that have to do with anything?
The fact that I can't disprove Zeus does not make the belief in Zeus anymore scientific.
Whether God exists or not doesn't change the fact that the belief in God requires faith and is non-scientific.




posted on Sep, 4 2009 @ 02:17 PM
link   
reply to post by Mike_A
 


My theory is that no one can prove it to you... it is based on faith. Once you have faith based on what is proof enough for you to believe you are set.

What I consider enough evidence for me to believe probably isn't enough for "person A" or may be more than "person B" requires.

Take for example the patterson bigfoot video, almost everone has seen that and formed a conclusion real or fake just based off a few seconds of video. For some it is enough evidence and they are convinced others require more proof/validation etc. The ones that belive it to be true have faith in the video as legit.

If someone could offer undeniable proof for everyone to see you would not have an option to beleive it or not right?

Notice I didnt site any vs about faith or belief but they are the cornerstones.

Now outside of the Bible go to youtube or on ATS and look around for videos or threads on Sacred Geometry and see what you think.



posted on Sep, 11 2009 @ 12:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by kinglizard
There is no testable scientific proof for Creationism...It's a faith based belief. I'm going to introduce you to the doctor that treats my ADD.

could you tell that to all the idiots who keep trying to push creationism into schools then?
if there is no evidence equal to the evidence taught for the ToE then they need to stop trying to wedge it into schools.

also tell people like kent hovind and ken ham to stop lying about creationism being equal to science, because its based on faith.



posted on Sep, 14 2009 @ 01:24 PM
link   
reply to post by demongoat
 


I see it as a problem. If God wanted us to have proof we would have it. Seems like some people want to base their faith on proof...and when they don't get it in the way of some vision or visitation from God himself they slowly start to lose their faith.

In my early days I would pray to God for some sign of his existence (tempting God) in order for me to have undeniable proof he was real. When it didn't come I started to move away from God. In this day and age it's an easy thing to do. When people start to replace faith with a requirement of proof of their faith, they lose.... a lot IMO.

It's probably unfair for me to say this now that I've had my NDE (proof) but it gives me the ability to see where I went wrong in my own past.

As for schools and what they teach...I have faith the right decisions will be made.



posted on Nov, 23 2009 @ 02:45 AM
link   
It is only just another question, though, can creationism and evolution not be the same ordeal, only creationism is personified? If you think of it, you can match every event of creation up with a million meticulous details of the evolutionary case. It's as if the words of all these holy books are just concise poetry, to the large stack of papers of prose that evolution has. Creationism is just for the simple-minded (not connoting negativity), who want everything there quick and easy, as where an evolutionary theory is for those who like to explore every minute detail of a matter, and keep revising these details until it is perfect (which it very well may never be).

There is no use in quoting a holy book or tearing open The Origin of Species. [As far as I am concerned (I shouldn't say that because it incorporates opinion into my statement. Oh well.), there are is a completely separate belief for every being that inhabits this Earth, and then some.] Everything, if you do enough piecing together, can all be inherently the same. Everyone is just arguing over ignorance (not connoting negativity once again, merely saying that you don't know everything or strain against opposition, so therefore you are ignorant to some aspects of other ideals), as to where if they quit bickering over the differences, they could see similarities amongst the ideas they hold so dear. (How insightful, I know.)

I apologize if this has already been covered, I just found this thread on Google and thought it to be interesting; wanted to post my own response, although, I, too, have not answered the question asked, I do not think. I read a few pages, then had to skip past all the Biblical and Qu'ranical quotes, restatements on top of restatements, and equations (which were all very irritating) to get here and make a post.

Well, there's some conversation. I hope it's deserved.



posted on Nov, 23 2009 @ 02:54 AM
link   
Some of the most compelling evidence I have found that I could generally label as "true evidence" is how scripture coincides with science.

Scientific Principle - Biblical Verse

Cosmology/Astronomy

Time had a beginning - 2 Timothy 1:9, Titus 1:2, 1 Corinthians 2:72
The universe had a beginning - Genesis 1:1, 2:4, Isaiah 42:5, etc.3
The universe was created from the invisible(atoms) - Hebrews 11:34
The dimensions of the universe were created - Romans 8:38-395
The universe is expanding - 44:24Job 9:8, Psalm 104:2, Isaiah 40:22, Isaiah 42:5, Isaiah 45:12, Isaiah 48:13, Isaiah 51:13, Jeremiah 10:12, Jeremiah 51:15, Zechariah 12:16
Creation of matter and energy has ended in the universe (refutes steady-state theory) - Genesis 2:3-47
The universe is winding down and will "wear out" (second law of thermodynamics ensures that the universe will run down due to "heat death"-maximum entropy) - Psalm 102:25-278
Describes the correct order of creation - Genesis 1 (see Day-Age Genesis One Interpretation)
Number of stars exceeds a billion - Genesis 22:17, Jeremiah 33:229
Every star is different - 1 Corinthians 15:4110
Pleiades and Orion as gravitationally bound star groups - Job 38:3111
Light is in motion - Job 38:19-2012
The earth is controlled by the heavens - Job 38:331
Earth is a sphere - Isaiah 40:2213 Job 26:1014
At any time, there is day and night on the Earth - Luke 17:34-3515
Earth is suspended in space - Job 26:716

Earth Sciences

Earth began as a waterworld. Formation of continents by tectonic activity described - Genesis 1:2-9, Psalm 104:6-9, Proverbs 3:19, Proverbs 8:27-29, Job 38:4-8, 2 Peter 3:517
Water cycle described - Ecclesiastes 1:7; Isaiah 55:10, Job 36:27-2818
Valleys exist on the bottom of the sea - 2 Samuel 22:1619
Vents exist on the bottom of the sea - Job 38:1620
Ocean currents in the sea - Psalm 8:821
Air has weight - Job 28:2522
Winds blow in circular paths - Ecclesiastes 1:623

Biology

The chemical nature of human life - Genesis 2:7, 3:1924
Life of creatures are in the blood - Leviticus 17:1125
The nature of infectious diseases - Leviticus 13:4626
Importance of sanitation to health - Numbers 19, Deuteronomy 23:12-13, Leviticus 7-927

Also, from the book of Enoch -

Relation between thunder/lightning

14
For the thunder has places of rest (which) are assigned (to it) while it is waiting for its peal; and the thunder and lightning are inseparable, and although not one and undivided, they both go together
15
through the spirit and separate not. For when the lightning lightens, the thunder utters its voice, and the spirit enforces a pause during the peal, and divides equally between them

and there are also passages describing the day/night cycle(364 day cycle, it also states further that man will misjudge the days)

On that day the night decreases and amounts to nine parts, and the day to nine parts, and the night
33
is equal to the day and the year is exactly as to its days three hundred and sixty-four. And the length of the day and of the night, and the shortness of the day and of the night arise-through the course
34
of the sun these distinctions are made (lit. 'they are separated'). So it comes that its course becomes
35
daily longer, and its course nightly shorter. And this is the law and the course of the sun, and his return as often as he returns sixty times and rises, i.e. the great luminary which is named the sun,
36
for ever and ever.



posted on Nov, 23 2009 @ 03:17 AM
link   
reply to post by Agree2Disagree
 


Right where I was coming from, the question only is now, were those incredibly observative humans answering the questions and only believing all observations to be signs from a divine presence, or did it actually come from a divine presence? We weren't either the person who wrote it, or the speculated divinity, so we do not know the answer.



posted on Nov, 23 2009 @ 03:25 AM
link   
reply to post by tainalewyko
 


Well, what kind of technology would it take to realise that Orion and Pleiades are gravitationally bound?

How would ancient man know about vents and valleys in the farthest depths of the oceans?

How would ancient man know that all matter is made of atoms?

How would ancient man know that the universe is expanding?

How would ancient man know that stars surpass the billions when only approximately 3000 are visible in the night sky?

How would ancient man know that air has weight?


These definitely don't seem like very observational individuals, they seem to me to be "in the know".



posted on Nov, 23 2009 @ 06:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by Agree2Disagree
reply to post by tainalewyko
 


Well, what kind of technology would it take to realise that Orion and Pleiades are gravitationally bound?

How would ancient man know about vents and valleys in the farthest depths of the oceans?

How would ancient man know that all matter is made of atoms?

How would ancient man know that the universe is expanding?

How would ancient man know that stars surpass the billions when only approximately 3000 are visible in the night sky?

How would ancient man know that air has weight?


These definitely don't seem like very observational individuals, they seem to me to be "in the know".


Show me the quotes. They are probably unconcrete and metaphorical and you extrapolated this meaning from them in the light of modern knowledge. Anyway, ancient people were not stupid, Democritos also yhought matter is made from atoms.



posted on Nov, 23 2009 @ 04:45 PM
link   
reply to post by Maslo
 


The verses are in my other post on this page. Look them up. Of course you're going to say they're unconcrete and have to be interpreted. What do you expect ancient man to do? Use the exact same terminology that we use now? Give me a break.



new topics

top topics



 
9
<< 11  12  13   >>

log in

join