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: 4
9
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 29 2009 @ 01:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mike_A
reply to post by ChemBreather
 


Sorry but did you look up Robertsonian Translocation? It does happen in nature, quite a bit. What you are saying just isn't true.


what are you saying exactly? what does this have to do with anything wouldnt you call this a disease not evolution if this was evolution would you be saying that we could all develop down syndrome better yet. why dont you explain how this has anything to do with evolution.




posted on Aug, 29 2009 @ 01:52 PM
link   
reply to post by Mike_A
 


I am saying that if the Evidence gets too overwelming contra Evolution, things gets madeup,twisted and fromed to fit the agenda...

I know you think I am crazy, I am not, I am not achristian person either, I just got convinced aliens made life on earth possible, not that much of an enigma if you strip away the lies...

Grass, what do you know about Grass ???



posted on Aug, 29 2009 @ 01:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by make.changes

Originally posted by Mike_A
reply to post by ChemBreather
 


Sorry but did you look up Robertsonian Translocation? It does happen in nature, quite a bit. What you are saying just isn't true.


what are you saying exactly? what does this have to do with anything wouldnt you call this a disease not evolution if this was evolution would you be saying that we could all develop down syndrome better yet. why dont you explain how this has anything to do with evolution.


Yes, good point, Evo say EVERYTHING is in Decay , how can ANY THING be born or created from Decay ?
Like the stars, you hear about these cool pictures of dying stars all the time, where are the pictures of new born stars ?? where ??



posted on Aug, 29 2009 @ 01:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mike_A
reply to post by ChemBreather
 


Sorry but did you look up Robertsonian Translocation? It does happen in nature, quite a bit. What you are saying just isn't true.


But what gave rise to that pattern in nature? What created nature, what inputted it's code to create what it does? Surely this must have stemmed from somewhere, and if it happened due to pure chance - than would that not suggest that nature possesses intelligence?

Does that not suggest that there is some force acting within nature, some force so powerful yet subtle that we are only aware of it's existence beneath the surface of reality? What holds everything together? What binds our existence?

What if life is just a hologram, as several scientists/physicists are suggesting?

Quantum mechanics is only just now discovering what the spiritual inclined individuals of old have known for thousands of years. Are we to just negate all the knowledge and truth discovered by our ancestors in favor of a strict and rigid system that limits the scope of reality and thus hinders our full potential?

We are being lied to at every corner and I'm sick of it.



posted on Aug, 29 2009 @ 01:57 PM
link   
reply to post by Troy_
 




You cannot create something from nothing, evolution just does not pop up out of nowhere to propagate an entire Universe most likely teeming with life.


Why do you think that is evolution? Evolution is not about life "just popping up out of nowhere".

Abiogenesis

In the natural sciences, abiogenesis, or "chemical evolution", is the study of how life on Earth could have arisen from inanimate matter. It should not be confused with evolution, which is the study of how groups of living things change over time.




If you really think about life, does it makes sense to even be alive? If there is no source or Creator, than what is the point to life? Why isn't there no life instead of all life? Why is there even a Universe, if that is the case?


How is this revelant to evolution? You are getting into philosophy or metaphysics. You might be getting close to the truth, but this has nothing to do with evolution.

As to the rest of your post, I understand what you are saying. As I have said, I support I.D. But they have nothing to do with evolution theory.



posted on Aug, 29 2009 @ 01:58 PM
link   
reply to post by ChemBreather
 


hey chembreather if you think the aliens created life on earth who created the aliens?



posted on Aug, 29 2009 @ 02:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by make.changes
reply to post by ChemBreather
 


hey chembreather if you think the aliens created life on earth who created the aliens?


That is ofcourse the higher ranking beings, other aliens , or the Source or what you like to think of it ..

The universe is an closed space, it is not forever, it have boundries, and out side that is some ones LHC at work...

The whorm holes is where they come in and makes changes, add or remove after whish, and this happends in cycles ofcourse, and you know those cycles already.. !

adding: the aliens know who created them, we do not know any thing ...


[edit on 29/8/2009 by ChemBreather]



posted on Aug, 29 2009 @ 02:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by dakota1s2
No way to "prove" creationism. My opinion is evolution cannot take into account the complexity of our universe. The eye for example, or maybe the human brain. NO way could evolution account for what it took to create(evolve) the complexity of the eye. And as noted evolution, is just a theory.


Evolution is proven fact. The eye has so many flaws that shows it isn't a product of intelligent design.



posted on Aug, 29 2009 @ 02:26 PM
link   
reply to post by make.changes
 


Clearly you read Wikipedia up to the bit where it says Down’s Syndrome and then stopped. Translocation does not necessarily produce a defect, in many cases nothing happens at all.

Robertsonian Translocation was just an example, google chromosomal translocation for further examples.

reply to post by ChemBreather
 


The problem is that the evidence you present for your hypothesis is incorrect. Chromosomal translocation does happen in nature.




[edit on 29-8-2009 by Mike_A]



posted on Aug, 29 2009 @ 02:37 PM
link   
reply to post by Troy_
 


I think what you are saying is basically what I am saying.

Only you make it sound so much more eloquent.

I too do not accept that energy "dies".



posted on Aug, 29 2009 @ 02:39 PM
link   
reply to post by Mike_A
 


Another accident ? not intented ?
Those were fused together for a purpose, and that is to make us, we are no where near any monkey in structural buildup.

We have the ability to modulate, talk that is, apes dont, and that just dont happend in one step of an freak accident of nature...
Nature do not require us to talk to eachother like we do..



posted on Aug, 29 2009 @ 02:50 PM
link   
Ok, I have my own theories/ beliefs about things, but that is not what you want to hear. I have two words that prove more for creationism than any other in our "limited" scientific understandings.

MISSING LINK

Now, before you all try to attack the messenger instead of argue the facts, let me say that I truly believe that science only serves to prove spirituallity (not religion), and creationism and evolution reside hand in hand in the big picture.

With that said, I invite ANY actual proof of PURE evolution and show me the missing link (and yes I have seen the latest attempts, but they are not definitive).





Peace and Love

[edit on 29-8-2009 by awakening1]

[edit on 29-8-2009 by awakening1]

[edit on 29-8-2009 by awakening1]



posted on Aug, 29 2009 @ 02:53 PM
link   
reply to post by Mike_A
 


Creationism. There is proof of creation everyday. Creativity in our minds prove that things are created. Art, music, etc.... These are all proof that Creationism is real. How would you explain creativity if creationism is not true?

I do believe one day if our humanity proceeds forward that science will be able to explain how Creationism works. That is all science can do. It can just explain how things work. That is what it is for. But to create life....think about it. Science one day will be able to explain how it was created, but I do not believe that it can actually every create life without using the materials that have been created already.


www.timesonline.co.uk...

It would not be fair if i did not put in the preceding link, but i would like to point out that the article contains much speculation.


* Main Entry: spec·u·la·tion
* Pronunciation: \ˌspe-kyə-ˈlā-shən\
* Function: noun
* Date: 14th century

: an act or instance of speculating: as a : assumption of unusual business risk in hopes of obtaining commensurate gain b : a transaction involving such speculation

[edit on 29-8-2009 by Conclusion]

[edit on 29-8-2009 by Conclusion]

[edit on 29-8-2009 by Conclusion]



posted on Aug, 29 2009 @ 03:11 PM
link   
reply to post by Mike_A
 


I have no proof, I believe in Creation because it makes the most sense to me.

Although I believe that the Earth is in fact 4,500,000,000 years old. And I believe that there is evolution within species. I just think that most if not all the different life forms on this planet exist on other planets, and they were put here by someone or something, at different times. I think that Earth was "terraformed" by "aliens/angels". I guess you could say we are an alien ant-farm.


I am sort of a Christer, but my beliefs differ so far from the churchy ones that they would probably classify me as some sort of heretic.



posted on Aug, 29 2009 @ 03:17 PM
link   
LOL, I don't have to prove Creationism or make a case as the title by OP states, because all around the world AstroPhysists are are doing it for us. All you have to do is look at what they are saying. Even Michio Kaku(hope I spelled it right) says that all evidence seems to lead towards there being a creator. No one can convince someone that there is a creator if there heart isn't open to the possibility. It is a selfish Heart that wants to argue, it is an open heart that wants to discuss. Just the title about making a case lends to argument, not discussion. Where there is a beginning there must be a beginner. As above so below. In the past 15 years more scientists have turned to believing in a creator than ever before because the physics leads to it. Plain and simple.



posted on Aug, 29 2009 @ 03:17 PM
link   
hmm I seem to keep getting double posts. srry

[edit on 29-8-2009 by Barkster]



posted on Aug, 29 2009 @ 03:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Barkster
No one can convince someone that there is a creator if there heart isn't open to the possibility. It is a selfish Heart that wants to argue, it is an open heart that wants to discuss. Just the title about making a case lends to argument, not discussion. Where there is a beginning there must be a beginner. As above so below. In the past 15 years more scientists have turned to believing in a creator than ever before because the physics leads to it. Plain and simple.


What does Heart have to do with anything?

I think you need first to define what you mean by Creator.



posted on Aug, 29 2009 @ 03:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by make.changes
reply to post by Deaf Alien
 


are you talking about an ordinance that god set on this earth. if he decided to make two things that weighed the same fall at different rates. anyways thats the job of the holy spirit because if he allowed you to do everything you might just get the impression that you are god.


Ok, 2 funny little sidebars: you said "would it not be a little strange if he decided to make two things that weighed the same fall at different rates"
a) why would that be strange if it is his to decide?
b) they do.
Don't believe me? take 2 identical pieces of paper fold one into a plane, and crumple the other into a ball. Drop both. Observe. Weigh the same, dont fall at the same speed.

Also: harmony? we have recently found out that our solar system is in fact chaotic. We can not predict where earth will be in 100.000 years.



posted on Aug, 29 2009 @ 03:54 PM
link   
reply to post by Conclusion
 


Imagination (and with it creativity) is a desirable trait for a hunting animal. Makes it easier to predict what your prey will do next=less energy used to catch it. With us less hunting we have started to use it on other things. And yes, i think it is very cool that we did.



posted on Aug, 29 2009 @ 04:06 PM
link   
reply to post by debunky
 




Don't believe me? take 2 identical pieces of paper fold one into a plane, and crumple the other into a ball. Drop both. Observe. Weigh the same, dont fall at the same speed.


I seriously hope you were making a funny



new topics

top topics



 
9
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join