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: 5
9
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 29 2009 @ 04:21 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.


Unless the eye evolved in stages. An organism does not need a fully developed human eye to "see" movement or shades of light.

Peace,
Daniel




posted on Aug, 29 2009 @ 04:25 PM
link   
reply to post by dakota1s2
 




And as noted evolution, is just a theory.


Why do Christian keep saying that? Evoltuion IS a theory.

If you said that to scientists, they will look at you funny then say, "DUH?"



posted on Aug, 29 2009 @ 04:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by havok
The only evidence that I can give is the notion that everything is in perfect balance. With outer space, if you look around, there is calm, and chaos.

Harmony. The notion of perfection is evidence enough for me to believe creationism. Look around. Well, look around at nature. It is perfect, down to the smallest neurons, and sub-particles. Everything is controlled by some force, or some energy. Thats the Creator.

Better?


If you think that Nature is perfect, then you're either living in a different Universe than most of us, or you're extremely sheltered.

Peace,
Daniel



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



Those were fused together for a purpose


But where's your evidence? You said that our fused chromosomes were this evidence because it does not happen outside of the lab. But that is evidently not true.

reply to post by awakening1
 



With that said, I invite ANY actual proof of PURE evolution and show me the missing link


Please at least read the thread before posting, I said in the OP “without referring to the theory of evolution or any religious text, please can you set out your scientific hypothesis, along with the relevant supporting evidence, as to how life on Earth came to be?”

For the purposes of this thread we can consider evolution to be false. How does that prove any other hypothesis?


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?


Erm, for clarification I am talking about the idea that life on Earth came to be through intelligent means.

How does any of the above prove that?

By the way, you got that Mahabharata quote for me yet?


reply to post by Barkster
 



Even Michio Kaku(hope I spelled it right) says that all evidence seems to lead towards there being a creator.


For a start that’s appeal to authority, it doesn’t matter who says something but what they say. Nevertheless can you provide a source for this?

Also I didn’t say you have to make up a theory, you can copy and paste someone else’s if you like. Please post the evidence that you believe supports a theory of creationism.



posted on Aug, 29 2009 @ 06:57 PM
link   
reply to post by Mike_A
 
the evidence is all around you.being ignorant enough not to see
the nose on your face, is something you don't have to prove. imo
how ridiculous do you think it would be to build the gigantic stone monuments to gods w/out a solid reason.not just that, but the design of everything in the universe is evident of a designer.show me proof of
your theory, what ever it is. i'm sure it can be made to look ridiculous.
don't mean to slap you verbaly in the face . but you really need to wake up some how to the fact.


JESUS CHRIST IS LORD
his teachings and the fact, he believed in his purpose enough to take it to the cross, should be enough for anyone with any human quality
that is still detectable in the soul, that you can't deny you have.
or maybe you can .tell me man has no life source that is his soul.
so i don't have to carry on w/ you any further.please tell me.



posted on Aug, 29 2009 @ 06:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by Annee

What does Heart have to do with anything?

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


Wow, do I Really? come on now isnt that obvious? The Idea of Creationism is there is a Creator and that all we percieve is part of the Creators Creation. Holy Cow, I knew I would regret responding to this Thread.



posted on Aug, 29 2009 @ 07:07 PM
link   
reply to post by Barkster
 



Wow, do I Really? come on now isnt that obvious? The Idea of Creationism is there is a Creator and that all we percieve is part of the Creators Creation. Holy Cow, I knew I would regret responding to this Thread
just deny ignorance barkster. if she can't figure that out, or must resort to being facecious

dakota1s2


Why do Christian keep saying that? Evoltuion IS a theory
because we can.



First, the Bible was written by about 40 different human writers who lived over a period of about 1500 years (50 generations). Many of these writers had no opportunity to collaborate with each other and yet, there are no contradictions in their writings! Like no other book, the writers all agreed on such themes as morality (which certainly has changed drastically in a few generations in our society), child rearing (likewise a changing philosophy), husband and wife relationships (which have been altered in a single generation), the character of God, the way of salvation and the birth, life, death and resurrection of the Saviour of mankind, in minute details.

[edit on 29-8-2009 by randyvs]

[edit on 29-8-2009 by randyvs]



posted on Aug, 29 2009 @ 07:08 PM
link   
For a start that’s appeal to authority, it doesn’t matter who says something but what they say. Nevertheless can you provide a source for this?

Also I didn’t say you have to make up a theory, you can copy and paste someone else’s if you like. Please post the evidence that you believe supports a theory of creationism.




Wow no one reads what is really posted in here do they. As I stated I don't have to make a case for Creation as Science and the finest Scientists in the land do it for me. Now if you haven't heard any Astrophysists say that the universe appears to be just an expression of a thought, or even just hologram than you should start reading and listening more to Scienctists since most evolution and non creation theory is based around so called science(Old science) . Michio stated it the other night on Coast to Coast. Like I said if you don't want to see it (if your heart isn't open to it) You wont find it. I don't intend to get sucked into an argument about Creation with folks that aren't even up on even laymans astrophysics and new theory therein. But hey Creator bless you anyways.



posted on Aug, 29 2009 @ 07:31 PM
link   
reply to post by Mike_A
 


Please refer to my edit on page four with the SUPPORTING video based on quantum physics. Its a lot of video but it does have the evidence you speak of.

Love and peace.



posted on Aug, 29 2009 @ 07:46 PM
link   
I'm inclined to interpret your question as an indication that you tend to believe if science can run a fictional idea, and some processes can be somewhat matched to that fiction, then it represents some brilliant understanding of reality? If the same effort can not be put in by "creationalists" then "cretionalism" must be wrong? I would guess, most "creationalists" believe in "creationalism" in their hearts because they recognize their spiritual existence is quite distinct and independent of the leather bag. "Creationalists" simply don't identify their true self with the leather bag the way evolutionists do. For me, that makes it clear they are spiritually in the dark. That lack of awareness on their part, is a major reason they have no credibility no matter how many "degrees" they can claim and what they think those are worth.

When I think of "Evolution" I can only relate to it as processes driven by the desire of the individual spirit. There is no magical randomness that could possibly accomplish anything with consistence for an extended period of time let alone maintained and enhanced generation after generation. The incredible improbability of evolution, to me, totally destroys it's credibility.

Put another way, "Creationalism" is logical and reasonable from an understanding of life and life science that evolutionists can't begin to understand simply because they don't have the conscious state capable of intuiting this different kind of understanding.

I'm all for real science and reason but there is nothing reasonable or scientific about evolution. In creationalism, at it's most basic, you see in the human relationship with the world a reflection of the higher worlds relationship with this world. Humans create and first think of something before they bring it into manifestation. You don't type one character without first creating the plan for doing so. Likewise the higher regions create what is here and what is here is what needs to be here to meet the demand. The demand has it's origin in the need of the spirits and their desires needing expression and exhaustion. If a life form is needed to meet a particular inclination of a spirit soon to incarnate here, and that form currently doesn't exist it will be created. If that form needs to be a variant of an existing form (birth defect, mutation) it will be used instead and the spirit pending incarnation will sculpture the form to meet it's need/perversion. That is the basics of Creationalism. It is an intuitive understanding of the nature and place of this world in the broader context and without an interest in finding a niche to build a career, status, income, etc., but rather to identify reality and the truth.



posted on Aug, 29 2009 @ 08:08 PM
link   
reply to post by randyvs
 


You say that everything is proof of creation, I say it’s just chance (for example). Why is your point of view better than mine? What is the evidence for it?


how ridiculous do you think it would be to build the gigantic stone monuments to gods w/out a solid reason


But every religion has done this, all have very different ideas of how things came to be. If your logic is proof that one is true then it must follow that all or true. In which case how do you account for the contradictions?

reply to post by Barkster
 



As I stated I don't have to make a case for Creation as Science and the finest Scientists in the land do it for me.


And I asked you to provide something to back this statement. Show me the peer reviewed paper that sets out the theory that directly support the idea of creationism.

Can I also ask exactly where I can go to listen to Michio Kaku say this?

By the way, the idea of a holographic universe et al does not mean that there is some being with a hologram projector making us up. It has nothing to do with a creator.

There is also not a consensus on it.

reply to post by awakening1
 


It’s an interesting video but what in it supports the concept of an intelligent creator?

It has one person of indeterminate qualification saying that there might be a proto-intelligence guiding things. But he doesn’t provide evidence for this which is what I’m looking for. There are people with qualifications that say god created the Earth in six days but I don’t care who says something, I care about what they say.

Where’s the math, where are the experiments?


reply to post by ReelView
 



I will say it again. This thread has nothing to do with evolution, we may consider evolution false for the purpose of this thread.

This thread is for those creationists that make the claim that creationism is scientific. It is for them to produce the science part. Despite what many people in this thread seem to think.



posted on Aug, 29 2009 @ 08:09 PM
link   
Technically I'm a Creationist - but I don't get the feeling this thread was intended for me as I most certainly do not think it should be taught in science as an alternative to ANYTHING. My own views on the creation are faith based, and as they have no evidence to support them - are not a defensible or promotable position I'm willing to put my reputation behind.

I will state, however, that I believe god exists and is a first mover. That is the extent of my beliefs on the subject. Everything else must be checked against the creation itself for accuracy. I will likely hold this belief until evidence of what occurred prior to and resulting in the Big Bang confirms one way or another the validity of this belief. At which point I may simply move my god and creation back to before evidence if I still find myself unable to shake my belief.

Yes, I understand it is an irrational belief. At least I understand that it is and don't try to teach it

As a thought experiment, however, I do tend to gravitate towards a more "computer simulation" view of the Universe as a means of exploring the concept of creation. We have computer simulations already, though primitive, so it's not totally out there. Though, I consider such a simulation not like the Matrix - but as a research endeavor. We live in a universe of linear interactions so prolific that they are impossible to account for, making our predictions accurate only to degrees of error and introducing the possibility of emergent phenomena that can influence the trends we're monitoring profoundly. Thus, we live in a chaotic non-linear universe.

For the want of a nail, the shoe was lost. For the want of a shoe, the horse was lost. For the want of a horse, the battle was lost. For the want of a battle, the war was lost. For the want of a war, the kingdom was lost. For the want of a nail, the empire crumbled.

To simulate our universe to a degree needed for complete understanding and predictive accuracy - you would need to model the universe in it's entirety and entire history down the interactions of every sub-atomic particle, string, etc. There isn't enough energy in the universe to power a computer network capable of running such a simulation. So perhaps our reality is a "mock" universe created with similar interactions and is tested to see if it's outcome with similar interactions produces a similar universe. A conformational test to a hypothesis.

Therefore, it's quite possible that god is the creator of the universe - but using very simple rules of interactions thought to be in his/their universe. We, then, would be an emergent phenomena of this simulated system set in motion. Considering the size of the universe, it may be possible that such creators wouldn't even know we existed... especially is life is more prolific than we imagine in the universe. It could also explain god's love for us (if he loves us), but non-interference. We're, perhaps, a unique development - a confirmation of a properly modeled set of starting interactions by resulting a similar emergent phenomena. However, any interaction would again introduce change and uncertainty to the model - thus mar the research. Or perhaps we're simply a non-factor. The emergence of life, or intelligent life, was an expected probability - but not the goal of the research.. thus, god doesn't care.

It's interesting to think about, but ultimately it begs the question - what created the creators universe? The question would still be unanswered.

reply to post by pdpayne0418
 




An organism does not need a fully developed human eye to "see" movement or shades of light.


The human eye itself isn't even fully developed. To be accurate, there is no such thing as "fully developed" - because morphologies constantly change throughout evolution until the end of all life. The Dodo Bird hasn't evolved much since it went extinct, so one could say it was at it's peak of development. We're not on the brink of extinction, and there's a possibility we will give rise to new divergent species. So our own eye is still in development.

For instance, the human eye can only see color at the focal point of vision. We're blind to detail and color in our peripheral vision. This is because all of the cones in your eyes are located directly behind the retina. Light entering your eye from an angle hits only rods - which cannot pick up color. The rods are more densely packed behind the retina as well, and more sparsely dispersed elsewhere - limiting detail.

So why can we see color and some detail in our peripheral vision? Because our brains are artificially constructing it using stored color and shape memory it picks up from small changes in focal point.

Here's a good video explaining it a bit more in-depth as well providing some cool optical illusions you can use to test the effect on yourself.


The eye isn't apparently specially designed to be competent. The human eye is simply a half-butt patch together job just good enough to be an advantage, while not being a detriment. It's poor workmanship by our standards and subjective wants, but exactly what we'd expect from evolution.

Also, turns out some populations are producing women with possible limited tetrachromatic vision - allowing them to see a part of the Ultra Violet spectrum of light. Something humans normally cannot do being trichromatics.

[edit on 29-8-2009 by Lasheic]



posted on Aug, 29 2009 @ 09:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by Barkster

Originally posted by Annee

What does Heart have to do with anything?

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


Wow, do I Really? come on now isnt that obvious? The Idea of Creationism is there is a Creator and that all we percieve is part of the Creators Creation. Holy Cow, I knew I would regret responding to this Thread.


If it was obvious we wouldn't be having this discussion.

The "Idea of Creationism" - - means what? An omnipotent being? Intelligent energy? Natural forces? Who/what is Creating.

My posting style is to state what I have to say in as few words as possible. Therefore my questions are simplistic and void of emotion.

What is the point in your implied hostility?



posted on Aug, 29 2009 @ 09:16 PM
link   
reply to post by randyvs
 


If you choose to believe the bible - that is your business.

Do not apply insults to me because I don't.

I was brought up Christian. By my choice I am not today.



posted on Aug, 29 2009 @ 09:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by havok
This is my humble opinion.

What is my case for proving it? Faith.


I'd hardly call that proof.



Originally posted by havok
Because science and scientists' alike, all throughout history can not explain why things happen. They put a label on a phenomenon and say its a true theory. Prove me wrong.

Thats the problem. We can't explain it, so we label it and its right? Wrong.


Kinda like we can't explain how our Universe came to be so we say "God Did It"?



Originally posted by havok
Example: We can't see what holds the planets in orbit, we can only conclude that its an event beyond logic. Giving it a name, gravity. So therefore, its not a God thing at all. We gave it a name, no God needed.

See my point? Basically, science was created to prove the non-existance of God. We don't need the presence of God to explain anything.
Why? I have no clue.


Science wasn't "created" to prove the non-existence of anything.
It's a method of understanding natural phenomenons.
Just because there isn't a complete explanation for something doesn't mean there's no logical explanation.



Originally posted by havok
I don't believe in labels. God is before and after. Period. Creator of all things. I don't need an explanation. He started this, He will end it.


That's great, but some people do need an explanation.
The problem with your above statement is that I could replace "God" with any entity imaginable - right down to the flying spaghetti monster.
It's a statement which holds absolutely no weight.

Also, does the creator of all things really have male genitalia ("He")?



posted on Aug, 29 2009 @ 09:57 PM
link   
Here you go:




www.creationsafaris.com...

[edit on 29-8-2009 by peaceonearth]



posted on Aug, 29 2009 @ 10:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by randyvs
the evidence is all around you.being ignorant enough not to see
the nose on your face, is something you don't have to prove. imo


The evidence is all around us for something, but why pretend to know what that "something" is?
Had you been born in another time and place, you would be saying the evidence is all around us to support Zeus.
Lightning exists after all.
And without a logical explanation of how lightning works, many will take the first explanation handed to them. Zeus did it.
Similarly, we don't know how our Universe exists.
The fact that our Universe does exist is evidence of "something".
Because we don't have a natural explanation for that something, many will take a prepackaged explanation - "God did it".



Originally posted by randyvs
how ridiculous do you think it would be to build the gigantic stone monuments to gods w/out a solid reason.


There is a reason. It has to do with our own psychology.
We create fire to light the dark. Why? Because we fear what we cannot see or know.
Similar to darkness, we fear what happens after death. We fear the idea of not existing, as it's the "darkness" to the "light" of life.
So we create a fire.
It doesn't matter if that fire lights the way to truth or fiction. What matters is that it solved one of the main 'problems' of consciousness.
With the belief that we know the mysteries of the Universe, we don't have to worry about the monsters in the closet.
Problem solved. At least on a psychological level.



Originally posted by randyvs
not just that, but the design of everything in the universe is evident of a designer.


How so?
That's your opinion.



Originally posted by randyvs
or maybe you can .tell me man has no life source that is his soul.
so i don't have to carry on w/ you any further.please tell me.


What is a 'soul'?
What is it's purpose?
What can be achieved with the 'soul' that can not be achieved by the mind?
In other words, why do we need a 'soul'?
Are we not capable of compassion, morals, and common decency without a 'soul'?
Do you have any legitimate evidence to support your claims?
Is the reason you believe we have a 'soul' based on a feeling or based on evidence?



posted on Aug, 29 2009 @ 10:15 PM
link   
[edit on 29-8-2009 by TruthParadox]



posted on Aug, 29 2009 @ 10:30 PM
link   
Some humour: God and an atheist scientist were talking, the atheist said to God "I can create life too" God said "prove it" The atheist scientist bent down and scooped up some earth, God said "hang on a second, you need to create your own earth first."



posted on Aug, 29 2009 @ 10:33 PM
link   
reply to post by TruthParadox
 


You ask what is a soul? You are a soul, I am a soul.



The Biblical definition of a soul is simply a breathing body. Notice that the text does not say that man was given a soul, but rather he became a soul. A soul is not something a person has, it is the person. Souls have blood (Jeremiah 2:34). Not only are people souls, but so are fish and animals (Revelation 16:3).

The Hebrew word for soul, nephesh, is variously translated "person" (Genesis 14:21), "self" (Leviticus 11:43), "life" (Psalm 31:13), "me" (Judges 16:30), "creature" (Genesis 1:21), "beast" (Leviticus 24:18), "man" (2 Kings 12:4), "thing" (Ezekiel 47:9), and "fish" (Isaiah 19:10). When translated "body" the nephesh is usually dead (Leviticus 21:11).

The Greek word for soul, psuche, has the same meaning. In Matthew 16:25 Jesus commends anyone who will lose his soul (psuche) for Christ’s sake. It is often translated simply as "life" (Matthew 2:20). It means "person" (Acts 7:14). "My soul" and "your soul" are idiomatic expressions meaning "I" and "you" (Matthew 12:18; 2 Corinthians 12:15, margin).



new topics

top topics



 
9
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join