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: 6
9
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 29 2009 @ 10:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mike_A
This is a topic for those creationists on here who believe that creationism is just as scientifically valid as evolution.

As per the title, 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?


Can you explain guilt? No other animal has it, not even a dog. Explain that.

If you want solid hard core proof of how life on earth came to be, do this simple thing.

Get down on your knees, Ask JESUS your only LORD and SAVIOUR to forgive for your sins except your repent and ask him to come into your life as your LORD and SAVIOUR. If you do this on your own account and pure heart, GOD will give you a hint.

If you knew me before I came to know JESUS, you would have your proof right there.


" For GOD so loved the World he gave his only begotten son, and who so ever believe in him will not perish and have ever lasting life in Heaven."
John 3:16

The answer that you seek is at your own hand, find it and then tell the world your story. E o E.

GODSPEED,

Eye of Eagle




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


Again this isn’t evidence of creationism. It says itself, “it’s not unreasonable … that is was god” and that you are “stubborn and unreasonable if you don’t accept the possibility of god”.

Fair does, I do and always have accepted the possibility of god. However I also accept the possibility of the holographic universe hypothesis that someone mentioned earlier but the possibility of something does not constitute a solid scientific basis for an argument.

It’s an attempt at least.

The argument the video makes to suggest that god is the most logical possibility is flawed. It hinges on the need for intelligence to give rise to complex systems; this isn’t substantiated. We know that this isn’t true for many reasons; one example that shows this is through the use of basic computer programs that, via a small number of basic rules, produce very complex results that would otherwise not happen by pure chance.

reply to post by EYEOFEAGLE
 



If you want solid hard core proof of how life on earth came to be, do this simple thing.

Get down on your knees, Ask JESUS your only LORD and SAVIOUR to forgive for your sins except your repent and ask him to come into your life as your LORD and SAVIOUR. If you do this on your own account and pure heart, GOD will give you a hint.


And that's scientific is it?


[edit on 29-8-2009 by Mike_A]



posted on Aug, 29 2009 @ 11:43 PM
link   
These basic computer programmes, and basic rules, also needed some intelligence to create them. Or perhaps they just appeared by chance?



posted on Aug, 29 2009 @ 11:54 PM
link   
reply to post by peaceonearth
 


That's not the point. The argument made in the video was that complexity cannot come from something less complex. It doesn’t matter if the starting point is designed or created by chance, so long as there are basic rules then very complex systems can arise.



posted on Aug, 29 2009 @ 11:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mike_A
reply to post by peaceonearth
 






The argument the video makes to suggest that god is the most logical possibility is flawed. It hinges on the need for intelligence to give rise to complex systems; this isn’t substantiated. We know that this isn’t true for many reasons; one example that shows this is through the use of basic computer programs that, via a small number of basic rules, produce very complex results that would otherwise not happen by pure chance.

reply to post by EYEOFEAGLE
 






[edit on 29-8-2009 by Mike_A]

So you end up with a complex system through the use of basic computer programs?? No need for intelligence there??? no mate you are wrong. You are starting with the already created basic programs.
Basic:
In computer programming, BASIC (an acronym for Beginner's All-purpose Symbolic Instruction Code) is a family of high-level programming languages. The original BASIC was designed in 1964 by John George Kemeny and Thomas Eugene Kurtz at Dartmouth in New Hampshire, USA to provide computer access to non-science students.



posted on Aug, 30 2009 @ 12:03 AM
link   
reply to post by peaceonearth
 


I wasn’t using basic in a technical sense, just as a synonym for simple. I have no idea what these programs were coded in.

But again it doesn’t matter; the program is just a substitute for the basic laws of the physics, gravity, electromagnetism etc. The idea is to show that complexity can come about via unintelligent means which the video says is very unlikely.

There is intelligence involved in writing the program but the videos argument relates to what happens after this stage.

You can make the claim that an intelligent being created these laws but then you have to be able to prove that too, saying things are too complex doesn’t work.



posted on Aug, 30 2009 @ 12:07 AM
link   
Still, nothing to support creationism/ID has been presented outside of philosophy and easily disprovable misnomers on science. I'm beginning to think that creationism/ID is simply a religious tool to indoctrinate the ignorant against scientific principles. Before I make up my mind, please answer these questions for me through typical creationism/ID methodology. This is your chance to convince me that this theory should be legitimized. Make me a believer . . .

Assuming there is no such thing as Evolutionary Biology . . . How does a creationism/ID model explain these questions?

Why/How do virus' (timely huh?) mutate?
How can two blue eyed parents have a brown eyed child?
Why does cross pollentation exist/work?
How does creationism account for "flawed" species in the fossil record?(Since Evolutionary Biology doesn't exist - they can't be transitional fossils right?)
How is it possible to predict livestock traits in a population through selective breeding?

These should be simple enough . . .

If any creationist can explain these mechanisms with either theory or mathematics, I would be more inclined to believe.

Also . . . I will be disappointed to see any explinations that use the bible (or philosophy) as "proof" . . . since the bible is not a science book. Also would be disappointed to see any references to exposed charleton/con-man/felon Kent Hovind.



posted on Aug, 30 2009 @ 12:09 AM
link   
this whole thread is dependent upon what or who you see as being god, if people are looking at religious text and saying something like god is the father and jesus was his son then they are deluded, the bible is not and will never be anything other than a construct of storys, some of them with an essensce of truth, but stories none the less, written by people of antiquity, put together to form a method of hierarchy and control, excluding the "scriptures" that negated to gel with their agenda or a consistency in the "teachings" that were to become christianity.

if you look at all of the things that jesus has said according to every single piece of ancient parchment relating to his life and supposed "teachings" rather than the selected ones that we now refer to as the bible, you will see that christianity has been taken down the complete opposite road to which the "teachings were originaly intended.

to all of the god squad out there, research the history of the bible, read the lost gospels, the apocraphal texts, and you may have a different view on your good book.

christianity is not the only religion to suffer these delusions, islam also has its fair share of idiocies, one must only read the actual satanic verses to which salman rushdies book took its origins from and you will see hypocracies in the "teachings" of muhammed, but as usual with all religions these will be swept aside and labelled as false or the work of the devil.

let us look back at the origins of the vatican, it just took the place of the temples of mithras, as did christianity, as one method of control of the people fails it is pushed to one side and the next takes its place, but they give us holidays and days of rest so that we accept it with open arms.

jesus was a buddist, god is within you as is your [holy] spirit, he even taught people not to worship gods, but some people need something.

islam is a cult, children are born into it and are threatened with death if they leave, if that is a good religion then you can keep it,


i could go on all day like this, i am not going to post any links to anything, if you are prepared to give your life to a religion without question then you are lost, if you are ready to question your supposed beliefs then you must find this stuff for yourselves, it is all there to be read and more, good luck and happy hunting, we will talk again when you "see the light"

p.s. i am neither a creationist or an evolutionist, until i know the facts i shall just abstain

[edit on 30-8-2009 by THELONIO]



posted on Aug, 30 2009 @ 12:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by breakingdradles

Originally posted by kingoftheworld
I think that our biggest evidence is "where did it all start"?

I dont mean earth or even life on earth, i'm talking about the whole universe. Something had to have brought the universe into exsistence and it was not evolution.


What was before god?

This argument doesn't work as no one knows what was before the big bang just as no one knows where god came from and what was before he was.

Lets continue.





posted on Aug, 30 2009 @ 12:40 AM
link   


Assuming there is no such thing as Evolutionary Biology . . . How does a creationism/ID model explain these questions?

Why/How do virus' (timely huh?) mutate?
How can two blue eyed parents have a brown eyed child?
Why does cross pollentation exist/work?
How does creationism account for "flawed" species in the fossil record?(Since Evolutionary Biology doesn't exist - they can't be transitional fossils right?)
How is it possible to predict livestock traits in a population through selective breeding?

These should be simple enough . . .

If any creationist can explain these mechanisms with either theory or mathematics, I would be more inclined to believe.

Also . . . I will be disappointed to see any explinations that use the bible (or philosophy) as "proof" . . . since the bible is not a science book.
Also would be disappointed to see any references to exposed charleton/con-man/felon Kent Hovind.


1. Why/How do virus' (timely huh?) mutate? Mutation is a destructive force. A virus is arrested by a white blood cell because the wbc can connect with it. If it cannot, the virus is free to multiply. If, for example, you were a virus and you had two feet and two arms, you could link up with me, a wbc, because my two feet and two arms would grab yours. If, however, I could not link with you because you lost an arm, you would be free to multiply. Your loss of an arm is a mutation. It is not an improvement, but allows you to multiply.

2. How can two blue eyed parents have a brown eyed child? Recessive genes. Science says we are all related if you go back about 1500 years. Hence, you have the genes of many ancestors. When you have children, you roll the DNA dice. What comes up is not always predictable. One fellow I knew had a recessive gene for a disease. So happened his wife did, too. Neither knew it, but their child was born with it.

3. Why does cross-pollination exist/work? Plants give life to their seed. The seed establishes that there will be cross-pollination.

4. How does creationism account for "flawed" species in the fossil record? The world had 70 phyla, now has 30. We are in a process of extinction, not evolution.

5. How is it possible to predict livestock traits in a population through selective breeding? Prediction is not always occurring. Rather, one hopes for the proper outcome. Sometimes you don't get what you want.



posted on Aug, 30 2009 @ 12:41 AM
link   
I think you need to define 'evidence'. A video of the creator building the universe could be attacked as phony. An eyewitness could be attacked as unreliable. Self-evident I don't believe will fly with you but if you look at an automobile you would never think it came about by chance molecular collision. Most man made things are obviously made by intelligent beings. Do we need evidence of Detroit to prove people make cars? Which, of course, are a zillion times less complicated than a human being.



posted on Aug, 30 2009 @ 12:41 AM
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.





Ah, the beauty of google, and youtube.



posted on Aug, 30 2009 @ 12:42 AM
link   
Interesting debate on the subject



posted on Aug, 30 2009 @ 12:45 AM
link   
reply to post by peaceonearth
 


A God who created our Universe would have to be very complex.
If one can believe that such a being 'simply exists', can't one also believe that our Universe, infinitely less complex than a Divine Creator, may also 'simply exist'?
The argument you presented is inherently flawed on several levels.
It assumes that energy requires intelligence to go 'boom'.
It assumes that we can accurately ponder something outside our realm (that is outside our Universe and outside the restrictions of time).
It assumes this energy is named "God".
It assumes the 1st law of thermodynamics must have always existed as such and that it applies not only to this Universe but whatever may lie beyond.



posted on Aug, 30 2009 @ 12:54 AM
link   
Dawkins?? Richard Dawkins??
Proof he cannot back up his theories.

Yes the beauty of Google and Youtube
[edit on 30-8-2009 by peaceonearth]


[edit on 30-8-2009 by peaceonearth]



posted on Aug, 30 2009 @ 01:10 AM
link   
You cannot separate religious overtones from creationism.

That said, I believe in evolution...As God created his universe to constantly change. It would be very boring if everything was always the same. Just remember that God gave us Reason not religion.

[edit on 30-8-2009 by projectvxn]

[edit on 30-8-2009 by projectvxn]



posted on Aug, 30 2009 @ 01:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by solomons path




Why/How do virus' (timely huh?) mutate?
How can two blue eyed parents have a brown eyed child?
Why does cross pollentation exist/work?
How does creationism account for "flawed" species in the fossil record?(Since Evolutionary Biology doesn't exist - they can't be transitional fossils right?)
How is it possible to predict livestock traits in a population through selective breeding?

These should be simple enough . . .

If any creationist can explain these mechanisms with either theory or mathematics, I would be more inclined to believe.

Also . . . I will be disappointed to see any explinations that use the bible (or philosophy) as "proof" . . . since the bible is not a science book. Also would be disappointed to see any references to exposed charleton/con-man/felon Kent Hovind.



check out other videos by this same guy to find out more



posted on Aug, 30 2009 @ 02:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by Jim Scott


1. Why/How do virus' (timely huh?) mutate? Mutation is a destructive force. A virus is arrested by a white blood cell because the wbc can connect with it. If it cannot, the virus is free to multiply. If, for example, you were a virus and you had two feet and two arms, you could link up with me, a wbc, because my two feet and two arms would grab yours. If, however, I could not link with you because you lost an arm, you would be free to multiply. Your loss of an arm is a mutation. It is not an improvement, but allows you to multiply.

2. How can two blue eyed parents have a brown eyed child? Recessive genes. Science says we are all related if you go back about 1500 years. Hence, you have the genes of many ancestors. When you have children, you roll the DNA dice. What comes up is not always predictable. One fellow I knew had a recessive gene for a disease. So happened his wife did, too. Neither knew it, but their child was born with it.

3. Why does cross-pollination exist/work? Plants give life to their seed. The seed establishes that there will be cross-pollination.

4. How does creationism account for "flawed" species in the fossil record? The world had 70 phyla, now has 30. We are in a process of extinction, not evolution.

5. How is it possible to predict livestock traits in a population through selective breeding? Prediction is not always occurring. Rather, one hopes for the proper outcome. Sometimes you don't get what you want.


So, how does any of this point to creationism. Seems like common sense answers to me. How was this proven to be so and how was the creator responsible? Also you, more than once, allude to de-evolution. Is this a tenant or law of creationism? Since created, the universe is in a state of decay? Leading to what? Why the opinion of decay, if the universe was created perfectly and the was no change (evolution means to change through growth; better is value judgement).

1. So, when this virus loses the arm and multiplies . . . It's not the genetic code of the creator that is passed on to the multitudes. It's the new imperfect code? Does the creator re-write this code or is it simply the duplication of the imperfect DNA? I thought creationism says that we were all made in our perfect forms (panda as pandas, virus as virus). If that's true, should each new virus be in the written in the creator's orignal code? I don't see how this points to a creator? How is this different than evolution? The virus changed (evolved) to take up a more advantagous position, within it's environment.

2. Actually, it's much further back than 1500 years. Some claim, through mitochondrial DNA, that we can trace back to a few thousand ancestors at 70000 yrs ago (Toba explosion).
Here
But, other geneticists say there is no evidence to support the claim that we can track back to any common ancestry.
Here

As for the gene explanation, still sounds like my understanding of evolutiion . . . What has the creator done to effect this outcome?

3. So how does this account for how we can manipulate breeds through the this method? Pandas can't mate with Apes. Oak trees don't mix with Pine trees. Why has the creator made it so flowering plants can cross-pollinate? Seeds ensure cross-pollination? Seems a bit simplistic and doesn't really explain the process. Is this natural occurance a perversion of creation?

4. So the fact the 99% of every species to ever populate the earth are now extinct explains "flawed" (transitional) fossils? How does this fatalistic view explain fossils like Archeopterix? How does creationism account for for the morphology between different taxa? Was the creator just randomly combining codes from different taxa like a chef would in the kitchen . . . just to see what would happen? And again, coupled with a the rarity of fossils, how does extinction explain changes in the fossil record?

5. If prediction wasn't always occuring how did we master animal husbandry? How have people become quite adept at getting what they want? It can be observed every day. If you want cows that produce a lot of milk, you breed them with other cows that produce a lot of milk. Over a couple generations, all your cows are producing a lot of milk. Sure there will be exceptions, but you can not breed them and will eventually be left with a population of cows who only produce a lot of milk. Humans have been perfecting this for about 7000 years or so. The creationist claim is that it has been based on hope? That we've just been lucky? I certainly don't see how this claim is testable at all.

To be honest they all sound like common sense evolution . . . if not truncated. How does any of this support the creationist hypothesis that life was created in it's perfect form? How does this support the ID hypothesis that an intelligent agent designed us to a specific form? How does any of this differ from evolution?



posted on Aug, 30 2009 @ 02:25 AM
link   
A fantastic Video

multimedia.mcb.harvard.edu...

Where did the information come from?



posted on Aug, 30 2009 @ 02:34 AM
link   
reply to post by EYEOFEAGLE
 




Devout believers are safeguarded in a high degree against the risk of certain neurotic illnesses; their acceptance of the universal neurosis spares them the task of constructing a personal one. ~ Sigmund Freud, The Future of an Illusion.



new topics

top topics



 
9
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join