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: 9
9
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 30 2009 @ 07:06 PM
link   
reply to post by habfan1968
 


I did assume you to be for creation/ID based on your posts, if I'm wrong and you are against the notion of creation/ID . . . I apologize.

However, I didn't post the list of imperfections. So, as you chided against already, I don't assume to know what the poster who did bases his list on. Therefore, you weren't asking me the question. Maybe the poster who did will answer what you asked of him.

However, you did show the absurdity of a creationists defense about the mechanism of evolution. They claim we aren't evolving we are devolving . . . hence, the theory is wrong. This is a value judgement (evolving/devolving) and doesn't support their claims, in the least.

I was applauding you for showing the absurdity of one of their main defenses. If you are a creationist/ID supporter . . . I stand by my post. If you are not, I still applaud you for backing an idea from an earlier post in this thread.




posted on Aug, 30 2009 @ 07:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by pdpayne0418

Originally posted by habfan1968

Originally posted by pdpayne0418

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


Can you please point out some of these imperfections?

I have not seen any as of yet.


Of course these would only be imperfections if a "loving" Creator is behind His "good" creation. From a naturalist perspective, it's perfectly normal. These links should get you started, and don't even think about blaming these things on "sin."

Parasites 1

Parasites 2

Parasites 3

Ebola

Rabies

Taxoplasmosis

Intestinal Parasites

Genetic Disorders


If God is a supernatural being who isn't held to time, space, all-being then God wouldn't look at things as good or bad, helpful or destructive. It would just be necessary things to keep balance. You're talking about things that people have deemed good and bad.



posted on Aug, 30 2009 @ 07:52 PM
link   
reply to post by thomasc83
 


Do you think most creationists would concede the point?

Peace,
Daniel



posted on Aug, 30 2009 @ 08:19 PM
link   
reply to post by Troy_
 



My main thesis is that something cannot sprout from nothing, that chance alone cannot create the complexity we know as reality.


The first part of that statement is self refuting. If nothing can sprout from nothing then how did the creator come to be? If the creator could always have existed then why couldn’t some natural, unintelligent force always have existed?

The second part is also not true. It’s not really correct to say that what we see occurred by chance, there are certain innate rules that act as a ratchet. For example let’s say we throw a bunch of letters on the floor; for them to form the alphabet would be extremely unlikely. If, however, we said certain letters would bind to others, like A will always bind to B, C to D etc then a relatively small number of random generations would produce the alphabet.

In addition it is the case that any given combination is extremely unlikely, but it is certain that one combination must happen. So you might say, these laws are themselves so unlikely that they must have been designed; but this isn’t true, you could change any of these laws and each outcome would be slightly different (if only because the governing laws are different) but each configuration is just as likely or unlikely as the others. Our reality only seems remarkable because we exist in it, but we only exist in it because we formed due to its laws and structure.


Trial and error would imply that some form of intelligence lies behind reality/creation. I mean, why would the attempt even be made, if there was no form of consciousness or intelligence?


You’re anthropomorphising the universe; why should there be any need for trial and error in the conscious sense?


I mean, we barely know ourselves, yet we are confident to state that there is no higher power, or intelligent design within the Universe (we aren't even a level 1 civilization yet we have the tenacity to say that there is no God - even though he has revealed his presence to us amany of times). Can we even define intelligence? How are we to know that consciousness does not exist everywhere, and is a universal standard?


Here you’re just listing what we don’t know; ignorance isn’t proof of the existence of anything. I don’t know how my computer works but I kind say that this is proof of digital pixies.

The same with the rest of the post, it’s just a mishmash of maybe’s and what if’s.

reply to post by VinceP1974
 



If you're so damn smart then you know perfectly well that there isn't a material proof of God OR ELSE IT WOULD HAVE BEEN DONE ALREADY


I agree with the first part; there is no evidence for the existence of god. However not everybody agrees and some claim that science proves that an intelligent designer created us. This thread is supposed to be a chance for these people to expand on that view.

I disagree with the second part; if something can be proven then it would already have been done? So there are no new discoveries to be made? There are no hypotheses in existence that are still to be proven? Not as far as I’m aware.

reply to post by Melissa101
 



We cannot meet your request because we start with a different perception than you do. What man calls science cannot even start to compare to God or explain his creation or eternal life.


Then this thread isn’t for you.

You may be incapable of understanding the concept that you don’t speak for every creationist or that other people share different views to you but there are people who call themselves creationists and who also claim that this is compatible with science.

I don’t mean to sound harsh but it’s been nine pages and I have said about nine times that this thread is for those people who claim that creationism is a scientific concept NOT for people who think science is incapable of understanding it, is just false etc etc


Oh PS your little evil man creeps me out every time I look at it. I dislike it very much.


He was a man of god.

Unless you’re talking about Graham Chapman who was very much not a man of god.



posted on Aug, 30 2009 @ 09:50 PM
link   
Evidence?

What is "evidence" either for or against evolution/creationism?

The creationist and the evolutionist will view the very same thing yet they both have different outcomes "based on the evidence". Why? Because of their presuppositions.

The creationist will view a fossil as the handiwork of God their creator. They will be in awe at the beauty of the creature and they may also see that it's been fossilized because of a world wide cataclysmic event (such as a flood) and in it they may also view just how fragile life is. In the end they praise their God and creator.

The evolutionist will look at that same fossil and also be in awe at the grandeur of it. They may see how natural selection caused this certain creature to become extinct. They may seek to see similarities in this particular creature and those alive today as their descendants. How chance plus time equals life. In the end they praise their own minds and intelligence.


Two different views (they are more but these 2 suffice for demonstration) based on the same object or "evidence" which come about from presuppositions. The evolutionist claims there is no God, there is nothing supernatural therefore all the evidence they see comes from that presupposition. Since there is no God then all is natural. To the Creationist, since there is a God, all then came about supernaturally.

In other words, no amount of evidence will convince an evolutionist that there is a God. If God Himself appeared before an unbeliever he or she would attribute that to a hallucination or dream perhaps because to them, again, there is no such thing as the supernatural. No Christian can ever "convince" (or save) anyone.......ever. Likewise no evolutionist can convince a Believer there is no God.

Unbelievers argue against this many times but this is because they do not grasp Scripture and the nature and attributes of God. Believers on the other hand are many times ignorant of the very same things and they believe that they can actually save or convince people they need Jesus.

The better question regarding "evidence" is how did the unbeliever come to know the word "evidence" *IF* they hold to an empirical worldview where knowledge comes from observation?

So no matter the case for evidence one side will always see it based on their presuppositions. God keeps all things in order. No, God has nothing to do with it. It was time plus chance.



posted on Aug, 30 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?

Here is my take on the whole evolution/creation debate. Both are correct. Science can tell you what chemicals, elements and factors that make life, but ultimately can not, from all that I have read, recreate life, even at the primordial level. And they have tried, yet have not been able to get any life per say. We are all children of the stars, as everything comes from the beginings of the universe to the present day.



posted on Aug, 30 2009 @ 11:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by sdcigarpig

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?

Here is my take on the whole evolution/creation debate. Both are correct. Science can tell you what chemicals, elements and factors that make life, but ultimately can not, from all that I have read, recreate life, even at the primordial level. And they have tried, yet have not been able to get any life per say. We are all children of the stars, as everything comes from the beginings of the universe to the present day.


Contrary to what you may have read or heard, science is not out to recreate life, but to understand life as it exists. To this end, they have recreated the conditions thought to exist at the time that life is thought to have begun on earth, and have found that it is rather trivial to get precursor amino acids to form.

The first of these experiments, the famous Miller-Urey experiment, was published in 1953. Since then a number of experiments have confirmed the Miller-Urey results, and in a variety of possible early Earth atmospheric and oceanic conditions.

So you are correct, science has not recreated life, but they have shown that the sequence of events that lead to life is easy to get started under a variety of conditions that may have been present at the time.

Wikipedia has a good summary under "Miller-Urey Experiment".



posted on Aug, 31 2009 @ 03:16 AM
link   
Science believes there is enough evidence to prove that life suddenly came into being in massive numbers.

I agree with that science.

Science believes that there used to be 70 phyla. Science proves that there are 30 phyla today. We have lost 40 phyla. Science may use the term "extinction" to describe that massive loss of the variety of living organisms.

Science proves that mutations are hardly ever improvements.

I agree with that science.

Science proves that all the granite on Earth was cooled in less than 2 minutes. See www.halos.com

Science proves that the big bang did not occur.

I agree with that science.

Where does that leave you and I when we believe in science? It would seem that the only scientific conclusion that comes to mind is that the Earth was suddenly made, at some point had massive amounts of life on it, and it is now much later and more than half the types of life are gone through some form of extinction.

It does not sound like evolution.

Perhaps we have made a concentrated effort to have our brave fellows go out and kill anything that scares us. Now that most of those things are gone, we approach the time of having a much more lifeless Earth. Consider the extinctions that are happening as we read this post.



posted on Aug, 31 2009 @ 06:35 AM
link   
reply to post by Mike_A
 


A question to the OP: Would not your desired response from some one who is a Creationist (although I personally believe you are required to define that term first), necessarily need to start first at the creation of the Universe? In other words, this question is not locked to just the Earth, but to the creation of the entire Universe; both for science and Creationism, correct?



posted on Aug, 31 2009 @ 11:07 AM
link   
reply to post by Valhall
 


Not necessarily but if they do so in a scientific way then they are free to do so in this thread as some have.

However you could provide evidence for the creation of humans by a creator without talking about the origin of the universe in the same way that a scientist could attempt to evidence abiogenesis without talking about the big bang.



posted on Aug, 31 2009 @ 11:19 AM
link   
reply to post by Mike_A
 


I came back to this thread to see that I have been called, "sheltered" and I am not from this universe. Funny, how I can't hold a conversation with anyone without juvenile name-calling. I've probably seen more and experienced more than the people that have cast the stones.

Mike_A, I respectfully bow out. You question is going to be hard to answer, although I don't see anyone actually doing so. It's taken 9 pages and yet the answer is no where closer than the 1st page.

It might be the ultimate question. Kind of like the immovable post and the irresistable cannonball. A paradox, of sorts. Good read though and I commend you for the effort.



posted on Aug, 31 2009 @ 11:33 AM
link   
reply to post by Jim Scott
 


Oh goody for you. You found someone who agrees with you.

Scientist rarely agree on anything. For every scientist that says the Big Bang never happened - you'll find one that says it did.

If there is evolution in anything its science (forget the hard heads). Because science is based on known fact - - and known fact changes.

Best statement ever: "A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it. Fifteen hundred years ago everybody knew the Earth was the center of the universe. Five hundred years ago, everybody knew the Earth was flat, and fifteen minutes ago, you knew that humans were alone on this planet. Imagine what you'll know tomorrow."



posted on Aug, 31 2009 @ 12:45 PM
link   
This is something i found on the internet that might help someone someday.

The Collapse of Evolution Study No. 172
www.giveshare.org...
We understand that there was a pre-Adamic world, inhabited by Lucifer and his angels. Lucifer, with his angels-turned-demons, rebelled, which resulted in chaos and destruction of the earth (Isaiah 14, Ezekiel 28, Isaiah 45:18). This event is reflected in the correct translation of Genesis 1:1-3, "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. And the earth became without form [ruin] and void [desolation]: and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. And God said, Let there be light: and there was light." These verses also indicate that there was a worldwide catastrophic flood prior to the creation of Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden. Fossil deposits, therefore, came not only from the Noachian Flood, but also from a pre-Adamic flood.

This belief of ours allows, but does not require, the earth to be billions of years old. Indeed, I have found no scriptural indication, nor hint at all, for a long period of time between the rebellion of Lucifer (who became Satan) and the renewal of the earth in six literal days of (re)creation. The so-called "gap" between Genesis 1:1 and verse 2 is of undetermined length.

However, the religious faith of evolutionism absolutely requires eons of time for evolution to occur. Given billions of years, evolutionists reason, species can gradually evolve into other life forms. Does scientific evidence indicate a relatively young earth, or an ancient earth? Mario Seiglie, in the November/December, 1998 issue of The Good News, disputes the claims of creation scientists. Seiglie says that there are "scientific discoveries indicating that the earth is up to several billion years old." He attacks creation scientists who "believe the entire geologic column with its millions of fossils is the result of catastrophism." Seiglie claims that there are "fossilized life forms an average of a mile deep in the earth�s crust." He says "radioactivity and other scientific findings" prove the earth and the stars are billions of years old. Most creation scientists reject the correct interpretation of Genesis 1:1-2, and attempt to prove that all fossils are the result of Noah�s Flood. Is the Truth somewhere in between these views?

After digging for fossils this past summer in western Wyoming with my daughter Barbara, I have become very interested in science and creation. Wyoming is a fossil paradise. Wyoming probably has more fossils than any place in the world. One of the largest dinosaurs, brontosaurus, was discovered at Como Bluffs, Wyoming. The famous tyrannosaurus rex, or "T-Rex," and triceratops, and many others are found here. At the new dinosaur museum in Thermopolis, Wyoming, you can watch scientists dig and prepare dinosaur fossils. Truly, Wyoming is a "Jurassic Park."

I work in the coal mining business. Wyoming�s Powder River Basin is the world�s largest easily-mined deposit of coal. Our company annually mines one hundred million tons of clean burning, low-sulfur coal each year, which is shipped to electric power generating plants in places like Michigan, Georgia, Texas, and Oklahoma. Coal is fossilized plant material. How was it formed? Evolutionists would say it took millions or billions of years for primeval swamps to produce decaying material, which gradually became compacted and fossilized into our sub-bituminous coal. Is this view correct?

I have known our company�s chief geologist for over twenty years. He is nationally recognized, and frequently gives scientific lectures and research papers to schools and other geologists. After reading page 69 of the book, The Collapse of Evolution by Scott M. Huse, I wanted to test some of the statements in this creation science book with a working mineral geologist.

"John," I said, "In your experience with exploring for and mining coal, have you ever seen polystrate fossils in coal seams?" Now, a polystrate fossil is one that spans multiple layers, or strata. These fossils are embarrassing to evolutionists, for they prove sudden, catastrophic depositing of sediment. John said such fossils were not uncommon in our coal seams. He referred to a forty-foot fossilized tree he had found in one of our coal beds. It was standing upright. Since the main seam is forty to seventy-five feet in thickness, this tree spanned most of the depth of the main seam, which supposedly is composed of gradually deposited decomposed plants. "Now John," I said, "what does this fossil tell us about the formation of the coal?" He replied, "The coal was formed as the result of a catastrophic flood, a once in a thousand-year flood or once in a ten thousand-year flood." He also told me that frequently, whole leaves and twigs are found, which indicate sudden formation of the coal seam. One of the world�s leading mineral geologists admitted to me that coal was NOT formed gradually, over millions of years, but suddenly, as the result of a gigantic flood! Powder River Basin coal today is 30% water!

Now it was time to test Mario Seiglie�s statement that there is an average of a mile of fossil deposits in the earth�s surface. "John," I said, "I know that we can only mine one or two seams by surface mining techniques, maybe seventy-five to one hundred feet at best. There are more coal seams, deeper than the ones we can currently mine. If you were to add up all the coal seams here in the Powder River Basin, what is the average depth of all the coal seams put together?" He said, "about 200 feet." Here in Wyoming, fossil country, the average depth of all the fossil material in all seams is only about 200 feet, not one mile!

The book, The Collapse of Evolution, gives scores of proofs for a young earth. The sciences of geology, astronomy, anthropology, and physics, all provide solid evidence for a rather young earth, no more than about 6,000 to 10,000 years.

What about the "geologic column" that evolutionists and Mr. Seiglie believe in? This supposedly is the fossil record, which shows "primitive" life forms at the lowest strata, on up to "higher" life forms at the top strata. However, the "geologic column," as explained by evolutionists, exists nowhere in the world! It is a mental concept, based upon circular reasoning. It is NOT supported by the fossil record. The Grand Canyon contains less than half the supposed geologic eras. And, what is most embarrassing to evolutionists

[edit on 31-8-2009 by Conclusion]



posted on Aug, 31 2009 @ 12:58 PM
link   
reply to post by Mike_A
 


lol..sry your looking for a scientific manner with which to describe the miracle of life. Science has not evolved enough to understand yet. That is my hypothesis.



posted on Aug, 31 2009 @ 12:59 PM
link   
reply to post by Annee
 


Very true about how known facts change.

Nice reply.



posted on Aug, 31 2009 @ 04:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by randyvs
what are the chances of everything happening by chance?
no chance.


If this were a math class, you would get a big fat "F".
Hasn't anyone ever told you to show your math?
Chance is not just a word meaning "I think this is improbable because I'm a creationist".
It's an actual number derived from the number of possibilities which exist.
Example:
A quarter has 2 sides.
The chances it will land on heads is 1/2 or 50%.
So where is your math to support there is "no chance"?

I could just as easily say:
What are the chances that an infinitely complex divine being 'simply exists'?
No chance.



posted on Aug, 31 2009 @ 04:23 PM
link   
reply to post by Conclusion
 


Biographies of the authors of the "giveshare" article:

Creationsists

Biography of Richard Dawkins:

Evolutionist

Who, I wonder, has more to say on the issue worth listening to?

Peace,
Daniel



posted on Aug, 31 2009 @ 04:24 PM
link   
So, this is how I believe God to have created the Universe - and ultimately human life:

I don’t believe your question can be answered separately as far as my creationist viewpoint is concerned. That doesn’t mean some one else with a different viewpoint wouldn’t be able to aptly handle it. But for me the two are intertwined because the Universe and the ultimate creation of life emerged as the sequential result of one signal event.

In the beginning there was nothing physical, but all was in the state of the purest energy – potential energy. This potential energy – God – was all things, but nothing that required dimension or the later man-made construct of time. He was a singularity of pure energy – of all energy – as potential energy. Within this singularity, this infinitesimal point of all potential energy, was all that would be or could be and is yet to come. Within this singularity was all that could be the more base forms of energy – light and the spectrum; corporeal, corruptible matter; and the subsequent kinetic, chemical, enthalpic and entropic energies.

This singularity of pure energy was all spirit. Within this potential was the potential for all knowledge – omniscience. Within this potential was the potential for all energy – omnipotence. Within this potential was the potential for all of the material universe – omnipresence. Will, emotion, desire, faith, and belief was held in this potential. The will to be was there, as was the will to create.

Christ was there. You were there. I was there. The universe was there. But all existed in pure energy – potential energy – spirit – the spirit of God. All that is – is from the spirit of God.

And then He said let there be light and from light came matter and from matter the more base energies and from the mixture of these things the Universe. And immediately there was the existence, the beginning, and the beginning of the ending of a corruptible, decaying physical Universe. And from the beginning, because the physical cycle had been put in place and because that cycle can end in only one way – all things were set in motion and while free moral agency, will, conscience and decision would be distributed to certain living beings - the over-arching end of all material things was predetermined because the physical cycle has but one end. The laws of nature that were created by God at the moment of creating the physical Universe predetermined that the cycle would complete and in only one overall way.

And in this physical universe of dimension and matter and forms of energy came the planets, the stars, the galaxies. And whether it was only one third rock from one faint star or billions of rocks about unknown stars, the physical Universe was created such that on at least one third rock from one faint star life began under the cycle God created – by whatever means His Universal cycle determined, and at His will – and life arose in the form of plants, and then animals. And then the Creator determined He would create a being that was in His image (into which He imbued His spirit – potential pure energy; of will; of knowledge; of desire; of emotion; of conscience and decision) for one particular 3rd rock from one faint star, and so man was brought to be into the physical universe through the physical cycle and whatever means it generated that God initiated in the Universe.

And as the cycle completes, all things wind down through light and matter and the more base energies until all of the universe reverts to the most base energy – entropy – chaotic, lost energy. Or is it? Maybe it’s just the well of lost energy from which the Creator pulls back that which came from Him and is to return to Him…and the potential pure energy increases as the decaying material Universe winds down.

****

I see no more holes in what I believe that in what you could proffer without God involved. In fact, I see less.

Occam's razor will cut just as deep, if not deeper without Him there.



posted on Aug, 31 2009 @ 05:21 PM
link   
reply to post by Valhall
 


There's no how in that, you just described what was, what is and then said god did the inbetweeny bit. Where do you set out the evidence that points to there being an intelligence involved?



posted on Aug, 31 2009 @ 06:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mike_A
reply to post by Valhall
 


There's no how in that, you just described what was, what is and then said god did the inbetweeny bit. Where do you set out the evidence that points to there being an intelligence involved?


Oh, in the same place you explain how. It's in the unknown part. You gets yours, I get mine.

The difference is - I don't feel like I NEED to know. I'm just curious enough to ask some day when I get the chance.

But I don't hold it against you for continuing to ask the wrong people. After all - asking is what begats science.



new topics

top topics



 
9
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join