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.

 

‘Variability’ % proves God is the SPECIAL CAUSE, skeptics, why are you ignoring?

page: 17
16
<< 14  15  16    18  19  20 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 14 2010 @ 10:49 AM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 


Feel better?


Good


I said I will get to it...a few pages back...and I will, no need to repost a repost. It makes you look "out of sorts"




posted on Aug, 14 2010 @ 11:05 AM
link   
reply to post by OldThinker
 


Cool, looking forward to it. Just surprised you claim to have no time to respond, and then promptly proceed to continue making more posts...you can't be surprised if people believe you're dodging the hard questions



posted on Aug, 14 2010 @ 11:19 AM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 



I've shown you their flaws, but you continue to ignore it because criticizing those arguments goes against your world view....no matter how illogical the arguments are.


What is funny is both evolutionists and Christians use the same evidence to support their belief.

The physical universe and the life found on this planet.

Is the glass half empty or half full. You could argue that forever.

The problem I see on ATS is evolution does not explain how life started, yet evolution is used to "prove" there is no God.

The debate is Abiogenesis vs Creation. Where did life come from?



Life always comes from preexisting life. Always.



Atheists love to use science to gloat over Creationists, yet science does not even come close to having the answers.

Science has not learned all there is to know about what makes up 5% of the universe.

Scientists say that around 95% of the universe is made of Dark Energy and Dark Matter.

They admit they don't know what it is. They are in the dark.

But on ATS, everyone is sure there is no God?



posted on Aug, 14 2010 @ 11:34 AM
link   
reply to post by dusty1
 


Sry, but I never said there's no god. We have no proof whatsoever that such a being exists, but there's always a small statistical chance that one still exists.

Evolution in itself doesn't disprove god, it just disproves some "creationist" theories like the garden of Eden or that the first woman was created from the rib of the man. Like I said, it doesn't disprove god, it just disproves some religions like Christianity...or at least their accuracy when it comes to scriptures.

Also, we now know how life was created. Earlier in this thread someone posted the article from WIRED that describes how scientists were able to create life (RNA) from base elements under conditions very similar to how they were 3.5bil years ago.

So your statement...



Life always comes from preexisting life. Always.


...is blatantly wrong and just shows that you're arguing in a field you're not really familiar in.

Evolution isn't a belief...or a theory in the sense how layman use that term. A theory in science is the highest form proof, it's a FACT. Not a single drop of evidence we found goes against evolution. Every new fossil, every new biological examination further supports the theory.

The same can't be said about religion where science is able to point out contradiction and inconsistency after another.

So please, you can't seriously say "they are both based on beliefs" because it's dishonest and simply doesn't reflect reality and facts.

First people took the bible literally, when enough science explained that certain things can't be taken literally, they some changed from taking the "garden of Eden" things literally to "intelligent design". That's a total cop-out. You can't just move the "god of the gaps" each time you're proven wrong in some respect.

If scientists can't explain something, they develop hypothesis and test them. Religious people just "make stuff up" and aren't willing to test them...all they need is blind belief.

[edit on 14-8-2010 by MrXYZ]



posted on Aug, 14 2010 @ 11:55 AM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 



So your statement...


Life always comes from preexisting life. Always.



...is blatantly wrong and just shows that you're arguing in a field you're not really familiar in.



How many hours or years were spent by intelligent life forms, to set up this experiment in a laboratory?

"Hey dude, shock it again!"

"Note to self, add more DNA tomorrow." (Corrected thanks to Sinter Klaas)


I guess you don't consider the researchers, preexisting life?

[edit on 14-8-2010 by dusty1]

[edit on 14-8-2010 by dusty1]



posted on Aug, 14 2010 @ 12:08 PM
link   
reply to post by dusty1
 


They didn't interfere at all. The whole experiment was set up to REPLICATE the NATURAL CONDITIONS. They didn't add anything that wasn't available in nature at that time. So no, no outside interference was necessary to create RNA.

They didn't go "so we set it up like it was 3.5bil years ago, now let's add us into the equation and add out special recipe". They set up the environment like it was at that time, and then just waited...and guess what, RNA formed, LIFE!!

Sorry to burst your bubble



posted on Aug, 14 2010 @ 12:10 PM
link   
reply to post by dusty1
 



The problem I see on ATS is evolution does not explain how life started, yet evolution is used to "prove" there is no God


I think you are mistaken.

Evolutionists have a theory. In science a theory is not just any imagined story, as it is always build around observations, evidence ( Like the fossil collection ), as well as correct predictions.

It is save to say that there is so much evidence that backs up the theory, you will not live long enough to study it all.

Also important. Evolution is life undergoing changes, adapting and so on...
Live does not have to evolve and it is not a system that can be followed or seen as a guide to change. Evolution merely explains what we have seen, discovered and found.

The theory of evolution is the system we explain evolution with. It is far from perfect and it happens that we need to adjust our understanding after a new discovery.

I've created a perfect thread about this situation . Please visit and give your opinion.
I did not get a single reply on my counter arguments.

New discovery makes us rewrite the theory of evolution.



Anyway...

Scientists don't believe but without proof, most of them keep the option available.
Creationists are the ones that deny theory of evolution because it seems they do not think it is compatible with their belief.
If you pay attention you will only see scientists attack creationists because they turn and twist the weirdest stuff to find an excuse to debunk evolution.
Unfortunately for them is that they don't have a clue and make the same comments with the same dumb answers regularly.


The debate is Abiogenesis vs Creation. Where did life come from?


You are correct. Weird tho. Creationist usually do not even know this.


Reply to post by MrXYZ

Viruses only use RNA. Viruses are not considered to be alive.

Please check my new thread ?


New discovery makes us rewrite the theory of evolution.



posted on Aug, 14 2010 @ 12:39 PM
link   
Hi OP!.

I wonder how this ties up with the Vatican / Fr. Funnes thing - the possibility of "intelligent" life out there. Just a thought, sir.

It's just vague to see the Vatican suddenly change their position again on this topic. It reminds me too much of when they punished Galileo, or when they insisted that the world was flat then we ventured out and LO AND BEHOLD, t'was not.

Imagine if we ventured out again, into space - seriously this time, or WHAT IS PREVENTING US??? It's been - what - 40 years since we've put a man on the moon. Well, I'm not putting you down Old Man but just jogging the ol' nugget here. Hope I contributed.

CHeers!!!



posted on Aug, 14 2010 @ 12:44 PM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 



They didn't interfere at all. The whole experiment was set up to REPLICATE the NATURAL CONDITIONS. They didn't add anything that wasn't available in nature at that time. So no, no outside interference was necessary to create RNA.



On a Friday in March, scientists inserted over 1 million base pairs of synthetic DNA into Mycoplasma capricolum cells before leaving for the weekend. When they returned on Monday, their cells had bloomed into colonies. Read More www.wired.com...


You don't see outside interference by the researchers?



posted on Aug, 14 2010 @ 01:35 PM
link   
reply to post by Sinter Klaas
 


Interesting thread.

I see it as a wonder of Creation.

As to this thread.

It seems that life on this planet is symbiotic and requires other life or elements to survive. It appears to be a complex biosphere that works together.

That is one of the reasons I believe in Creation.

Again I emphasize that life comes from preexisting life. That can be tested and repeated. If I decide to breed two dogs or researchers "create" life in a lab it is essentially the same thing. Human interference using existing material.


If you pay attention you will only see scientists attack creationists because they turn and twist the weirdest stuff to find an excuse to debunk evolution.


People are people, often they are driven by the same things, they just take different sides of an argument.

I have seen an artists rendering of a fully formed primitive "caveman" a missing link, only to discover that the evidence for the creature was a portion of jawbone.



It is save to say that there is so much evidence that backs up the theory, you will not live long enough to study it all.



I once saw a T.V. program about 12 years ago (PBS I think, maybe NOVA).
The program was a debate among the scientific community on how life began. One scientist stated that, at that time, all the evidence for evolution could be fit into a box the size of a coffin.

If I believe that life is proof of Creation, can't I say the same thing? If I am right, I may have all of eternity to study this planet.



[edit on 14-8-2010 by dusty1]



posted on Aug, 14 2010 @ 01:39 PM
link   
Like a program without a hard drive, the DNA doesn't do anything by itself. But, when the software is loaded into the computer - in this case the second bacterium - amazing things are possible, he said

Read more: www.dailymail.co.uk...

We can create the software, only a matter of time before we find out how to create the hardware.



posted on Aug, 14 2010 @ 02:30 PM
link   
reply to post by dusty1
 


The whole experiment just shows that we're on the right track to solving the mystery. Either way, we have proven that monkeys/apes share a common ancestor with us. Given that, we can already conclude with 100% certainty that the whole Genesis account of Adam and Eve in the garden of Eden is blatantly wrong and not true. Now, if something so crucial as the beginning of the bible is wrong, how much of the rest is made up you think?



posted on Aug, 14 2010 @ 03:07 PM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 




The whole experiment just shows that we're on the right track to solving the mystery


In my opinion the experiment shows that intelligence is needed to create life.


Given that, we can already conclude with 100% certainty that the whole Genesis account of Adam and Eve in the garden of Eden is blatantly wrong


I disagree.



posted on Aug, 14 2010 @ 03:18 PM
link   
Originally posted by dusty1
reply to post by Sinter Klaas
 



Interesting thread.


Thank you.



It seems that life on this planet is symbiotic and requires other life or elements to survive. It appears to be a complex biosphere that works together.
That is one of the reasons I believe in Creation.


True even single celled organisms do not work alone.




Again I emphasize that life comes from preexisting life. That can be tested and repeated. If I decide to breed two dogs or researchers "create" life in a lab it is essentially the same thing. Human interference using existing material.


I understand what you say. But I think I do not understand why.


People are people, often they are driven by the same things, they just take different sides of an argument.

True. My intention was to show the difference.
A creationist in my experience usually tries to bash evolution, without actually know and understand what it is about. Creationism is usually faith the average evolutionist seems to think this faith is ridiculous. A little side effect from evolution I think.



I have seen an artists rendering of a fully formed primitive "caveman" a missing link, only to discover that the evidence for the creature was a portion of jawbone.

I agree, that is just absurd. Anyway... There are no missing links. Every single animal, species has always been a species of its own.



I once saw a T.V. program about 12 years ago (PBS I think, maybe NOVA).
The program was a debate among the scientific community on how life began. One scientist stated that, at that time, all the evidence for evolution could be fit into a box the size of a coffin.


Quite the opposite of mine claim huh...



If I believe that life is proof of Creation, can't I say the same thing? If I am right, I may have all of eternity to study this planet.


Well... creation does not have to mean it was done by God as it was written in the bible.
Life could very well be without an after life all together.
But... I hope the journey continues.





[edit on 14-8-2010 by dusty1]



posted on Aug, 14 2010 @ 03:38 PM
link   
reply to post by Sinter Klaas
 



Well... creation does not have to mean it was done by God as it was written in the bible.


I don't agree, but I won't know for sure, unless I meet my Maker.


Life could very well be without an after life all together.
But... I hope the journey continues


As do I, brother.



posted on Aug, 14 2010 @ 03:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by dusty1
reply to post by MrXYZ
 




The whole experiment just shows that we're on the right track to solving the mystery


In my opinion the experiment shows that intelligence is needed to create life.


Given that, we can already conclude with 100% certainty that the whole Genesis account of Adam and Eve in the garden of Eden is blatantly wrong


I disagree.


You can disagree with facts all you want, and close your eyes and ears while shouting "LALALALALALA I can't hear youuuuuu!"...but it doesn't change the fact that we evolved from a common ancestor we had with today's apes/monkeys, and not because some god (sry, I meant the Christian god...because only he can be the right one, correct?) snipped his finger and made man out of dust and then a woman out of the rib of a man.

If it makes you happy, disagree, everyone has the right to be happy...but imo that makes you a blind sheep who can't deal with reality



posted on Aug, 14 2010 @ 04:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by headb
Hi OP!.

I wonder how this ties up with the Vatican / Fr. Funnes thing - the possibility of "intelligent" life out there. Just a thought, sir.CHeers!!!


??

Not sure, not too concerned tho



posted on Aug, 14 2010 @ 04:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by MrXYZ


2) LOOOOL!! So basically, they are one...but then again not, somehow. Clue: You can't be one if you're split up in a larger and smaller part!!

JOH 10:30 I and my Father are one.
JOH 14:28 Ye have heard how I said unto you, I go away, and come again unto you. If ye loved me, ye would rejoice, because I said, I go unto the Father: for my Father is greater than I.




One of the neat things about being omni-present is you get to be in more places than 1 at once. Here’s another way to look, you are a POSTER with distinct relationship to ATS, you are a SON with distinct relationships there, and you are/will be a FATHER with a unique way of relating. How many are you?
1, right? Yet three distinct all-encompassing relationships….that’s OT’s humble way of explaining the Trinity.

Next? I’ll get to it, uknow…



posted on Aug, 14 2010 @ 04:44 PM
link   
reply to post by OldThinker
 


But you are just claiming he/she/it is omnipresent to "make it fit". First of all, there's no proof of god, else it would be all over the news, and secondly, since we don't have proof of his/her/its existence we can't just claim he's omnipresent.

You can't just claim a fictional character has certain attributes before proving his/her/its existence. Like, I could tell you that the flying spaghetti monster has 1 purple spaghetti string...but that claim is 100% belief and NOT FACT given that I can't prove the existences of FSM.

Also, if Jesus is one with God, why does he talk about him in the 3rd person. If they're the same people, that doesn't make a lot of sense. People who do that here on earth are considered crazy, just fyi


Remember Santa and how kids often ask "how can he visit all children in a single night?"...there too we tell them because he's either super fast, super powerful, or that he can be everywhere at once. What you are claiming is essentially the same thing, but you're telling (hopefully thinking and rational) ADULTS and not children.

[edit on 14-8-2010 by MrXYZ]



posted on Aug, 14 2010 @ 05:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by OldThinker
reply to post by iditenahuiats
 


2. No contradiction!


I think the 10 or so links at the top of google that spout this, must have a good marketer....yeah I can hear the meeting now, "yeah that is that it! Sure the FACT that things 'break down" over time is a great support for the THEORY that things get better over time. Sure we can sell that!"


I'd fired your marketer friend...BAD argument...

But I thank you for your politeness


what the hell? what pages on google? i just read the rubbish you wrote and asked you a question that came out of MY head based on simple logic.

and you didnt answer number 3 but i dont have to be polite and listen to your bs anymore, cuz its obvious from your answer to 1, this thread is based on speculation. and i was polite, but you are the one trying to offend me and twist out of striaghtforward questions. this thread is bs and so is your belief. you're too old to accept facts, you been bible thumped all your life and all you know is bible quotes, so of course, it would make all your bible "knowledge" worthless if you were to believe otherwise. go on hold on to your beliefs, come up with a smart answer to this(that sounds stupid to everyone else reading it), and feel good about how you answered. cuz you haven't answered a single answer straight in this entire thread. your contribution to ATS is worthless.



new topics

top topics



 
16
<< 14  15  16    18  19  20 >>

log in

join