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, I can easily prove you wrong (even though you don't even have a theory)

page: 5
8
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 14 2010 @ 01:34 PM
link   
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
 


May I ask you these questions if you truly believed that evolution (abiogenesis to some) is responsible for the origin / evolution of life as we know it?

What I find interesting about believers of evolution is that they tend to concentrate on the physical side but not much on the spiritual or intangible side of life to prove evolution.

But when asked these following questions they tend to brush it aside. So hopefully you would be able to answer these simple questions:

1) Love – do we need it in order to survive? If yes, why? If no, then why is it there in the first place?

2) Beauty in nature – do we need it in order to survive? If yes, why? If no, then why is it there in the first place?

Do you think a dog needs beauty in order to survive? What kind of life will you have if everything you see is ugly?

Another example, do we need color in order to survive? Can we survive if everything is gray?

Note: there are animals that can only see in one ot two colors.

What kind of existence will it be if you can only see black and white?

3)Taste - do we need it in order to survive? If yes, why? If no, then why is it there in the first place?

For example, do we need have sweetness in our food in order to survive? Can we survive if everything is tasteless? Will you appreciate your existence if all of the food you eat do not have any taste?

4) Hearing - do we need to hear all of frequency in order to survive? If yes, why? If no, then why is it there in the first place?

5) Smell - do we need the sense of smell in order to survive? If yes, why? If no, then why is it there in the first place?

Point is, if evolution is responsible for these senses – how did it know that we need them in order to survive? Or was it by luck / accident that they were there?

Think about this too:

Have you ever enjoyed watching the sunset in the horizon? Did you appreciate the kaleidoscope and beauty of the colors in the clouds as the sun sets? Did somehow evolution came up with this idea that not only the atmosphere will serve as a protection to life here on earth but also a source of beauty and awe?

What about these?

A simple giggle of a child, a loving voice of loved ones, a simple touch, a simple smile, the smell of pine trees in the morning, a warm cup of coffee in front of a fireplace during a rain storm, the chirp of a bird, the gurgling sound of a brook, the sound of sweet melodies, the smell of a cinnamon bread in the oven, the laughter of friends and so much more.

Are all of these products of evolution? Why?

Can evolution make sense of it?

Is there a nonsinsical answer besides the fact that they were given by a loving Creator not just to live but to enjoy, appreciate and love the gift of life from the life giver - God?



If you can't answer these questions don't worry, I understand.
But I would like to hear your (evolutionists) answer.


Ty,
edmc2





edit on 14-9-2010 by edmc^2 because: replaced survive with live / added last line.




posted on Sep, 14 2010 @ 01:39 PM
link   
reply to post by Funkydung
 


Where in the Bible does it say man was created 6,000 years ago? I understand they were created on the 6th day in the Bible, but where does it say one day equals a thousand years?



posted on Sep, 14 2010 @ 01:56 PM
link   
reply to post by edmc^2
 



Nice post. Krsna in the Baghavad gita says; "Know that all opulent, beautiful and glorious creations spring from but a spark of my splendour".



posted on Sep, 14 2010 @ 02:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by bargoose

Originally posted by Neilc1972

Originally posted by randyvs

So what is it we're wrong about again? Can you write out it for me? Creationists are wrong about.?


all life was created in 7 days by a higher intelligence, the earth is not 14 billion years old it is only 6000 years old, THAT is what you are wrong about,

simple enough for you?


God created it in seven days. God in hinduism, is known as brahma. One day of Brahma is 4.32 billion years.
When you start to dig a bit deeper, what at first sounds ludicrous starts to make sense.


I do not believe any god created anything in whatever time frame, im not knocking your faith or trying to change your mind, i just happen to believe that evolution and biology are responsible for the amazing diversity on the planet on which we all live. And just for the record before anyone else points it out yes i know the earth is 4.5 billion years old and not 14 billion it was a honest typo on my part.



posted on Sep, 14 2010 @ 02:47 PM
link   
reply to post by edmc^2
 


Yes all those things are important, because they help the organism survive and reproduce.

That massive collection of ignorant babble just takes my breath away...



posted on Sep, 14 2010 @ 03:06 PM
link   
Everybody's gotta learn sometime..



posted on Sep, 14 2010 @ 03:08 PM
link   
Never try and debate God, she always wins. You have to prove God does not exist before you disprove Creationism. I am all for evolutionary theory but I never try and spar with God.



posted on Sep, 14 2010 @ 03:12 PM
link   
Through all these unfounded arguements one thing alkways stands out to me. There is no explanation of existence that dosn't sound magical or hokey or even ludicrous. Absurdity runs through it all. I believe that
is because there is a different dimension that even science says is there. Science says everything God
says. Just in a different way.

People who are so sure God dosn't exist. Don't understand the laws.


edit on 14-9-2010 by randyvs because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 14 2010 @ 03:21 PM
link   
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
 


because you said nothing that hasn't been said before. It's like wow guy if it was that simple you don't think there would be any argument at all. The fact is you do NOT know what people go through on an individual level and there are things that are quite unexplainable that people go through. So despite what you say I will never beleive it was just evolution and I will never beleive that it was just creationism. A little of both is where my head lies where life is just this random mess that at the end it's point is love that simple.

peace man.



posted on Sep, 14 2010 @ 03:32 PM
link   
have you considered a new creation?

"Behold, I will create new heavens and a new earth. The former things will not be remembered, nor will they come to mind.

Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; the old has gone, the new has come!

what counts is a new creation.

He who loves father or mother more than Me is not worthy of Me. And he who loves son or daughter more than Me is not worthy of Me.



posted on Sep, 14 2010 @ 03:39 PM
link   
reply to post by agentofchaos
 


People that think the lab is the answer to everything, really need to get the hell out of there and experience life a little more. That's the only way you can ever come close to seeing what life really is. Don't get me wrong, I'm
a know it all by no means. Niether is anyone else on this site. So you can't prove anyone wrong. It's just really
absurd to say you can.
The very nature of information prescribes someone keeping track of it and placeing it in a vehicle.

Wertagf
Do you ever get the slightest incling you don't know everything? Maybe every once in awhile you get the feeling
mankind has got to be more than just a growth? It appears even the OP has bouts with his own soul. Who in their right mind would want to believe life is just a space between two nothings. That's just stupid even if turns out to be true. It's stupid.


edit on 14-9-2010 by randyvs because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 14 2010 @ 03:46 PM
link   
reply to post by edmc^2
 




Originally posted by edmc^2
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
 


May I ask you these questions if you truly believed that evolution (abiogenesis to some) is responsible for the origin / evolution of life as we know it?


Evolution and Abiogenesis are two separate fields of biology. I do believe that evolution is the explanation for the varieties of species on Earth (and presumably on any other life sustaining planets) and I accept the amount of information provided by Abiogenesis theory as providing enough evidence to show that it is the best explanation for the origin of life.



What I find interesting about believers of evolution is that they tend to concentrate on the physical side but not much on the spiritual or intangible side of life to prove evolution.


Well, that could be because 'spirituality' + 'science' = witchcraft, astrology, tarot cards, and bleeding with leeches...



But when asked these following questions they tend to brush it aside. So hopefully you would be able to answer these simple questions:

1) Love – do we need it in order to survive? If yes, why? If no, then why is it there in the first place?


Well, this is an easy one. Love is something that encourages community and community encourages survival. It's not necessary, but it's definitely a useful trait. If you love your mate, you protect her from wild animals and then you have children. If you love your children you will protect them from whatever harms you can, they will hopefully then reproduce and further your genetic history.



2) Beauty in nature – do we need it in order to survive? If yes, why? If no, then why is it there in the first place?


Beauty isn't present in nature, beauty is imposed upon it. Nature isn't beautiful, but it is beautiful to us. It's vaguely an extension of our standards for good living conditions and attractive mates, so the biological underpinnings of beauty are needed.



Do you think a dog needs beauty in order to survive? What kind of life will you have if everything you see is ugly?


Well, if nothing was beautiful nothing would be ugly. I'd be aesthetically neutral. However, this is only an issue in individuals who have time to care. If you're out and about scavenging for food all day you don't need food. But when you have agriculture and industrialization you get more of a chance to appreciate it.



Another example, do we need color in order to survive? Can we survive if everything is gray?

Note: there are animals that can only see in one ot two colors.


Well, how can we survive without the eyesight of an octopus? They have a greater range of the electromagnetic spectrum that they find visible, beyond that which we see. Certain birds of prey have much better eyes than us as well.
But we don't NEED color, it just helps. Colors allow us to identify things more easily, but they're not necessary. But if you can assess how ripe a fruit is or if an animal looks decayed or is camouflaged you'll be able to survive better.



What kind of existence will it be if you can only see black and white?


A different kind. We'd probably have better perception of motion and a higher sensitivity to light though, but that's a lesson about the eye itself.



3)Taste - do we need it in order to survive? If yes, why? If no, then why is it there in the first place?

For example, do we need have sweetness in our food in order to survive? Can we survive if everything is tasteless? Will you appreciate your existence if all of the food you eat do not have any taste?


Of course we need taste. There's the common reflex of spitting something out when it doesn't taste good or when it tastes bad. Literally when you think something is wrong with it. If you start eating rotten foods...well, you won't survive very long.

As for sweetness, it allows us to know sugar content. Sugar content was very useful back when we were hunter/gatherers, it was high energy concentration.



4) Hearing - do we need to hear all of frequency in order to survive? If yes, why? If no, then why is it there in the first place?


Again, there are animals who hear better than us. We need it to survive for quite obvious reasons, like not having eyes on the back of our head. I can't see someone come up behind me, but I might be able to hear it. Hearing increases likelihood of survival. It also allows us to communicate with each other, increasing chances of group survival.



5) Smell - do we need the sense of smell in order to survive? If yes, why? If no, then why is it there in the first place?


Walk into a room with an animal that's been dead for three weeks lying on the floor and you'll immediately not want to be there anymore. You won't necessarily see the foulness nor will you hear it, but you can smell it. The smell alerts us to bad conditions that we should avoid, increasing in our chances of survival. Additionally it alerts us to good things, such as sweet fruits or cooking meats or potential mates.



Point is, if evolution is responsible for these senses – how did it know that we need them in order to survive? Or was it by luck / accident that they were there?


Evolution doesn't know anything, it's a process. It wasn't random entirely. The mutation that caused the first light-sensitive cell might have been random, but its survival was not. The senses all confer an advantage on us in one way or another and they all lead to survival. Those that had inferior senses were less likely to survive, so here we are with what we have.



Think about this too:

Have you ever enjoyed watching the sunset in the horizon? Did you appreciate the kaleidoscope and beauty of the colors in the clouds as the sun sets? Did somehow evolution came up with this idea that not only the atmosphere will serve as a protection to life here on earth but also a source of beauty and awe?


...now you're getting into physics. The explanation for beauty and awe of the universe is quite easy, it's what we find beautiful. Our sense of beauty is a product of our surroundings. The sunset isn't beautiful independently. A sheep won't look at it and go "Hey Phil, look at how pretty that is!"
Only reasoning beings truly appreciate beauty, it's a combination of reason and instincts.



What about these?

A simple giggle of a child, a loving voice of loved ones, a simple touch, a simple smile, the smell of pine trees in the morning, a warm cup of coffee in front of a fireplace during a rain storm, the chirp of a bird, the gurgling sound of a brook, the sound of sweet melodies, the smell of a cinnamon bread in the oven, the laughter of friends and so much more.

Are all of these products of evolution? Why?


Giggle of a child makes you happy? Well, a human child is being taken care of, the species will survive. Evolutionary advantage found.

Loving voice of loved ones? You're with people you know with positive opinions of you. A safe situation, no dangers. Comfort acknowledged will make it easier to survive.

A simple touch or smile? Reassurance from another member of the species is good, smiles convey positive emotions (side note: a smiling chimp is being aggressive, do not think he is happy), help in communication.

Smell of pine trees? Honestly, that one I don't know. I don't claim to know everything though.

Warm cup of coffee? Actually, many people that don't drink coffee hate the smell, it's an acquired reaction based upon previous experience with psycho-stimulants (caffeine)

In front of a fireplace in a rainstorm? Not dying of exposure to the elements, positive reinforcement of this gives you a huge advantage.

The chirp of a bird? I don't like the sounds of most birds, must be a personal thing based on our sapient divergence and communication.

Sounds of sweet melodies? Our predilection towards mathematics and aural communication.

Smell of cinnamon bread? Food = energy. Identifying a source of energy is always good.

Laughter of friends? Safety



Can evolution make sense of it?


Quite easily.



Is there a nonsinsical answer besides the fact that they were given by a loving Creator not just to live but to enjoy, appreciate and love the gift of life from the life giver - God?


Not that I can think of. I tried to avoid nonsense.



If you can't answer these questions don't worry, I understand.
But I would like to hear your (evolutionists) answer.


Hope I answered them well. But please, refrain from using the term "evolutionist"



posted on Sep, 14 2010 @ 03:51 PM
link   
What would be the purpose of evolution? If life is a combination of the chemical elements from the periodic table, why didn't the elements just stay as they are? What gain is there to form complex machines? None at all.



posted on Sep, 14 2010 @ 03:57 PM
link   
reply to post by Wertdagf
 


Do you believe you amount to nothing more than a growth. A minor pimple on the earth's ass so to speak?



edit on 14-9-2010 by randyvs because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 14 2010 @ 04:02 PM
link   
reply to post by Titen-Sxull
 


Hi there
There was no attempt to claim anything. And in Gen.2:7 (if you use only the Bible) you see God say if they eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil then they shall die. Now we know he did not die as soon as he ate it so what did God mean?

Well we see after he ate of the tree of the knowledge that God said they must leave and not be let back in the garden less the eat of the tree of life and live forever. So he can be immortal again but before he ate the "apple" he did not know what death was and there was no concern about the tree of life.(other holy text say as much)


Now let me say, you my friend are intelligent. It takes most people 6 months to come up with the "mostly" same theory however im sorry to say this does not work.

Be it a planet or a singularity the "collapses back down" and "bang" again theory does not work because matter is lost.
Stars die out things get sucked into black holes rocks racing at earth get burned up planets get ripped apart.
So every time it would "collapses back down" it would be smaller or have less mass and that means it is dieing and not eternal.

Oh and the part about "digested and become dead cells. " The fruit can die it can become dead cells but what does that have to do with Adam? You kinda lost me on that point.

Thank you for the reply.



posted on Sep, 14 2010 @ 04:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by agentofchaos
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
 


because you said nothing that hasn't been said before.


I didn't know I had to come up with an entirely new opinion to use this message board.



It's like wow guy if it was that simple you don't think there would be any argument at all.


The fact is that there really isn't any argument to it all except in political discourse. The scientific community is entirely set on evolution being the right way to go.



The fact is you do NOT know what people go through on an individual level and there are things that are quite unexplainable that people go through.


I don't know how that has any bearing on evolution. That wouldn't even be a good answer in that other thread I've been linking to that talks about the existence of deities, unlike this thread.


Originally posted by randyvs
Through all these unfounded arguements one thing alkways stands out to me.


I've noticed you like to call my arguments unfounded, yet you don't show how they're unfounded. And then when I ask you to give an answer to the question of infinite regress you simply ignore it even though you said that "everyone knows that"



There is no explanation of existence that dosn't sound magical or hokey or even ludicrous. Absurdity runs through it all.


Your personal opinion on how a scientific theory sounds doesn't have any bearing on how valid that theory is. Imagine if you had told Newton about nuclear fusion. He wouldn't know what the hell you're talking about, it would be nonsense to him. But if you went ahead and explained the hundreds of years of physics that he missed out between his laws of motion and nuclear fusion, he'd surely understand it.

You personal lack of comprehension doesn't mean anything.



I believe that is because there is a different dimension that even science says is there. Science says everything God says. Just in a different way.


Um...examples please?



People who are so sure God dosn't exist. Don't understand the laws.


We're not talking about the existence of god. I've said that too many times to keep referencing it, just pick a random post and you'll probably have a chance of seeing me say this thread isn't about god.


edit on 9/14/10 by madnessinmysoul because: Forgot to merge two separate replies



posted on Sep, 14 2010 @ 04:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by randyvs
reply to post by agentofchaos
 


People that think the lab is the answer to everything, really need to get the hell out of there and experience life a little more.


Really? I didn't know we had an epidemic of lab dwelling scientifically minded youngsters in the world...



That's the only way you can ever come close to seeing what life really is.


True, but science is the only way you can ever come close to seeing the universe as it really is.



Don't get me wrong, I'ma know it all by no means. Niether is anyone else on this site. So you can't prove anyone wrong. It's just really absurd to say you can.


So only the omnipotent can say someone is wrong? I'm sorry, but that is demonstrably wrong.

Here's an example: Take two spheres the same size...let's say a cannon ball and a wooden ball that is of equivalent size.
You could tell me that the cannon ball will fall faster than the wooden ball because it is heavier, but I could mathematically prove to you that it wouldn't...or I could chuck them both off of a tower and hope nobody gets hurt.

The entirety of our civilization is predicated on the fact that there are things that can be proven and disproven



The very nature of information prescribes someone keeping track of it and placeing it in a vehicle.


Yes, we have all sorts of vehicles for information. Your point being?



Do you ever get the slightest incling you don't know everything?


Everyone should know they don't know everything. I don't know the boiling point of mercury. I don't know the majority of physics of biology. But I'm a unit. And there are nearly 7 billion of those units. And together we don't know everything, but we do know a hell of a lot. We know how to communicate across distances that we cannot actually fathom using bits of plastic, metal, and electricity.



Maybe every once in awhile you get the feeling mankind has got to be more than just a growth?


Appeal to feeling? In a scientific discussion? I might feel like sometimes I should have gone into politics or law, doesn't mean that it would have been a good choice. And evolutionary theory doesn't call us a growth, we're a collection of autonomous individuals living in communal society over the surface of a planet.



It appears even the OP has bouts with his own soul.


It's a metaphorical soul. madnessinmypsyche sounds like a clinical condition.



Who in their right mind would want to believe life is just a space between two nothings.


Well, that's not really what we're discussing here. We're discussing evolutionary biology.



That's just stupid even if turns out to be true. It's stupid.


And here's where the outright flame is.




edit on 14-9-2010 by randyvs because: (no reason given)



No reason given: just like there's no reason for this post or any of your claims. Cease the belligerence and address my arguments.



posted on Sep, 14 2010 @ 04:40 PM
link   
reply to post by edmc^2
 


I like your questions

I hope you will like my answers to.

1) Love – do we need it in order to survive? If yes, why? If no, then why is it there in the first place?

Not really, but I believe it is the bond that makes people care enough to stick with each other long enough to conceive and raise their offspring. Thus : Improving the change to survive.

2) Beauty in nature – do we need it in order to survive? If yes, why? If no, then why is it there in the first place?

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

3)Taste - do we need it in order to survive? If yes, why? If no, then why is it there in the first place?

Maybe it is around so you can taste if something good enough to eat or you will get sick from it. Why is it any good ? Well plants need us and animals to survive by transporting their seeds and pollinate them. This is also a race for survival and the ones with the most delicious fruit will have a bigger chance at survival.


4) Hearing - do we need to hear all of frequency in order to survive? If yes, why? If no, then why is it there in the first place?

Nope. we hear perfectly well to survive. Take for example an elephant. It gan hear much lower frequencies then we do. which is good when the nearest other elephant is miles away and you want it to hear you found some water. Low frequenties can travel much further then higer ones.

5) Smell - do we need the sense of smell in order to survive? If yes, why? If no, then why is it there in the first place?

Well yes. Wolfs, bears African wildlife all depend on their ability to smell to sense predators are nearby, to find food and to stalk prey.

Even we need it not being able to smell your dinner is ready or your kitchen is on fire is a problem.



posted on Sep, 14 2010 @ 05:24 PM
link   
reply to post by GunzCoty
 




Now we know he did not die as soon as he ate it so what did God mean?


Well if we take the text literally God did not mean anything, God lied in much the same way an over-protective parent might lie about something they don't want their kid to do.



So he can be immortal again


The Bible never says he was immortal to begin with and if indeed he was than WHY would the tree of knowledge of Good and Evil cause him to become mortal? Wouldn't it then be called the tree of death or the tree or mortality? The Bible doesn't say what you are suggesting.



because matter is lost


Not entirely, it is just reconstituted as energy and packed into the singularity. Matter cannot be destroyed, neither can energy technically although energy can dissipate and seem, in one sense at least, destroyed.



So every time it would "collapses back down" it would be smaller or have less mass and that means it is dieing and not eternal.


It is the same amount of energy just collapsed into a super-dense singularity. Everything is still there it has just been reduced to a base form. It would have immense mass but merely be very dense.



The fruit can die it can become dead cells but what does that have to do with Adam?


Many Creationists I've spoken to say that there was no death at all before the fruit and that carnivorous animals actually ate plant matter before the fall of man. I wasn't sure whether you'd extended immorality to the animals and plants or not but I figured I'd cover my bases.

The fact of the matter is that the Bible does not say Adam was immortal before eating the fruit, the only change Adam went through was that he was now aware that what he'd done was wrong.

What we know about the life span of ancient people points to the opposite of what Genesis says, people lived shorter lives thousands of years ago than we do today, unlike Adam who is claimed to have lived for centuries even after eating the fruit that supposedly made him mortal.



posted on Sep, 14 2010 @ 05:46 PM
link   
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
 


I just have one question. Is this thread about God?





Now you might have the slightest idea how I feel about your stupid question. Maybe.
"Where did it's Daddy come from Uncle Daddy?"
I have to make joke. It is necessary.
It helps a to maintain a the sanity. You won't get an answer from me because the answer as I said everyone knows, is the same as the answer no one knows, I just gave you the answer in this very sentence lollipop.

Your det6ermination to make life a space between two nothings in the end will be fruitless. I .predict.

Titen



The Bible never says he was immortal to begin with


The Bible dosn't say a lot of things.How old was Noah when HE DIED?
How old was Adam when HE DIED?

Mankind was created, and he was created. Death comes into the picture with sin. So you're right my friend it
dosn't say that at all. As long as you give it no thought at all.
God never told them "Sin against me and you will surely die" however that does seem to be the law.
If I were to create a Universe I would install this as law one. Law one is the best proof I can think of.
It is a failsafe. A common sense failsafe any logic would employ.
I just wonder if any of you big brains ever consider how much nore advanced you would all be?
If instead of all your theory, failed experiments,mistakes, and having to trust in some other corrupt human being?
What if instead of all your guess work you instead had an absolutly trustworthy and infallible source?
God is that source. Or maybe you think the universe dosn't have any such source? Highly illogical.






edit on 14-9-2010 by randyvs because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
8
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join