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.

 

Challenging creationism

page: 3
7
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 21 2011 @ 01:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by SG-17
Creationism isn't a valid scientific theory in even the loosest definition. So refuting it is incredibly easy, since Creationists themselves cannot provide scientific evidence.


How in the hell can anyone make sense of statements like this." Creationism isn't scientific so there isn't any scientific evidence". What a ball faced lie. The same old round about. See my thread," Science fails to exclude God" because it really does do more to establish creationism and even Christ, then it does to refute it.
Creation, makes far more sense, then the universe just farted itself into existance. Sorry OP. Creation isn't going anywhere and science belongs to God in the first place. Science does try to exclude God but fails miserably.

Just because you can explain the machanics of design ,dosn't mean you can negate the designer. Never heard of anything so stupiud as that and frankly, it should be embarrassing to try pass it off as legite. I'm embarrassed that that's all human science can come up with. If it can't do better then that, then people like OP should
keep their mouth shut. The bronze age fairy tale has a lot more clout through time than science.
edit on 21-8-2011 by randyvs because: (no reason given)

edit on 21-8-2011 by randyvs because: (no reason given)

edit on 21-8-2011 by randyvs because: (no reason given)




posted on Aug, 21 2011 @ 06:51 PM
link   
reply to post by flyingfish
 





Again your ignorance shines through. The OP's question has nothing to do with how modern horses get to North America. Your trying to deflect from answering the question. This is par for course when it comes to debating anything that deals with "proof". Then again you don't need proof when you have faith.


Wow, you call creationists ignorant, and you still can't even comprehend my response?

I see you need to be spoon fed.

I used horses as modern day proof as to how a species can be transplanted from one continent to another continent.

There are many other examples of this occurrence.

My belief is that the old atheist argument about koalas (which I have heard a hundred times) can be explained very easily. If horses can arrive by ship and become 10 million, couldn't the same thing have happened to koalas?




I was using this as a parable, I was really pointing out your narrow, rigid view and for you to look outside this tunnel vision would be difficult at best. I'm guessing your not that stupid and your just trying to be a clown, but I could be wrong.


I think you mean illustration.

You don't believe a child can understand physics, and you are wrong.

I have thought a great deal about the atheists point of view.

Who really has the narrow mind?



posted on Aug, 21 2011 @ 08:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by dusty1
reply to post by flyingfish
 





Again your ignorance shines through. The OP's question has nothing to do with how modern horses get to North America. Your trying to deflect from answering the question. This is par for course when it comes to debating anything that deals with "proof". Then again you don't need proof when you have faith.


Wow, you call creationists ignorant, and you still can't even comprehend my response?

I see you need to be spoon fed.

I used horses as modern day proof as to how a species can be transplanted from one continent to another continent.

There are many other examples of this occurrence.

My belief is that the old atheist argument about koalas (which I have heard a hundred times) can be explained very easily. If horses can arrive by ship and become 10 million, couldn't the same thing have happened to koalas?




I was using this as a parable, I was really pointing out your narrow, rigid view and for you to look outside this tunnel vision would be difficult at best. I'm guessing your not that stupid and your just trying to be a clown, but I could be wrong.


I think you mean illustration.

You don't believe a child can understand physics, and you are wrong.

I have thought a great deal about the atheists point of view.

Who really has the narrow mind?







I comprehend your supposed answer, I reject it on grounds of deflection by using the horse analogy. Any halfwit knows the European boats landed in south and north America. In contrast the ark DID NOT land in Sydney.
There you have it your analogy is bogus.
I see you need to be spoon fed. How did the koalas get to Australia from Mount Ararat? for that matter how did ALL the marsupials get there.
I suppose next your going to tell me the Europeans brought them

Why do I even bother?
I'm not going to even try to explain the child/physics thing to you- way over your head.
Your lack of critical thinking is starting to show, save yourself from any further embarrassment.
edit on 21-8-2011 by flyingfish because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 21 2011 @ 10:28 PM
link   
reply to post by flyingfish
 





How did the koalas get to Australia from Mount Ararat? for that matter how did ALL the marsupials get there. I suppose next your going to tell me the Europeans brought them


Humans brought them.

Is the idea really so incredible?


Actually in modern times the Europeans brought the red fox, the feral cat,the European rabbit, and the feral pig to Australia. Which has become a big problem because of the population explosion of these species.

It is quite interesting that Australia is host to 56 introduced invasive vertebrate animal species, along with fish and weeds.

Invasive Species in Australia

If this occured in modern times, could it not have occured in the ancient past?




Why do I even bother? I'm not going to even try to explain the child/physics thing to you- way over your head.


You're not gonna bother, because you don't have an argument.



posted on Aug, 22 2011 @ 12:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by Atzil321
Recently it feels like creationsts and young earth believers have taken over ATS, they routinely
pop up in all sorts of threads laying down their beliefs. Everything from dinosaurs co-existing
with humans to saying that the universe is 6000 years old, the big bang is a lie and that
evolution is a myth... They say all these things with no shred of convincing evidence at all
and yet they are never challenged in their ideas. Are there no rational thinking people left
here to counteract this tide of ignorance?
Well I have decided to challenge it and pose
them some difficult questions concerning their ideas.

1. What makes your story of creationism fundamentally different from all the others that exist now, have existed before, and will exist in the future?
To me the Universe was created by intelligent design yes. The laws of Physics, Biology, Quantum Mechanics, Chemistry, Karma, Law of Attraction, Spiritual laws etc were part of this creation and are the building systems of this physical Universe.


2. How did Noah find all of the animals and get them back to the ark? Did he bring them back one pair at a time, or did they all follow him in a line as he visited other continents to collect more animals?
I believe the story of Noah to be metaphorical, to show the "mercy" of the Jewish god in the time of his wrath. Having said that, I don't believe the Jewish god to be the Supreme Creator. A god? Yes. The creator of this world? Yes. Now, If the story is a literal representation, the only logical explanation is that it was a vessel of advanced design and the "animals" it carried were just in DNA form.

3. What did the carnivores eat on the ark?
Meat.

4. How did koalas get to Australia after the ark washed up on that mountain?
When the story said that the world flooded, one must consider that the middle east was "the world" as they knew it.

5. Why did your god make life that has to destroy other life, often cruelly, in order to survive?
Creation through destruction. The whole of the physical Universe works this way. Also, nothing ever really "dies". Things just change form.

6. If cruelty and suffering result from a 'fallen world' caused by some original sin of humans, why did your god also punish the animals for it by creating disease, pain and suffering for them too?
Original Sin is a man's invention to keep people within the faith through fear. It's propaganda, brainwashing. There is no sin. We just "perceive" things as "good or bad".

7. Is it just to punish all humans, including those who weren't born yet, for the sins of one? Would you punish your own younger children for the wrongs of the oldest which occurred before the others were born?
More religious propaganda. The true Creator doesn't punish. The Jewish, Christian or Islamic god might but not the True Universal Creator.

8. If humans are special creations, why do we share the traits of violence, lust, rage, tribal warfare, homosexuality, etc. with animals?
Is the "Abrahamic" god a wrathful, vengeful god? Is he not the creator of this world? Aren't we created in his image and likeness?

9. Why do you believe your god made only one breeding pair (Adam and Eve), instead of many? With only one breeding pair, fathers are forced to have sex with daughters, brothers with sisters, and sons with mothers, in order to propagate the species. Is this a divine endorsement for incest?
Adam and Eve is not a literal story. Its the story of all of us. We are born in the garden of eden. (Living in the now, No ego, No mind) Until we get indoctrinated by society, church, our parents, (Eating of the fruit of the tree of Knowledge of good and evil) Ego develops and we lose the garden of Eden. (We worry about the future, feel shame or guilt about the past and forget to live the present)

10. If all civilisations resulted from Adam and Eve, and oral traditions about the god that created them were passed down from generation to generation, why are there so many other creation stories in the world? Why didn't all civilisations keep their 'true' religion?
Most ancient civilizations believe their "gods" came down from the stars. See American Indigenous myths, Hindu, Chinese, Sumerian, Babylonian, Egyptian etc etc.

11. Why did your god only appear to one group of people? If it can do anything and be everywhere at once, why couldn't it appear to the other people of the world as well?
The True Universal Creator is everywhere because it is everything.

12. Why do you get your scientific education from people like Kent Hovind, Ray Comfort and Kirk Cameron? These people have no university-level education in science, and in some cases, no university education at all. Wouldn't it be smarter to trust those who are educated, and actively researching, in the field?
I don't fall in that category so I cannot answer that question.

13. Why has the world, including government funding, science journals, reputable newspapers, education standards, etc., moved on without you, leaving your barbaric bronze-age theories in their dust? Why have we made so much progress in our understanding after abandoning religious methodology for a scientific one?
Scientific methodology has merit but it cant explain everything. ie What's going on inside a black hole? Why do the laws of physics break down inside black holes? If matter can't be created or destroyed, what was it that blew up at the Big' bang?


Intermediate questions:

14. Why is there at least some evidence for our scientific theories, but none at all for your creationism?
This is a broad subject. Creation of modern man? Life?

15. Why is the fossil record arranged in such a way as to suggest evolution?
Evolution is a tool of creation. Lets follow the theory of evolution and the laws of physics for a moment. Matter can not be created out of nothing or destroyed, right? That means everything in this planet was once, many billion years ago, part of a soup of subatomic particles in the singularity that spawned the big bang, no? So yes, everything is in a constant state of evolution.

16. Why are the continents shaped like they were once together, and have similar geology on what would be the common edges?
Because once, they were together. The planet also evolves.

17. Why are the continents moving apart at a rate that would put them together millions of years ago?
Part of the evolution of the planet.


18. If humans are special creations, why do we share the same biology, metabolic pathways, etc. with chimpanzees? Shouldn't we have been made completely differently to emphasize the point?
The only reason we are "special" is because we are "aware" of ourselves. Be can say "I am". Other than that, the body is just a receptor, an "antenna" if you will, designed to receive. Receive light through our eyes, sound through the ears, taste through the mouth, sensations through our skin and smell through the nose. We interpret those sensations in the brain and that is how The Universal Creator experiences "life".

19. To avoid the cruelty caused by life killing other life to survive, couldn't we all have been photosynthetic organisms, using sunlight and inanimate molecules to make our energy? If you're going to say there's not enough energy in photosynthesis, why couldn't your god design a more effective photosynthetic system?
We were all once photosynthetic organisms. You just don't remember. This theory of mine marries Evolution with Re-incarnation.

20. Why does the evidence from so many scientific disciplines, astronomy, geology, biology, physics, chemistry, all converge to suggest the Big Bang and Evolution, while at the same time pointing away from your theory?It doesn't point away from "my" theory.

21. Why do the mathematical models behind scientific understanding of the Universe work so well, while creationists have no mathematical models at all?
Buddhism and Quantum Mechanics agree in many points.

22. Does your creation model or your holy book account for things like quantum mechanics? Why doesn't it seem to contain much useful knowledge at all? See Buddhism.

23. If your god didn't explain quantum nature for these people because they wouldn't understand, then isn't it time your god shows itself and gives us an update now that we have more understanding? Why doesn't it divinely guide some people to write an update to your current holy book? Or is it allowing us to do that through science? Is the reason we don't need an update that science is doing such a good job of answering the questions?
That is how The Creator reveals himself. Do you think man "created" this laws? This laws have been in place since the beginning. We just merely "discover" them. And we have sooo much more to discover.


Advanced Questions:

24. Why does the human chromosome #2 appear to have been created by the fusion of two different chimpanzee chromosomes, complete with structures which would not be necessary if it was created as a single, unified chromosome? DNA tampering? This is outside my scope of understanding.

25. What is the Cosmic Background Radiation? The CBR is an integral part of the Big Bang model, and is in fact demanded by it. How does your creationism account for it, ie. where does it fit in your model?
Big bang, CBR, electromagnetic spectrum; All part of Creation.

26. Why are the galaxies moving apart? Were they once much closer together?
Yes.

27. Why can we see objects in space that are billions of light years away?
Because the light is just now getting to us. The object might not even exist anymore. Don't really understand your question.

28. What process did your god use to create life? Can you describe how it works?
He/She thought about what he wanted to create, created the laws necessary, then he/she created it. Same way we create things. The Wright brothers thought about a machine that you can use to fly like a bird, (every thought is creative), then they did the research, (engineering, math, aerodynamics "the word") then they built it.

29. Can you use your creation model to make any helpful predictions that might lead us to further discoveries or understanding?
The only thing i "feel" is that there will be a time when humanity will open it's eyes and see that we are all the same thing, when this happens, this will be the beginning of our next evolutionary step.

30. What is one prediction that your model can make which could support your creationism to the exclusion of accepted scientific models, and what evidence can you find for it?
I cant do this. To me Scientific models are tools use by us to understand how the Creator uses Physical laws to put the Universe together.

P.S. Sorry about the typos.




posted on Aug, 22 2011 @ 02:02 AM
link   
reply to post by Atzil321
 


I love when atheists bring up God and say how can this be, because it tells me God is on their mind. With 30 questions it looks like God is weighing heavy on your mind, as he is mine.

Jesus is the truth.



posted on Aug, 22 2011 @ 07:51 PM
link   
reply to post by addygrace
 


Well said addygrace.

This thread should be renamed 30 questions you wanted to know about God, but were afraid to ask.



posted on Sep, 1 2011 @ 01:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by faithparadigmEvery knee shall bow and every tongue confess that Jesus is Lord. If you have not made Jesus your personal Lord then you shall be cast into hell where your science will be of little comfort.

Wow, just... wow. It's amazing that people can be so ignorant and intolerant. The fact that this post got 2 stars is just... unbelievable



posted on Sep, 1 2011 @ 01:02 PM
link   
reply to post by dusty1
 

Really? Every answer has been "God dunnit". How enlightening



posted on Sep, 2 2011 @ 12:09 PM
link   
reply to post by john_bmth
 





Really? Every answer has been "God dunnit". How enlightening


Polly want a cracker?

Keep parroting the Atheist talking points.

Yeah, the idea of inventions or creations requiring an inventor is so silly..........





Who created Apple?

Steve Jobs dunnit.

Who created Microsoft?

Bill Gates dunnit.

Who invented the light bulb?

Thomas Edison dunnit.

Who created Facebook?

Mark Zuckerberg dunnit

First working airplane?

The Wright brothers dunnit

Peanut butter?

George Washington Carver dunnit





posted on Sep, 2 2011 @ 12:29 PM
link   
reply to post by dusty1
 


And your response was pertinent because...?



posted on Sep, 2 2011 @ 01:28 PM
link   
reply to post by MentorsRiddle
 


So the idea of the universe springing from nothing is ridiculous, but the idea of a magic sky-fairy springing from nothing makes perfect sense.

Does that about cover it?



posted on Sep, 2 2011 @ 07:47 PM
link   
reply to post by john_bmth
 





And your response was pertinent because...?


I see you are having a hard time understanding my response, so I'll try to make it a little easier for you to understand.


Your "God dunnit" reply is an unoriginal, unimaginative, copycat comeback.

It is the town bicycle of comebacks, used by Atheists over and over again (As well as The Flying Spaghetti Monster, Silly, God of the Gaps, and the Magic Man in the Sky).

If I had a nickle for every time I heard it, I would be rich.


What I pointed out in my response, is the simple fact that all original creations or inventions on our planet come from intelligent human designers and inventors.

Credit goes to the inventor, and it should, because he spent countless hours of his time and his resources to carefully design and create something new.

Patent offices exist because people will try to steal someone's ideas and hard work. Currently we see companies like Apple trying to sue the pants of other companies for allegedly infringing on their technology.

As a Creationist, I believe that a Designer spent an unfathomable amount of time designing the universe and the lifeforms found in it. The earth for example is a complex biosphere in which the environment and life co exist in a symbiotic relationship. The Creator also programmed flexibility into His design.

Just because the mechanisms God used in Creation are not fully understood does not mean that poof, He magicked the universe into existence with no forethought.

I constantly hear atheist crow like roosters when brilliant scientist create experiments in order to re create conditions in order to then create life. All their thoughtful design and effort, to then try to show that life happened with no thought or design.



The fact of the matter is, the truly constructive contributions made to humanity are by inventors with there inventions, or by those that reverse engineer what already exists in order to figure out how the universe is put together.

Every scientist, every artist, every business person who goes out and creates something is a creator.

They are following the model of creationism.

They are by their very nature Creationists.



posted on Sep, 2 2011 @ 08:00 PM
link   
reply to post by dusty1
 


The problem with that argument however is that God would be even more complex than humans. So, then if humans require a creator than certainly God does as well. This can then continue ad infinitum. So, would like to tell us who God's creator is and then all the creators who came before him?



posted on Sep, 2 2011 @ 11:10 PM
link   
reply to post by Xcalibur254
 





The problem with that argument however is that God would be even more complex than humans. So, then if humans require a creator than certainly God does as well. This can then continue ad infinitum. So, would like to tell us who God's creator is and then all the creators who came before him?



That argument would be valid if it was claimed that the Creator is a human.

A being that has a beginning, cannot comprehend a Being that did not.

Can the fish fathom existence outside of their fish tank?

A being that is bound by the limits of time and space cannot fathom a Being that exists outside of time and space.

The bible says that one day is as a thousand years and a thousand years is as one day to God.

I believe it is hinting at the idea that the Creator is not bound nor, is affected by time.

He is the Alpha and Omega, the beginning and end of our existence, but He has no beginning and He has no end.

Perhaps He is circular in nature and all thing created are linear.

Perhaps the universe is one thru nine, and the Creator is zero. He is the absence of one and at the same time a Googolplex.

A Creator would invent the concept of creation.



Some of these things are unknown, but one thing thing would be certain.

He would be love.

The kind of love that does things for others, even above oneself.

Think about it. Often when people isolate themselves and are alone, they become selfish. They don't have to worry about drama or pleasing someone else, they do what they want when they want and how they want. A couple may be fine together and do a lot of fun things, travel etc.

Then a child comes into the world and suddenly everything revolves around the child and it's needs.


The Creator literally would have invented the concept of "others" and put them into existence. Now everything revolves around His creation, His children.




Some of His children however, think that the rest of creation should revolve around them.



posted on Sep, 3 2011 @ 12:00 AM
link   
Who really cares, what questions some angry little nobody has of anything.
If you do not want to see it, YOU won't.
By the way, the high priests of science back this statement up!

Science has become the new 'religion', with its own nomenclature and secret language, its own burdens of proof, its own modern day 'witch' burnings...in denial of any other explanation.

In fact, important information/data of a functional (albeit garbled, masked and anecdotal) could be gleaned to support the 'current', and i do mean current! view of the universe. Dismissing any information is the blind, choosing to be blind. There will always be pieces missing in plain sight...and guess what...there are! The grand poobah priests will tell you so...but the backseat drivers will turn this into FACT.

One monkey says creation, another monkey says big bang...same thing really?!

Akushla



posted on Sep, 3 2011 @ 06:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by akushla99
Who really cares, what questions some angry little nobody has of anything.
If you do not want to see it, YOU won't.
By the way, the high priests of science back this statement up!

Science has become the new 'religion', with its own nomenclature and secret language, its own burdens of proof, its own modern day 'witch' burnings...in denial of any other explanation.

In fact, important information/data of a functional (albeit garbled, masked and anecdotal) could be gleaned to support the 'current', and i do mean current! view of the universe. Dismissing any information is the blind, choosing to be blind. There will always be pieces missing in plain sight...and guess what...there are! The grand poobah priests will tell you so...but the backseat drivers will turn this into FACT.

One monkey says creation, another monkey says big bang...same thing really?!

Akushla

You couldn't be any more wrong. All you've done is demonstrate your woeful scientific illiteracy. Science isn't some "secret club", it's open to anyone who can be bothered to educate themselves. Science is evidence-based, religion is faith-based. If you are getting the two confused, educate yourself before making such ignorant statements.



posted on Sep, 3 2011 @ 10:57 AM
link   
reply to post by dusty1
 





The bible says that one day is as a thousand years and a thousand years is as one day to God.


Even if one day in the bible represents thousands of years, it would still be off by a couple of BILLION years



posted on Sep, 3 2011 @ 11:02 AM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 





Even if one day in the bible represents thousands of years, it would still be off by a couple of BILLION years


Mr XYZ long time no see.

I believe the universe and the earth could be billions of years old.

I do not believe the Creative Days in Genesis were 24 hour time periods.

Like I said I think the bible hints at the nature of the Creator.


I believe as the Creator of time and space, He exists outside of it and is not bound by it's laws.

Perhaps all moments in time are observed simultaneously by Him.

Jesus said that God is not a God of the dead, but a God of the living, and they are all living in His eyes.


edit on 3-9-2011 by dusty1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 4 2011 @ 03:00 AM
link   
reply to post by Atzil321
 

To take science or evolution and single it out as the only source of truth is just as blind as to do the same with religion.It is just as possible to write a list of questions on evolution as you have done on creationism. I watched a number of clips on Youtube of Richard Dawkings interviewing Fr. George Coyne, Fr. Coyne answers a good number of questions asked above.
I'm christian and this is my current summary of my take on this issue. Evolution doesn't disprove creation and creation doesn't disprove evolution, God is behind evolution. Critically and literally analysing the Bible will lead to confusion both for christians and atheists.




top topics



 
7
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join