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.

 

Compelling and Convincing Evidence that Life was Created! What Say You?

page: 8
32
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 16 2011 @ 02:19 PM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 


Awesome mate, the man asked for sources and you gave him a truckload. I'll be extremely interested to see whether those sources get read, or completely ignored.



posted on Nov, 16 2011 @ 02:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kryties
reply to post by something wicked
 


OK, one more time for the dummies.....

My avatar in no way reflects my thoughts towards the program the subject of my avatar appears in. I chose the avatar because he has poofy hair and a comical look on his face and NOTHING MORE....read that again to be sure it sinks in.....NOTHING MORE.

Now, can we stop with the ridiculousness please? You've put a whole new meaning to 'grasping at straws'.
edit on 16/11/2011 by Kryties because: (no reason given)


I say - he's got one cookie weird hairdo.

BTW - do you believe that aliens created life on earth and the universe?

If so who created the aliens - another alien being - maybe it's the guy with a cookie hairdo.


just kidding ---



posted on Nov, 16 2011 @ 02:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kryties

Originally posted by The_Oracle
Scientist always follow the golden rule of coming up with theories excluding creation,even if it means sacrificing the truth unfortunately...

Therefore their work is quite a tedious one,always trying to come up with systems that work without outside interference...


No they do not. Science is the search for truth, no matter what that truth may be. As it turns out, the truth they have found so far does not support a creationist theory - no matter how much some people wish it did.


I know what science is about in theory,but that doesn't mean the scientists will always follow it.

There are a lot of stuff suggesting the world may have had an intelligent creator,yet scientists always would rather follow systems that exclude that possibility,something to do with Occam's Razor I presume?

But does that not mean it's more about what they prefer,rather then looking for the truth no matter what it is?



posted on Nov, 16 2011 @ 02:30 PM
link   
reply to post by The_Oracle
 


You're doing a lot of 'presuming' and 'suggesting' about scientists but not providing one scrap of actual evidence to back up that claim - it's basically your opinion is it not?



posted on Nov, 16 2011 @ 02:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kryties
reply to post by MrXYZ
 


Awesome mate, the man asked for sources and you gave him a truckload. I'll be extremely interested to see whether those sources get read, or completely ignored.


I'm afraid I probably wasted 30min of my life


But at least I can simply quote that post every time someone brings up "missing link" or "dna doesn't confirm evolution". They can then pick from 2 options:

a) Man up and admit they simply didn't know before. This would show intelligence and character as it's not easy to admit you're wrong. Nothing wrong with not knowing, I don't have the slightest clue about what vitamin does what for example...that doesn't make me dumb. And neither does not really knowing about evolution make you dumb. I consider it basic knowledge, but what do I know


b) They can ignore those facts. In this case they're so brainwashed by *insert random religion* that they simply can't accept facts if they go against their religion. Several reasons for this...upbringing, traumatic experience, partner...whatever. In my opinion, being shown facts and then ignoring them is the pinacle of brainwashing and ignorance, and I don't know of many who actually started accepting facts once they were in that state. In fact, I know of only 1 person on these boards who manned-up and was able to admit he was wrong all along.

I value objective evidence above all, and yeah, I'm probably not the friendliest person to people who show that much ignorance. And if that's how they make decisions and VOTE, then I'm kinda sad there's no basic intelligence test in order to allow people to vote. I mean, we don't let children vote because they aren't intelligent enough (aka still learning), so why should we let people vote who also don't possess this intelligence??



posted on Nov, 16 2011 @ 02:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by 0010110011101

Originally posted by edmc^2
reply to post by Kryties
 


Where have you been man? Were you living under a rock?



Is this any type of language for a god fearing man?

Why can't you debate the topic civilly without resorting to that sort of comment?


OK - you got me there. my apologies, just got carried away (not meant to insult but a metaphor - since all info with regards to the Genome Project are readily available).

Unless one is not aware of these massive info then what else can I say? So I was really surprised that the question was even asked.

But in any case, my apologies.



posted on Nov, 16 2011 @ 02:33 PM
link   
Let science answer the What questions and let religion answer the why questions.

All the way through time Science has knocked down what was ground of religion - Ancient Greeks believed that the sun was being moved by the God Apollo, Zeus was sending thunder bolts of lightning to Earth to punish people.... the list goes on. And so science has overturned these with its own explanation and we look back and scarily confine this religion (perfectly reasonable at the time) to an embarrassing "mythology".

So what now.
- We can date things accurately for approx. 1,000 years due to tree rings (dendrochronology). There are enough examples to get accurate dating
- We then have Carbon Dating, a proven scientific formulaic decay which overlaps with tree rings. So we can prove carbon dating near the end of 1,000 years with tree rings (and indeed other techniques including phosphorescence)
- We then have other radio active elements that are much longer half life that can then cross validate Carbon 14

A simple Scan for fossil dating techniques will bring more detail about these proven techniques that show the Earth to be much much older than 4,000 years



posted on Nov, 16 2011 @ 02:37 PM
link   
reply to post by edmc^2
 


Yes, going back to that subject...have you seen MrXYZ's post with the truckload of sources answering all your questions and conclusively proving we are right? If not, here is the link for you if you could not be bothered going back one page and finding it....

www.abovetopsecret.com...

He did such a fine job debunking this ridiculous topic that I would hate for his post to be ignored and go to waste....



posted on Nov, 16 2011 @ 02:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by Atzil321
reply to post by InnerstellarOne
 
If the earth and everything on it was totally destroyed today, the universe would continue to exist without us. The idea that it was created solely for us is absurd in the extreme.



Consider this my friend.

You cannot destroy the earth. You cannot destroy one single thing on earth. YOU do not have that kind of power.

It is an excepted Law of science that matter can be neither created nor destroyed. It can simple be transformed from one state of matter to another.

Every single atom in existence MUST exist in its proper place and behave according to it's proper law.

I am eternal and so are you.

The form is all that changes.

Ashes to ashes, dust to dust.

But what is that energy that raises that dust from the earth and animates it?

With Love,

Your Brother



posted on Nov, 16 2011 @ 02:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kryties
reply to post by edmc^2
 


Yes, going back to that subject...have you seen MrXYZ's post with the truckload of sources answering all your questions and conclusively proving we are right? If not, here is the link for you if you could not be bothered going back one page and finding it....

www.abovetopsecret.com...

He did such a fine job debunking this ridiculous topic that I would hate for his post to be ignored and go to waste....


Thanks for the link - I'm actually reading them - but will take a while to get thru them so I'll be back later.

tc



posted on Nov, 16 2011 @ 02:44 PM
link   
reply to post by jerryk42
 





I completly agree, not to mention it would be a monumental waste of space.


But this is just speculation that can be refuted by more speculation.



posted on Nov, 16 2011 @ 02:50 PM
link   
I agree, too long, too loud, to bright, it's moot anyway, I believe. I would like the ATS members to start using 'their original thoughts', anybody can copy the vast amount of youtube media, it takes a bit more effort to expound an original thought... and be the author of that thought or idea.



posted on Nov, 16 2011 @ 02:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sailor Sam
reply to post by edmc^2
 


Just watched the video, it is still only saying what people BELIEVE, no factual evidence at all.
Verdict - No compelling and convincing evidence. Just religious dogma masquerading as fact.
Sorry.


Really? Did you watch the video? This SCIENTIFIC based EVIDENCE. This is not guess work. Think you can figure out the programming of DNA? No? Do you know how to use an electron microscope so you can delve into some of it? No?

This video has nothing to do with dogma. It is a wonderful, educational experience.


I am amazed that people complain about not wanting to watch it. So I ask those you....how much time did you waste browsing pointless posts and topics today here on ATS and others? Yet you are unable or unwilling to devote less than an hour of that time to look at the question regarding the origin of life. Blah......


It is simple. So let me dumb all of this down for those of you having a hard time with the big words:

A SINGLE protien in one of the trillion+ cells in your body is more complex than the computer you are using to read this post.

Chew on that for awhile.



posted on Nov, 16 2011 @ 02:54 PM
link   
reply to post by randyvs
 


Personally I think the word 'monumental' is an understatement.

As an aside, how does a creationist explain the reason for the existence of a Universe that, up until extremely recently, we never knew existed? By that I mean we could see the stars, we knew of the planets of our solar system......but what about everything beyond that? The trillions of galaxies, each holding several hundred billion stars - we never knew about ANY of that. So why, if we are to believe in intelligent design, was it created? What's the point of it?

Last time I checked scientists estimated somewhere in the region of 10^96 stars - that's the number 10 with 96 zeroes after it - in our observable Universe. Why? What's the point of someone creating all that just for little old us who, up until the last few decades, never knew it existed?



posted on Nov, 16 2011 @ 02:59 PM
link   
reply to post by westcoast
 


I asked twice for a simple summary - not only because I didn't particularly want to watch it if it was going to be nonsense, but also for those who couldn't watch the video because of bandwidth restrictions, work etc etc. You didn't think of this did you?

Even after asking multiple times I still received no response. So the only thing to infer, based on the way the OP worded the post, the bible verse he added underneath and what other posters said after watching it, was the video is complete gibberish.



posted on Nov, 16 2011 @ 03:00 PM
link   
The earth's age is such a non-issue. Does the Bible say God created Adam as a one day old infant? No, he was created as an adult who could walk and talk with God and handle responsibilities with the animals. So why would God create the world as a one day old rock? Or the universe full of one day old stars?



posted on Nov, 16 2011 @ 03:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by jjkenobi
The earth's age is such a non-issue. Does the Bible say God created Adam as a one day old infant? No, he was created as an adult who could walk and talk with God and handle responsibilities with the animals.


I have to say he did a magnificent job on the responsibility thing eh! It took him and Eve how long to eat the apple they weren't supposed to?



So why would God create the world as a one day old rock? Or the universe full of one day old stars?


Why create the Universe at all if we can't see most of it?
edit on 16/11/2011 by Kryties because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 16 2011 @ 03:04 PM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 


X ! The video with Tyson amounts to biased opinion that the harshness of the universe, where there is no life out there mind you. None physical and intelligent for the matter at hand anyways. Suggests that there is no such thing as a benevolent spiritual creator God. When the earth obviously does suggest all of that and what gives him the right to critisize his own life support system ? All he is responsible for creating is doubt in his and most of the scientific communuties view of NATURALISM. IMO.



posted on Nov, 16 2011 @ 03:07 PM
link   
reply to post by randyvs
 


LOL you've just dismissed the video as 'biased opinion' using your own biased opinion. Nicely done there mate!



posted on Nov, 16 2011 @ 03:07 PM
link   
Here's another link showing exactly how scientists apply the theory to create medicine, and why it's essential. If the theory were wrong, we wouldn't have many of the antibiotics we have today for example.

LINK

This link shows a couple of videos with people explaining exactly how the theory is applied in medicine.



new topics

top topics



 
32
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join