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

reply to post by Kryties

Why create the Universe at all if we can't see most of it?

Why ? I can speculate some damn good answers to that from a creationsts view. Where are even the speculations from yours ?

Originally posted by randyvs
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.

It's called critical thinking Randy

And we can't know if there's other life out there or not, the amount of space we examined is so ridiculously small, we simply don't know yet. As for there being a creator or not, we simply don't know...having said that, there's zero objective proof for his/her/it's existence. But you already know I'd say that

reply to post by randyvs


I don't need to speculate mate. The Universe exists because it does, not because it was put there for our benefit.

reply to post by edmc^2


If you're trying to convince people of how the genetic structure is "programmed" because of its complexity, then you're going to have to convince people of how atoms are diverse too, considering atoms make up even the genetic structure.

And what makes up atoms? I guess creationists would have to ponder if our God has gods of his own

reply to post by MrXYZ


Ofcourse I knew that. You've certainly drilled it home .

But you don't even ask yourself, why dosen't it make a difference or have any effect ? Because I accept the premise of spiritualism beyond the premise of your naturalism. I go beyond the belief that there is only the here
and now that we can see, because it makes sense in my mind. The sense I make of that is the evidence you refuse to see and yet amounts to my faith, in everything that has come to us, from an unseen dimension that even physicists point too. Other dimensions pal. Unseen and invisible yes. You believe man is it . The highest form of sentient. I scoff at that in a big way.

Originally posted by Kryties
reply to post by randyvs

 

I don't need to speculate mate. The Universe exists because it does, not because it was put there for our benefit.

And I can understand why you believe that. With so many examples of things existing because they just do.
We just exist because we just do.

You can't escape the ridicule in that ! It's assinine.

Originally posted by randyvs
reply to post by MrXYZ

 

Ofcourse I knew that. You've certainly drilled home .

But you don't even ask yourself, why dosen't it make a difference or have any effect ? Because I accept the premise of spiritualism beyond the premise of your naturalism. I go beyond the belief that there is only the here
and know that we can see, because it makes sense in my mind. The sense I make of that is the evidence you refuse to see and yet amounts to my faith, in everything that has come to us, from an unseen dimension that even physicists point too. Other dimensions pal. Unseen and invisible yes. You believe man is it . the highest form of sentient. I scoff at that in a big way.

edit on 16-11-2011 by randyvs because: (no reason given)

I really don't care what people believe, as long as they don't ignore the facts and try to dump people down in the process. So if you want to believe what you believe, that's fine, I can't prove/disprove your claims. What I can do is point out when people are simply wrong...like when they claim a global flood happened, or that people really can live inside whales, or that evolution isn't a sound theory, stuff like that...

Originally posted by MrXYZ
or that people really can live inside whales

LOL, I had forgotten all about that little tale in the bible. I can remember thinking, even as a kid, how on Earth did Jonah survive without being at least partially digested? I think I asked my teacher who promptly changed the subject....

reply to post by MrXYZ


And I can't take it away from you X you do that well. But if there is a God who has all power over his creation.
Of which you know nothing about do to your own admission.
( premise accepted ) , and he says in a letter to you this is what he put Job thru. I'm thinking it damn well must have happened. Maybe to give you something to ridicule in my mind.

As he knew you and those like you and Tyson would. So look TF out brother. He won't take it lightly in the end.
And the end is something you might want to deny next while you're at it. No fear just fact concerning that end.

Consider your mortallity for crips sakes. The fool says God dosen't exist, then comes death then judgement.
I know of no book that makes these kinds of warnings. Warnings that make sense.

reply to post by randyvs


You're stating a BELIEF, the belief that god will somehow be mad if you don't believe in him (even though he left no objective evidence whatsoever). That's your right, but given that it isn't based on logic and hard evidence, I opt out, sorry

Won't stop you from believing that though...

To quote Ricky Gervais:"If god hates atheists, why did he create them???"

reply to post by randyvs

off topic
We just had a strong quake here in apple valley. Scared the crap out of my wife.

Nothing on the maps of it. Spooky, all the dogs in the hood went off at the same time so something is up.

Back on topic. Would you believe if the ground opened up and swallowed my ass as I was talking to you ?

Forgive me.

Originally posted by randyvs
reply to post by randyvs

 

off topic
We just had a strong quake here in apple valley. Scared the crap out of my wife.

edit on 16-11-2011 by randyvs because: (no reason given)

Oh, you live close to friends of mine in Ontario and Upland. Experienced quite a view earthquakes there over the years

Could it be that if a god exists, he's really pissed off at you spending time on ATS instead of with your wife? Just sayin'...

Hope no glasses dropped

After watching the first 10 minutes I feel like I've lost braincells. There is nothing new here, it is simply the mindless argument of "the world is to complicated to have happened by accident". I refute this by saying "the world is to complicated to have been designed.

If you keep your mind constrained to your simply human thoughts, you will have to seek an irrational explanation (i.e. religion) to rationalise your existence. The real fact is that at the end of the day our existence in this universe is irrelevant. We are just another carbon chemical structure.

I do not have to bring up all the facts which debunk the idea of creationism, simply because creationists burry their heads in the sand and bring forth videos with no new facts or information, just other irrational propagandised and meaningless explanations. At the end of the day, you fear of death compells you to find some meaning to your life, the sooner you realise that life is to be lived, as it is irrelevant in this universe, the sooner you will start living.

Originally posted by ChaoticOrder
reply to post by edmc^2

 

A program does not infer a programmer.

With that said, this looks like a very interesting doco regardless of what the final message may be. I've only watched a few minutes so far but it seems decent enough to waste 45 mins on. S&F.

No programmer(s), no programming. One does imply the other. It simply doesnt imply what our religions tell us. Some of this stuff has already been uncovered or glimpsed at in pieces here and there in science, such as the holgoraphic universe. Holograms ARE constructs. Nothing randomly pops into creation as a singularity.

The most logical look at existence and intelligences would be to look at the double slit experiment. And how even when one electron was shot through the slit, an interference pattern is made, as if that one electron interacts with itself and all the possibilities are real until something takes the snapshot.

So we could ask why something and not nothing and realize that all expressions of something/nothing and what lies inbetween those states exists. Is it Conscious? Again, all expressions of this would exist, from animate energies/intelligences, to inanimate, in infinite variety and infinite expressions of variety. And infinity means no measurements can be taken so there is no time, its all at once. Given that progression seems to be coded, a kind of evolution, it would imply progression of intelligences as well.

Back to holograms are constructs. Order was never out of chaos.

I've found interesting articles on the holographic evidence not only in the universe but it can be implied in cellular as well.

Originally posted by alfa1

Originally posted by edmc^2
But of course I would rather want you to watch the program and decide for yourself

It is 44 minutes long.
You're going to have to "sell" it a but harder if you want "evolutionists" to watch it, considering that most of us have heard the same tired old arguments rehashed many times over the years.
How do we know there is anything new or original in this video?


Edit - skipping through the video, its actually what I said earlier, just a rehash of the "all too improbable to have happened by chance" argument, which goes back at least to William Paley in 1802.
Basically, just another creationist lie, since no evolutionary biologist would say that process happened by chance.
Its called "physics".

edit on 16-11-2011 by alfa1 because: (no reason given)

Having watched the full video, yep, you're right. More of the same BS from creationists who can't seem to accept truth, facts and evidence.

Shame really but meh, up to them really.

If it's impossible to get something from absolutely nothing, then we live in an eternal evolutionary recurrance, framed by a fully informed akashic field, and thus "God" is everything, everywhere and always now and forever. If then we can become fully present to the eternally unfolding present moment in conscious awareness, without judgement, then we are already in God now, with God in us. The question then to the materialist monist (matter is primary) atheists, involves the notion that the first/last cause in the ongoing creative process, already always, is consciousness as the very fount of creativity, of which we are it's highest expression as self consciously aware beings with freedom, and in this way we are "made in the image of God" where God is the self aware being or ground of being and becoming underlying the outward physical appearance of a differentiated "world". Also, within a monistic idealist framework (consciousness, not matter is primary), all the quantum paradoxes are resolved satisfactorily, the only "issue" if there is one then being that the choosing self must therefore reside within a non-local, quantum holographic domain, as an uncaused cause. Intent of the will which gives rise to creative action then, if founded on love as a first cause, is synonymous with the creative will of God where love is the reason for the cause (causation).

"My food is to do the will of the one who sent me."

Christian fundamentalists need to break with the brainwashing, and then become Christian mystics.

The sceptic and the atheist is further along than the fundamentalist literalist, but definitely not as far as the mystic who is interested in the knowledge of spirtual experience, in the awareness and appreciation of the truth and the life and the reality, as it really is, now. In other words we are IN the evidence already, and are it, and are surrounded by it, and this in this way God's glory is plainly seen and thus we have no excuse. The "difficulty" of the materialist atheist however is that of a contemptuous bias, prior to, investigation, who's only certainty is that of keep a person in everlasting ignorance.

It is only a fool who says in his innermost heart of hearts "there is no God". That is also absurd.

So it's not an either/or proposition, but a both/end, currently framed by ignorance, on BOTH sides of the "debate".

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....

Man... that was a shock reading this headline:

DNA Evidence Confirms Humans and Neanderthals Mated

That human must have drunked a barrel of beer to have mated to a "Neanderthal".

Check out the mug of the dude!



Anyway here's the opening statement of website you've (X) provided:

A study led by Damian Labuda of the University of Montreal suggests that nine percent of modern-day humans may carry a bit of Neanderthal DNA on one of their sex chromosomes. “This confirms recent findings suggesting that the two populations interbred,” says Labuda, according to ScienceDaily. The fragment, found on the X chromosome, appears worldwide, except for among individuals from sub-Saharan Africa; this lends credence to the theory that Neanderthals and humans interbred between 50,000 and 80,000 years ago, after humans left Africa. Read more: newsfeed.time.com...

Who would "suggests that nine percent of modern-day humans may carry a bit of Neanderthal DNA on one of their sex chromosomes" but evolutionist scientists? No surprise there.

And from this suggestion, evolutionist readily accept it as a fact. Interesting.

So humans existed with neanderthals - interesting. Any idea who "evolved" first and who is the parent?

Wait - the neanderthal needed to "evolve" first so that it can mate with the highly evolved humans? Right? No?

So what prompted the human to mate with the "Neanderthal" dude? Love at first sight or survival of the fittest?

Wait - but if humans are the fittest why "mate" with a dying species - that is if these "Neanderthals" really existed at all - apart from the imaginations of evolutionists.

I wonder. What's your "theory"?

later...

reply to post by Jim Scott

I like how it shows that it takes DNA to make proteins, and proteins to make DNA.

Don't take this the wrong way, nor is it intended as an insult.

Folks, statements like this just further goes to show the blaring ignorance of creationists. This is the very thing video's such as this mental poison feed off of to turn a quick buck, either through direct dvd sales, or through advertisement space during commercial breaks on television.

In no way is DNA *REQUIRED* to make proteins. Proteins, even those found within the DNA structure form naturally and are very plentiful all throughout the vacuum of space. I forget the exact name of the experiment right now as I'm posting this, but an experiment was done in which proteins were synthesized by simulating the then current thought of conditions of early Earth. DNA is not a requirement to create these proteins at all.

Nor is DNA a 'programming language'. It's simply a biochemical process. You mix two compounds together, they explode (an example). In life's case, we mix certain compounds together and under the right conditions, we eventually end up with self replicating compounds. These self replicating compounds eventually become more complex over time, eventually leading to a bunch of dimwitted ignorant creationist who question the very thing that DOES make our universe special and instead subscribe to the ignorant belief that some unseen and unproven force one day decided to create a vast cosmos for one barbaric species that wars with itself, kills it's own kind, destroys it's only home, causes massive amounts of species to go extinct, levels mountains, clear cuts forest, ruins our only drinking supplies, rapes children, enslaves its own kind, the list goes on. In the name of God.

Yes, God loves us and created a vast universe we can't even utilize nor ever will, because despite our barbaric warlike destructive tendencies, we're oh so special.

reply to post by edmc^2


Wait...are you claiming Neanderthals didn't exist? Really?

And of course only a small % of modern humans share a small percentage of Neanderthal DNA given that that species died out over 30,000 years ago and was also geographically limited to defined regions. Kinda hard to keep those traits if none of them are around anymore...we also don't have thick hair all over our bodies anymore, even though our ancestors did.

Everyone in this thread please watch these two short videos: