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.
so god created everything including himself?.....
Originally posted by Mystery_Lady
Originally posted by fatdad
the creator is beyond time..
Originally posted by octotom
reply to post by alienesque
if everything needs a creator then so does the creator
Not if the creator is beyond time.
that has to be the lamest excuse for not answering a question.... i worship the god who created god -who created god =infinate..
God is beyond time, because he created time. There are many things that we don't know and never will while on this Earth. God has hidden many, many mysteries from us.
Originally posted by nophun
reply to post by Sirius20
That said, the Cambrian explosion of life does not disprove Darwin's theory. There is good explanations. This argument is a pretty bad one from the creationists.
First off 530 million years ago fossils would be much more rare, you know the whole lack of bones or a shell thing.
Actually, there have been plenty of fossils of Ediacara biota of disk and tube shaped organisms that thrived during the era before the Cambrian explosion 542 million years ago. The thing is, they don't fit at all into the tree of life. Based on Darwin's theory, everything comes from something previously before it by getting rid of the useless traits and keeping the strong ones to adapt to nature. If these organisms can't be classified in any of our current species that are thriving on Earth today, that creates a fallacy in Darwin's theory.
You cannot change the dates of the beginning of time so you cannot argue these points anyways. no matter if you believe that the bible is the word of God or written by some divine humans ... surely they would not screw up the start date of the world by hundreds of millions of years ?
I never mentioned the beginning of time or anything about who wrote the bible or the start date mentioned in there. That has nothing to do with what I asked.
You are trying to sound logical but ignore the fact there is nothing (zero) backing the Bible (any of them) as a factual history book.
You assume that I'm a creationist because I'm asking you a question that is a big red flag in your theory? That's being quick to judge there. I never mentioned anything about me even believing in the bible or any religion at all, just that I wouldn't use it as a reference. I have no religious beliefs. I have a sort of spirituality, but no religious beliefs. You're just trying to dodge the question. There were fossil records and they don't relate at all to what the Cambrian explosion created so you're first answer to my question still doesn't answer it.
There is no argument in the science world, Just because a few crazy "scientist" believe in god so much they refuse evolution. Does not disprove evolution. QUIT trying to disprove evolution with one question. We are the ones with scientific proof of our claims.
Well your scientific proof doesn't explain a big flaw in your theory so one question can disprove evolution and it's sounding more like you're blindly defending a believe that you don't know is 100% factual. This is called faith as well. Take a second and look at your point of view from a neutral standpoint. You don't know as a fact that Darwin's theory is correct. If there is something that disproves something as being false or that needs an update, why wouldn't you pursue that answer and try and figure it out? Why is it so important for you to defend this belief? Are you afraid of being wrong? Would it hurt your ego? And those few crazy "scientists" are thinking outside of the box. I am not saying they are correct in bringing religion into science, but I admire them for thinking outside of the box and sticking by their beliefs, just as I admire you for you sticking by your belief. I assume you want to know the truth as I do right so why stick to any belief. Sure you can use beliefs as stepping stones in a way, but why do we have to get attached to them and viciously defend them? It seems almost counter-productive. Like we disprove something in our past to replace it with the now, only to have it be replaced again in the future. And yet here we are still defending belief systems that could very well be proven false in the future. I'm sure you've probably heard this quote before, but I think it fits well with what I just said. "Insanity is continuing to do the same thing over and over again, and expecting different results."
[edit on 31-1-2010 by Sirius20]
But evolution, Darwinism, is pure theory - no facts whatsoever
Originally posted by factbeforefiction
There are scientific facts, and there are religious facts, both also contain a lot of theories. But evolution, Darwinism, is pure theory - no facts whatsoever, quite a few lies over the years as well that proved to be as much of a hoax as the classic photograph of the Loch Ness Monster.
I'm just a casual observer of the creationism versus darwinism debate but I can't help thinking that it is being conducted in a very restricted way.
The creationist side seems to be limited to criticisms, some of them quite intriguing, of the process of "natural selection" said to be responsible for evolution, while putting forward no alternative with which science can grapple.
Evolutionists on the other hand, seem unable to take valid criticisms seriously and also unable to conceive of alternate forms of creationism beside the classic one furnished by the book of Genesis.
This gives a very bad impression to someone observing the debate from a religious vantage point innocent of the Bible.
Personally, I think that some form of creationism must be a part of the evolution of species. In fact I think that it must be the most important part, although I think that natural selection is the major factor in species extinction.
Even in modern darwinism, the real impetus for evolution is not natural selection, but genetic mutation. Strictly speaking, genetic mutation gives us new species while natural selection simply determines which of the new species will survive.
As near as I can tell this is where the rubber truly meets the road in the debate we are discussing. Creationism's most interesting criticism of the so-called "theory of evolution" is that genetic mutation is not a sufficient mechanism to explain the evidence that the fossil record gives us.
I'm only an observer of this debate, as I said, not a scientist with a vested interest or an adherent of any religion that takes the book of Genesis seriously, but I suspect what we might realize as we move forward in the study of genetics is that we ourselves are the creators of new species.
What I mean by that is that I think we will find that our genes change according to our life experience, including our desires, and in fact, every member of every species participates in the creation of the future of the species. Thus creationism, I believe, will win out in the end, but not the version that most "creationists" currently espouse.
Before I went to university I was a staunch darwinist and took it as fact that we evolved from monkeys over millions of years... But after 8 years of study (Geophysics), I found that the whole theory did not hold water (irreducable complexity etc) and that quite a lot of the so-called evidences that supported the theory were in fact falsified (e.g. Lucy)...
Originally posted by Selahobed
I found that the whole theory did not hold water (irreducable complexity etc) and that quite a lot of the so-called evidences that supported the theory were in fact falsified (e.g. Lucy)...