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.

 

Creationism takes less faith

page: 11
4
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 20 2013 @ 12:20 PM
link   
reply to post by AfterInfinity
 


"God wasn't created. He simply has always been and always will be. That is scientifically incompatible."...this logic could also apply to the universe...forever existing ...



posted on Sep, 20 2013 @ 12:20 PM
link   

ServantOfTheLamb

Nostrenominon



I would also like to note that many Atheist claim a mass of energy outside our understanding of time is what caused the Big Bang...Oh so its outside this realm of existence and has the ability to create an entirely new dimension, and does so randomly, and we got lucky and landed the star dust that created us landed in the right place? Well that takes a lot more faith than saying something with intelligence put that course of action into existence and that is why we exist. You are assuming that their is no intelligent life outside this realm of existence, but yet you can assume that their was energy outside this realm of existence...if it was just a mass of energy(Spirit) could it not have a will?

I would like to also add that I only argue from a Christian stand point.


I would also like to add that there is more evidence of the Big Bang theory than evidence of an intelligent creator.

So in short, no, it doesn't take more faith to believe in something that more evidence exists for.

Case closed.


I would like to point out that I never said I disagree with the Big Bang theory? I said that it is more logical to assume an intelligent being guided the process, rather than assume everything happened by random chance.


Yeah well you still sound batsh** crazy. How can it be more logical to assume something that absolutely zero evidence exists for, as opposed to the surmounting evidence to the contrary?

I'm not saying I know what happened, but that's irrelevant. What is relevant is evidence. Science is based on evidence, and since you're throwing words like "logic" around, you should adhere to your own words.

Basically you just said, "It's more logical to assume something that zero evidence exists for, than to assume something happened that some evidence exists for."

Nothing has been proved or disproved yet, but logically, what you're saying makes ZERO sense. But that's not really surprising since you're a Christian.



posted on Sep, 20 2013 @ 12:24 PM
link   
reply to post by toktaylor
 



"God wasn't created. He simply has always been and always will be. That is scientifically incompatible."...this logic could also apply to the universe...forever existing ...


Sure, but at least we can prove the universe exists.



posted on Sep, 20 2013 @ 12:31 PM
link   

toktaylor
reply to post by ServantOfTheLamb
 


on the first day light and day and night were created, (though the sun and moon
were not created until the fourth day....this cannot be supported by science or common sense thus genesis is clearly based on a fable.

Why do you think that light is the sun? He defines day as being in the presence of light and darkness as night. Light exist can exist without the sun. So yes if you use a bit of common sense it can easily be supported by science.



posted on Sep, 20 2013 @ 12:32 PM
link   
reply to post by ServantOfTheLamb
 

Never said anything other than it being a poor example to try to point out whatever a "genetic barrier" is supposed to be.



posted on Sep, 20 2013 @ 12:37 PM
link   

toktaylor
reply to post by AfterInfinity
 


"God wasn't created. He simply has always been and always will be. That is scientifically incompatible."...this logic could also apply to the universe...forever existing ...




1) The universe is running down, and something that is running down must have started at some point. The second law of thermodynamics states that the universe is running out of usable energy and if you doubt this, look in the mirror (you’re aging and running down just like everything else). (2) The universe is expanding. This was confirmed through the Hubble telescope many years ago, and it is interesting to note that the universe is expanding from a single point, meaning the entire universe could be contracted back into a single point. Also, note that the universe is not expanding into space, but space itself is expanding. (3) The radiation echo was discovered by Bell Labs scientists in 1965. What is it? It is the heat afterglow from the Big Bang. Its discovery dealt a death blow to any theory of the universe being in a steady state because it shows instead that the universe exploded. (4) Galaxy Seeds. Scientists believe that, if the Big Bang is true (first, there was nothing, then, BANG, something came into being), then temperature “ripples” should exist in space, and it would be these ripples that enabled matter to collect into galaxies. To discover whether these ripples exist, the Cosmic Background Explorer – COBE – was launched in 1989 to find them, with the findings being released in 1992. What COBE found was perfect/precise ripples that, sure enough, enable galaxies to form. So critical and spectacular was this finding that the NASA lead for COBE, said, “If you’re religious, it’s like looking at God.” (5) Albert Einstein’s theory of relativity means that the universe had a beginning and was not eternal as he had previously believed (Einstein was originally a pantheist). His theory proved that the universe is not a cause, but instead one big effect—something brought it into existence. Einstein disliked his end result so much that he introduced a “fudge factor” into his theory that allowed for an eternal universe. But there was only one problem. His fudge factor required a division by zero in his calculations—a mathematical error any good math student knows not to make. When discovered by other mathematicians, Einstein admitted his error calling it “the greatest blunder of my life.” After his acknowledgment, and upon confirming further research that showed the universe expanding just as his theory of relativity predicted, Einstein bowed to the fact that the universe is not eternal and said that he wanted “to know how God created the world.” Read more: www.gotquestions.org...



posted on Sep, 20 2013 @ 12:39 PM
link   
reply to post by ServantOfTheLamb
 


Way to take information from biased blogs. Try using something OTHER than a Christian website for your research, okay?

My point stands.

FYI:


Einstein referred to his belief system as "cosmic religion" and authored an eponymous article on the subject in 1954, which later became his book Ideas and Opinions in 1955.[37] The belief system recognized a "miraculous order which manifests itself in all of nature as well as in the world of ideas," devoid of a personal God who rewards and punishes individuals based on their behavior.


en.wikipedia.org...

'Miraculous order' seems a fine way to paraphrase what I described in the post I linked above.
edit on 20-9-2013 by AfterInfinity because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 20 2013 @ 12:40 PM
link   
reply to post by ServantOfTheLamb
 

Your just making excuses for the holes in your creation myth.



posted on Sep, 20 2013 @ 12:45 PM
link   
reply to post by AfterInfinity
 


Lol because they are Christian means they are incapable of understanding science.....you people....



posted on Sep, 20 2013 @ 12:50 PM
link   
Since this thread has started to talk about the second law of thermodynamics, I am going to make sure that a correct definition is applied before anyone tries to use it to argue against evolution.

Here is a great refutation of it in the middle of a giant refutation of a Gish Gallop of another Creationist propaganda drivel.

Rational Wiki

First the Creationist claim:


The Bible and Entropy Isaiah 51:6, Psalm 102:25, 26 and Hebrews 1:11 indicate the earth is wearing out, and concludes this is about the Second Law of Thermodynamics (the law of Increase Entropy) and defines it as: that in all physical process, every ordered system over time tends to become more disordered.


Now the debunk:


This is false. The second law of thermodynamics says no such thing that everything leads to disorder. It says that heat will not spontaneously flow from a colder body to a warmer one or, equivalently, that total entropy (a measure of useful energy) in a closed system will not decrease. This does not prevent increasing order.


By the way I recommend reading the rest of this link. Many of the same claims that are being presented in this very thread are made on that link and subsequently refuted.
edit on 20-9-2013 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 20 2013 @ 12:51 PM
link   
reply to post by ServantOfTheLamb
 


I am eagerly awaiting to be enlighten as to how daylight exist without the presence of stars/suns...not to mention that based on the bible there are two contradictory creations stories highlighted in Genesis. Clearly they both cant be correct or maybe the simpliest explanation is the truth..they are BOTH incorrect.



posted on Sep, 20 2013 @ 12:55 PM
link   
reply to post by ServantOfTheLamb
 



Lol because they are Christian means they are incapable of understanding science.....you people....


Here. Here. And here. Here too. And let's not forget this one either.

All of those threads linked above are huge examples of how creationists tend to demonstrate their lack of scientific understanding. Not because they're creationists necessarily...and not because they are incapable. They've just demonstrated a lack of willingness to be fully informed before challenging an idea that was crafted by thousands of scientists who are paid to ensure that our future leaders are armed to the teeth with accurate information by which to protect, educate, and lead our world.

So...yeah. They're not incapable. They've just chosen to neglect their education.



posted on Sep, 20 2013 @ 12:57 PM
link   
reply to post by Krazysh0t
 


Would you then argue with the elaboration I included in that post?



posted on Sep, 20 2013 @ 01:01 PM
link   

ServantOfTheLamb

toktaylor
reply to post by ServantOfTheLamb
 


on the first day light and day and night were created, (though the sun and moon
were not created until the fourth day....this cannot be supported by science or common sense thus genesis is clearly based on a fable.

Why do you think that light is the sun? He defines day as being in the presence of light and darkness as night. Light exist can exist without the sun. So yes if you use a bit of common sense it can easily be supported by science.


We need the sun to create DAY now, so what did god use to create DAY before the sun?



posted on Sep, 20 2013 @ 01:22 PM
link   
reply to post by AfterInfinity
 


Which post? The post you replied to wasn't replying to another post so can you tell me which one you are referring to please?



posted on Sep, 20 2013 @ 02:42 PM
link   
reply to post by Krazysh0t
 


The one mentioning entropy. Where I brought it up.



posted on Sep, 20 2013 @ 03:48 PM
link   
reply to post by AfterInfinity
 


I think I understand your post to mean that the universe works in a state of natural destruction, but sometimes through the process of destroying one thing it results in creating something else as a byproduct. If I read that wrong please correct me. If that is the case, I could see that being true. A great example of this is when stars go supernova. When this happens the star is destroyed, but in the process many heavier elements are created and dispersed into the cosmos.

Another good example that can actually be viewed is through chemical reactions. When a chemical reaction takes place, the chemicals in question breakdown into their component parts and refuse to different parts to create new chemicals with different atomic structures.

Or we can look at a tornado that sweeps up a bunch of trees in its path and deposits them into a river building a dam. The tornado destroyed the landscape but built a dam (albeit haphazardly) elsewhere.



posted on Sep, 20 2013 @ 06:41 PM
link   

toktaylor
reply to post by ServantOfTheLamb
 


I am eagerly awaiting to be enlighten as to how daylight exist without the presence of stars/suns...not to mention that based on the bible there are two contradictory creations stories highlighted in Genesis. Clearly they both cant be correct or maybe the simpliest explanation is the truth..they are BOTH incorrect.


Back up your statements homeboy



posted on Sep, 20 2013 @ 06:43 PM
link   

1104light

ServantOfTheLamb

toktaylor
reply to post by ServantOfTheLamb
 


on the first day light and day and night were created, (though the sun and moon
were not created until the fourth day....this cannot be supported by science or common sense thus genesis is clearly based on a fable.

Why do you think that light is the sun? He defines day as being in the presence of light and darkness as night. Light exist can exist without the sun. So yes if you use a bit of common sense it can easily be supported by science.


We need the sun to create DAY now, so what did god use to create DAY before the sun?


We call Day when the sun is up God calls Day the presence of light, and then tells us later that we will call determine day and night based upon the moon and sun.



posted on Sep, 20 2013 @ 06:52 PM
link   

ServantOfTheLamb
We call Day when the sun is up God calls Day the presence of light, and then tells us later that we will call determine day and night based upon the moon and sun.


Light from where?




top topics



 
4
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join