Creationism/Intelligent Design: PROVE IT!

reply to post by MrXYZ

Yes indeed, and what about this?

Originally posted by Seed76
First, virtual particles... are often offered as a counter example. From all i know, there is some debate over the existence of virtual particles.

Second, virtual particles are only hypothesized to pop into existence ‘uncaused’ on indeterministic interpretations of quantum mechanics like the Copenhagen Interpretation. But most interpretations of quantum mechanics are deterministic, and would not suppose that virtual particles come into existence uncaused.

Third... even on the indeterministic interpretation, particles do not come into being out of nothing. They arise as spontaneous fluctuations of the energy contained in the subatomic vacuum, which constitutes an indeterministic cause of their origination...

Certainly sounds like someone who knows what they're talking about... or wants you to think they do.

And then the fellow has the cheek to wonder how legit my knowledge is, like I haven't posted sources and links all the way through.

We were getting on so well, too.

reply to post by MrXYZ

Well, it's a really good argument unless you prove us wrong...and so far you failed miserably at it.

How have i failed, since in order to prove Creationism/ID, i must at first prove that God in scientific terms exists?? I have made it very clearly at my first post. Here is the quote, from my first post.

I haven´t read all 30 pages, but i presume we are still arguing what came first, the egg or the chicken. I mean after all the whole science is incapable to prove Creation. Since to prove Creation, we have first to prove God in terms of science which is impossible. At the moment all we can say a created world is a world which might not have existed at all. Perhaps this is the best definition of Creation.

Now please explain to me how can i prove God in Scientific terms???? Please do not get me wrong. I am a very open minded person. I love science as much i love my religion. Sure i can bring the old arguments, entropy etc., but why should i do that, since all of that is already proven.

We're not even attacking your lack of knowledge, we're attacking your incredible ignorance at looking at facts. People on here post links to scientific sources for crying out loud...and your best counter arguments are that we are attacking you and that you don't believe science because it contradicts your word view. Sad really...

It really felt that i was been attacked from all sides, and tried it to keep it civil as possible. Yes, i know that persons here are posting links with science, and i read them all. The only problem that i have, is that i am very critical mind. I simply do not believe blindly in science books and links. The same thing applies to religion books.

And when someone says to me , you wrong and post link from Quantum Mechanics, how should i react??? When someone does that, there are two options, either that person has incredible knowledge of Quantum Mechanics, or a person blindly believes that whatever is posted is 100% the truth. But Quantum Mechanics is not 100% proven.But besides that, the whole "origin" question involves cosmology, cosmogony, the philosophy of time, the philosophy of mathematics, modal logic, and many other complex subjects.

Now what is so arrogance at my stance??? Am i arrogant cause i simply reject something that is not 100%Proven??? or am i arrogant cause i am simply keeping an open and critical mind???. Am i arrogant cause i do not believe blindly in books?? or am i arrogant because i keep an open mind to alternative theories????

You know what sad is??? Sad is that science now days, rejects anything that might cause a paradoxon. Sad is when people blindly following what is been written, and do not use their critical thinking. Sad is that people blindly following theories that not even proven. And really pisses me off, when people refuse to use their brains.

I am sorry if i have offended anyone with my posts here. Did not wanted to. And please accept that i will not post here anymore.

Peace

reply to post by Seed76


How can you be "in favor" of creationism after making a post like this:

The only problem that i have, is that i am very critical mind.

So you're admitting you can't prove god (aka a creator), yet you believe in creationism and disbelief scientific literature? You are NOT critical, you just don't like evidence that goes against your worldview. And no, scientists don't do the same thing...they back up their statements!

Originally posted by MrXYZ
reply to post by Seed76

 

How can you be "in favor" of creationism after making a post like this:

The only problem that i have, is that i am very critical mind.

So you're admitting you can't prove god (aka a creator), yet you believe in creationism and disbelief scientific literature? You are NOT critical, you just don't like evidence that goes against your worldview. And no, scientists don't do the same thing...they back up their statements!

I am not disbelieving anything. Neither Religion Neither Science. I am just keeping an open and critical mind.

Again please respect that i will not post here anymore.

Originally posted by Seed76
I am not disbelieving anything. Neither Religion Neither Science. I am just keeping an open and critical mind.

What would constitute valid evidence as proof of either?

Again please respect that i will not post here anymore.

And please respect that we'll continue to reply for as long as you do.

reply to post by Seed76

I am not disbelieving anything. Neither Religion Neither Science. I am just keeping an open and critical mind.

I can accept this.
But many haven't or can't consider Tri State.

i.e. Impartial.

reply to post by The Matrix Traveller


And look, it's yet another post ending a series of posts in which not a single person addressed the title of this thread.



I know there are creationists on this forum, I know that they think they have ample evidence for their claims, so why aren't they jumping at the chance to show the 'evolutionists' that we're wrong and they're right?

Creationism/Intelligent Design: PROVE IT!

reply to post by madnessinmysoul

I know that they think they have ample evidence for their claims, so why aren't they jumping at the chance to show the 'evolutionists' that we're wrong and they're right?

Well you seem to have all the answers. Please don't keep us all in suspense and tell us why. You may have something worth sharing ?

Originally posted by The Matrix Traveller
reply to post by madnessinmysoul

 

I know that they think they have ample evidence for their claims, so why aren't they jumping at the chance to show the 'evolutionists' that we're wrong and they're right?

Well you seem to have all the answers. Please don't keep us all in suspense and tell us why. You may have something worth sharing ?

edit on 20-11-2010 by The Matrix Traveller because: (no reason given)

Where did he claim to have all the answers? He was merely pointing out that not one of the last posts stuck to the subject of the thread.

reply to post by MrXYZ

I know that they think they have ample evidence for their claims, so why aren't they jumping at the chance to show the 'evolutionists' that we're wrong and they're right?

Try again....

Originally posted by The Matrix Traveller
reply to post by MrXYZ

 

I know that they think they have ample evidence for their claims, so why aren't they jumping at the chance to show the 'evolutionists' that we're wrong and they're right?

Try again....

In which part of that statement is he claiming he has all the answers? He's making statements about evolution that are 100% correct and scientifically proven. He never claimed to know how life started...

So you try again

reply to post by MrXYZ

so why aren't they jumping at the chance to show the 'evolutionists' that we're wrong and they're right?

I didn't know this thread was about

that we're wrong and they're right?

or have I missed something here?

I thought it was….

Creationism/Intelligent Design: PROVE IT!

reply to post by The Matrix Traveller


Actually, that's sort of the whole point of this thread. It's a chance for creationists to show that they are right and that 'evolutionists' are wrong.

If creationism is right, evolution is wrong....but the converse of that doesn't work. If evolution is wrong, creationism isn't necessarily right.

So, Creationism/Intelligent Design: PROVE IT!

reply to post by The Matrix Traveller


I definitely didn't say I had all the answers, or do I have to take the quote apart word by word to show you that I was making a very simple statement:

1: I know there are creationists on this board
2: I know they think that evolution is stupid
3: I know that they think creationism is right
4: I know that they think they have evidence for it
5: They aren't clamoring to this thread to prove creationism

Conclusion: I'm confused as to why people who are so certain of themselves aren't bothering to try and show other people stuff that has been asked for.

Originally posted by ChemBreather
If I see some proof that the animals build the pyramids, we can talk.

What on earth does this have to do with evolution and/or creationism, and who ever said anything about animals building anything? In fact, why would you even make such a dull comment? I think it's pretty obvious that animals don't build things. Alas, I have no proof that they built the pyramids. Can we still talk?

The reason for my dumb remark is that the pyramids were build before 'we' crawled out of monkey vagina, so our smart not-so-evolved monkeys must have built it to show us how smart they were before we inherited all their brains..

So.. what was the reason for making this "dumb remark?" We didn't even evolve from monkeys, but apes. Aside from the fact that the pyramids were created far after the evolution of the homo sapien. Primates had absolutey nothing to do with it. I suggest you consider re-checking your time lines before making such aimless comments.

I dont doubt that species change over time, but that general Freemason Darwin(Inbreeder)'s theory isnt worth discussing.. IMO ..

And, how does attacking Darwin's personal life help your case at all? Why does it matter that he came from an inbred family? Why would it matter if he were a mason? Einstein could've been retarded with leprosy and E would still equal MC^2.


Please, help me understand your post. Try to be a little less negative and little more informative.


Cheers,
Strype

reply to post by madnessinmysoul


I'll try again.....

I know that they think they have ample evidence for their claims, so why aren't they jumping at the chance to show the 'evolutionists' that we're wrong and they're right?

So what do you think is the reason for this?

That is quote;

why aren't they jumping at the chance to show the 'evolutionists' that we're wrong and they're right?

reply to post by The Matrix Traveller


I have a few ideas, but I wouldn't like to accuse any of the members. However, the possibility could be:

1: They have absolutely no evidence or way to prove their position.
2: They're afraid of having their ideas challenged.
3: They don't understand science.
4: They find it useless to get into these sorts of debates

...or maybe it's something else. I honestly don't know at all.

reply to post by madnessinmysoul


Thank you for your honest answer.

I believe you are correct.

I accept “The Theory of Evolution” as I have said in the Past.

But as a result of R&D on a full time basis, I have also come to accept ID, but perhaps it is not in the way most on ATS would see it or understand it.

I believe it is impossible to generalise on this subject and you certainly can’t dump those who suspect or even believe in the possibility of ID, into a large bin called "religion".

Most of the people I keep in contact with, have never been exposed to Western religion, and very few of them are even religious, even though the main religion is Buddhism, so we don’t generally go there and discus religion as there is No point.

As to detecting the source of this Intelligence, is an extremely difficult task, as it involves detecting something which is both “non-dimensional” and Partitioned. So the Work I have been involved with, over some 16 years or more, is still in its infant stages.

We can theorise, to how it all came about and what has happened since. Much of this Intelligent communication has been seen and recorded by drawing down the Glyphs that have been seen, and some understanding of the operating system has been gained.
I might add at this point all of us including yourself are not independent of this Intelligence, which seems to appear through everything.

The reason being I say this "Intelligence" is "non-Dimensional" is that I have seen No evidence suggesting that this intelligence is Dimensional. It is however generally accepted amongst our group that this Intelligence is partitioned, witnessed by what has been discovered.
The “Partition Maps” I have shown in other threads are from observation and any one living can see this themselves without the aid of anything else, other than themselves.

I refer to these "Partitions" as Souls as there is no other label I can put on them.
But sadly this is attacked by “superstition” and “religious bigots”.

If I had another title to give these "Partitions" I certainly would.

I have come across many who have an interest in this subject, but it is usually associated indirectly with the work they are involved in or with.
I keep in regular contact with many who have a common interest in this area, often communicating and occasionally get together as a group to discuss findings further.
So there is some research going on, but it is early days yet.
A lot has been discovered but is still being analysed.

But as I have said to prove something "non-dimensional" and not "material" is certainly not a simple task by any stretch of the imagination.

Whatever we may discover is still subject to “human understanding” or “Interpretation” and is by no means absolute, whether it be what I am involved with, or any other Scientific observations which is involved with new areas of discovery.

Normally it takes some years of trials etc before some new technologies are exposed to the public which can only be expected.

We have found much of what we have seen in our R&D, recorded in the "décor" of many different buildings through out history, Not just in temples, Monasteries, Mosques, Cathedrals and Churches and other Religious buildings and shrines, but also in "Government Buildings", "Public Buildings", "Universities", "Palaces", "Arcades', "floor coverings" and "clothing".

This is too much of a coincidence so either this is the result of intelligent inspiration or some early cultures new about the processing system used by this universal intelligence which I belive we are a part of and passed on in historical works.
But this intelligence has nothing at to do with anything physical so called, but rather in the organisation of an overall structure. (Not in any religious way but purely Intelligence which is also evolving.)

Often this "Geometry" found in the "décor" is referred to as "Sacred Geometry" but I would not use this term myself, but rather see it as a record of inspired Art or knowledge once known regarding the components of the processing system, this Intelligence uses in the organisation of all.

I tend to lean to the latter, as there is just too much which is the same as we are seeing in our R&D involving Geometric Animations, or around what can be seen simply using a Strobe, either as in a common disco Strobe or using different designs of light shutters.

By debating this on ATS is trying to replace this area of trials, which is part of getting to the root of what has been discovered. But is approached in an entirely different way.

And as time goes by… often our understanding of some things also changes, as we discover more or is influenced by other discoveries which may be similar but in other areas.

On ATS I have tried to connect with both “religious people” as well as “non-religious” people just to see what their reactions are to this area, but that does Not mean I am religious… It only means I have attempted to communicate on their grounds.
In fact you can find where many religious people have violently attacked what I have said.
This has also occurred on the non-religious side as well.
But this Can only be expected.

Sadly the human Species hates change as you know, just as you have found by trying to convince some that evolution is overwhelmingly accepted today.

I can describe over time, how to see some of those things, which we have come across, without having the need for any aids.
But in saying that, the same phenomenon can be seen, by using mechanical aids such as applying Dynamic Geometric forms in a Animation Program on screen, which is impossible to record on film and can only be seen by the one viewing such an animation.
Or what can be seen simply using a Strobe, either as in a common adjusatable disco Strobe or using different designs of rotating shutters.
The Animation it self can be recorded but what is produced as a result of the Animation can't be recorded at this stage.


We are still looking for ways of recording what is being seen. I personally think it will take many years before we get to that stage, but you never know, we might be surprised yet by someone who can record the events other than using Drawings.

But I seriously believe this subject can only be debated on what can be found recorded to date, either in books or on the net. So for me to debate this requires others to know also what we have discovered over the last 16 years or so, and at present I can’t see this realistically taking place, much as I would like to see it happen.

So in my case, it is Not that I don’t wish to discuss it, it is rather how do I show 16 years of research in a couple of months let alone a page.

I am involved with the mechanical area of producing "interactive interfaces" with this Intelligence and obviously I am Not directly involved with the medical Sciences, as are many of those I keep in contact with.

reply to post by The Matrix Traveller


...um...ok, but none of that goes beyond the point of speculation. But it's ok to speculate, so long as you don't claim it to be scientific fact.



Are there no creationists that will take up the call and prove that their position is just as or more scientific than the established alternative?

reply to post by madnessinmysoul


I've read evolution. It was part of the university courses I had to take. You can only show so much in evolution. Evolution is even being debated today amoung it's own... By the same example, I could say that the proof is just as plain for creationism. The "God Code", any organism, any single cell organism for that matter. Everything is made up of atoms right? Compile all those atoms to make an organism. Give that organism a function. Even DNA and RNA are pumped out for a purpose. Everything has what we call a central brain or central function... Every single living organism. Every single thing has a specific purpose, and if you look at them under a microscope, they are fenominal, and if you could see them in their function, it's mindblowing.

Even if you could throw a stack of cards up in the air and they all fall perfectly, one on top of the other, you still had to have someone throw them up in the air in the first place. If you had one grand designer, wouldnt he use the same program or code on all other life, or would you make it all diffrent? Why are their boundaries between species? If Evolution is correct, everything is functioning towards a purpose, towards survival, why are their boundaries? Viri take over other cells to multiply and mutate, why cant anything else? Why cant birds mutate and combine with other species like ducks and form a new species?

So with the same concept, I can show that we were created, but some how my facts and your facts arnt the same? What gives your facts credence over any other? You cant disprove either, by that logic. Or you could prove both. It's all relative to what a person believes. It's like anything else. What says your ideas are more proof than another just because you can breed mice with x amount of spots, or eye colors. I would think that an all powerful being could write living computer code. Heck, we're pretty much doing it ourselves. How many years more would it take us to create a unique living thing? Oh wait... we just did that!