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.

 

Creationists Demand Airtime On 'Cosmos' For The Sake Of Balance

page: 16
28
<< 13  14  15    17  18  19 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 28 2014 @ 10:45 AM
link   

Fromabove
reply to post by Krazysh0t
 


You do realize that even if I could dance the jig around a three cornered hat for you while balancing a bottle of beer on my nose, I would never convince you that math says evolution is impossible would I.


Correct. Your argument is nonsensical and does not even begin to come close to refuting the overwhelming body of evidence for evolution.




posted on Mar, 28 2014 @ 10:52 AM
link   

GetHyped

Fromabove
reply to post by Krazysh0t
 


You do realize that even if I could dance the jig around a three cornered hat for you while balancing a bottle of beer on my nose, I would never convince you that math says evolution is impossible would I.


Correct. Your argument is nonsensical and does not even begin to come close to refuting the overwhelming body of evidence for evolution.



Amazing. There is no body of evidence. It's all patchwork pseudo-science cut and splice looks very nice to me sort of thing. And this leaves out the "knowing" aspect. Instinct is not the same thing because instinct is putting knowledge to use by desire and will to do. But at the start, knowledge has to be there and be repeated over and over without fail. This is impossible.

Are you sure that it's not just because you don't want to open your mind up and you refuse to budge. Global warmists do that. And we know that's all cut and splice looks very nice to me it's what I want it to be science.



posted on Mar, 28 2014 @ 10:52 AM
link   

Fromabove
reply to post by Krazysh0t
 


You do realize that even if I could dance the jig around a three cornered hat for you while balancing a bottle of beer on my nose, I would never convince you that math says evolution is impossible would I.


Maybe, maybe not. We'll never know though, because you haven't posted anything resembling real math and continue to deflect. I HAVE posted real math, granted not originally calculated by myself, but I stand behind the man who did as an intelligent mathematician, and not to mention is more math than you've posted in this thread. Which as I've said is none.

You made the claim of mathematical impossibility of evolution. I asked you to prove that claim. In order to make a mathematical claim, you need REAL calculations with REAL figures, not arbitrary guesses about what you think is the case while making pseudo guesses as to how things progressed.


And there are de-evolutionary processes, they call some cancers, and others mutations that increase the likelyhoof of failure either by intelligence or structural changes.


Cancer is just cell mutation gone out of control. While it is fatal, it certainly isn't "de-evolutionary". Also, mutations that aren't beneficial for the environment that the animal lives in aren't "de-evolutionary" either. Evolution doesn't have a goal, it just does its thing. So it isn't right to say something is further evolved or more evolved than another thing. Everything is equally evolved for their environment.


And inanimate objects and chemicals do not have sentient knowledge and couldn't tell a hamberger from a rock when and if they experience hunger and a will to continue. Instinct is not the same as knowledge to "know to do" because we are talking about first time events and such that must then be passed on to another generation of like kind in it's entirety.


When life first arose, it was just single celled organisms. Single celled organisms don't have a brain, they just work completely off of instinct. You are trying to make a comparison like the first type of life was a rat or an insect or something. That isn't the case. You should really study how single-celled organisms eat, reproduce, and survive. It is WORLDS different than a complex lifeform such as humans or fish or plants.


When the bolt of lightning hits the puddle and wha-la a primordial cell develops all on it's own, it must then desire to live and continue. It must "know" that it must eat to survive. Otherwise it will sit there and deteriorate into the ingredients from which it was formed.


Sounds like your issue is with Abiogenesis and not Evolution. Since that is what you just described. Good thing that Abiogenesis is a hypothesis and not a theory. Unfortunately for you for this argument, you just presented a straw man argument that has no baring on the discussion at hand.
edit on 28-3-2014 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 28 2014 @ 10:53 AM
link   
reply to post by Fromabove
 



Amazing. There is no body of evidence. It's all patchwork pseudo-science cut and splice looks very nice to me sort of thing.

I hate to say this, and I'm not attacking you -- I'm attacking your repeatedly saying evolution is not a fact and has not been proven. You're just wrong. Sorry.

There is an enormous body of real evidence. Why so stubborn?
Would God be mad if you acknowledged how it's set up?



posted on Mar, 28 2014 @ 10:58 AM
link   

Fromabove

GetHyped

Fromabove
reply to post by Krazysh0t
 


You do realize that even if I could dance the jig around a three cornered hat for you while balancing a bottle of beer on my nose, I would never convince you that math says evolution is impossible would I.


Correct. Your argument is nonsensical and does not even begin to come close to refuting the overwhelming body of evidence for evolution.



Amazing. There is no body of evidence. It's all patchwork pseudo-science cut and splice looks very nice to me sort of thing. And this leaves out the "knowing" aspect. Instinct is not the same thing because instinct is putting knowledge to use by desire and will to do. But at the start, knowledge has to be there and be repeated over and over without fail. This is impossible.

Are you sure that it's not just because you don't want to open your mind up and you refuse to budge. Global warmists do that. And we know that's all cut and splice looks very nice to me it's what I want it to be science.


And what makes your answers so much better? Show us your superior science.
edit on 28-3-2014 by AfterInfinity because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 28 2014 @ 10:59 AM
link   
reply to post by Krazysh0t
 


See, this is why the creation view wins every single time. Your post is making assumptions that all evolutionary mutations are progressive and not de-evolutionary. You say that the first cell relied upon instinct, that's an impossible assumption at it's face value. Why should it "have" instinct at all, why not just die, it has no meaning or purpose to live, no desire to do anything. It has no knowledge, or if it did it would not have come from dirt and electricity. Knowledge is not a physical thing. It has to be acquired.



posted on Mar, 28 2014 @ 11:00 AM
link   

Fromabove
Time progression math is a slang term for calculus.


In what country?


We calculate what object A will do if it met object B at a velocity of 5kps at a duration of five years. As a byproduct we understand the distance object A was from B and how the laws of thermodynamics revealed the effect of the impact.


This was not even remotely close to what you did with your analogy about life forming and being caused to go extinct.


If I calculate that to have a viable life form consisting of one cell (call it A) and that such a cell would only be capable of "knowing" to eat to survive, and that that "knowing" would have to happen as a random event (B), and where each step thereafter would need to follow the same rule (1,2,3, ect al the was to 10,...) in random evolutionary processes (C). And if I calculate random de-evolutionary events at the same level as those that occur (D) and add to this environmental probabilities favorable for each successive step of development (E) and use as a standard a period of 50,000 years for each step to happen, repeat and modify and improve, then calculate that "progression" of events I would get the following.


Your numbers, premise and steps are irrelevant as you were not there to observe them and cannot, in any good conscious, place a statistical weight on them. As I have been discussing in the other thread statistics of past events that have already occurred are worthless as they occurred and therefore the odds are 1 that it happened.


The thing is, if you like, calculate it your own way. Use extreme and always favorable conditions. Make each step a success. shorten the time of each step, and exclude all de-evolutionary processes that may occur. It would still be a very long time before humans ever arrive.


Fine. Life formed on earth therefore the odds of life forming on earth are 1. I do not care about what the prime mover happens to be as statistics cannot prove or disprove that aspect, only evidence can. When and if that evidence arises, for whatever the prime mover is determined to be, then that will also become 1 for that source of life on earth. Pretending this is not true shows a profound lack of understanding of basic mathematical concepts and applications.



posted on Mar, 28 2014 @ 11:02 AM
link   

Fromabove
reply to post by Krazysh0t
 


See, this is why the creation view wins every single time. Your post is making assumptions that all evolutionary mutations are progressive and not de-evolutionary. You say that the first cell relied upon instinct, that's an impossible assumption at it's face value. Why should it "have" instinct at all, why not just die, it has no meaning or purpose to live, no desire to do anything. It has no knowledge, or if it did it would not have come from dirt and electricity. Knowledge is not a physical thing. It has to be acquired.


No my post isn't making assumptions that all evolution is progressive. It is SAYING that all evolution just happens. It is neither progressive nor regressive.

Again, the first cell in existence was the result of the creation of life. Something that evolution DOESN'T address. Abiogenesis is a hypothesis and still needs MUCH further testing to bump it up into the theory category. Stop attacking a straw man. How the first life started and lived is COMPLETELY irrelevant to evolution, except that it is the first item in the chain of the evolutionary process.

I'm seriously getting tired of the straw man arguments. I just addressed two of them in this post. How about sticking to the issues?
edit on 28-3-2014 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 28 2014 @ 11:03 AM
link   

AfterInfinity

Fromabove

GetHyped

Fromabove
reply to post by Krazysh0t
 


You do realize that even if I could dance the jig around a three cornered hat for you while balancing a bottle of beer on my nose, I would never convince you that math says evolution is impossible would I.


Correct. Your argument is nonsensical and does not even begin to come close to refuting the overwhelming body of evidence for evolution.



Amazing. There is no body of evidence. It's all patchwork pseudo-science cut and splice looks very nice to me sort of thing. And this leaves out the "knowing" aspect. Instinct is not the same thing because instinct is putting knowledge to use by desire and will to do. But at the start, knowledge has to be there and be repeated over and over without fail. This is impossible.

Are you sure that it's not just because you don't want to open your mind up and you refuse to budge. Global warmists do that. And we know that's all cut and splice looks very nice to me it's what I want it to be science.


And what makes your answers so much better? Show us your superior science.
edit on 28-3-2014 by AfterInfinity because: (no reason given)


My answers are different. I am open to arguments for evolution. The Bible would not be against it. " And God said, let the earth bring forth the living creature, each after it's own kind. (Genesis NKJV)" That could be God saying, let the earth do it. But people that don't believe in God refuse to be open, even for a moment to the creationist view, period.

To date, there is no math or science that can establish evolution. It just hasn't been proven only assumed.



posted on Mar, 28 2014 @ 11:04 AM
link   
reply to post by Fromabove
 



Knowledge is not a physical thing. It has to be acquired.

Explain how a seed that lands in the dirt knows to send its roots into the soil to seek moisture and nutrients. Trees, for example.
They "know" when winter is coming, and shed their leaves. They conserve water - they start to wilt. Some even wrap around other trees like a vine, and vines are known to smother entire groves of trees. How do they "know" to do that?

How does poison ivy "know" to give some people a rash?

How does a walnut buried in the dirt turn into a tree?

THAT is the magic of the universe, all around us. We don't know. It just is, and that's really all the "evidence of creation" I need.
It exists; it does what it does. So do we.



posted on Mar, 28 2014 @ 11:06 AM
link   
reply to post by Krazysh0t
 



And because the foundation stone "Abiogenesis" is weak and not understood, all else topples over on top of it.
And as you did say, life was created. Thanks.

Have to go for a bit, I am loving this discussion and look forward to more later on.



posted on Mar, 28 2014 @ 11:09 AM
link   

BuzzyWigs
reply to post by Fromabove
 



Knowledge is not a physical thing. It has to be acquired.

Explain how a seed that lands in the dirt knows to send its roots into the soil to seek moisture and nutrients. Trees, for example.
They "know" when winter is coming, and shed their leaves. They conserve water - they start to wilt. Some even wrap around other trees like a vine, and vines are known to smother entire groves of trees. How do they "know" to do that?

How does poison ivy "know" to give some people a rash?

How does a walnut buried in the dirt turn into a tree?

THAT is the magic of the universe, all around us. We don't know. It just is, and that's really all the "evidence of creation" I need.
It exists; it does what it does. So do we.


I'm going to put you on my friends list if you keep talking like this. I agree with this post. It is the wonder of the universe. I call it from God, and you say that it is.

Now if COSMOS would just do that and not say things against God that would be great. Just say he doesn't know and show us the wonders of the universe.



posted on Mar, 28 2014 @ 11:12 AM
link   
reply to post by Fromabove
 



To date, there is no math or science that can establish evolution. It just hasn't been proven only assumed.


To be clear on this: you're saying evolutionary theory is not based on legitimate science, and that if evolution were to be replaced as the leading theory in its field, the replacement theory would have to be scientifically sound?

And following that, what scientifically sound theory are you proposing in place of evolutionary theory?



posted on Mar, 28 2014 @ 11:15 AM
link   

Fromabove
reply to post by Krazysh0t
 



And because the foundation stone "Abiogenesis" is weak and not understood, all else topples over on top of it.
And as you did say, life was created. Thanks.

Have to go for a bit, I am loving this discussion and look forward to more later on.


Don't read too far into what I am saying. Just because I used the word 'created' doesn't mean that I am officially saying that life was created. But irrelevant on all points! It doesn't matter.

The first point is completely asinine. Evolution doesn't rely on Abiogenesis being true. We can mix and match various creation theories and hypotheses and evolution will STILL be valid. Biogenesis could be true, god could have poofed the first life onto the planet, Abiogenesis could be true, something we haven't even considered yet could be true, it DOESN'T MATTER. Once life started, evolution took over.

Stop putting abiogenesis and evolution into the same breadbasket. That's like saying that "because Tupac didn't take a cab to the boxing match he got shot at, he was never shot and killed." The method of transportation to the bout is irrelevant and doesn't disprove that Tupac was definitely at the boxing match and was shot and killed at it.
edit on 28-3-2014 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 28 2014 @ 11:16 AM
link   
reply to post by Fromabove
 



Now if COSMOS would just do that and not say things against God that would be great. Just say he doesn't know and show us the wonders of the universe.

But they didn't say anything against God! He said "we don't know how life started"!

You seem to be stuck on this evolution and anti-God tack, and on the show there was all of 13.5 seconds of mentioning when humans parted from other primates and began to look up in wonder...(which Oklahoma decided to 'censor' with a 'news break'.)

You confuse me. You say the Bible wouldn't reject evolution, but yet you insist on saying it's a lie, in the face of ample evidence. That, I don't get. It's been established from the OP that it is Ken Ham and the YECs who are pushing for equal airtime....not generalist believers.

Yet you seem very offended and unwilling to consider the century+ of the study of evidence for evolution.







edit on 3/28/2014 by BuzzyWigs because: Remove derailing.



posted on Mar, 28 2014 @ 11:19 AM
link   

Fromabove
reply to post by Krazysh0t
 


You do realize that even if I could dance the jig around a three cornered hat for you while balancing a bottle of beer on my nose, I would never convince you that math says evolution is impossible would I.

And there are de-evolutionary processes, they call some cancers, and others mutations that increase the likelyhoof of failure either by intelligence or structural changes.

And inanimate objects and chemicals do not have sentient knowledge and couldn't tell a hamberger from a rock when and if they experience hunger and a will to continue. Instinct is not the same as knowledge to "know to do" because we are talking about first time events and such that must then be passed on to another generation of like kind in it's entirety.

When the bolt of lightning hits the puddle and wha-la a primordial cell develops all on it's own, it must then desire to live and continue. It must "know" that it must eat to survive. Otherwise it will sit there and deteriorate into the ingredients from which it was formed.


You seem very out of your depth here.

You seem to misunderstand what evolution actually is, from pretty much every angle, chemical, biological and physical.
De-evolution? Really?
I'm guessing that you hold the notion that evolution means that organisms become more advanced and better over time?
That's not biological evolution.
That's without a doubt a creationist understanding of what evolution is, not science's.
Here's the biological definition of evolution
www.biology-online.org...


What's sentient knowledge got to do with anything?
If a chemical reacts with something and fails then nothing comes of it.
If a chemical reacts with something and flourishes that will carry on happening until that reacts with something else and either fails or flourishes. And so on and so forth until more complex chemicals are produced (hint: this takes a loooooong time).
It's got nothing whatsoever with instinct or knowledge or will or desire.
It's just chemistry.

As for your last paragraph, why "must" it do anything?
It "eats" and it survives not because it "must", just because it does.
And because it does, it survives and then propagates.
If it doesn't then guess what?
It dies and goes no further.
And how will this primordial cell "deteriorate into the ingredients from which it was formed"?
The ingredients have chemically combined to form this cell, they're not going to all separate again.
Do you ever see common salt de-constitute into chloride and sodium?


And it's "voilà" not "wha-la" (apologies for my pedantry).



posted on Mar, 28 2014 @ 11:24 AM
link   

Fromabove

AfterInfinity

Fromabove

GetHyped

Fromabove
reply to post by Krazysh0t
 


You do realize that even if I could dance the jig around a three cornered hat for you while balancing a bottle of beer on my nose, I would never convince you that math says evolution is impossible would I.


Correct. Your argument is nonsensical and does not even begin to come close to refuting the overwhelming body of evidence for evolution.



Amazing. There is no body of evidence. It's all patchwork pseudo-science cut and splice looks very nice to me sort of thing. And this leaves out the "knowing" aspect. Instinct is not the same thing because instinct is putting knowledge to use by desire and will to do. But at the start, knowledge has to be there and be repeated over and over without fail. This is impossible.

Are you sure that it's not just because you don't want to open your mind up and you refuse to budge. Global warmists do that. And we know that's all cut and splice looks very nice to me it's what I want it to be science.


And what makes your answers so much better? Show us your superior science.
edit on 28-3-2014 by AfterInfinity because: (no reason given)


To date, there is no math or science that can establish evolution. It just hasn't been proven only assumed.


Going by your understanding of how evolution works demonstrated through the posts you've made in this thread, I am going to say that you aren't qualified to make that statement.



posted on Mar, 28 2014 @ 11:27 AM
link   

Fromabove
Now if COSMOS would just do that and not say things against God that would be great. Just say he doesn't know and show us the wonders of the universe.


Cosmos can't say any such thing. It's based on science, not belief. Can you prove that God exists?



posted on Mar, 28 2014 @ 11:32 AM
link   

BuzzyWigs
reply to post by Fromabove
 



Now if COSMOS would just do that and not say things against God that would be great. Just say he doesn't know and show us the wonders of the universe.

But they didn't say anything against God! He said "we don't know how life started"!

You seem to be stuck on this evolution and anti-God tack, and on the show there was all of 13.5 seconds of mentioning when humans parted from other primates and began to look up in wonder...(which Oklahoma decided to 'censor' with a 'news break'.)

You confuse me. You say the Bible wouldn't reject evolution, but yet you insist on saying it's a lie, in the face of ample evidence. That, I don't get. It's been established from the OP that it is Ken Ham and the YECs who are pushing for equal airtime....not generalist believers.

Yet you seem very offended and unwilling to consider the century+ of the study of evidence for evolution.

EDIT: Okay, I think perhaps I've isolated the problem here.
You are open to evolution if it's proven. You agree the Bible doesn't automatically dismiss it.
You are a Deist, then, by definition...

And Deism is not really simpatico with "Christianity" insofar as "Jesus" being the only way.
Are you willing to let go of Jesus being "the only way"? Are you willing to admit that he may have just been a man with exquisite sensibility to the wonders and mysteries, and how to connect with those?

Or do you believe the magic stories of miracles and the resurrection? That is where I dig in my heels.
Otherwise, Jesus was by all accounts a champ for the downtrodden - but 'the way?' .....not so much. He taught Eastern mysticism. Transcendence, charity, and fearlessness. All fantastic tenets.

The Exclusionary "only through Jesus" part is what nauseates me. It leaves too many people out.

You might look into Unitarian Universalism. I don't think hell exists, or 'heaven' actually - and most significantly, I don't think GOD is a person. We all die, we all eventually reunite with the Divine Source.

I think you said earlier God is not a person. Therefore, all of us are just as much a child of God as Jesus was.






edit on 3/28/2014 by BuzzyWigs because: (no reason given)


Hold on. This isn't even about that. This isn't about Jesus or Christianity, it's about one particular establishment wanting to balance out a scientific program with creationism material. And now we're apparently questioning whether the science in this program is actually science. I don't know why. But let's not get off topic here.



posted on Mar, 28 2014 @ 11:35 AM
link   
reply to post by AfterInfinity
 



And now we're apparently questioning whether the science in this program is actually science. I don't know why. But let's not get off topic here.

You're right.
Sorry.

Derailing my own thread!!! *facepalm*

Pretend I didn't include that edit. Or, if you'll delete your quote of it, I'll delete my edit. Fair?
Highfive?
edit on 3/28/2014 by BuzzyWigs because: (no reason given)







 
28
<< 13  14  15    17  18  19 >>

log in

join