It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

Is Creationism Dead?

page: 9
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in


posted on Aug, 7 2014 @ 10:41 PM
a reply to: Astyanax


You did provide a link to what I think is what you believe creationism to be. Somehow I missed it, and I apologize.

posted on Aug, 7 2014 @ 10:41 PM
a reply to: charles1952

Good man.

posted on Aug, 7 2014 @ 11:48 PM
It seems as though I fall outside the "common" creationist definition.

I believe, as I've mentioned, that the Universe was not created by nature. The rebuttals to that in the website you posted were not very strong.

I lean pretty strongly towards the idea that life was not caused by nature, but I'm not wedded to it.

I do believe that there is something in humans, sometimes called a soul, conscience, self-reflection, which differentiates them from all other life on Earth.

As far as the different species go, I don't know, and actually I'm not too concerned one way or the other. There isn't any answer to that which would shake my faith.

Best to you, and I apologize again for my error.

+99 more 
posted on Aug, 8 2014 @ 12:25 AM
a reply to: charles1952


I see, so you are arguing from an assumed philosophy. This is an interesting argument to take into the field of creationism, and although I've never pondered it, I'm sure many have. That said, perhaps I can logic my way through this.

Certainly it appears as though nothing in the macroscopic world comes from nothing. We do not see the spontaneous "popping" of cats or dogs into existence, they come from parents.

That said, what seems true in the macroscopic world is not always true in the "quantum world." Perhaps NASA's test of the new EM thrusters is a good recent (and tentative) example of this strangeness in quantum physics.

One might also consider that humans are constantly learning new things, which must mean that we do not know everything, which could mean that the absence of evidence for something coming from nothing is not evidence of absence of such a phenomenon. This is why I say that science may one day know.

Is it not possible that nature has not been constant, that a very different nature (before) had conditions such as to allow for the arising of nature now, an eternally changing universe? This may seem "extranatural" with respect to us, certainly, but how can we say it is truly extranatural if it is still nature? I am no theoretical physicist, so this is speculation and conjecture, mind you, but I am unconvinced that supernatural explanations are necessary (although, if they were, you would be correct in saying that science has no business there).

To clarify my position, I am agnostic to the natural or supernatural origins of the universe, but I am certainly open to the possibility that the universe could have arisen naturally, which you do not seem to be. This is why I say you have an assumed philosophy. This is potentially a superfluous assumption that you make, and I find that you have asserted it as truth rather than demonstrated it as such.

I said previously, "I don't know the answer" is a fair and honest response and one that does not imply that a supernatural answer is necessarily correct. I subscribe to the "not enough information" club of philosophy here, which may be frustrating, but it is intellectually honest.

About the impatience thing, I was well aware that you likely didn't mean to imply it had to be this or that kind of this or that. I merely wanted to illustrate the problem one might have with assigning a specific deity to this kind of logic. Sure, if a supernatural force is required, then a supernatural force is required, but it does not mean that the supernatural force you pick is the correct one. I addressed it then so that someone might not have to later if anyone should use it to claim a specific deity for creationism based on solely that logic.

In a less rambling, shorter response... You have assumed that nothing comes from nothing in all cases, which certainly has been demonstrated well on the macroscopic scale, but I do not know if it can be discounted on the quantum scale, or using some unknown physics/natural phenomena. Thus, I take issue with only your firm adherence to your assumption, which might not be currently justified. Oh, and maybe the rock thing a little.

Thanks for the philosophical discussion of creationism, I think I've learned a fair bit here. I think this discussion got to the heart of a big issue here, and really demonstrates what it would take before creationism would truly "cease to be." It would probably take nothing less than a demonstration of how natural laws could account for the universe's existence. And as long as Creationsts (big C) apply their deity to this logic, I think the Creationist "movement" will hold power, no matter how much it may dwindle.

Sincere regards,

posted on Aug, 8 2014 @ 01:14 AM
a reply to: hydeman11

There are lots of ways of explaining (or at least explaining away) the conundrum of origins. A preexistent creator seems to me among the weakest of them. The transition from 'something can't come from nothing' to 'God' is not a logical one, unless you define God as 'that which existed prior to anything else' and leave it at that. There is no justification for attributing will or intelligence to this prior entity, let alone omnipotence, omniscience, benevolence, etc.

You suggest one way around the problem of origins: 'nothing' isn't really nothing. Still, this begs the question as to where the laws of nature come from that allow matter to pop into existence out of a vacuum. These laws, at least, have to be somehow prior to the appearance of matter.

String theorists propose the existence of a 'metaverse' of different universes in which the fundamental laws and constants can have a wide range of values, and suggest that only universes with the right values will produce beings that can reflect on their own origins. Some even talk of natural selection among universes. But then we are left with the question of where the metaverse came from. And that is still the same question.

Another way to look at the issue is to regard time as what Einstein called it, a 'persistent illusion'. There has been some interesting work in theoretical physics that begins from this predicate. However, the concept of genuine timelessness is so alien to human experience that we can barely imagine it.

Finally, it's worth asking ourselves why we think something can't come from nothing. We cannot conceive of it, any more than we can conceive of a universe without time, but that doesn't make it impossible.

Where does this leave us? Just here: we don't know. And at this stage of the game, as both particle physics and astronomy approach the limits of the observable, leaving us none the wiser, and we begin to invoke the unobservable in order to explain ourselves, it begins to look like we shall never know — that perhaps we can never know.

Whatever argument we invoke, the unanswerable question remains:

— Where did the universe come from?
— Where did the multiverse come from?
— Where did God come from?

Different formulations, but it is always the same question, and the answer, too, is always the same. We don't know.


By the way, none of this has anything to do with the thread topic. It doesn't even have to do with the question of how life appeared on Earth — and that, rather than the origin of the universe, is the issue that animates the creationist movement. But perhaps the thread topic is played out anyway — just like creationism itself.

posted on Aug, 8 2014 @ 05:50 PM

originally posted by: PhotonEffect
a reply to: Prezbo369

You'd be wrong in your assertions, respectfully.The debates are ongoing. And evolution via natural selection is losing ground.


No, it is not.

posted on Aug, 9 2014 @ 12:07 AM
a reply to: hydeman11

Sigh, devil links, I had long response yesterday and accidently clicked on a link only to lose it all .. doh

"Models can be incredibly accurate in science"

Would the model also falsify the theory? And if so, well lets just adjust the model... we know its true after all, we are here.

"Bad mutations die before they can reproduce or cause limited reproduction, and the limited offspring then have less likelihood to reproduce, while better suited organisms in that population have higher (comparatively) likelihoods of reproducing at each level. It is a game of probability and time."

Say we have several neutral mutations which have to manage to work together, which is quite a feat unto itself, but the far more common negative mutation is constantly getting in the way and wrecking anything beneficial that might have accidently turned into a positive benefit. Time and probability are working against, not for evolution.

"That said, I'm interested that the author cited sources from over 50 years ago."

The author is aware of the age of some of the arguments, but also notes no one has ever refuted them. One in particular relates to our discussion by the French biologist Andree Tetry.

"To do any good, a mutation must not only happen to be an exceedingly fortunate step forward - it must also adjust itself to the preceding mutation, and occur at precisely the right place and time."

This is the devil in the details, any positive step forward is going to take numerous small mutations over a long period of time to add up to something beneficial, by "sheer chance" as she puts it. All the while having to avoid any negative mutation that would preclude it from being passed down. We could of course invoke aliens, the anthropic principle, or God - then it would all be good, since then there is a guiding intelligence for these small steps.

As for cells, yes. They are quite complicated. And we humans have not yet accomplished in the 500 or so years of our "sciencing" what Earth apparently took a few hundred million years to do. That said, I think you'd be shocked at how close we've come.

I liked the page, and their "bottum-up" section sums it up nicely

"The three primary elements of such artificial cells are the formation of a lipid membrane, DNA and RNA replication through a template process and the harvesting of chemical energy for active transport across the membrane.[58][59] The main hurdles foreseen and encountered with this proposed protocell are the creation of a minimal synthetic DNA that holds all sufficient information for life, and the reproduction of non-genetic components that are integral in cell development such as molecular self-organization"

"In this sense, though, your argument is remarkably similar to the concept of "the god of the gaps" argument thrown about. If we cannot do it yet, then it must have taken god to do it. Until we can do it, of course."

Not true, each person will have to evaluate the facts for themselves. We can make many complicated devices and components , but no one would ever claim a pocket watch could come about naturally. When the double helix was discovered, it was enough to convince the Nobel prize winners there must be something more to evolution than natural selection and mutation. Certainly others may see it differently, and to each their own. Personally I think if we do manage to create one, it will challenge the faith of some evolutionist once we see the steps needed to make it happen.

"As for the philosophy bits, I've said my piece on philosophy, so I do hope you don't mind me not repeating them. Suffice to say, you can believe what you want, but that doesn't mean it's true, no matter how hard you believe. I'm not saying your wrong, either, but I think it truly is intellectually dishonest to never question one's faith in anything."

At the very top of the good things list is me existing, followed closely by the universe, air, water, Coca-cola, steak, and electricity - all those things necessary for the first good thing...It would seem we should all be hoping God exists so the good times can continue to roll on...Are you at least hoping God exists?

Im not afraid to be wrong, if so, oblivion(top of the bad things list) it is... all the more reason to fully flesh out the supernatural imo.

"As for the universe, the best model for the universe (the one with the most predictive capabilities) is the Big Bang model."

I was thinking more along the lines of where did the singularity come from? I dont think there is much on that, seems like the perfect spot for supernatural discussion to start. Are we really suppose to believe this singularity with a few trillion metric tons of matter has been existing for who knows how long and then bang, here we are? Is that the blue pill?

And doesnt it seem odd that supposedly matter can not be created? Why is there so freaking much of it then? It would seem if one knows how (God), it might even be easy. As you would say I think, not really questions for science, but still, the God question is THE question, the only question, that really matters.

"All other science is observation of the natural laws and phenomena that have resulted. Certainly, the universe seems well tailored to us (except for all the dangerous parts outside of the Earth's atmosphere... and all the dangerous parts here on Earth...), and you could attribute this to precise design. Or, you could say, all right, the results where such that these parameters existed that life formed in its current places of origin(s) and thus it seems designed because it is a product of the environmental parameters it has been subjected to. Option two does not discount a higher power, but it does not require one, by the way."

I dont think it is so black and white, unfortunately the answer or breaking point will be different for different people. But If we start and look into the gray area, the details, there does come a point, at least for most of who are open minded, where the possibility of simple chance seems ridiculous. Clouds can take on many shapes, but if we saw some clouds that seemed to spell out "Please marry ME !", one might get a little more than suspicious. Not to say clouds cant make letters, and if millions of monkeys jamming away on a type writer can eventually come up with Hamlet, maybe some evolutionist wouldnt even give it a second thought. Personally, I would bet the farm on design.

There are many factors to the universe, if you check them out, if off even slightly, would preclude life from existing anywhere. Seems more than suggestive, at least to me.

posted on Aug, 9 2014 @ 12:16 AM
a reply to: 111DPKING111

The arguments you propose against evolution are very old, and have long been discredited. Most of them are simply opinions, completely unsupported by facts. By attempting to revive them in this thread, you add support to my proposition: creationism is dead or dying. It can produce nothing new.

If you wish to discuss the arguments further, I hope you will do it in another thread, or by u2u with other interested members. There may still be some people here who actually want to discuss the thread topic. Thank you.

posted on Aug, 9 2014 @ 03:49 PM

originally posted by: Haxsaw
a reply to: Osiris1953

I studied biology at high school, and macro-evolution provided me with some good laughs and still does to this day, anyway i'll tell you what wiseguy, when you have seen a prehistoric ape turn into a man you can get back to me with your evidence, oh but wait now that is impossible you say because we don't live long enough to witness such an event first hand, well well, looky here it does take faith to believe in magical apes after all.

See you on the other side, we'll find out who's dogma is right then

Evolution never said that an ape turned into a human. Evolution says that the genetic components of the great apes and man are 96% similar. The zebra fish has 85% DNA in common with humans. Does that mean that a zebra fish turned into a man or that a man might turn into a zebra fish? Both fish and humans have gills in the embryonic stage of development. Fish are born with gills and use them the rest of their lives. Humans lose their gills before they are born. Does that mean a human was a fish with gills or that a fish will turn into a human??
The commonality of all living forms on this planet says that our fundamental biology is the same. How each one developed into a unique species is due to genetic drift and differentiation of gene functionality. Some species are closer to each other like the great apes and man and retain the majority of their genetic commonality.
Humans continue to evolve and so do the great apes. Gorillas isolated in the Congo have been observed walking upright - not the upright walk of a circus gorilla - a community of gorillas walking upright. And intelligence - Bonobos use tools which means they can learn. They also pass the knowledge on to their offspring - a trait which was once thought to be exclusively human. Does that mean that they will become human? No. It means they are evolving into a more intelligent, advanced species. At some point in the future, they may evolve into an entirely different species, distinct from their ancestors.

You people just ignore the science and march on in a world of fraud and fantasy. But just in case you want some enlightenment, you can read the article below.
edit on 9-8-2014 by Phantom423 because: (no reason given)

posted on Aug, 10 2014 @ 08:38 AM

originally posted by: PhotonEffect
a reply to: Prezbo369
Sure it should be addressed but what are you going to do? As a parent you don't have to send your child to a school that teaches these things, nor do you have to take them to a creationist museum. Parents can avoid this deception if they so choose.

You're missing the point entirely. We all have to exist together on this rock, and if some people are being lied to on the very basics of reality from an early age to the point where they'll forever reject any contradicting information or evidence then if affects us all. Some politicians have this worldview and have attempted (and succeeded in some cases) to change the education curriculum to include creationism on a state level, so just ignoring the issue and just sticking your head in the sand isn't always the answer....

If you have a problem with the deliberate deception of young minds, then I have news for you friend - creationism is but one of several agendas out there that are vying for fresh minds to mold. If that's your concern then you better pace yourself because a long war awaits you....

There aren't many 'agendas' that blatantly lie in the face of scientifically verified facts and theories like creationism and creationists do, and considering this is a thread specifically aimed towards creationism, in the origins and creation forum, this seems like a very strange thing to say...

Children of the same ages as those being taught this brand of "creation science" in the US, are being taught to die for their god in other parts of this world. If you ask me, that's a type of deception to be really concerned about.

I'm sure there'll be threads in the religion/world politics forums for that....this isn't one of them...

Yes, we all have to live together don't we... If you let if affect you that much then I guess that's for you to deal with. It's not about science not being able to show these people what the facts are. They don't care. It's about these people believing what they want to believe. In the same way you can't understand how anyone could believe that god created us all only a few thousand years ago, they don't understand how you can think he didn't.

They don't care because they've been indoctrinated at an early age....which is entirely my point.

You'd be wrong in your assertions, respectfully.The debates are ongoing. And evolution via natural selection is losing ground.

Only if you read creationist sources.....

posted on Aug, 10 2014 @ 09:09 AM
I think we were taught the Creation story here for a reason
maybe other planets dont have have one, idk

posted on Aug, 12 2014 @ 12:59 AM

originally posted by: Astyanax

Unless a new Dark Age dawns upon the earth (or perhaps just in the USA), there is very little hope of political creationists and members of the Intelligent-design movement making any further headway in the culture. Without credible science to prove their claims, their cause is hopeless.

It's obvious it was never based on science nor a wish for understanding to begin with. It was an emotional attachment to a belief, with a resulting belief based pseudo science used as support.

He cited another poll that asked Americans what their response would be if presented with a scientific fact that contradicted their religion. Sixty-four percent said they would reject fact in favor of faith.

It is a fascinating subject (creationism itself) from a sociological perspective though. It is difficult to understand it without looking at the underlying beliefs it is based on (usually religion) which have a strong correlation with dysfunctional societies. So much so that the level of societal ill health can be very accurately predicted by looking at the level of religiosity and vice versa. It is one of the strongest correlates in sociology, though not well understood as yet.

The US being a great example. A level of religious belief that isn't really seen in similar 1st world populations, commensurate with the same levels of societal dysfunction. As if to reinforce the point, the bible belt is horrendous in many of theses indicators, while more secular regions approach the norms seen in secular Europe (which have some of the best functioning societies).

It seems that in poor societal conditions people cling to imaginary beings and paranormal explanations, yet when societal conditions improve, these beliefs are discarded as a natural consequence. It is generally thought to be a symptom rather than a cause, which would make the famous quote from Marx accurate. Though IMO is part of the dysfunction itself (also has a causative element).

It follows that all hypotheses that religious belief and practice are the normal, deeply set human mental state that is highly resistant to conversion to nontheism are unverified. Instead popular religion is in the main a superficial psychological response that seeks the daily aid and protection of supernatural entities to
alleviate the stress and anxiety created by a sufficiently dysfunctional social and especially economic environment.

Though evolution has been the most obvious target, there are also whole areas of belief based pseudo academia (such as history and philosophy) that thrive in such conditions, which also seems to offer fertile ground for all manner of charlatans.

Educators in the US are realising that it is not so much the education system that is failing, as similar education is successful in other places where people overwhelmingly accept science. It is the underlying societal problems that are the cause of creationism. The US is lagging a long way behind the rest of the modern world as yet, but will eventually get there. Lot's of change will necessarily happen along the way.

The modern pseudo science of creationism was always destined for the dust bin of history as some archaic curio.

"Religious suffering is, at one and the same time, the expression of real suffering and a protest against real suffering. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people." Marx.

edit on 12-8-2014 by Cogito, Ergo Sum because: for the heck of it

posted on Aug, 12 2014 @ 10:59 PM
a reply to: Astyanax

Well I think you have your answer as to why the discussion is dead in this forum, forgive me for tarnishing the sacred holiness of this thread.

Its very easy to say this or that argument has been discredited, genius in fact. Crazy I suppose that some people might disagree.

posted on Aug, 13 2014 @ 09:59 AM
a reply to: 111DPKING111

There's disagreeing, and then there's being dishonest, disingenuous and flat out lying.

(creationists in a nut-shell imho)

posted on Aug, 13 2014 @ 11:59 PM

edit on 14-8-2014 by Cogito, Ergo Sum because: for the heck of it

posted on Aug, 14 2014 @ 12:07 PM
Reply to 111DPKING111

Well I think you have your answer as to why the discussion is dead in this forum

Yes, that's right, and not just in this forum. If one side can do nothing more than repeat the same arguments, ignoring the fact that they've been exploded time and again, what is left to discuss?

Its very easy to say this or that argument has been discredited

Only if the argument lacks factual support. That's why we evolutionists like to back up our claims with solid evidence.

Crazy I suppose that some people might disagree.

Not at all crazy; on the contrary, it's perfectly understandable (though rather a pity). It's exactly that refusal to accept the facts that allows, or allowed, the creationist movement to exist.

forgive me for tarnishing the sacred holiness of this thread.

Not at all. Thank you for staying to discuss the thread topic after all.

edit on 14/8/14 by Astyanax because: of mangled tangles.

posted on Aug, 15 2014 @ 10:48 PM
does evolution means there is no god, or there is god but he made evolution works

posted on Aug, 16 2014 @ 04:43 AM
a reply to: Starbucks

The theory of evolution doesn't say anything about God, one way or the other.

posted on Aug, 16 2014 @ 04:58 AM
why does 'creationism' need to be a public, political thing? It's a personal belief and assumption, like anything similar to it is and should be a thing reached by ourselves after thought and contemplation.

Why the heck do we insist on always making everyone else know and believe what we do?

posted on Aug, 16 2014 @ 04:58 AM
why does 'creationism' need to be a public, political thing? It's a personal belief and assumption, like anything similar to it is and should be a thing reached by ourselves after thought and contemplation.

Why the heck do we insist on always making everyone else know and believe what we do?

new topics

top topics

<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in