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.

 

How does creationism explain....

page: 14
0
<< 11  12  13    15  16 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 24 2005 @ 08:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by resistance
These forearms that are becoming "increasingly wing-like" are useful?

Of course, why wouldn't it be?

I just don't see how you can see this.

The fact that you don't understand hardly means that it isn't happening.


When what they have is neither a wing nor an arm how can it be useful?

Look at the arms in those animals and explain why they are useless.


Then they are not evolving. They are eyes that are what they are.

You have really got to look at what evolutionary theory is and what it states.


What if they were eyes that were not sensitive to light at all, could see absolutelely nothing, because they had not reached that stage of development yet to where they could see something?

Since we aren't talking about anything like that, who cares?




So when we see these pictures of similar animals lined up, you're saying they change in this way, in jerks and jumps?

No, I didn't say that.


Something that hasn't jerked or leaped ahead to a fully formed organ or limb, but is doing what the gradualist evolutionists claim it does

And what is that actually supposed to look like?


What you are describing is more like punctuated equilibrium than gradualism.

No, its not like that at all. I don't think you actually know what punctuated equilibrium is, infact you seem to barely understand evolution in the first place.


What's not correct

Your basic understanding of simple darwinian evolution. Organisms change over time in 'response' to their environement, with natural selection favouring the 'fit' and disfavouring the unfit. If you actually understood what that means, then you wouldn't say 'where are the half-formed organisms'.

If this is what happens, it means genetic material is there already

No, it doesn't require that at all.

Yeah, it is.

No, its clearly not. The requirements and controls for morphing one face into another are not evolutionary, those requirements have nothing to do with fitness or adaptation.

Can you tell me someone who agrees with your definition of gradualism,

Scientists. Also, people who have actually bothered to look at what evolution is about.

Yeah. One time somebody told me the ostrich is evolving into a type of horse, that its wings are going to grow down to the earth and become legs.

What 'some guy' told you some time isn't really relevant to our discussion.

Do you believe the mammals came from the birds?

No, there is no evidence to support this.

Where did the mammals come from?

As evidenced by the fossil record, they appear to have arisen from a group called the synapsids.


All I'm asking is for you to show me this morphing.

Nygdan: Again, since a fossil is the remains of a dead animal, I can't show you it doing anything, other than lying there in rock or on a museum wall. Its certainly not going to morph ala tv special effects into anything.


Forearms that are turning into wings should be everywhere for us to look at. So where are they?

Again, your basic understanding of how evolution works is so poor that you don't even understand just what a 'transitional' form should look like. You will not find, say, a dinosaur with weird useless malformed wings. A freak that has lost the use of its forearms would almost certainly be eliminated by natural selection. You won't find such an animal because it isn't going to be part of that evolutionary 'sequence' that leads to birds. What you do find is collections of fossil specimins that show evolutionary changes that make them better adapted to their own environment, ie 'complete' animals at every stage.



Well, we certainly do agree on that [Only the fit survive] score.

No, we don't. You seem to think that evolution says that unfit half organisms will run around, trying over the course of generations to become something usefull.

Every organism must be fully formed. And of course the Creator made them that way.

Your entire 'critique' of evolution and, perversely, apparently basis for religion seems to be nothing more than this. That evolutionary theory somehow implies half-formed useless organisms to exist [when, of course, it does no such thing], and that, since this obviously doesn't make sense, that rather there is a god that made them all.





I agree, but how else can a forearm turn into a wing? There has to be a place halfway where it's neither a forearm nor a wing but just a thingamajig.

No, there doesn't have to be. The 'inbetween' thing is a limb that is well adapted to its environement, wether thats running around on the group, up trees, scrambling between the branches of the tree canopy, or even leaping from trunk to trunk.


It's called "gradualism" for a reason

You said that evolution states that it takes billions of years for a species to form, which it does not. Gradualism does not state that it take billions of years for a species to form.


or pans spermia.

Panspermia does not posit any mechanism of evolutionary change that is different from 'regular' evolution. Panspermia only differs in that it posits that life originated on another planet, and that it fell to earth, one way or another.


And all the evolutionists say the most important ingredient to produce evolution is time-- lots and lots and lots of time.

No, that is not the 'most important ingredient'. Time is a rather small factor in darwin's actual logic. Time merely provides the scale. The inheritability of traits, the natural variation that exists, and the pressures set up by the environment, that is what drives adaptation, not merely the passage of time. With a long span of time, then small pressures, relatively consistently applied, can have great effect.



Okay. So actually you do believe in punctuated equilibrium then, not gradualism.

You simply don't understand basic evolution well enough to be talking about the disctinctions between gradualism and punctuated evolution. I never said anything about the geographical requirements of speciation, for example.


how long does it take for a dinosaur's forearms to turn into wings, and if they don't morph,

How long did it actually take? Sorry, the fossil data doesn't give a sufficient answer on that question.

can you describe for me the process that would happen?

The fossil record seems to support that these small maniraptoran dinosaurs had selective pressure to develop their symmetrical feathers, which were probably being used for gliding and aiding scrambling about amoung the tress, into asymmetrical flight feathers, which can provide lift when the animals moved their arms about.

I just copied the definition out of the dictionary.

A good example of why merely copying something out of a dictionary doesn't mean that you understand it. When you're a kid, they'd have you define a vocabulary word and then use it in a sentence, if you couldn't use it properly in a sentence, then you didn't understand it. You don't seem to be able to use evolution or morphology correctly.


Can you tell me the morphology of a dinosaur's forearm becoming a wing?

The morphological changes apparently involved the arms becoming longer, the fingers fusing, the bones becomming more hollowed out and pneumatic, the proto-feathers branching and sub-branching, and the rachis moving to be off-centered.


Or a scale becoming a feather?

See Prum et al. But none of this means simply looking at the two end-products, ie a lizard's scale and a bird's feather, and having a computer tech stretch and pinch the scale. There were several hypotheses for how a scale turns into a feather, the one outlined by Prum and others is the one supported by the ontological and phylogenetic evidence.


And explain to me why we don't see this happening either in the fossil record

We do see it happening in the fossil record.

or in the real world of nature today?

We see evolution at work in the modern world, we don't see dinosaurs evolving into birds because dinosaurs don't exist anymore. Evolution is about the existing organisms and the selective pressures applied to them. Duplicate those two things and then you will have roughly the same results.
If we were, say, alive when this was going on, however, we wouldn't be able to walk into the forest when we were kids, and see bipedal dinosaurs running around on the ground and on the branches of the trees, and then return when we were adults and expect to see robbins and bluejays flitting about. Its unreasonable to expect that amount of change to happen in just a few generations.


I'm just as interested in the evidence as you are.

You have stated previously that you are not interested in the evidence, and that you have already made up your mind about evolution vs. creationism, and that no evidence can change your mind.


I'm just trying to get you to look at that evidence in a different way.

You haven't even been looking at the evidence, and, as a result, you haven't been able to really make much sense, let alone provide a cogent and convincing arguement.



I don't see you being open to any discussion with me at all.

I have been discussing this with you for a few pages now. A discussion does not consist of you talking and the other person emphatically agreeing. This thread isn't going to end in a prayer session.

You are just flat out opposed to everything I've said.

indeed, I am opposed to incorrect analyses of the evidence and poor demonstrations of logic.

So I'm using your own words now to convince you

What in the world are you talking about? How are you using my own words? Apparently you have some sort of fantastical conception about how rhetoric works and that you are somehow actually following thru with it.

, according to what you say, you in fact do not even believe in gradual evolution yourself.

I have stated no such thing. Rather than try to play out some rhetorical strategy, how about you actually try to understand the subjects you are trying to discuss?




posted on Oct, 24 2005 @ 11:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by resistance
Zip -- Your post is kinda the straw that broke the giraffe's back. I'm outa here.
I'm tired of having my posts ripped apart

Well, yeesh, then don't make such bad posts. Heck, don't post at all if ya can't take criticism or make sense.


word by word with nobody understanding the gist of what I'm saying.

And you think that everyone else is malfunctioning rather than you?

Besides, everyone does get the gist of what you are saying. "Evolution is stupid and eivl and jesus made me".



[edit on 24-10-2005 by Nygdan]



posted on Oct, 24 2005 @ 12:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by resistance
The point about the heart is not that the giraffe would die without its heart. Any creature would be dead without its heart. The point of the article is that the giraffe needs a special kind of heart to survive.


Yes, a giraffe needs a giraffe heart to survive - not a monkey heart, goose heart, buffalo heart... I know what you're saying, but it doesn't prove "irreducible complexity." The giraffe heart evolved along with everything else at the same time, including the neck. Creatures don't evolve one thing and then see how that flies and later on evolve something else, they evolve as systems (complete organisms, if you will) in response to selection pressures.

As I was saying earlier, the first thing that separated our ancestors from the rest of the crew was our developed ability to run. While we were off running, our ancestors maintained other methods of defense, such as taking advantage of higher ground. We grew larger butts for balance, more springy ankles, and our toes evolved to balance us better, all at the SAME TIME, and, as I was saying, this is just a small selection of all that was happening to us at the time. Our brains grew to tell us when to run, where to run, how to avoid running, etc., our arms and hands became more functional for obtaining food in different ways, reflecting our new developments in offensive and defensive capabilities, and a host of changes overcame us as we began hunting in more and more efficient ways. It's a system. No one organic feature is an island.

Zip



posted on Oct, 24 2005 @ 06:27 PM
link   
I think that some here need to realize that Evolution has not been proven as fact, and even if it is a fact, It does not negate the existance of GOD. As far as I know (and I am not a christian by any stretch of the imagination) the bible does not give dates and time frames to the creation story. For all any of us know Adam and Eve are the first humans in an evolutionary sence. The fruit of knowledge, the snake ect. is all just a metaphor for the moment that we reached self realization and were able to alter our inner and outer environments (ie. put clothes on). The entire bible is a story writen by the knowledgeable people at the time, however they did not understand the world as we do now, so the language and assumtions that they made (ie. the world being the center of everything.) are reflective of tha lack of scientific knowledge.

I think the danger comes when people take the Bible as literal word of god. OR when we accept evolution and belive that a creation is automaticaly not possible.

Can't God create evolution?

[edit on 24-10-2005 by Halfofone]



posted on Oct, 24 2005 @ 06:36 PM
link   
Actually Evolution is proven as fact. There are still questions out there on the mechanisms of evolution.

It is one thing to say that it's possible that "god" created evolution, the problem is people come on here and want to say that science backs up that viewpoint, many people have a problem with that.

Evolution does not rule out magical creation in the old earth style. Geology and astronomy and many other sciences other than evolution, completely rule out BYE creation, which resistance was pushing so unsuccessfully.

The earth was not created in six days, there was no garden of eden, or a global flood.

Those are the fallacies continously brought up in these threads.

So please by all means believe in whatever you want, but don't bring it into biology classes, and stop trying to pass scripture off as science.



posted on Oct, 24 2005 @ 07:05 PM
link   
If you have proof then please provide it.

As far as I know evolution has NOT been proven as fact, that is why we still call it a theory. The only fact is that Macorevolution has never been porven through controlled experiments, or verified by observation. (mostly because of time restraints
It is only accepted because there is nothing that can better answer the questions posed within the theory.

The most glareing problem that I see is that evolutionary theory cannot explain how life started in the first place.

I understand genetic drift, mutation, natural selection and the argument there, and I belive that evolution is a reality, however I think that the mechinism is not the argument. Science does not back creationism 100%, but frankly it does not back the current evolutionary theories 100% either. I think the answer will be found somewere in between.



posted on Oct, 24 2005 @ 08:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by Halfofone
As far as I know evolution has NOT been proven as fact, that is why we still call it a theory. The only fact is that Macorevolution has never been porven through controlled experiments, or verified by observation. (mostly because of time restraints
It is only accepted because there is nothing that can better answer the questions posed within the theory.


Please see the Nygdan's topped thread, some important things to keep in mind about this subject.


Originally posted by Halfofone
The most glareing problem that I see is that evolutionary theory cannot explain how life started in the first place.


To understand evolutionary theory is to understand that it in no way postulates a mechanical beginning to life. Abiogenetic hypotheses take care of this. I have confidence that within a half century, we will have a solid and accepted abiogenetic theory.


Originally posted by Halfofone
Science does not back creationism 100%,


Right, it does not back creationism at all.


Originally posted by Halfofone
...but frankly it does not back the current evolutionary theories 100% either.


How so? Please back up your sweepingly vague claim with examples and sources.


Originally posted by Halfofone
I think the answer will be found somewere in between.


The "answer" to the evolution of life forms is the theory of evolution.

Zip



posted on Oct, 24 2005 @ 11:29 PM
link   

Left Behind
Actually Evolution is proven as fact.

Evolutionary theory has not been proven as a fact, no theory in science ever becomes a fact, its not how science operates. Evolution, as a thing that occurs, is a fact, allele frequencies change over time; thats a factual observation, not a theory. Darwin's theory of the mechanism of evolution being natural selection, is not now, nor will it ever be, a fact. Its an extremely well supported, corroborated, and unrefuted theory; its about as good and solid as a theory can get, but its not a fact.


halfofone
. The only fact is that Macorevolution has never been porven through controlled experiments, or verified by observation

Macroevolution has been observed in the lab and the wild. Macroevolution is evolution at or above the species level.

It is only accepted because there is nothing that can better answer the questions posed within the theory.

This is partly incorrect. In science, when you have mutliple theories to compare, you need to decide which one to choose as the better theory, and usually one looks at how well and how logically that theory explains the evidence. Darwin's theory (roughly, since its been altered to include modern genetics, etc) does this far better than any of its competitors, and additionally, stands un-refuted. You can't prove a scientific theory right, but you can refute it, show that its wrong. That hasn't happened with evolution, which has been very harshly tested for over a hundred years.
Another thing that is looked at is how well a theory fits in with other scientific theories, how simple it is, etc etc.
I wouldn't say that evolution is 'the best' because it answers its own questions well tho.

The most glareing problem that I see is that evolutionary theory cannot explain how life started in the first place.

Evolutionary theory doesn't actually say anything about this. Evolutionary theory is a theory about how life changes once it exists. Not about how it arose.

but frankly it does not back the current evolutionary theories 100% either

THere is widespread consensus within the scientific world that is very very strongly in support of science. There are of course some people that don't accept it. The closer you get to people that are studying hard core elements of organismal biology, the stronger and stronger the support gets. And we're talking about probably a single digit percentage point of difference (between people who have nothing to do with biology and don't support darwinian evolution, and people who do and don't accept it).

And of course, this is talking about the people invovled, not the actual science. There is no science that refutes darwinian evolution, there is also no science that better explains the evidence than it, and there is no science that supports creationism, and, if we pretend that creationism is a scientific theory, there is lots of evidence that woudl refute it (but thats a contestable statement, since creationism doesn't operate as a science).



posted on Oct, 25 2005 @ 08:33 AM
link   


Right, it does not back creationism at all.

Talk about sweaping... creation of evolution is dicounted?? I don't think so. Do you think that a creation being could not have set in motion processes that evolve? Let me get this straight, I do not belive the bible is the truth, and I do not accept any current consept of God. Put simply all existance, matter, light, antimatter, force, it is all one energy. see String Theory



How so? Please back up your sweepingly vague claim with examples and sources.

If it did then we would not be having this conversation.
"theory" really means "imperfect fact" or in other words, untill all the loose ends are tied up we cannot say for certian.


Let me try to make crystal clear what is established beyond reasonable doubt, and what needs further study, about evolution. Evolution as a process that has always gone on in the history of the earth can be doubted only by those who are ignorant of the evidence or are resistant to evidence, owing to emotional blocks or to plain bigotry. By contrast, the mechanisms that bring evolution about certainly need study and clarification. There are no alternatives to evolution as history that can withstand critical examination. Yet we are constantly learning new and important facts about evolutionary mechanisms.

-Theodosius Dobzhansky "Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution",


MY argument is not that Evolution is a crock, I've said that I BELIVE THAT IT IS A REALITY, but it does not fully disprove the existance of a creator or an existance beyond this one.




Macroevolution has been observed in the lab and the wild. Macroevolution is evolution at or above the species level.


I would like to see the evidence.
You must think I'm an idiot, I'm the one that brought up the word Macroevolution yet YOU tell me what it means.




Not about how it arose

Yes. But that is what I am talking about. Evolution works, sure I can see that it does, but what is the point of discovering where we came from, if we cannot ask how it all began, and where is it going.

Maybe if you guys had a theory of a higher power or a greater purpose you would hesitate to talk down to people like Res.



posted on Oct, 25 2005 @ 09:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by Halfofone
MY argument is not that Evolution is a crock, I've said that I BELIVE THAT IT IS A REALITY, but it does not fully disprove the existance of a creator or an existance beyond this one.

It is not meant to. 'Creationists' have decided evolution is anti-god.


Evolution works, sure I can see that it does, but what is the point of discovering where we came from, if we cannot ask how it all began, and where is it going.

How far back do you want to go? The big bang? Yours is more a question of philosophy so that point is irrelevent to the topic at hand.


Maybe if you guys had a theory of a higher power or a greater purpose you would hesitate to talk down to people like Res.

Like Res? This point as already been addressed. Please review the entire thread for an objective perspective.


[edit on 25-10-2005 by riley]



posted on Oct, 25 2005 @ 09:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by Halfofone


Right, it does not back creationism at all.

Talk about sweaping... creation of evolution is dicounted?? I don't think so. Do you think that a creation being could not have set in motion processes that evolve? Let me get this straight, I do not belive the bible is the truth, and I do not accept any current consept of God. Put simply all existance, matter, light, antimatter, force, it is all one energy. see String Theory


"Backed," meaning "supported." Science does not support creationism. That is not to say that creationism can not support evolution. I am well aware of string theory. How does string theory relate to creationism?


Originally posted by Halfofone


How so? Please back up your sweepingly vague claim with examples and sources.

If it did then we would not be having this conversation.
"theory" really means "imperfect fact" or in other words, untill all the loose ends are tied up we cannot say for certian.


Again, if I am to take your wording "backed" to mean "supported," then I must ask, in which ways are evolution NOT supported by science? A theory will never become a fact, but that does not mean we cannot say that a theory is certain.



Originally posted by Halfofone
MY argument is not that Evolution is a crock, I've said that I BELIVE THAT IT IS A REALITY, but it does not fully disprove the existance of a creator or an existance beyond this one.


No one claimed that it did - nor does the theory itself attempt to do this. Most people worldwide believe in evolution either alone or as a mechanism of creation (1). I think that abiogenetic hypotheses may just as well be thought of along the same lines.


Originally posted by Halfofone
Evolution works, sure I can see that it does, but what is the point of discovering where we came from, if we cannot ask how it all began, and where is it going.


Why can't we ask how it all began? We ask this question about life and the universe, and from a scientific standpoint, we have potential answers in abiogenetic hypotheses and the big bang theory.


Originally posted by Halfofone
Maybe if you guys had a theory of a higher power or a greater purpose you would hesitate to talk down to people like Res.


You have no clue about my religious complexion. I spoke with resistance for nearly a month before he left here. Does that qualify as "hesitation?" In the end, I still didn't "talk down" to him. He's the one with the warning, not us.

(1) - www.religioustolerance.org...

Zip

[edit on 10/25/2005 by Zipdot]



posted on Oct, 25 2005 @ 09:21 AM
link   


Another question included in the recent poll asked directly about the evidence supporting Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution. Given a choice between three alternatives, only about one-third of Americans think that Charles Darwin’s theory is "well supported by evidence," while slightly more (39%) believe that it is not well supported, and that it is "just one of many theories" on this subject. A substantial percentage of Americans -- one in four -- felt they didn’t know enough to say.


65% of Americans either don't know anything about evolution or believe (falsely) that it is "just one of many theories" on the subject. Is the creationist conspiracy successful here in America? You bet.

Refer to the source from my last post for this striking statistic among British priests: 97% of British Roman Catholic priests believe in evolution. I would say that the creationist conspiracy is kind of failing there, in light of this.



Individuals with more education and people with higher incomes are more likely to think that evidence supports the theory of evolution. Younger people are also more likely than older people to think that evidence supports Darwin’s theory, perhaps reflecting the widespread teaching of evolution in the classroom in recent decades.


Source: Evolution gallup poll, 2001.

Zip



posted on Oct, 25 2005 @ 10:20 AM
link   
String theory is basicaly the idea that everything is the made of the same basic "string" like particles the vibrate at different frequencies and rates to produce the multitude of characteristics of existance.

If this is true then everything is one, connected through this basic structure. This could explain a multitude of things science has not addressed fully, including physic ability, remote viewing, and other paranormal activies. A collective uncousious that encompases all existance without time. Some people may be able to tap into this collective and mis-interpret it as physic ability, or future predictions and the like. This collective is, for lack of a better term, God and has always and will always exist. The creation of life could be the will of this collective manifesting a self replicating semingly indipendent system known as life.

The idea that "We are all one" is I'm sure not new to you. Mostly it is associated with the phycidelic drug crowd. Bill Hicks being the most articulate (and funny) said this;


Today, a young man on acid realized that all matter is merely energy condensed to a slow vibration. That we are all one consciousness experiencing itself subjectively. There is no such thing as death, life is only a dream and we're the imagination of ourselves. Here's Tom with the weather.


I apologise for assuming what your religious/philosophical belifes are. It just seems to be a cold view point that some evolutionist's have, I guess more specifically it's the "atheist" crowd that I don't understand. Maybe your agnostic, I don't know.

I'll end with an other Bill Hicks quote that I think fits.



Folks: it's time to evolve ideas. Y'know, evolution didn't end with us growing thumbs, you do know that, right? Didn't end there. We're at the point, now, where we're going to have to evolve ideas. The reason the world is so #ed up is we're undergoing evolution. And the reason our institutions, our traditional religions, are all crumbling is because... THEY'RE NO LONGER RELEVANT. [laughs] They're no longer relevant. So it's time for us to create a new philosophy and perhaps even a new religion, y'see. And that's OK 'cause that's our right, 'cause we are free children of God with minds who can imagine anything and thats kind of our role.


[edit on 25-10-2005 by Halfofone]



posted on Oct, 25 2005 @ 11:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by Halfofone
but it does not fully disprove the existance of a creator or an existance beyond this one.

It doesn't fully disprove this, and indeed doesn't even partially disprove this, it makes no statements as such, like any science. String theory doesn't disprove Lutheranism or Catholicism, for example. Science is mute on religion. At most, science comments on it insofar as it explains nature without reference to supernatural beings.

Macroevolution has been observed in the lab and the wild. Macroevolution is evolution at or above the species level.

I would like to see the evidence.
Observed Instances of Speciation and as a pdf
Some More Observed Speciation Events
29+ Evidences for Macroevolution (and as a pdf)
Also a critique, and a response to that critique.

You must think I'm an idiot, I'm the one that brought up the word Macroevolution yet YOU tell me what it means.

No sir, I stated it because there is confusion amoung people as to what it means, and there are lots of different people reading this thread at the moment.

Yes. But that is what I am talking about.

Alright, but don't say evolution when you want to talk about abiogenesis no?


but what is the point of discovering where we came from, if we cannot ask how it all began, and where is it going.

There is no point. Science does not have a point. Why is evolution "more pointless" in this respect than, say, any other science, like the mechanics that are involved in the operation of your car? That science can explain the car, but it can't explain where it ultimately came from, the materials and peoples that made it.


purpose you would hesitate to talk down to people like Res.

Waitaminute, if anyone was talking down to other people it was that poster. That poster was the one ignoring the evidnce that was presented to them and spouting off their religious interpretations to people that hadn't even asked for it. Thats condescending, that's rude. Explaining a science and talking about the evidence is not "Talking Down" to someone.


This could explain a multitude of things science has not addressed fully, including physic ability, remote viewing, and other paranormal activies.

There is nothing about string theory that offers an explanation for paranormal events. String theory no more units all things that atomic theory, when it was first proposed. String theory is far too often made to look like a 'wild and whacky ground truth' that can be used to account for anything that's not normally accepted by science. Quantum Theory used to be treated exactly the same way, it's no more true now than then.

A collective uncousious that encompases all existance without time.

String theory does not postulate this tho. String theory 'merely' states that all formerly elementary particles, forces, and waves, can be explained via the interactions of these strings and branes, such that quarks and gravity can be explained in the same reductionist manner, not that there is a connection between the thoughts of macro-beings (like humans) and the like. String Theory is strictly concerned with sub-atomic particles and waves and the like, not macro-particles like chemical compounds, rocks, planets, organisms, or even atoms. True enough, it reduces all them to strings, but this is like trying to predict a person's choice of dress by doing examining the ratio of carbon : nitrogen in them.

with an other Bill Hicks quote

Bill Hicks rules.



posted on Oct, 25 2005 @ 11:17 AM
link   
^ to be fair I never said that string theory postuates any of thies things, they are mearly my extrapilation from my minor understanding of the theory. If it turns out that all forces and matter ect. are built from the same elementary "building block" then I think that it could be said that a connection could exist between them.

Bill Hicks rules.



posted on Oct, 25 2005 @ 11:42 AM
link   
so who did the Universe ?


Top Atheist Professor admits that Creationism is Scientific !!


yet he still choses to remain an Atheist.

its his choice I guess.


"UK academic gives evidence in intelligent design case"

www.guardian.co.uk...




[edit on 25-10-2005 by mr conspiracy]



posted on Oct, 25 2005 @ 12:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by mr conspiracy
so who did the Universe ?


Top Atheist Professor admits that Creationism is Scientific !!



Steve Fuller, a professor of sociology


dictionary
Sociology.
The study of human social behavior, especially the study of the origins, organization, institutions, and development of human society.
Analysis of a social institution or societal segment as a self-contained entity or in relation to society as a whole.


The guy is not an expert in the relevent sciences.. he writes 'ID' books. I guess 'An Intelligent Person's Guide to Intelligent Design Theory' must be satire or something.


yet he still choses to remain an Atheist.

its his choice I guess.

Where does it say he's an atheist? Have you read his book? Just curious.


Urn

posted on Oct, 26 2005 @ 04:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by Halfofone


Right, it does not back creationism at all.

Talk about sweaping... creation of evolution is dicounted?? I don't think so. Do you think that a creation being could not have set in motion processes that evolve?

but, thats the thing...by deffinition, science can not possibly go head to head with concepts such as creation, or what happened before the big bang (seeing as how the rules of general relativity predict their own end at that point) for instance....so yes, the idea of "creation" has been entirely discounted by science, (as well as what may have been before the big bang) simply because there is absolutly NO way to prove or disprove that particular phenomenon (and more than likley never will be) given the current data...


Originally posted by Halfofone You must think I'm an idiot, I'm the one that brought up the word Macroevolution yet YOU tell me what it means.

hmmm...nope...i think we've all heard that term before...
you might have been the first to bring it up in this thread, but trust me, we all know what it implies... you are by far not the first to bring it up...and i think its been pretty much universaly recognized as an imaginary line drawn in the sand by creationists...(and i'm pretty sure nobody thinks your an idiot by the way)
...

in other words, any sort of "line" between micro evolution and macro evolution, doesn't actually exist...




Originally posted by Halfofone As far as I know evolution has NOT been proven as fact, that is why we still call it a theory.

the fact that evolution occurs, hasn't been in question (at least not by the scientific community anyways) for a long time...the theory of evolution on the other hand, tries to explain the mechanisms of the evolution that we blatently see...

the fact that evolution happens has never seriously been in dispute, how evolution happens, on the other hand, is still being seriously disputed...

[edit on 26-10-2005 by Urn]

[edit on 26-10-2005 by Urn]

[edit on 26-10-2005 by Urn]



posted on Oct, 26 2005 @ 06:38 AM
link   
i would like to see the creationism believers explain this to me:

www.sciencedaily.com...



posted on Oct, 26 2005 @ 08:16 AM
link   

so yes, the idea of "creation" has been entirely discounted by science, (as well as what may have been before the big bang) simply because there is absolutly NO way to prove or disprove that particular phenomenon (and more than likley never will be) given the current data...


If there is no way to prove or diprove it, and never will be, then how can it be discounted? You see it works both ways. Unless by discounted you mean science just pretendes that it isn't a question to be asked then you are right.



you might have been the first to bring it up in this thread, but trust me, we all know what it implies... you are by far not the first to bring it up...and i think its been pretty much universaly recognized as an imaginary line drawn in the sand by creationists...(and i'm pretty sure nobody thinks your an idiot by the way) ...

Well I wasn't talking to you, and I in no way insinuated that I was the one to coin the term or anything. I assumed everyone knew about it, Nygdan
is then one who felt the need to define it for everyone.



in other words, any sort of "line" between micro evolution and macro evolution, doesn't actually exist...

Fine, great, grand, wonderfull. I admit it macroevolution has happend and new speices exist now that did not priviously exist.. Ok so how does that prove a creator does not exist.



the fact that evolution happens has never seriously been in dispute, how evolution happens, on the other hand, is still being seriously disputed...

And if you read my posts I never disputed it either. I'm trying to move the debate from Evolution vs. Creation, to Created Evolution Vs. Random chance.
You see the difference?





[edit on 26-10-2005 by Halfofone]



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 11  12  13    15  16 >>

log in

join