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.

 

Is There Evidence for Creationism? Show it to us.

page: 15
17
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 1 2015 @ 07:58 AM
link   

originally posted by: edmc^2
a reply to: TzarChasm

Then there's also this:

Laws of the universe.

As intelligent person, I assume you don't think that laws such as the four fundamental forces didn't just came on their own volition? I hope not. Otherwise, you will be relying on blind faith.



Blind faith is attributing a cause without compelling evidence, and I mean compelling. Ever heard of the null hypothesis? Basically says two phenomena are initially assumed unconnected unless otherwise proven. The "ground zero" of any scientific theory. First, you have to establish a verifiable connection before you examine the nature of that connection. You appear to have skipped this step.




posted on Sep, 1 2015 @ 09:47 AM
link   
a reply to: Raggedyman I like the idea Steven Hawking brought up, we our universe is inside similar to a black hole, taking in constantly and transcending energy.



posted on Sep, 1 2015 @ 09:52 AM
link   
a reply to: spygeek Even if E.T.'s did have some kind of connection to us being here it proves nothing! Where did the E.T.'s come from, the same thing as we did, a live body in motion, the only reason it has mass we search for a god particle, I call that particle radiation.



posted on Sep, 1 2015 @ 11:51 AM
link   

originally posted by: GetHyped
a reply to: MrConspiracy

The title of the thread is: Is There Evidence for Creationism? Show it to us.

Do you have anything to show?


I'd chime in but EDMC^2 has made very valid points below your post.

the evidence is all around us. your interpretation of that evidence is your prerogative. I see an awesome (literal) universe that, to me, is far beyond out comprehension. This includes us and how we came to be. That big ol' universe is throwing us curve balls on a daily basis.... How could we be so arrogant to presume we know where we (or anything) came from?



posted on Sep, 1 2015 @ 12:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: TheChrome
Here is what needs to happen: Turn the tables. You evolutionists prove there is evolution! You can't! You blindly follow false dots that cannot be connected! So in your wisdom and supreme intellect, prove one fossil that connects organisms from different eras! ONE! that all I ask.


In case you haven't noticed, there is another thread in this section called "Is There Evidence for Evolution? Show it to us" where this evidence has been presented and nobody has addressed it. In this thread it is the exact opposite. It is creationists making boatloads of assumption with no scientific backing whatsoever.

Evolution already has been proven. If not there wouldn't be a scientific theory based on it. Scientific theories aren't made about hypothetical things, they are made about verified proven processes that can be observed and experimented with. The theories look to explain those facts. The theory of gravity tries to explain the proven verified fact that mass pulls objects toward it. Much like the theory of modern evolutionary synthesis tries to explain the fact that genetic mutations and natural selection change species over time. Common decent has so much evidence in favor of it at this point that denial is silly.
edit on 1-9-2015 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 1 2015 @ 12:22 PM
link   
a reply to: MrConspiracy

"There is evidence all around us" is not an answer.

"The brain is proof of creationism" is even more of a non-answer.

2 can play that game: "the brain" and "everything around us" are proof of the divine invisible pink unicorn. Yes, that's exactly how ridiculous you and edmc^2's answers sound.

Now, back on topic: "Is There Evidence for Creationism? Show it to us."
edit on 1-9-2015 by GetHyped because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 1 2015 @ 12:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: MrConspiracy
a reply to: Barcs

Are you trying to tell me that things we believe today to be cold hard fact (based on research) will never be disproven as we advance?

We're forever finding things out about the world and beyond that completely contradict what we believed to be true.

If you want some examples i'll go searching or you can google yourself. It's late now (UK)


So you don't have any examples for me. I expected such. Remember I said scientific theories, not "things people have believed about the world". There's a big difference. One is backed by hard science, the other is not.

I'm trying to tell you that science finds answers. It always has. It may not get us there directly and right away, but it eventually does. And yes, there are certain scientific facts that will never be disproven (ie earth revolving around the sun). The scientific method finds us the facts. Theories are used to explain the said facts. Hypotheses are included in theories, they are works in progress, so they could end up being wrong, but the primary fact that the theory is based on, will not suddenly end up wrong. You aren't going to wake up tomorrow and hear that we have suddenly found out that evolution is completely false. What you may hear is that scientists were inaccurate with some of their estimates for time frames of certain species that do not have much fossil evidence. But that's the great thing about science. As the facts come in, the theories get better. It's like putting a giant puzzle together. I just don't get why folks benefiting from science on a daily basis complain so much about it and attack it so rigorously. It's not justified in the least.



posted on Sep, 1 2015 @ 12:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: edmc^2
a reply to: TzarChasm

Then there's also the information in our DNA.

Surely, you would not think that such highly sophisticated and highly complex codes didn't just write and programmed themselves? Do you?

I hope not. Otherwise that would be like assuming the codes in your computer wrote and programmed themselves.



Can you prove that DNA was designed or programmed or are you relying on your ASSUMPTION that complexity cannot arise on its own, despite there being numerous examples of this very thing? Your interpretation of how DNA appears is irrelevant. Do you have a solid connection based on hard evidence ? Where is the scientific research that suggests DNA complexity means it was designed? Assumptions and alternate "interpretations of evidence" are not how science works. Either you prove something or you don't. You can't prove your case without assumptions therefor I can dismiss your argument as pure opinion, and not evidence for creation.

Evidence of creation would be physical tangible evidence that suggests a creator is real or that the creation process happened. Thus far there is nothing to suggest either.

You say DNA looks complex. I say the moon looks like cheese. Appearance can be deceiving. You need more than that.
edit on 1-9-2015 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 1 2015 @ 01:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: Barcs

originally posted by: MrConspiracy
a reply to: Barcs

Are you trying to tell me that things we believe today to be cold hard fact (based on research) will never be disproven as we advance?

We're forever finding things out about the world and beyond that completely contradict what we believed to be true.

If you want some examples i'll go searching or you can google yourself. It's late now (UK)


So you don't have any examples for me. I expected such. Remember I said scientific theories, not "things people have believed about the world". There's a big difference. One is backed by hard science, the other is not.

I'm trying to tell you that science finds answers. It always has. It may not get us there directly and right away, but it eventually does. And yes, there are certain scientific facts that will never be disproven (ie earth revolving around the sun). The scientific method finds us the facts. Theories are used to explain the said facts. Hypotheses are included in theories, they are works in progress, so they could end up being wrong, but the primary fact that the theory is based on, will not suddenly end up wrong. You aren't going to wake up tomorrow and hear that we have suddenly found out that evolution is completely false. What you may hear is that scientists were inaccurate with some of their estimates for time frames of certain species that do not have much fossil evidence. But that's the great thing about science. As the facts come in, the theories get better. It's like putting a giant puzzle together. I just don't get why folks benefiting from science on a daily basis complain so much about it and attack it so rigorously. It's not justified in the least.


I didn't attack it I was pointing out it can get things wrong and forever will. And using science as a broad term doesn't help things.

Also, we technically don't orbit the sun.
edit on 1-9-2015 by MrConspiracy because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 1 2015 @ 01:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: Astyanax
a reply to: edmc^2


Dr. Karl Popper's philosophical principle on "Falsifiable Evidence"?

What? You want to discuss philosophy? Why?


Rather than rely on proven Scientific Method, you're relying on....philosophy to disprove or prove creation as unscientific?

A scientific theory has to be supported by falsifiable evidence. Do you know what 'falsifiable' means?


Cannot be recreated in a laboratory.

Neither can blue whale mating. Indeed, it hasn't even been observed in the wild. Yet we know it happens. Why? Falsifiable evidence in the form of blue whale calves, that's why. Is the penny beginning to drop?


Hence, no scientific experiment could prove or disprove either evolution or creation.

Who is talking about proof and disproof?


So which one is supported by your Philosophy?

What philosophy?

You saw the word 'falsifiable' and immediately went off on a trip of your own.

Please stop beating yourself over the head. It's painful to watch.


What philosophy?

This.


The Karl Popper Concept Of Falsifiability Philosophy Essay
Karl Popper (1902-1994) was an Austro-British philosopher and a professor at the London School of Economics. Popper's popularity stemmed from his attempt to reject the classical observationalist or the inductivist account of scientific method, and instead advancing empirical falsification instead, among others. The thing that troubled Popper was 'when should a theory be ranked as scientific?' or 'is there a criterion for the scientific character or status of a theory?' (Popper 1957 p. 1-2). Popper was concerned about the difference between Science and Pseudo science and not necessarily about the truth of a theory. This is where the philosophy of science as falsification emerged. "Philosophers were accused-rightly, I believe-of ' philosophizing without knowledge of fact', and their philosophies were described as 'mere fancies, even imbecile fancies' (Popper 1952 p. 127).

Popper believed that Science starts with problems rather than with observations and based on the specific problems, it then leads the scientist to then make observations. According to Popper, the scientist's observations are therefore designed to test the extent to which a theory satisfactorily solves the initial problem.


Read more: www.ukessays.com...



Sir Karl Raimund Popper CH FBA FRS[4] (28 July 1902 – 17 September 1994) was an Austrian-British philosopher and professor.[5][6][7] He is generally regarded as one of the greatest philosophers of science of the 20th century.[8][9]

Popper is known for his rejection of the classical inductivist views on the scientific method, in favour of empirical falsification: A theory in the empirical sciences can never be proven, but it can be falsified, meaning that it can and should be scrutinized by decisive experiments. If the outcome of an experiment contradicts the theory, one should refrain from ad hoc manoeuvres that evade the contradiction merely by making it less falsifiable. Popper is also known for his opposition to the classical justificationist account of knowledge which he replaced with critical rationalism, "the first non-justificational philosophy of criticism in the history of philosophy."[10]

In political discourse, he is known for his vigorous defence of liberal democracy and the principles of social criticism that he came to believe made a flourishing "open society" possible. His political philosophy embraces ideas from all major democratic political ideologies and attempts to reconcile them: social democracy, classical liberalism.[11]


en.wikipedia.org...

Now, why you're not aware of the philosophical nature of "falsifiable evidence" argument, I don't know. But for me I'd rather stay away from it. It'll hurt your head and painful to watch.

So again:

Is scientifically accurate to say that life can only come from pre-existing life?

Can this be reproduced/recreated in the lab?

The answer is obvious.

How a bout spontaneous generation of life from non-life?

The answer is obvious.


As for this:




Neither can blue whale mating. Indeed, it hasn't even been observed in the wild. Yet we know it happens. Why? Falsifiable evidence in the form of blue whale calves, that's why. Is the penny beginning to drop?


There are many observations made of blue whales mating. Simple google will give you vid clips. But your point is nonsense because whales already exist as a living breathing thing. Hence it can and will reproduce.

Proving my point that life can only come from pre-existing life.



posted on Sep, 1 2015 @ 02:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: GetHyped
a reply to: MrConspiracy

"There is evidence all around us" is not an answer.

"The brain is proof of creationism" is even more of a non-answer.

2 can play that game: "the brain" and "everything around us" are proof of the divine invisible pink unicorn. Yes, that's exactly how ridiculous you and edmc^2's answers sound.

Now, back on topic: "Is There Evidence for Creationism? Show it to us."


Us? When did this become a 2 sided argument? Creationists vs Evolutionists ...

Do you really need me to tell you I can't go out and prove intelligent design (of sorts) in a lab? Was that something you weren't aware of or are you saying "show it to us" for some other reason?

What do you want someone to show you to prove design? lab results? physical evidence? you won't get it... Does that mean it doesn't exist?

Maybe we'll get there. We're finding things that we never knew existed all the time. Just because by current science we can't see or test something doesn't mean that thing doesn't exist.

Humans are so arrogant at times, believing what we currently know to be THE COLD HARD FACTS when in reality, 150 years from now we could quite easily have a VERY different understanding of ... well, EVERYTHING. (based on science!)



posted on Sep, 1 2015 @ 02:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: edmc^2
a reply to: TzarChasm

Then there's also this:

Laws of the universe.

As intelligent person, I assume you don't think that laws such as the four fundamental forces didn't just came on their own volition? I hope not. Otherwise, you will be relying on blind faith.



Blind faith is attributing a cause without compelling evidence, and I mean compelling. Ever heard of the null hypothesis? Basically says two phenomena are initially assumed unconnected unless otherwise proven. The "ground zero" of any scientific theory. First, you have to establish a verifiable connection before you examine the nature of that connection. You appear to have skipped this step.


Talk about compelling evidence. What's the evidence that life arose spontaneously then evolved into an intelligent being?



posted on Sep, 1 2015 @ 02:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: MrConspiracy
Also, we technically don't orbit the sun.


Technically the earth follows the sun in a spiral pattern behind it as it travels around the galactic center of the milky way. It still revolves around the sun as a result of the sun's gravity, so technically the earth IS orbiting around the sun. It is indeed IN ORBIT by definition.


I didn't attack it I was pointing out it can get things wrong and forever will. And using science as a broad term doesn't help things.


I was very specific in how I defined science. You are the one with the broad brush painting all things believed about the earth in the past as "science" such as flat earth. Nobody's saying science is perfect, but the whole "science gets things wrong occasionally so it isn't reliable" crap needs to stop. It isn't an argument against evolution and it isn't an argument for creation.


Humans are so arrogant at times, believing what we currently know to be THE COLD HARD FACTS when in reality, 150 years from now we could quite easily have a VERY different understanding of ... well, EVERYTHING. (based on science!)


Those damn arrogant humans, thinking that learning and studying things will help us understand the universe better. PFFFFFFF. It's all magic. This is the nonsense I'm talking about with attacks on science. You think everything will be wrong in 150 years? That is laughable. Again, give me a scientific theory that has been proven wrong. Anything within the last 100 years will suffice. Since science is always wrong, surely you'll have plenty of examples. Remember SCIENTIFIC THEORIES, not things believed in the past by humans.

You tell me what is more arrogant.

1. Thinking you know more about science than a professional that has studied the subject for decades.

2. Admitting that we do not have the answer to everything, and doing our best to find the answers.

It isn't arrogant to say that there is no evidence for creation. That isn't saying it's wrong.
edit on 1-9-2015 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 1 2015 @ 02:21 PM
link   
a reply to: MrConspiracy

Is There Evidence for Creationism? Show it to us.

Do you have anything to show? We're 15 pages into the thread and it's getting a little embarrassing now.



posted on Sep, 1 2015 @ 02:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: edmc^2
So again:

Is scientifically accurate to say that life can only come from pre-existing life?

Can this be reproduced/recreated in the lab?

The answer is obvious.

How a bout spontaneous generation of life from non-life?

The answer is obvious.


Yes, the answer is obvious. You obviously don't understand science. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence in science, so the answer to your first question is "No." There is more evidence in favor of abiogenesis than there is of a creator entity or creation process.

Also you are way behind the times. Nobody believes spontaneous generation, that has been long debunked. Abiogenesis is about how life can arise from basic inorganic components and parts of this have been done in a lab.



posted on Sep, 1 2015 @ 02:27 PM
link   
a reply to: edmc^2

Hey, thanks for all the information about Popper. I've actually read his stuff; have you? Not sure why you posted it here, though -- perhaps you'd like to explain how it's relevant?


Is it scientifically accurate to say that life can only come from pre-existing life?

No, but it's a falsifiable statement.


Can this be reproduced/recreated in the lab?

I don't know. Why do you think this matters?


The answer is obvious.

The answer to what?


There are many observations made of blue whales mating. Simple google will give you vid clips.

Really? Prove it.

Or stop spouting piffle.



posted on Sep, 1 2015 @ 02:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: GetHyped
a reply to: MrConspiracy

Is There Evidence for Creationism? Show it to us.

Do you have anything to show? We're 15 pages into the thread and it's getting a little embarrassing now.


Please refer to previous post. You know full well I can't provide the evidence you desire. So why you ask for it knowing full well people can't give you what you demand is beyond me.

Don't bother replying. The quest to belittle anything outside of evolutions is getting a little embarrassing now.
edit on 1-9-2015 by MrConspiracy because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 1 2015 @ 02:39 PM
link   
a reply to: MrConspiracy

Why reply to the thread then? You are off topic. Nobody twisted your arm and told you to reply. If somebody asks for evidence for something in a thread, one would expect responses with evidence or no responses at all. I wouldn't respond to a thread called "Is there evidence for ghosts?" just to say that I don't have evidence.
edit on 1-9-2015 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 1 2015 @ 02:50 PM
link   
a reply to: MrConspiracy

You can't provide evidence but we can post a ton of evidence for evolution.



posted on Sep, 1 2015 @ 02:52 PM
link   
a reply to: Barcs

We orbit around the barycentre. But whatever, that's maybe a little too off topic!

Also, am I wrong in suggesting we find tools/artefacts that defy what we originally believed? Pushing things like tool making 100,000s of years back. And it's happening all the time. The more we research, the more we find out. And naturally these findings supersede what we originally believed.

I also find your tone quite offensive. Saying my comments are "laughable" isn't really fair when, in reality, you said I "think everything will be wrong in 150 years" But i didn't... I said in 150 years we could have a very different understanding of things.



new topics

top topics



 
17
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join