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.

 

Top 3 problems with Evolution / Creationism

page: 2
8
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 27 2016 @ 11:59 AM
link   

originally posted by: Phantom423

The common ground here has to be evidence-based science.



I think the common ground is that we're all dumb sacks of meat trying to make sense of the world.

I wanted to avoid evidence as that closes off conversation, how many Hovind links do we really need on this site.
This is more about psychology possibly, humanising each other to both sides.

The sort of response I would love is.....

Hey, I'm a dumb sack of meat too. Where we came from is a tricky question. I think X but I wonder why/if/what/when/where/how X,X,X.

I think if you don't have some issues with either side that you are on you haven't studied it enough.




posted on Apr, 27 2016 @ 12:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phantom423

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: Krahzeef_Ukhar




here has to be some way to have a legitimate discussion between creationists and evolutionists without it resorting to the childish antics that usually follow. There has to be some give and take, so I would love it if everyone could post their top 3 problems with their own beliefs.


The common ground here has to be evidence-based science. "Beliefs" are not relevant to this type of discussion unless both sides presents AND ACKNOWLEDGES the evidence presented by both sides. This is why I have suggested several times that a formal debate would be an appropriate venue. In a debate, both sides MUST PRESENT EVIDENCE and defend their case based on that evidence.

To date, all the science-based evidence that has been posted, to include research posted in the ATS library, is ignored by the Creationist or ID side. Science-based evidence which has been posted ad infinitum by myself, Peter Vlar, Barcs and several others is never read or even referred to in replies. Instead, replies range anywhere from fraudulent science, to Plato, to statements of absolute certainties which are never substantiated.

And that says everything we need to know about Creationists and ID proponents. The real world of science contradicts their positions so forcefully, that discussion is out of the question.

Draw your own conclusions.



Thats completely false. The debate of God is a metaphysical debate. It's not a science debate. I agree however that formal debate rules should be employed. Like here are simple guidelines.
www.csun.edu...

However if you choose to argue against a claim you need evidence. For instance debating against fine tuning can be tricky because you are using rhetorical physics to explain possibilities of why things appear to be fined tuned. Well respected astrophysicists and cosmologists are even perplexed by fine tuning. It doesn't mean God did it or fine tuning exists (rather than only appears so) but the probability starts to become a question. The rebuttles begin to ignore probability in many cases and start using arguements that rely in what could happen rather than the probability.


What's false? The OP suggested a discussion of Creationism vs. Evolution. It's not a discussion about a god(s).

I can argue evolution. There are 500 respected journals with thousands of articles on various topics in evolution to support the conclusion that evolution is a process on this planet. Creationists have no such evidence.

What could happen and probability is an entirely different area of discussion.



Evolution happens. No question.

The question is of origin. How did evolution happen. What set up the laws of physics and material in space to interact that way.

You spoke about ID. Fine tuning is sort of an ID arguement. It's quite possible the formulas for the universe were designed. It's quite possible they were not.

As far as young earth creationists I mean even the church 1500 years ago didn't believe the creation story was literal.



posted on Apr, 27 2016 @ 12:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: Krahzeef_Ukhar
a reply to: luthier

I don't think it's an impossible situation.

There is a whole lot of information out there and a lot of it is counter intuitive. Anyone claiming to not be confused by any part of evolution (I should have chosen a better word universal evolution possibly, natural creation maybe) or creationism, I don't think is being sincere.

I was just seeing if there was anyway to have a constructive discussion about the topic without resorting to "I know everything, you know nothing". Understanding what people struggle with on both sides is important I think and can't hurt.

I still have hope, someone is bound to look at the rules and give it a go.


I doubt it. The entire point if debates and discussions are to elevate your thinking. To challenge your ideas and to contemplate ones you haven't thought of. Your asking for self analysis. This is something as a philosophy student I did with papers. Papers that were shredded and torn apart by professors. Which helped me get I have no idea and should be watching for fallacies in arguements including my own.

I am an agnostic (atheist) who leans towards deism and pantheism of spinioza.

I have no problem admitting in academic debates I was schooled by Christian apologists from time to time. Because my rebuttles and arguements contained fallacies or were poorly made. Same goes with strong Atheists in this site who think science can prove everything and provide everything. It can't.

To me you have to admit this little bit from Kant. (Without getting overly technical)

Basically there is what you know of an object through your senses and mind constructs and then there is the reality of the actual object. Chances are there is no way we can ever know the reality of an object. It first has to pass through your limited senses and then be analyzed by your limited mind.

When talking about Cosmology this is even greater.


Sorry, but you're wrong on a debate. A debate is a formal contest of argumentation. The topic is agreed upon by both parties and both parties are responsible to make their case based on evidence.

If your area of interest is philosophy, perhaps some philosophical concept would be more in line with your knowledge. Evolution is a science-based a topic - i.e. chemistry, physics, archaeology, molecular biology, etc.



posted on Apr, 27 2016 @ 12:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: Phantom423

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: Krahzeef_Ukhar




here has to be some way to have a legitimate discussion between creationists and evolutionists without it resorting to the childish antics that usually follow. There has to be some give and take, so I would love it if everyone could post their top 3 problems with their own beliefs.


The common ground here has to be evidence-based science. "Beliefs" are not relevant to this type of discussion unless both sides presents AND ACKNOWLEDGES the evidence presented by both sides. This is why I have suggested several times that a formal debate would be an appropriate venue. In a debate, both sides MUST PRESENT EVIDENCE and defend their case based on that evidence.

To date, all the science-based evidence that has been posted, to include research posted in the ATS library, is ignored by the Creationist or ID side. Science-based evidence which has been posted ad infinitum by myself, Peter Vlar, Barcs and several others is never read or even referred to in replies. Instead, replies range anywhere from fraudulent science, to Plato, to statements of absolute certainties which are never substantiated.

And that says everything we need to know about Creationists and ID proponents. The real world of science contradicts their positions so forcefully, that discussion is out of the question.

Draw your own conclusions.



Thats completely false. The debate of God is a metaphysical debate. It's not a science debate. I agree however that formal debate rules should be employed. Like here are simple guidelines.
www.csun.edu...

However if you choose to argue against a claim you need evidence. For instance debating against fine tuning can be tricky because you are using rhetorical physics to explain possibilities of why things appear to be fined tuned. Well respected astrophysicists and cosmologists are even perplexed by fine tuning. It doesn't mean God did it or fine tuning exists (rather than only appears so) but the probability starts to become a question. The rebuttles begin to ignore probability in many cases and start using arguements that rely in what could happen rather than the probability.


What's false? The OP suggested a discussion of Creationism vs. Evolution. It's not a discussion about a god(s).

I can argue evolution. There are 500 respected journals with thousands of articles on various topics in evolution to support the conclusion that evolution is a process on this planet. Creationists have no such evidence.

What could happen and probability is an entirely different area of discussion.



Evolution happens. No question.

The question is of origin. How did evolution happen. What set up the laws of physics and material in space to interact that way.

You spoke about ID. Fine tuning is sort of an ID arguement. It's quite possible the formulas for the universe were designed. It's quite possible they were not.

As far as young earth creationists I mean even the church 1500 years ago didn't believe the creation story was literal.


No. Origins are a separate subject. Evolution is a process. The process has been elucidated through science. Do we know everything. No. But all the evidence established so far points to an evolutionary process.

Fine tuning isn't necessarily an ID topic. Self assembly, self awareness, the possibility that an alien race programmed this universe, the possibility that the universe is infinite and that life is infinite - all these aspects are possibilities. There is no evidence for an intelligent designer or any of the possibilities that I suggested. At this point in time, it is an unknown.

But evolution as a science is well established in the research record. There are multiple disciplines that demonstrate evolution as an ongoing process.




edit on 27-4-2016 by Phantom423 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 27 2016 @ 12:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phantom423

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: Krahzeef_Ukhar
a reply to: luthier

I don't think it's an impossible situation.

There is a whole lot of information out there and a lot of it is counter intuitive. Anyone claiming to not be confused by any part of evolution (I should have chosen a better word universal evolution possibly, natural creation maybe) or creationism, I don't think is being sincere.

I was just seeing if there was anyway to have a constructive discussion about the topic without resorting to "I know everything, you know nothing". Understanding what people struggle with on both sides is important I think and can't hurt.

I still have hope, someone is bound to look at the rules and give it a go.


I doubt it. The entire point if debates and discussions are to elevate your thinking. To challenge your ideas and to contemplate ones you haven't thought of. Your asking for self analysis. This is something as a philosophy student I did with papers. Papers that were shredded and torn apart by professors. Which helped me get I have no idea and should be watching for fallacies in arguements including my own.

I am an agnostic (atheist) who leans towards deism and pantheism of spinioza.

I have no problem admitting in academic debates I was schooled by Christian apologists from time to time. Because my rebuttles and arguements contained fallacies or were poorly made. Same goes with strong Atheists in this site who think science can prove everything and provide everything. It can't.

To me you have to admit this little bit from Kant. (Without getting overly technical)

Basically there is what you know of an object through your senses and mind constructs and then there is the reality of the actual object. Chances are there is no way we can ever know the reality of an object. It first has to pass through your limited senses and then be analyzed by your limited mind.

When talking about Cosmology this is even greater.


Sorry, but you're wrong on a debate. A debate is a formal contest of argumentation. The topic is agreed upon by both parties and both parties are responsible to make their case based on evidence.

If your area of interest is philosophy, perhaps some philosophical concept would be more in line with your knowledge. Evolution is a science-based a topic - i.e. chemistry, physics, archaeology, molecular biology, etc.



If you had debates formally you had a bad teacher. The point of the debate is to elevate thinking. It's not to win. The winning and loosing is far less important than learning how to make good arguements. Debates in academia are tools for teachers to help students think. In the level of professors sure it's more about the arguement but the whole purpose is to learn to construct a "perfect arguement" and back up your claims.

I can debate anywhere I like. I can also loose handidly if I out of my leauge.

Origin and Cosmology is a personal interest. I have no problem debating against a claim that fi ne tuning is not a good arguement. I have watched many people flounder at it. Including Victor Stanger and definitely Dawkins. It's a philosophical subject. Both those scientists are great scientists but terrible philosophers. They make terrible arguements. On the subject of the teleological arguement for God.



posted on Apr, 27 2016 @ 12:12 PM
link   
a reply to: luthier

Well I would disagree with your definition of "debate". Perhaps in the classroom your definition is applicable. But debates, regardless of the topic, require both parties to provide evidence of their position. Even political debates, as shallow as they are, are heavily criticized when one of the debaters can't substantiate a claim.



posted on Apr, 27 2016 @ 12:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phantom423

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: Phantom423

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: Krahzeef_Ukhar




here has to be some way to have a legitimate discussion between creationists and evolutionists without it resorting to the childish antics that usually follow. There has to be some give and take, so I would love it if everyone could post their top 3 problems with their own beliefs.


The common ground here has to be evidence-based science. "Beliefs" are not relevant to this type of discussion unless both sides presents AND ACKNOWLEDGES the evidence presented by both sides. This is why I have suggested several times that a formal debate would be an appropriate venue. In a debate, both sides MUST PRESENT EVIDENCE and defend their case based on that evidence.

To date, all the science-based evidence that has been posted, to include research posted in the ATS library, is ignored by the Creationist or ID side. Science-based evidence which has been posted ad infinitum by myself, Peter Vlar, Barcs and several others is never read or even referred to in replies. Instead, replies range anywhere from fraudulent science, to Plato, to statements of absolute certainties which are never substantiated.

And that says everything we need to know about Creationists and ID proponents. The real world of science contradicts their positions so forcefully, that discussion is out of the question.

Draw your own conclusions.



Thats completely false. The debate of God is a metaphysical debate. It's not a science debate. I agree however that formal debate rules should be employed. Like here are simple guidelines.
www.csun.edu...

However if you choose to argue against a claim you need evidence. For instance debating against fine tuning can be tricky because you are using rhetorical physics to explain possibilities of why things appear to be fined tuned. Well respected astrophysicists and cosmologists are even perplexed by fine tuning. It doesn't mean God did it or fine tuning exists (rather than only appears so) but the probability starts to become a question. The rebuttles begin to ignore probability in many cases and start using arguements that rely in what could happen rather than the probability.


What's false? The OP suggested a discussion of Creationism vs. Evolution. It's not a discussion about a god(s).

I can argue evolution. There are 500 respected journals with thousands of articles on various topics in evolution to support the conclusion that evolution is a process on this planet. Creationists have no such evidence.

What could happen and probability is an entirely different area of discussion.



Evolution happens. No question.

The question is of origin. How did evolution happen. What set up the laws of physics and material in space to interact that way.

You spoke about ID. Fine tuning is sort of an ID arguement. It's quite possible the formulas for the universe were designed. It's quite possible they were not.

As far as young earth creationists I mean even the church 1500 years ago didn't believe the creation story was literal.


No. Origins are a separate subject. Evolution is a process. The process has been elucidated through science. Do we know everything. No. But all the evidence established so far points to an evolutionary process.

Fine tuning isn't necessarily an ID topic. Self assembly, self awareness, the possibility that an alien race programmed this universe, the possibility that the universe is infinite and that life is infinite - all these aspects are possibilities. There is no evidence for an intelligent designer or any of the possibilities that I suggested. At this point in time, it is an unknown.

But evolution as a science is well established in the research record. There are multiple disciplines that demonstrate evolution as an ongoing process.





Of coarse an alien race could have designed the universe. It could be a group of lab students for all we know.

The three examples the OP gave were arguements of origin. Regardless of the title. Thats what I responded to.

I don't object to anything you said about evolution or the teleological arguement.



posted on Apr, 27 2016 @ 12:16 PM
link   
a reply to: luthier

Well you might be right on that. Perhaps the OP can clarify exactly what he/she wants to discuss. Typically the "discussions" mix apples and oranges and rarely stay on topic. Abiogenesis and evolution are separate subjects in science simply because there is a mountain of evidence for one and very little for the other. Although (and it's off topic) there is some new intriguing evidence about origins this past year. But that's a subject for another thread.


edit on 27-4-2016 by Phantom423 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 27 2016 @ 12:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: luthier

Well I would disagree with your definition of "debate". Perhaps in the classroom your definition is applicable. But debates, regardless of the topic, require both parties to provide evidence of their position. Even political debates, as shallow as they are, are heavily criticized when one of the debaters can't substantiate a claim.



Of coarse. Again not my arguement. The evidence in metaphysical, cosmological, and philosophical debates are not the same hard facts as other subjects. You can't disprove God exists. Can't prove it does. If I say God exists because something had to have always existed otherwise something came from absolutely nothing that is evidence in philosophy. So you have to provide an arguement against that without using infinite regress. Probably along the lines of time constructs in the nature of true reality. Good. However neither are hard facts.



posted on Apr, 27 2016 @ 12:19 PM
link   
a reply to: luthier

I'll assume you're correct. The philosophical/metaphysical side isn't my forte. I wouldn't argue for or against a God because there's no evidence either way. It falls under belief systems.



posted on Apr, 27 2016 @ 12:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: luthier

Well you might be right on that. Perhaps the OP can clarify exactly what he/she wants to discuss. Typically the "discussions" mix apples and oranges and rarely stay on topic. Abiogenesis and evolution are separate subjects in science simply because there is a mountain of evidence for one and very little for the other. Although (and it's off topic) there is some new intriguing evidence about origins this past year. But that's a subject for another thread.



Abiogenesis was in the OP. It still does not explain where matter came from. Or what initiated the big bang. Fine tuning is about where it all came from. Including the laws that govern the universe. If the weight or electric charge of atoms were different etc. Don't get me wrong there are good rebuttles. Just want to say science is also about leaving yourself open to possibility and probability.

These topics are probably unknowable to the current human mind. We can disregard bad arguements and fallacies within the arguements that's probably about it.



posted on Apr, 27 2016 @ 12:22 PM
link   
With my philosophical perspective I would promote that we will never be able to determine what is outside the onion, as we are inside it. But all the evidence I have gathered from all those religious texts to classical science to quantum science leads me to believe that there was something that was first which can be perceived by us in a split nanosecond as nothing. The fault is, as soon as we conceive that notion we have broken it down into something worldly.

This leads me to believe that from that nothing which is everything and everything that is possible came this opposite pole world :
Mother - Father
Subtract(minus) - Add(plus)
Chaos - Order
Hot - Cold
Yes - No
Up - Down
Left - Right
Fast - Slow (In other words - high vibration and low vibration .... or frequency if you will)
Red - Blue (and beyond)
Moon - Sun

And just about every other opposites there is. And we're smack in the middle of it. Fluctuating sightly at any given time.

And to me, this seems to be the conditions which our type of life thrive in. It's all about the mathematical constants and how they stem from the quantum world and govern the laws of matter.
It also seems to be all about what the "occult"(nothing but tying together physics concepts and math concepts and more into wisdom about the origin and destination of life) is about.

Religious dogma was designed to hide this fact.

But there are a few who have come and told this to man. And they said that the only thing that matters is to be as good as one can be.

So yeah, I'm with creationism at the highest level.
edit on 27/4/16 by Sump3 because: (no reason given)


I also want to add that, I believe in evolution of the cosmos. Though the song remains the same, it must mold itself to it's conditions.
edit on 27/4/16 by Sump3 because: (no reason given)

edit on 27/4/16 by Sump3 because: (no reason given)

edit on 27/4/16 by Sump3 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 27 2016 @ 12:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: luthier

I'll assume you're correct. The philosophical/metaphysical side isn't my forte. I wouldn't argue for or against a God because there's no evidence either way. It falls under belief systems.


Yeah that is far easier to debate although watch out for Christian apologists. They have gone to college and are trained to debate the issues of God's existence. They are usually pretty good philosophers academically speaking and set really good traps.



posted on Apr, 27 2016 @ 12:33 PM
link   
"It is Turtles and Elephants All the way Down Mate...."

"The Universe was Sneezed out of the Great Green Arckelsiezure, and were just waiting for the coming of the Great white handkerchief."

When you take the whoo whoo fantasy out of ID stories and just list the facts of them in creation order you find they are close to hypothesized Evolution order. Basically Two disciplines describing the same process. People Just get hung on the semantics of it.

I say Hang the sense of it all, find a good pub or Bristo, enjoy the here and now and do not worry about what was before your or any one currently alive's time.



posted on Apr, 27 2016 @ 12:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: luthier

I'll assume you're correct. The philosophical/metaphysical side isn't my forte. I wouldn't argue for or against a God because there's no evidence either way. It falls under belief systems.


Yeah that is far easier to debate although watch out for Christian apologists. They have gone to college and are trained to debate the issues of God's existence. They are usually pretty good philosophers academically speaking and set really good traps.


And that's exactly why evidence-based science focusing on the evolutionary process should be a unique topic. Incorporating abiogenesis would introduce too many variables and unknowables.

So it's left to the OP to decide what he/she wants to do.



posted on Apr, 27 2016 @ 12:38 PM
link   
So we're debating debating. This thread isn't a debate it's more a discussion with clearly stated rules. Ignored rules but rules nonetheless. For those keeping score Ophiuchus 13 is winning.

But for some reason no one is willing to say that any part of the stories of our origins they lean towards don't make sense to them. I'm confused, this isn't a trap.

If everything we know about our origins makes sense to you, you really need to study more. It's a rabbit hole that brings up more and more questions all the time.



posted on Apr, 27 2016 @ 01:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krahzeef_Ukhar
So we're debating debating. This thread isn't a debate it's more a discussion with clearly stated rules. Ignored rules but rules nonetheless. For those keeping score Ophiuchus 13 is winning.

But for some reason no one is willing to say that any part of the stories of our origins they lean towards don't make sense to them. I'm confused, this isn't a trap.

If everything we know about our origins makes sense to you, you really need to study more. It's a rabbit hole that brings up more and more questions all the time.







It's just a rediculous premise. I fully admit origins is unknowable. What now?

I don't hold any beliefs about origins other than I find it hard to believe there isn't a designer of some kind. The universe itself is a possibility but according to science it has a beginning. So what was before that? What was before that? What was before that? Infinite regress. So is there a necessary being ? It makes sense to me but I could be wrong.



posted on Apr, 27 2016 @ 01:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phantom423

So it's left to the OP to decide what he/she wants to do.


Your welcome to start something with specific debate rules if you like on another thread.
Although applying rules hasn't been successful here.

This isn't a debate and it's not about which one is right. It's about making the ideas more accessible.

I was hoping that the creationists would see that people who believe in natural origins are still looking for answers and a lot doesn't make sense to them. And natural origins folk would see that the creationists also are looking for answers and a lot doesn't make sense to them.

I want to avoid evidence because it stops discussion. The only people who look at it are the one's who already believe it.

This isn't a trick, I'm a Lawrence Krauss fanboy. I'd consider myself an anti-theist I would love a Christopher Hitchens Shrine, Dawkins annoys me but he is a brilliant man and I don't doubt he understands fully everything he says.

Mainly I'd like to see open honest discussion about peoples doubts and questions without having to go on the defense because they don't understand physics or scripture. No shame in either, obviously.



posted on Apr, 27 2016 @ 01:18 PM
link   
a reply to: luthier


PS why would someone debate their own beliefs with themselves on a public forum. It doesn't make sense to me. You would be better off setting up formal rules of academic debating.

To show that they are open-minded, critical thinkers who are able to see both sides.
Anyone who refuses to do that is just insecure in their beliefs, I think.

I think it's a great idea to debate with oneself on a public forum. It encourages others not to be so rigid and adamant and contrary and oppositional and all that negative communication stuff.


I am an agnostic, too, by the way.....



posted on Apr, 27 2016 @ 01:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
a reply to: luthier


PS why would someone debate their own beliefs with themselves on a public forum. It doesn't make sense to me. You would be better off setting up formal rules of academic debating.

To show that they are open-minded, critical thinkers who are able to see both sides.
Anyone who refuses to do that is just insecure in their beliefs, I think.

I think it's a great idea to debate with oneself on a public forum. It encourages others not to be so rigid and adamant and contrary and oppositional and all that negative communication stuff.


I am an agnostic, too, by the way.....



I guess I am having trouble understanding how this would even happen. To even begin to do this you need some semblance of what fallacies are and what already exists in term of arguements regarding your own beliefs. Without external input it's a very slow process and one may never even realize these arguements and rebuttles already exist.

Pretty much every forum I try and stand up for logic in the debating format. I defend Christians against Atheists fallacy and Atheists against Christian fallacies.

A moderator can also do this and it helps if they are familiar with the topic.

I for instance find the teleological arguement compelling even as a non believer. It's hard to ignore some of the probabilities. However I already understand it's not without serious problems. For instance the possibility of a multiverse.

Like the author of the OP I live Hitchins. However, I believe he lost the debate with Craig. So do a lot of other atheist philosophers. You can't just believe your own ideas are correct without scrutiny. Thats an important thing lost by abandoning philosophy as a normal part of education.

If you are willing to argue with yourself online you probably already understand the nature of reality is not really knowable as it is but only through our senses and our mind processes.

It's unlikely if you don't point out fallacy in ones arguement they will willingly accept anything.

Maybe I am wrong. It's very possible.



new topics

top topics



 
8
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join