New Forum For The Debate of Origins and Creationism

Skep... Welcome to the 'Origins and Creationism Conspiracy' Forum. You seem very confident in your understanding of both ID and the TOE. You are coridally invited by me, mattison0922 to join our discussion about this very topic here in this thread. It's been kind of slow lately, and we could use some fresh activity.

Hope to see you.

Couldn't have said it better myself. In fact, I have tried to explain to some in here that the use of theory to describe some idea they have or mantra they've been fed is invalid. I suggested they attempt to understand what a theory is and the requirements a theory must meet without giving them the correct definition. I feel they should have to spend 10 minutes to find out on their own.
Crristians and other fundies (and this is not say that most christians are fundies because the majority are not. Fundies make up about 17 to 19 % of professing chriatians most of whom are patently insincere in their claimed belief).
I think the main reason christians hate evolution is that for those of them who read and comprehend above the 6th grade level (and this is not the majority) know that evolution killed religion as it is practiced in this country and most middle eastern countries. The irony here is that evolution has not the least bit of interest in religion, even the fundie kind. The reccognition of evolution is not open to debate. It is not a matter of opinion, as you well know, it is sound theory and therefore not relatefd to religion or other metaphysics in any way.
skep

Wasn't your last post in thread praise for this same individual?

Did you have anything original to add to the discussion, or is your style just to try to sound smart, and agree with the comments that reflect the majority opinion?

Thus far, your posting in the O & C forum has amounted to vague, unsupported generalizations about the fundamentalist Christian population that comprises the ID community, and posts that appear to be thinly disguised 'bait' posts to lure someone into some ridiculous semantical argument.

So... I'll ask it again... do you have anything substantial to add? If you really want to discuss this, then let's do it. You pick the topic, excluding semantics and other topics that belong in English class. If you want to talk science, well here I am.

The balls been in your court, in this thread and a couple of others, for some time now. What are you waiting for?

I'll lob one at you skip... It's my contention that the formation of even the simplest biological polymers as per any of the existing abiogenesis hypotheses is limited not only by stereochemical considerations, but also is limited by both enthalpic and entropic considerations.

Your move.... again, but I doubt you'll follow through with anything reasonable.

I feel something will happen this year proving intelligent design. I don't know why but I have a feeling that the oldest human ever will be discovered this year, or within the next 5 anyway disproving Darwin's theory once and for all. The human will not resemble an Ape in any shape or form it will look Human! My hunch may not be correct, i am not saying it is 100% going to happen but something really big is in the air which will hopefully saticfy curiosity.

How do you explain the unique design of every snowflake? Just a thought, one that freaks me out completly however!

I claim no great scientific knowledge or background but there are some things about this subject that appear obvious to even me.

Evolution is an unproven and unprovable theory that has been taught as fact for the past several decades. As I understand it, science is based on empirical evidence that is proven through multiple experiments that are repeatable and so re-provable by different scientists. To teach as fact an unproven theory seems to me to be reducing science to the level of faith. Indeed I believe that this is just what evolution has become, a basic tenant of the faith of secular humanism.

There is of course no doubt that adaptation occurs. It is easily observable in short lived species and particularly in domesticated animals that we breed to our needs. However, the leap from one species to another is wholly unobserved, and absent from the fossil record despite numerous attempts make the fossils fit the theory. It seems to even such an uneducated man as I that the great abundance of unused genetic info present in every organism's DNA easily explains the enormous capability for adaptation present in every life form. It also seems to me that such great adaptability argues against the need for evolution to some degree. If evolution were correct, wouldn't we expect at least some ability of different species to interbreed? Particularly those with supposedly recent common ancestors? If fact we see just the opposite with even close relatives such as donkeys and horses producing infertile offspring.

There are numerous scientific arguments against evolution which are well known such as the mathematical improbability, the physical laws it contradicts such as entropy, etc. And of course no proof of creation (or the new-age version ID) exists, although some 'creation scientists' make some good points. What interests me most however, is why evolution is so fervently defended and so vehemently attacked. Obviously it is an issue of faith, belief, world-view, religion, call it what you will. You don't see such reaction in a debate on the unified field theory. People have an intrinsic need to have a belief of where they come from and where they are going to, even if it is from nothing to nothing. Question such belief, and you have stepped on the individuals self-view, an act sure to illicit an emotional response.

Unfortunately, we flawed, childish humans tend to allow our own insecurities about our beliefs to lead us into vilifying those who believe differently. Was not the evolutionist made by the same God as the theist? Did not the Christian evolve from the same ancestor as the atheist? My goal here is to bring a bit more introspective thoughtfulness to the debate, and to try to reduce the haughty tone from both sides.

The simple fact of the matter is that we don't know. There is a universe of room to argue either side, but neither can be proven. It takes a lot of courage to admit to yourself that you don't know where you come from or where you're going.

The truest wisdom is the knowledge of ones own ignorance.

Hello,

I am knowledgable in science, especially in physics.

Evolution will never be "proven" to manys satisfaction because there is no mathematical description for it. In physics, a theory means there is a mathematical equation that is always satisfied. If it is not, then the theory is flawed. The power of physics comes from the power of math. It's pure deduction based upon minimal and reasonable assumptions.

Evolution is a philosophical statement. The reason for it's scientific acceptance is because of the many logical deductions that can be made from it that are supported by historical and experimental facts.

Some basics are:

Why did it take so long for human evolution?

Evol: Because mutations are rare, requiring significant amounts of time to create more complex beings.
ID: God willed it.

Why are there no humans with a third arm coming out of their head?

Evol: Because such mutations are not successful and would never come to be.
ID: God willed it.

Why were single celled organisms the first to appear and not humans?

Evol: The chances for mutations to produce a successful adaptation is rare and it is logical that these adaptations built upon each other, continually growing, versus the spontaneous combustion of matter into a human.
ID: God willed it.

Evol: Predicts the fossil record to be of animals come and gone. It also predicts that the final product with be such a create that is excellent at survival in the environment. Humans.
ID: All creatures were created at once. The fossil record should be uniform, with all creatures having existed at all points past to their extinction.

The fossil record undeniably supports Evolution. The fossil record is not uniform and ID needs some new "cause" to explain that fact.

ID cannot explain why the human predecessors were created. From ID's point of view, homoerectus was a failed attempt at a human. But from Evolutions point of view, homoerectus IS a transition creature. You need proof of transitions? Look at the scientific facts of the ape to human and all the transition "homos" inbetween.

Evolution IS a fact that can be proved with virus's. They are so small that the time scales for mutations and changes are within our abilities to observe. And isnt it common knowledge that virus's evolve?

And in conclusion, Evolution is supported by other physical sciences, like Quantum Theory and the weak interaction that causes carbon decay. There are also other mathematical derivations that are completely independent of Evolution that support the time scales involved, like the Doppler Shift of Light.

For ID not to accept the age of the Earth means it refutes well founded physics that is completely independent of evolution. To refute such physics logically says, all things derived from it, having given us our technologies today, was pure luck, because its wrong!

That is a logical leap of faith.

If a virus 'evolved' wouldn't it be something other than a virus? This is the point of my bringing out the difference between adaptation and 'evolution'. Yes of course all organisms change to adapt to their environment. For evolution to be a correct theory of 'the origin of species' however, requires a quantum leap in genetic change. A leap that precludes interbreeding with the species it formerly was.

I very much appreciate your reasoned tone, and very much agree with your assessment of evolution as a philosophy.

Hi, just thought I might take a shot at trying to explain some of your examples... but before I do, I thought I might dare to allude to the possibility that in every scientific discussion involving origins, every person has a presupposition.

Evolutionists look at everything from the point of view that it evolved and creationists/ID will look at everything from the point of view that it was created somewhat similar to how it looks today.



The ID reply was in part correct: All organisms are believed to have been created with 6 days of each other. But nowhere is it assumed that the fossil record should be uniform. Logically if there was a global catastophe, like Noah's flood, then the first organisms to die would be the smaller ones who could not escape the initial surging water and stirred up sediment (small fish and aquatic creatures, etc). As the floodwaters rose, the creatures that were more mobile would progressively be buried in order depending largely on how long they could escape the rising water.

This theory can be combined with the knowledge that the vast majority of rock close to the earth's surface is sedimentary rock (rock that has been created by suspended sediment in water settling to the bottom). It is also well known knowledge that quality fossils are extremely difficult to produce in a non-catastrophic environment. Dead animals are not left alone to be well preserved. Scavengers and bacteria quickly destroy any traces of flesh and organic material. A global flood would be an adequate explanation to how we can find so many areas of rock rich in fossils containing intricate details of skin and soft internal organs of animals, not to mention in itself, the vast numbers of fossils discovered.

I have not even begun to mention fossils of trees and animals that have been found in upright positions that cross many alleged millions of years of rock strata layers. Or the DNA found in animals trapped in tree sap that cannot be millions of years old as the species is supposed to be, but must be less than 10, 000 years old because DNA completely breaks down after 10,000 years.

But suppositions occur on both sides and rarely can anything in science be truly objective. Science itself cannot totally rule out the possibility of a creator, indeed as some scientists have chosen to include aliens as a part of their theory into the origins debate, because they cannot see how random chance can explain certain events.

I do not have time to discuss the other topics mentioned - light shift, physics laws, etc.... but will endeavor to do so in the future. But my point is that evolutionists can be just as subjective as a creationists/IDers, so let's agree to disagree, and talk more about science and theories rather than pointing the finger and dismissing IDers because they have a preconcieved theory in mind.... because we call have have preconceptions.

Well that is someting that can be explained by the doctors(hipocratic) oath, (sorry if its misspelled). they take a oath to do no harm, but the simple fact is that they must do harm to do good (heal). maybe thats how it works. He/She lets all of the suffering go on in order for us(humanknid) to grow from the experiences and become better people for it. Can you know peace if you haven't experienced war?

A lot of people have been asking for proof of creation. So here it is.

Genesis 1. I don't know how a discussion of creation/evolution can not include the Bible the basis of creation.

Genesis 1:1 says "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." Do I need to explain that for you? or is it pretty self-explanitory.

lolol
Zip, well done. I like the word and it should be added to our dictionary as it qualifies IMO as both informative and has both the required denotation and connotation elements.
I hereby approve the word "Creationtelligentignerists" for addition to the Americanized version of the English language.

Your explanation of why thumpers misuse the term "theory" is also spot on. Thumpers not only don't know many facts about very much of anything, they are prohibited by their misassumptions to fail to ignore facts such as, for example, the correct definition of the term, "theory".

I love this stuff, I just wish we could do it directly, in the moment, immediately!
"As it were". I used to enjoy heaing the more learned preachers finish a pronouncement with the phrase..."as it were"! lol

sayswho (skep by any other name)

Humor Me for a moment, if one doesn't belive in a creator, where did the matter, ooze, or scum come from that sparked life?

WE came from Sirius star system. Please look into the Dogon Tribe, Dropa Stones, and David Sereda's Evidence: The case for the Nasa Ufos. Please let me know what you think!

One dosent know. We dont know everything as of yet.

Current evidence shows that the universe began as a singularity containing all matter and energy, and then this singularity suddenly expanded.

This has been given the mock name, The Big Bang.

What was it like before the "big bang"? No one knows.

Time did not exist before this point.

Stephen Hawkings once theorized about several universes, baby universes, but he dosent work on that any more, though others do.

You should look into the super string theory as it may provide som answers.

The danish super professor Holger Bech Nielson is working on a theory called Random Dynamics which is a rival theory to string theory.

Personally i think random dynamics looks like a promising theory, but so far, not much is backing it up. But i hope we will get supporting data in the future.

I am excited about this forum! Let's get started!

Genesis was never originally looked at as a historical, accurate account of creation, that is a relatively recent phenomenon

When the final editors put the extant biblical tex together, they placed P's story next to J's creation narrative, which is quite different. P's creation myth was non violent, God simply spoke a word of command and one by one the components of our world came into being.

After each day, GOd saw all that he made was "tov", ie "good"- on the last day, God/Yahweh confirmed that everything was "very good", and blessed ihs entire creation- the Sabbath was chill time.

The Alexandrian exeget, Philo, was a Platonist, and he argued that it was foolish to read the first chapter of Genesis literally and to imagine that the world had been created in 6 "days" (in terms of what "days" means to us)The number "six" was a symbol of perfection. He noted that there were 2 differing creation stories in Genesis, with one being more the masterplan of the word, while the other being the earthly account and the fashioning of the material universe by the divine craftsman- He delved beneath the literal meaning of a biblical narrative and uncovered its deep philosophical principle.

YOu could refer to Calvin who never tired of pointing out that in the Bible God lowered himself to our limitations- the Word was never conditioned by the historical circumstances in which it was uttered and must be placed in context- the creation story in Gensis is basically toddler talk, adapting immensely complex process (which, in my view will always be outside our understanding) to the mentality of uneducated people- it was absurd to talk about scripture as scientific fact.

The Word itself is important and it's ever evolving place in future generations, literalism is a recent notion

reply to post by blueorder

---

Hi, I am brand new on ATS.

I checked and skipped through forum to catch the drift...Concerning Creationism and evolution; for me there is no conflict at all. However my research indicates very exciting and illuminating facts about Creation and who did it and how and why. To get you on my page, Google the key words: "Enki, Enlil, Sumerians." I believe that to get the best angle on the Old Testament, one needs to research outside the Bible to get a clearer picture of the sequence of events of the time.

Let's get this going...

reply to post by resistor

---

Hi all,

I am new here and find this a very interesting and sensible site indeed and thought I would like to say this;

For many years I always wondered how there was this big jump our thinking species, how these huge buildings suddenly appeared (temples and pyramids) strategically placed with the ratio being so exact insideout.
Dinosauors, neanderthals, intelligent man.

I always believed there to have been some alien contact between the neanderthal and intelligent man it's just common sense. On reading some work of Graham Hancock, Stephen Hawkin, Colin Wilson, David Wilcock to name a few I find they all believe the same and from my research over the past 15 yrs (which was when I first came across what is now being discussed) I find the following;

The (our) universe is born.
Stars and planets are created.
Lifeforms (bacteria) are created through chemical infusion.
There have been many lifeforms (bacteria) on planets before Earth was formed.
There have been previous Stars (Sun) that have exploded (super-nova).
When these previous stars exploded it would of evaporated other surrounding planets some maybe like Earth.
the evaporated planets eventually connect up to produce more planets which get pulled toward other Stars.
In this infusion of disintergrated planets still carry the bacteria life.
The reason I speak of this is because of a programme I watched recently which told of a bore hole that was dug some 2 miles below Earths crust and they found bacteria some billion years old.

Please bear with me.
This bacteria would have evolved over a millenia to produce fish which evolved to land species eventually to human species then neanderthal.
Our bodies (shells) are made up of all different minerals and vitamens from various previous planets and our souls (DNA) are our actual life which is eternal.
I believe at some point around 10,000 BC alien life has seen this human form and come down and mixed there DNA with ours helping us build these great monuments.
I also believe they came at a time when our solar system is at a certian position which we will be entering again in 2012 which happens every 10,000 yrs which results in polar meltings, major volcanic and earthquake activity etc. you can look all this up.
How I came to find that this happens every 10,000 yrs is from using the mayan calender system. Although the calender started 3114BC I used the count system to date previous to that date until the previous 13.0.0.0.0.0 which happened to be 8345BC which was the last climatic change and 10,000 yrs previous the same and so on, and if you look into the astrology side you find we do a complete cycle of our galaxy.
Our alien elders knew of this and we are now finding signs of this everywhere.
They wouldn't of left any videotape, CD's, skyscrapers or anything of the sort as this was not their intention. There intention is to see how we would evolve and with the up and coming solar flare that is projected towards us in Dec. 2012 that not many people know about this coinsides with increased earthquake activity which could in turn increase volcanic activity (yellowstone) and with Earths magnetic field almost gone at that date you can guess the outcome. The illuminatti have known about this for some time.
But I am pretty sure our alien ancestors know of this time as they where here 10,000 yrs previous.
I presume their intention was to wait for this time and see how we have evolved and i can only guess that they just wanted to filter the good and evil in us and they will take the good leaving the bad (It's in the Bible).

After all that I can say there is no proof that our DNA was manipulated some 10,000 yrs ago but apperently it has been twelve strand before it was messed with and now we are at a time that it is believed to be re-aligning again.

reply to post by MrUniverse

---

I RECENTELY LOOKED UP THIS SITE WHICH WILL GIVE A GOOD INSIGHT INTO EVOLUTION.

www.metmuseum.org...