It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Thank you.

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

# Creation vs Evolution is pointless.

page: 10
7
share:

posted on May, 30 2010 @ 10:24 PM

Originally posted by stereologist

I tried to illustrate the sort of nonsense that can be gnerated by lieing with math by showing the impossibility of the Saints having won the Super Bowl. I used that scenario to make it easier for you to see how that was a lie.

BTW, I do math for a living so your conjecture "I think you're full of it and have no clue about probabilities." is really a bad notion. I know that you are a beginner in all of this and your inability to understand how probabilities are calculated should tell you how little you understand about this issue. You know you are a novice at best. You must be in high school.

I have refuted the math and I will refute it again.
1. The math claims that the events are independent. That is not true.
2. The math claims that the events are uniformly random. That is not true.
3. The math claims a single instance of the event. That is not true.
4. The math does not solve a problem related to evolution.

BTW - if you'll notice the events being uniform probabilities actually help the percentages in your favor - so I wouldn't argue that point.

Again, you illustrate that you have no knowledge of what is being discussed.

Again, we're back to you saying "You show you have no clue" but you offer NOTHING to prove that statement, just the blurp about "liars and the lyes they tell!"

If you're a mathematician by trade - please enlighten us... I stick by my assertion that you've got a big handfull of poo-poo behind your claims.

FYI - I'm actually a IT Management major, former Marine (Intel field), and work as a GIS professional/programmer with a freelance web design/developer business on the side. (oh, and married with kids, and coach baseball and football for the kids).

I've not always been a Christian and in fact until about 6 years ago - I fought the same fight you're doing now...

posted on May, 30 2010 @ 11:13 PM

Just a thought by the way -

The "evidence" of God you're always asking for isn't really a realistic request because we're talking about something that exists on a different plane than our current existence. But:

I will propose this - If man is a standard creature that has developed as a part of evolution and not of an intellegent design by a sentient creator the the following would have to be true:

• primary response to confrontation is fight or flight as is true with all animals
• first motivation of survival is self
• second motivation for survival is offspring
• third motivation for survival is mates
• last motivation - and only partial existant - is others of like kind
• null

This is the behavior displayed by all animals in the wild. Obviously animals exposed and/or trained in the most basics of civilized behavior show greater diversity in these patterns and there are some exclusions to the hierarchy in concern to self v/s offspring and self v/s mate.

But... in the animal kingdom there is no precedent that I'm aware of that concerns self-sacrafice for the betterment of the whole.

So, with this in mind - we have to examine the exclusively human phenomenon of self-sacrafice for others.

In this we must look at not only survival but also the sacrifice of self for the simple "betterment" of others.

I propose as evidence of God that there is an innate part of man that drives us to sacrifice ourselves for the betterment of others and that this is not a natural occurrence in man but a specific decision that transcends human nature and defies evolutionary theory because if this type of decision making would not lead to survival but to extinction as we would care for the weak and sick - allowing survival of the least fit.

[edit on 31-5-2010 by gncnew]

posted on May, 30 2010 @ 11:37 PM
nm

[edit on 31-5-2010 by gncnew]

posted on May, 31 2010 @ 12:15 AM

I have refuted the math and given 4 reasons.

You can stick by assertion all you want. It is your prerogative to be uninformed.

You are the one that claimed that the probabilities were against evolution. You were the one that made reference to the math. You seem to be unable to justify any of the 4 mistakes I pointed out.

Since it is your math and you can't defend it I have to consider the math invalid as I stated. You math is, using your words, "handful of poo-poo."

It's your claim and its up to you to defend it. I notice you have made no effort at any time to refute any of the 4 refutations I posted.

[edit on 31-5-2010 by stereologist]

posted on May, 31 2010 @ 12:37 AM

Our behavior is incredibly similar to other apes, there's nothing divine or special about us that I can see.

posted on May, 31 2010 @ 01:20 AM

But... in the animal kingdom there is no precedent that I'm aware of that concerns self-sacrafice for the betterment of the whole.

Altruism in animals

There are recorded cases of herd animal individuals sacrificing themselves to predators for the good of the herd, unfortunately I can't find them now. Perhaps someone else can help with this.

Hippo attempts to rescue an Impala:

And who could forget:

[edit on 31/5/2010 by rnaa]

posted on May, 31 2010 @ 02:07 AM
This is patently false.

Look up Deism.

It is the closed minded of BOTH sides that cannot get along.

Those with an open mind and knowledge of both sides find that science and faith can coexist and reinforce each other.

I think much of the thanks goes to the Catholic church for creating the paradigm that the two can't coexist. Well if you want to keep following their standards be my guest.

As for me, science actually is what led me away from atheism and to the belief of a single unifying force I know as god.

posted on May, 31 2010 @ 02:10 AM
Here is only part of my philosophy

I've always taken God created us in his image to mean he created our souls in his image(existence). After all he is supposed to be formless, timeless and indestructible and of pure energy. If you believe that there are multiple dimensions then I don't see why it would be so absurd for an entity to create an existence in a lesser dimension. Just as we can illustrate a 3D, 2D and 1D image it would seem to me that he could do the same from his dimension. And it has long been believed that a being who lived in the 4th dimension would not experience the passing of time and would see everything in the 3rd dimension at any point along our timeline then why can't he know the beginning and end. There are plenty of people that believe aliens are inter-dimensional travelers, possibly even humans, but its absurd to believe there is a being in a higher dimension that could have the power to create a universe. Either science is right, in which case I think it will inevitably lead there being a 'god'(however you chose to believe in it), or science is wrong in which case you're back to "well, where did we come from if there wasn't a 'god' to create us?"

That's how I look at it. And I feel confident that there is a single unifying force that gives rise to all matter and energy in our existence and that is my god. It's what the LHC and other colliders and theoretical physicists are saying, that all matter and sub-matter and smaller is looking to be made of a similar ingredient and it's just a matter of how it is assembled that gives us what why perceive as matter. That its all just made up of energy, and that takes me right back to god being timeless, formless, indestructible and of pure energy.

posted on May, 31 2010 @ 05:55 AM

Originally posted by Titen-Sxull

Our behavior is incredibly similar to other apes, there's nothing divine or special about us that I can see.

Great video!! Sadly no proof will convince the ignorant

And saying only us humans can go against "nature" and not put self-preservation first is WRONG. Dolphins for example regularly commit suicide in captivity because they can't take it anymore. They just let themselves sink to the ground, and refuse to come back up to breathe. SUICIDE, on of the strongest emotional backed actions!!

As the guy in the video says, we shouldn't cater our lives to the village idiot. If people blatantly ignore the facts to continue to live in their LALA land, then so be it...we should just ignore them. You can't argue with village idiots who refuse to accept FACTS, we should just move on with our lives and let them remain stupid.

[edit on 31-5-2010 by MrXYZ]

posted on May, 31 2010 @ 08:23 PM
stereo:

Just for the record here: Just saying "They are not independent" is not refuting it in a way that says I have to defend it. I don't think you've got any clue, you're just tossing things out there to argue.

Please explain why they're not independent events sir? I'll tell you why they are: Because the effect of one event occurring does not effect the probabilities or circumstances of the other event occurring. The probability of each event's occurrence is not impacted in any way by the other event occurring.

Others:

So the human race gives you Mother Teresa, Gandhi, the Dali Lama, along with every day regular occurrences of the like (BTW: Not exclusively Christian) but you guys are going to point to a monkey in a contained environment (which by the way I actually exempted in my statement because they've been exposed to human behavior).

And again I'll ask the question: Do you guys believe in Alien life on other planets and if yes, do you believe they've visited earth?

posted on May, 31 2010 @ 08:31 PM

And again I'll ask the question: Do you guys believe in Alien life on other planets and if yes, do you believe they've visited earth?

This is a very off-topic question but I'll bite.

Do I believe in intelligent alien life visiting Earth? No. Do I believe its possible? Yes. I think its quite within the realm of possibility for aliens to be visiting right now but is there proof of this visitation - NO, at least not scientifically definitive proof.

I definitely believe that alien life exists out there, simply because of the sheer number of galaxies involved, the probability that life didn't evolve elsewhere out there is fairly remote.

So I think its probable they exist but only a remote chance that they've visited us exists because of the distances involved in interplanetary interstellar travel. Since there's no evidence of their presence there's no real reason to go around professing that they are amongst us.

The issue is not in stating a belief, the issue is stating that belief as knowledge. This works for Creationism. There's less of an issue when someone announces they believe in Creation than there is when they state Creation as though it were obvious scientific fact.

posted on May, 31 2010 @ 11:00 PM

Just for the record here: Just saying "They are not independent" is not refuting it in a way that says I have to defend it. I don't think you've got any clue, you're just tossing things out there to argue.

No. You very clearly referenced a web page with a computation in which there was strong reliance on the independence claim. If that claim is not true, then the probabilities are vastly smaller.

So are you able to defend the independence claim?

Because the effect of one event occurring does not effect the probabilities or circumstances of the other event occurring.

Yes, that is what is being discussed here. You know what independence means. Do you have any evidence to support this claim?

posted on Jun, 1 2010 @ 04:16 PM

Titen: I believe in creation by God for many reasons but to be honest - a lot of those reasons are the same (conceptually) as to why you believe in Alien life.

The question is off topic but the reasoning behind it is not. You are ready to admit the possibility of something based on no scientific fact other than probabilities and a little "gut feeling". Yet the possibility of God creating life on earth is simply out of the realm of discussion because it cannot be proven as scientific fact....

I just don't get why the steadfast devotion to dispute the possibility of God and/or his role in the creation of life yet the ability to so easily accept other unproved themes.

I often wonder if this isn't more due to the potential ramifications if you are wrong in your assumptions. If I'm wrong - then I believed a silly myth - no harm done. If you're wrong there are potentially some eternal consequences.

Do you ever wonder if this all stems back to our human pride of self? That we're often too prideful to admit that we're wrong if there are serious consequences or if that "wrongness" means that we've fundamentally gone astray?

Not a lot of people out there stamping on the ground saying "THERE ARE NO ALIENS - WE HAVE NO SCIENTIFIC PROOF OF THEM!"

stereo:

Ok, I thought it was really clear -

Chances of
A. Organic molecules
B. Proteins
C. Primitive fatty acids
all combining into a droplet.

This is what it takes for a cell to form. These are three items that must combine. Three items that are not tied to each other until the combine.

If a fatty acid combines with an organic molecule it does not effect the chances of the proteins to combine with other proteins, a fatty acid, or an organic molecule.

Each element must combine with the others independently of the others. The only way these could NOT be dependent on each other is if (example only) the Organic molecules - when combined with fatty acids - suddenly became more attractive or more likely to now combine with a protein.

But this isn't the case - each element is free to combine (or NOT combine) with any of the other two or themselves.

In all actuality the probabilities actually are much smaller than what I'm giving you because I've over simplified it for the sake of brevity. Like I said in the opening statement - each element has an unlimited or infinite amount of spaces (or opportunities). The choice isn't only to combine with one of the the three - but actually to combine with millions of other particles, to break down into more primitive structures, combine with nothing at all....

So for the love of all that's good would either stop talking or actually say something that makes sense.

I feel like you're now at the point where you're just desperately holding onto trying to be right but you've got no freaking clue what you're talking about.

I'd bet right now the conversation has actually gone WAY above your head.

posted on Jun, 1 2010 @ 04:18 PM

And to be clear - I referenced a generic page that showed the basics of calculating probabilities....

It had a strong reference on MATH... not a specific math.

posted on Jun, 1 2010 @ 04:32 PM

Originally posted by gncnew

Um, where exactly was evolution directly observed? The kind we're talking about here, not obsure mutations. If that's the case than perhaps we can call someone born with only 3 fingers "evolution" and all celebrate?

Evolution has been directly observed many times before. What's the problem again?

Originally posted by gncnew

Hmm, maybe you didnt read rnaa's post about MES? part of that theory is that we all came from the same single celled organisim. Or maybe you just never heard anything about evolution - the WHOLE CRUX of the argument is that humans evolved from monkeys... so what are you talking about?

I stopped reading your crap after this. PLEASE SHOW ME WHERE IN THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION DOES IT SAY THAT MAN EVOLVED FROM MONKEYS?

The only people that evolved from monkeys (or rather still are monkeys) are the creationists themselves.

[edit on 1-6-2010 by NegativeBeef]

posted on Jun, 1 2010 @ 04:39 PM

Originally posted by gncnew

Enter mathematical probabilities and you have a very solid case for a B.S. flag to waived high.

The chance of god existing is 1 in 748,937,432,845,632,897,432,856,832 therefore god does not exist. Hey look I can make up bulls**t mathematical probabilities too!.

posted on Jun, 1 2010 @ 04:42 PM

I don't call my belief "fact"... I call it faith. I'm simply saying (and not with crap numbers I made up) that belief in evolutionary theory requires just as much faith.

Why the demagoguery against one faith when you so passionately hold to another?

I never said you have to believe all of Christianity and the Bible - but you've certainly said that I MUST believe all of evolutionary theory.

read all the posts next time btw - the conversation has come quite far since your quote above.

[edit on 1-6-2010 by gncnew]

posted on Jun, 1 2010 @ 04:56 PM

Originally posted by gncnew
That's the RNA World theory, but that theory is (in my opinion) a cop out because they can't realistically figure out how RNA suddenly jumped into membranes -> thus a "cell" was born.

That's because RNA didn't suddenly jump into membranes and come cells. Your straw-man is absolutely astounding.

Originally posted by gncnew
I don't call my belief "fact"... I call it faith. I'm simply saying (and not with crap numbers I made up) that belief in evolutionary theory requires just as much faith.

Evolution requires about as much faith as gravity.

I guess I have a lot of faith in gravity as well...

[edit on 1-6-2010 by NegativeBeef]

posted on Jun, 1 2010 @ 05:17 PM

I'd bet right now the conversation has actually gone WAY above your head.

What a facetious comment.

What I do know is that math is way over your head. I can't teach you that here on this forum. That is something you have to do on your own.

As a reminder, this is a thread about evolution. You are not discussing evolution. Rather you are discussing abiogenesis. That is not a part of evolution.

Each element must combine with the others independently of the others. The only way these could NOT be dependent on each other is if (example only) the Organic molecules - when combined with fatty acids - suddenly became more attractive or more likely to now combine with a protein.

But this isn't the case - each element is free to combine (or NOT combine) with any of the other two or themselves.

Clearly you don't understand the meaning of independence when it comes to the math. Also, you claim here that each is free to combine with something else. Here is the crux of the problem. Are the probabilities of later events dependent on earlier events? You have not proved the independence.

In all actuality the probabilities actually are much smaller than what I'm giving you because I've over simplified it for the sake of brevity.

In actuality the probabilities presented have no bearing on the situation being discussed.

And to be clear - I referenced a generic page that showed the basics of calculating probabilities....

It had a strong reference on MATH... not a specific math.

That's not true either.

Let's look at one issue you have purposely avoided. It's true you avoided all issues, but let's look at just 1.

4. The math does not solve a problem related to evolution.

Item 4. The creationists are very happy to lie to people by looking at the probabilities of modern life. Sorry, billions of years later that's not how things started. So the math begins with a whopping and glaring lie.

Let's look at one more issue.

The math claims a single instance of the event. That is not true.

The math pretends that there is 1 event where these chemicals are being connected into a chain. This is what the math says: event 1 happens, then event 2 happens, then event 3 happens.

Let me give you an analogy. Let's suppose we flip a fair coin. It's heads 50% of the time and tails 50% of the time. What are the chances of flipping the coin and getting heads as the result? Sure, that 0.5. Now let's have everyone in NYC flipping a similar coin. It's extremely probable that someone gets a head. It's far more remote that no head is the result of a coin flip than the odds you posted.

Now fill the oceans with an organic soup and let's see if the shorter, original chain from billions of years ago will appear in the soup. You don't think that a lot of events are happening?

1. The math claims that the events are independent. That is not true.
2. The math claims that the events are uniformly random. That is not true.

I'll leave you to ponder the other 2 issues.

posted on Jun, 1 2010 @ 05:30 PM

I am also ready to admit the possibility, remote as it is, of a God existing, as an agnostic atheist I'm not entirely opposed to the idea of God though I would need to see a wealth of evidence to accept the existence of such.

I am opposed to the idea of Creation in the magical sense though. If there is a God than it is clear from the evidence that he/she/it used natural processes, not magic words or divine commands, to bring about life. We've proven through the evidence that evolution and not magic are what caused bio-diversity and if there was God involved at all he/she/it has left no evidence of any kind pointing to their presence.

The belief in aliens is based partially on evidence as well. We know there are a great many planets outside our solar system, we know a certain percent will, at some point in their existence, have circumstances conducive to the emergence of life like those on early Earth. Because the distances in space are so vast it is almost impossible for any of these lifeforms to have made it here within our species short time span. So while it is still a matter of faith to believe intelligent life is out there it is infinitely more probable than what most Creationists believe (a week long creation via magic) and has no real evidence stacked AGAINST it.

Drake's Equation

Not only does Creation violate almost everything we know about science and the natural world but it has the evidence for evolution to contend with.

God and Evolution can co-exist and although I don't believe in god I have no issue with those who do as long as they aren't defending ancient myths as absolute fact

new topics

top topics

7