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.

 

Creation vs Evolution is pointless.

page: 9
7
<< 6  7  8    10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 29 2010 @ 06:51 AM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 


I think what stings is that this is the same method I've seen creationist lecturers use. The difference is that the lecturers I've seen quote the bible, but misquote or misrepresent evolution.

It's fair game for me to point out that they lie when they misrepresent Hutton's positions or lie that the support of Darwin was Aldous Huxley.

As you stated it is fair game for them to point out where the bible has been misrepresented or misquoted.




posted on May, 29 2010 @ 09:17 AM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 


I'll name one thing, he said the Bible was called the gospel. WRONG! The books Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John are the only 4 gospels in the Bible. Yet you call Christians Like me and Dragiero ignorant of your beliefs, next time pick a person who doesn't make a living going place to place making a few people laugh and having a minor part in Night at the Museum 1 and 2.



posted on May, 29 2010 @ 10:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by Truent2
reply to post by MrXYZ
 


I'll name one thing, he said the Bible was called the gospel. WRONG! The books Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John are the only 4 gospels in the Bible. Yet you call Christians Like me and Dragiero ignorant of your beliefs, next time pick a person who doesn't make a living going place to place making a few people laugh and having a minor part in Night at the Museum 1 and 2.


Yeah, calling it "gospels" was the main message of his stand-up performance


If that's your biggest gripe with what he said, that's a pretty poor defense of creationism...



posted on May, 29 2010 @ 11:17 AM
link   
reply to post by gncnew
 





rnna: So let me get this strait: When I say that the creation of life by accident is completely improbable and detail the reasons why you change the topic to just the formation of RNA.


I didn't say anything at all about "the formation of RNA".

Where are you getting this stuff from? Out of your backside?

How life got started is irrelevant to the thread, and to evolution. You are the one trying to change the topic.



And even though early on this all got going with us because I said that Creation and Evolution are not the same at all because Creation is about where it all started and Evolution is about what happened after that... now you're telling me that I've got it wrong because YOU are suddenly enlightened to that thought?...


I am not "suddenly enlightened to that thought". A little research will demonstrate that is is one of my most consistent pet peeves when abiogenesis is brought into the discussion.



...My only assertion that you guys are avoiding completely is the overwhelming improbability (essentially a mathematical chance of 0%) of life developing out of the primordial goo with no intelligent or intentional assistance.


It is simply irrelevant in a discussion about evolution.

Look, if you want to discuss abiogenesis, start a thread about abiogenesis. What is so hard about that concept?

[edit on 29/5/2010 by rnaa]



posted on May, 29 2010 @ 07:43 PM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 


I'm not done you said that God made the Earth without light, well well well aren't we ignorant of God. You see GOD IS LIGHT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!



posted on May, 29 2010 @ 07:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by Truent2
reply to post by MrXYZ
 


I'm not done you said that God made the Earth without light, well well well aren't we ignorant of God. You see GOD IS LIGHT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


Well, according to the bible earth came before light...and if God's light, then I guess it's a different "light" than the one he/she/it created. Either way, there's ZERO proof for the creationist theory, or the existence of a deity for that matter, which is why it sounds a bit like a comedy to people who think rationally and logically



posted on May, 29 2010 @ 07:58 PM
link   
reply to post by Truent2
 


Actually the Bible says God is LOVE, not light.

Also it says Love is not Jealous, but then says that God is a jealous God.

Cue brain exploding paradox


The Creation account in the Bible is a fascinating myth to be sure but its not science. Science is not allowed to pick a myth and become biased by it, science has to follow the evidence. The evidence points toward Evolution and only evolution as the source of bio-diversity.



posted on May, 29 2010 @ 08:01 PM
link   
I don't think I've been in this forum before but I think the OP's title alone deserved a response. He's right. This IS a pointless argument. We don't know. We hypothesize using our faiths and in this case evolution(science) is also a faith.

I've never understood why there couldn't be both creation and evolution. Something set in motion that takes on its own life.



posted on May, 29 2010 @ 08:15 PM
link   
reply to post by intrepid
 




I've never understood why there couldn't be both creation and evolution.


In some sense their can be. There is nothing wrong with the idea that some being or higher power used natural processes to bring about life and then used evolution to cause biodiversity.

The issue at hand is that many attempt to refute the scientific evidence, pretend it doesn't exist or act as though it proves nothing. Creationists cling to ancient myths as though they were absolute truth and they reject any scientific evidence that disproves those stories of God magically creating life all at once. Rather than adapt their beliefs as many others do they refuse to admit the truth as if their God would punish them for not taking their ancient myths as literal absolute truth.

The ignorance that Creationists are advocating and trying to spread needs a counter-balance and here on ATS we have a motto we must live up to.



posted on May, 29 2010 @ 08:37 PM
link   
reply to post by Titen-Sxull
 


I see what you're saying but science is continually showing itself to be wrong. That's why it's "science". New things come to light to mold older theories. By clinging to science of today, you may very well be wrong. Science of tomorrow may tell you that. And THAT is a continual progression. It doesn't stop. That's why this argument is useless. Both sides........faith.



posted on May, 29 2010 @ 08:38 PM
link   
It's kinda hard to argue with people who create gems like this thread.

Apparently atheists are now working for the NWO...clearly that's further proof that evolution is wrong.



posted on May, 29 2010 @ 08:41 PM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 


That's because you guys have set up a system that is diametrically opposed and treat this issue as if it were a battlefield. You should be listening to each other. You might get somewhere then.

Edit: Maybe a few agnostics around this forum would help.




[edit on 29-5-2010 by intrepid]



posted on May, 29 2010 @ 08:45 PM
link   
stereo:

I'm seriously getting sick of you calling simple math "lies"... I feel like I'm dealing with the bible literalistic that insist fossil records are just "anti-God lies".

If I'm doing it wrong, please explain why it's wrong. I think you're full of it and have no clue about probabilities. I think you've at some point read or heard somewhere that the math has been fuzzy by a creationist and hence ANYONE using math in probabilities of evolutionary theories is just a "liar"...

You have yet to actually refute the math - you just claim it's a big "trick"... dude - it's pretty strait forward stuff.

BTW - if you'll notice the events being uniform probabilities actually help the percentages in your favor - so I wouldn't argue that point. The only thing it did for me is make the math easier because not too many folks are familiar with sigma-algebra

Titen-

What the heck!?!?! I've been saying this all along (the two can co-exist) and you've instead insisted on bashing on me for proposing that the theories that are usually tied in with evolution concerning the formation of life simply don't hold up to logical examination.

And lastly - I dont remember which one stated it but look guys: I'm NOT talking about spontaneous generation. I'm talking about the common theory of the origins of life.

But I will give this much - rnna and I think Titen are right - Evolution and Creation are really two different animals. But they are not completely separate as the concept of creation means that you cannot believe in the Universal Ancestor which is a major part of evolution.

See it's funny because I say that I believe in evolution to a limited extent but some of you say that's not good enough. It's all or nothing.

ON that vein of thought we begin to look at the building blocks of the evolutionary theory. The very base of it is the concept of Universal Ancestor theory in MES. BUT... I am proposing that the universal ancestor's likelihood of existence and ability to procreate into current complex life forms is HIGHLY improbable to the point where it's mathematically impossible.



posted on May, 29 2010 @ 08:48 PM
link   
reply to post by intrepid
 


I am actually agnostic, I'm humble enough to admit that I just don't know. What I DO know is that science is at least looking for evidence, and backing up their claims. Theists don't do that...and I'm someone who needs CREDIBLE EVIDENCE before I believe in something. There is NO credible evidence for the existence of a deity, so until someone proves me wrong, I consider it very unlikely that a deity exists.

Of course there's a very small chance that I'm wrong...which is why I'm agnostic.

Anyway, the fact remains, the thread I linked has to be one of the most retarded threads on this forum this week. Zero facts, pure speculation, and nothing but fear mongering based on a very messed up view of the world.

[edit on 29-5-2010 by MrXYZ]



posted on May, 29 2010 @ 08:52 PM
link   
reply to post by intrepid
 




New things come to light to mold older theories. By clinging to science of today, you may very well be wrong.


That's just part of the scientific process, its no reason to panic and abandon ship. Evolution is pretty well proven, far better than some other scientific theories but if enough evidence were compiled to overturn it than my opinion would have to be overturned as well.

Science must follow the evidence and reach conclusions based on it.



posted on May, 29 2010 @ 09:00 PM
link   
reply to post by gncnew
 




and you've instead insisted on bashing on me for proposing that the theories that are usually tied in with evolution concerning the formation of life simply don't hold up to logical examination.


I don't remember bashing you but if I did or if my words gave you the impression I was than I apologize.

If anything I probably scolded you for bringing Abiogenesis into an evolution debate, the two are not the same idea.

I do believe that faith and science can coexist but science cannot weigh in one way or the other on the subject of God's existence. Science can only follow the evidence and thus far there is no sign of God.

The issue I have with Creation is that for most people its creation via magic and science tells us God or no God magic just isn't real, it doesn't happen. Then you get all sorts of Creationists spreading lies or their own ignorance about Evolution and indoctrinating others into believing baseless myth.

Abiogenesis has yet to be proven but the scientists cannot give up and say that a God did it, we have to look harder. It may be that we will never have a definitive answer about the first sparks of life but as for me personally I don't feel comfortable conjuring up deities to fill in the blanks.




posted on May, 29 2010 @ 09:01 PM
link   
reply to post by Titen-Sxull
 


Exactly! At least science is humble enough to revise their statements if they're proven wrong. Christianity isn't as flexible, and often holds on to things that were proven wrong. I mean, it took them 200-300 years to "forgive" some scientists for being RIGHT!! There's still people who believe the world is 6000 years old, and that we roamed the earth with dinosaurs. Evangelists also take a lot of things literally and believe in a TALKING SNAKE!! I mean, comon', a friggin' talking snake!!

If I told someone that I saw a talking turtle, you'd say I'm 100% nuts. Yet if someone says there was a talking snake trying to persuade the only woman on the planet to eat a forbidden apple, that's perfectly fine because it was written in a 2000 year old book. That book was written by men, just like Harry Potter, or every James Bond movie.



posted on May, 29 2010 @ 10:04 PM
link   

I see what you're saying but science is continually showing itself to be wrong.

I agree that science continually tests ideas and makes an effort to find weaknesses such as being wrong. This is why science and in particular evolution is not faith.



posted on May, 29 2010 @ 10:05 PM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 

There are always idiots on the fringe of any issue that absolutely destroy the ability of reasonable people to intelligently discuss an issue.

I personally think that's what happened to stereo. Somewhere he ran into a kook that has made it impossible to talk about this reasonably.



posted on May, 29 2010 @ 10:11 PM
link   
reply to post by gncnew
 


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.




top topics



 
7
<< 6  7  8    10  11 >>

log in

join