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.
Originally posted by Liberal1984
Let me put this to you: An engineer who designs a plane without a pilot is more skilful than one who designs a plane dependant on one. Yet the passengers may feel safer on a plane with a pilot. So a God who designs everything needed for a working universe at the dorn of time is surely more skilful than one who designs a universe which needs constant divine intervention (at least when it comes to evolution).
Originally posted by the_patriot2004
If you got into a plane and the pilot told you it was made by a tornado flying through a junkyard, and by some odd chance could prove it, that it actually was, and there was another plane by it that was designed and built by humans, which would you choose?
Originally posted by the_patriot2004
because seriously, by believing evolution you believe in that plane made by a tornado in a junkyard. I feel much safer knowing I was created.
Originally posted by the_patriot2004
...the evidence we see today, though is not empirical proof, does point to a young earth and made by design.
Originally posted by the_patriot2004
...and after all, why wouldnt God tell us what he did? why would He try and make us read between the lines?
Originally posted by the_patriot2004
yet we say a bird came by random chance?
Originally posted by the_patriot2004
yet a typical birds wing is at least 33% more efficient then any airplane wing that man has made, yet we say it came by chance?
Originally posted by the_patriot2004
...and to look at probabilities, using math I dont have the exact numbers, but I know that theres a better chance for the plane being made by that tornado then a bird evolving, and the chances for the plane being made by a tornado is somewhere in the area of 1 to to the 10 to the 10,000th power. otherwise, nearly impossible.
Originally posted by the_patriot2004
...the evidence we see today, though is not empirical proof, does point to a young earth and made by design.
Originally posted by the_patriot2004
yet we say a bird came by random chance?
Originally posted by the_patriot2004
yet a typical birds wing is at least 33% more efficient then any airplane wing that man has made, yet we say it came by chance?
Originally posted by the_patriot2004
...and to look at probabilities, using math I dont have the exact numbers, but I know that theres a better chance for the plane being made by that tornado then a bird evolving, and the chances for the plane being made by a tornado is somewhere in the area of 1 to to the 10 to the 10,000th power. otherwise, nearly impossible.
Originally posted by LCKob
"Evolution is a religion. I don't have enough faith to believe in evolution"
Ah, sorry but not true.
actually it is, it is a religion. like I said in my previous post, Evolution requires faith to believe in, and so does creationism. they both require faith, because no one was actually there. Creationism no one saw God create the earth, and no one has seen an animal evolve. they are both matters of faith, and we choose to believe one or the other on what we percieve to be true. If we were raised to believe in Evolution naturally we will see the evidence and try and apply it to our theory. If we were raised to believe in creation, it is the same. Im gonna be my own worst critic, but by the purest form they both require faith and they are both religions. there is really only 2 differences. #1 creationists have a book that tells us what happens that is supposed to have been written by God (which I believe) and #2 the evidence. again I say evidence, not proof. and yes this is my perception of what I see as truth, but using logic. all you have to do is look at any life and all its complexity. I mean the human brain processes probably 100 times more information in a single hour then the fastest computer today will process in a week. seriously, its complex. a single blade of grass is more efficient then any man made solar panel. so yes, evolution is just as much a religion as creation, just because the word doesnt mean religion doesnt make the theory religion.
[edit on 13-11-2005 by the_patriot2004]
[edit on 13-11-2005 by the_patriot2004]
Originally posted by bsbfan1
Keep an open mind guys, I think life happened 3 ways:
1. Somehow, not sure how, but god made the Universe and all these other deminsions and realities.
2. Aliens from wherever played around with genetics on earth and made us and duck platipuses.
3. People have evloved overtime into different socities "perfecting" different things, in tibet(focusing on stuff through sprituality), in africa(hunting and basic agriculture,etc. Now don't flame or beat me up, I'm just try to be general culturally, and what has happend in those places historically.)
But why fight? We all get stuck with an NWO, and we're all too busy fighting about the man upstairs to stop them, or at least to try and scare them back. The least we can do is to somehow go mainstream, and get rid of the viruses and the pop-ups, and spam and pranksters on this site. And maybe read some Black Elk and Thomas Pain.
I've been gone 5 months, went on 3 BSB messages boards, actually like 12 all together and my grammer still sucks!
Anyway, happy to be back.lol
[edit on 11/12/05 by bsbfan1]
Originally posted by FEMA
Has anyone considered that intelligent design corroborates God's intelligence?
Originally posted by LCKob
actually it is, it is a religion. like I said in my previous post, Evolution requires faith to believe in,
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
Actually no, it requires factual data and a working hypothesis as to how this information fits within an existing framework of similarly researched theories.
___________________________________________________
which evolution does not have anymore then creation.
and so does creationism. they both require faith, because no one was actually there.
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
Yes that is probably true, no one was there ... yet your religion mandates an answer with no leeway for assessment or verification ... thus you REQUIRE FAITH IN THIS FIXED ANSWER.
Science on the other hand merely proposes working models of what could have happened given the AVAILABLE DATA GATHERED. i.e no Faith req.
___________________________________________________________
evolution works on a misrepresentation of the data already gathered on what they see today.
Creationism no one saw God create the earth, and no one has seen an animal evolve. they are both matters of faith,
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
Actually no, as I have stated, mutations occur on a daily basis and can be observed most readily in the microscopic realm ...
correct mutations happen daily but none of them help the animal and mutations come from the loss of genetic material. evolution requires that A: the animal gains genetic information (which NOONE has EVER seen happen) and B: that the mutation help the animal, which has NEVER been observed either. Like i said earlier, misrepresentation of available data
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
... and we choose to believe one or the other on what we percieve to be true.
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
To be more precise, your perception of truth is mandated by dogma ... mine is determined by available information and data ... there is a difference.
... and this difference is ... if tomorrow incontrvertable proof manifested to promote a god like being ... then I would change my world view.
... but (correct me if I am wrong) but no such proof could exist to sway your faith in the bible. ... for faith is the absolute suspension of disbelief - and so by extention absolute belief bar none.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If we were raised to believe in Evolution naturally we will see the evidence and try and apply it to our theory. If we were raised to believe in creation, it is the same.
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
No, not necessarily (see answer above)
there is no way I can "prove" that to you, because of your faith in evolution. that is something you will have to decide on yourself. you have faith that evolution is true based on your experience and what you have seen, but what if I could propose to you that I could disprove everything youve been told about evolution, what would you say then? and then the question is what could I say that you would believe? I mean Ive already brought up that the law of entropy pretty much destroys the evolution theory, and thats not a statement from the Bible thats a law that is taught in every single public school and college in America, the Law of entropy states that everying falls apart over time and no exceptions have been found, yet you have so obviously ignored that, so what will you believe?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Im gonna be my own worst critic, but by the purest form they both require faith and they are both religions. there is really only 2 differences. #1 creationists have a book that tells us what happens that is supposed to have been written by God (which I believe) and #2 the evidence. again I say evidence, not proof.
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
#1 - Belief is Proof
#2 - Evidence is variable possibility
In a nutshell this is the difference which within the context of this argument is mutually exclusive as in Faith is not Science is not Faith. .
belief is not proof. I can believe something and it not be true. lets say I grew up in the congo all my life, and I believe the earth is flat. used to be a major theory. yet we all know the earth is round. Yet I can believe with all my heart that the earth is flat, but that doesnt make it flat, the earth is still round whether or not I believe it is, and I propose that God exists whether or not you believe in Him or not. but lets get onto a science here, neither creation nor evolution fall into it. Do I have to bring in the scientific method again? apparently you ignored that part of my reply as well. science is testable, observabe, and repeatable, and neither creation nor evolution fall into this category, leaving them to both be hypothesis.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
and yes this is my perception of what I see as truth, but using logic. all you have to do is look at any life and all its complexity.
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
Paleontology gives an objective view of what came before by means of material evidence and a verifiable/repeatable body of research.
Note that I did not say absolute truth ... for that is the realm of Faith.
______________________________________________________
I mean the human brain processes probably 100 times more information in a single hour then the fastest computer today will process in a week. seriously, its complex. a single blade of grass is more efficient then any man made solar panel. so yes, evolution is just as much a religion as creation, just because the word doesnt mean religion doesnt make the theory religion.
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
All you are really saying here is life is complex ... and man made devices are less complex ... there is no corelation here with the divine ...
Im saying that since an computer requires a designor, so does the infinitly more complex human brain.
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
Once again incorrect, please read the accepted definition of the scientific method ... the working model of evolution is intrinsically linked to this process
I did I gave you the accepted defintion of the scientific method as is taught in the public schools. by stating that it isnt, well not to be rude but I think maybe you need to go back and take a look at what is science.
... faith and subjectivity has no part in the evaluative process, in fact, the very process denies the use of "faith" due to the quantifiable requirements of the methodology ...
In basic research ... a scientist CANNOT promote a theory to his or her collegues ... and end it by saying ... that there is no evidence or data supporting the hypotheis ... he or she cannot (or at least should not) say I believe in theory x because I have faith. Any such proposal would be thrown out faster than you could say "intelligent design!" The idea is really simple ... use the metaphor of a tall building ... each floor has to be strong enough to support the floor above it ... fact and data are like the load bearing girders of this tall building ... without them the building would quickly collapse upon itself because it had not cohesive internal support structure.
This is why Causal Science are NOT A FAITH BASED RELIGION ... scientists do not rely on faith for conclusions ... therefore, if there is no data or evidence ... it just means that within the scientific community this "building" has not risen yet.
evolution is a faith based religion, as I have already said no one has seen it happen, or evidence of it happening.
With religion, dogma provides answers which are reinforced by "faith".
With the scientific Method, THE QUESTIONS COME BEFORE ANY TENTATIVE ANSWERS ... with their relative merit weighed by existing data and correlatable proofs.
en.wikipedia.org...
The scientific method or scientific process is fundamental to scientific investigation and to the acquisition of new knowledge based upon physical evidence by the scientific community. Scientists use observations and reasoning to propose tentative explanations for natural phenomena, termed hypotheses. Predictions from these hypotheses are tested by various experiments, which should be reproducible. An important aspect of a hypothesis is that it must be falsifiable, in other words, it must be possible to prove the hypothesis to be false. If a proposition is not falsifiable, then it is not a hypothesis, and instead an opinion or statement not based upon the scientific method.
Once an hypothesis is repeatedly verified through experiment, it is considered to be a theory and new predictions are based upon it. Any erroneous predictions, internal inconsistencies or lacunae, or unexplained phenomena, initiate the generation correction to hypotheses, which are themselves tested, and so on. Any hypothesis which is cogent enough to make predictions can be tested in this way.
Scientific method
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
Jump to: navigation, search
Portal Scientific method portal
You throw around faith like its a bad thing yet its not, we both have faith mine in a supernatural being, you in what you have been taught about evolution. they are borh hypothesis, and both run on faith. now you claim that yours is based off of evidence yet so do I. so why are we sitting here arguing about faith and all and start providing evidence. I propose this, find a specific evidence for evolution, anything. a half-man half ape, or anything that would point to the evolutionary process, and let us use evidence we see in the world to back up our theories, instead of arguin over which is faith and which is religion. Ill start with the stink bug. In order to produce the blast it shoots from its rear, it has two seperate organs in its body that each contain a different chemical, and on cue the beetle mixes these two together which causes the blast. I propose that this had to have been created, heres why, how would it have evolved? over millions of years, which came first? the chemical or the containment organs? if the containment organs first, how did the creature know that it would need them? so for millions of years it had these organs that did it no good, and it would have been eaten up by predators since it had no defense to protect itself. yet if it had evolved the chemicals first it would have blown up, causing the extinction of the species. slow evolution states that animals evolved slowly over millions of years, yet theres really no way this beetle could have. now theres those that state it happenned instantly, from one species had a baby and it was the next one up, but whered it get the genetic material? it had to have come from somewhere, and nowhere have we seen an animal come from a completly different type.
[edit on 13-11-2005 by LCKob]
Originally posted by Superman
Hi, I am faster than a speeding bullet!!!!
Originally posted by Superman
Originally posted by Otherguy
This is a nested quote. Superman is quoting my quote.
Good point, otherguy. That is a nested quote.