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.

 

Why Creationism is wrong and Evolution is right

page: 1
0
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 13 2006 @ 11:15 AM
link   
Here is a very accessible public seminar from Prof. Steve Jones, a geneticist in the UK. It explains what the ToE is and explains it in very easy to grasp language.

Please watch it, if you have any questions it may help answer them. If you don't believe ToE, still watch it, it will help you understand what it is the ToE suggests and maybe alter common misunderstandings. You will then be able to challenge ToE with an understanding of what it means.

No need to change belief, become athiest....whatever. Just a chance to learn what the 'other side' believes and why we believe it.

Steve Jones Public Lecture

It explains how the ToE was developed from a theory of evolving language, how species change, evolution in the modern age (AIDS), why humans do have a special place in nature. It is very interesting and well worth the time (it's an hour long)

Cheers


[edit on 13-4-2006 by melatonin]




posted on Apr, 13 2006 @ 09:29 PM
link   
I feel so enlightened after watching that. I think this should be shown in schools. I suggest everyone on this site watch that


[edit on 13-4-2006 by edwardteach]



posted on Apr, 17 2006 @ 08:53 PM
link   
Ok, the Bible says GOD created EVERYTHING.

Certain books claim that the Bible was edited by people.

You don't have to beleive Genesis literally because you don't have to know right now.

Just ask God when you're in heaven.

He'll tell you.

What I beleive?

GOD MADE THE EVOLUTION HAPPEN.

Its not really important.

Just remember that the good go to heaven and the bad go to hell.



posted on Apr, 18 2006 @ 11:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by batel gemBel
GOD MADE THE EVOLUTION HAPPEN.


That is exactly what Henry Eyring (reknowned Chemist, developed transition-theory and their energy diagrams) says. He said he doeds not care if we discover we popped out of nowhere or if it was a gradual process. Whatever science discovers is just a little peed at how God did stuff.

In Genesis, the English word "create" comes from a Hebrew word which better translates to "organize."

God organized the world. From dust and pieces left over from the Big Bang.

God organized man. Man comes from dust and returns from dust. If God organized man from the dust, this could very well mean that from the small single-celled critters, the whole of Man was organized and assembled...evolved.

I don't really care. It used to be heresy to say the Earth revolved around the Sun, and not the other way around. Then it was accepted, and the concept of God did not vanish, because in acutality, it did not disagree with God anyway, just the current Catholic view of the universe. It used to be a heresy to say the Earth was round. Same result. It is a heresy today to say we came from apes.

Flat out, the Bible has been changed over time. There is scientific evidence of complete and very long omissions from the original texts, including the Old Testament. On top of that, Genesis is a retelling of a retelling of a retelling of a very old story that had never been written previously, and so the original story may have been somewhat different. Of course, people of ancient civilizations were pretty proficient of transmitting spoken stories without changing them much. But I guess that's for another thread.



posted on Apr, 18 2006 @ 11:59 AM
link   
You need to offer proof of god before you go positing god as a cause for all of existence. You need to explain god, your cause for everything, or else it is empty and you might as well be saying that Fumanbiam Osalate created everything. Who is Fumanbiam Osalate? I have no idea, really, but I believe he created the universe.



posted on Apr, 23 2006 @ 06:42 PM
link   
You are all wrong.................the Flying Spaghetti Monster is the Creator!
He created everything real and unreal........you can visit his website at:

www.venganza.org...

Please go there and bathe in his eternal light.............aaaahhhhhuuuummm
Thank you FSM.........let us pray......
then read his Gosple, for though it was written by mortal men it is the WORD of the FSM!

I can prove that the FSM is the Creator by using the same methods Creationist do............DUH!

And we should teach his Intelligent Design in schools. Where would our children be without enlightenment LMAO.

TommyTrouble



posted on Apr, 24 2006 @ 04:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by InvisibleGeneral
You need to offer proof of god before you go positing god as a cause for all of existence. You need to explain god, your cause for everything, or else it is empty and you might as well be saying that Fumanbiam Osalate created everything. Who is Fumanbiam Osalate? I have no idea, really, but I believe he created the universe.


Right on... I've taken philosophy classes. You'll get laughed out of the room if you're an atheist, and if your instructor is an athiest, he's probably not presenting you with all of the materials...

Aquinas and Agustine are my main men.

Here's a summarized version of why science is a far strech from a way to approach creationism:
1. An infinity of time cannot be transversed. If time were infinate, there would be absolutely no way to get to today. If it's easier to think of it the other way around, then try to trace back time infinately. Not a task that can be done.
2. Which leads me to my next point. The universe began somewhere. Sometime, the universe as we know it came into existance. This means that it was not, and then it was. What I'm getting at is that a neccessary and independent being, free of our constraints, created the universe. Something can't come from absolute nothingness. After all, for you science buffs, look at the second law of thermodynamics.

Make sense? I thought so. Try to shoot it down, I don't care. You don't know much that the greatest minds over the past 3,000 years didn't know. I mean, Einstien was even an avid theist.

Ryan



posted on Apr, 25 2006 @ 02:06 AM
link   
FghtinIrshNvrDie

Dude, If you are going to use a reference at least you can spell their names right "Aquinas and Augustine" Hey I can't spell either what am I saying!


I wouldn't give you 2 nickles for all the Philosophy in the world, but hey that's just me ;-)


1. An infinity of time cannot be transversed. If time were infinate, there would be absolutely no way to get to today. If it's easier to think of it the other way around, then try to trace back time infinately. Not a task that can be done.

You are wrong and right.

1. If time were infinate, there would be absolutely no way to get to today.

You can still walk along a line that stretches to and from infinity.

2. Which leads me to my next point. The universe began somewhere. Sometime, the universe as we know it came into existance. This means that it was not, and then it was. What I'm getting at is that a neccessary and independent being, free of our constraints, created the universe. Something can't come from absolute nothingness. After all, for you science buffs, look at the second law of thermodynamics.

The Universe did not "Start" it has ALWAYS been.........
Big Bang....Big Crunch....Big Bang.........Big Crunch......etc......etc........
Which came first the Big Bang or the Big Crunch.......ummmm good question?

Now do I make sense? I thought so. Try to shoot it down, I don't care. You don't know much that the greatest minds over the past 3,000 years didn't know. I mean, Einstien ( Einstein - I take it you didn't win any spelling bee's... me either lol) lost his ability to think critically because he couldn't get past the "God doesn't play Dice" dilemma. He couldn't come to grips with Quantum Mechanics thus he lost his ability to think as a Scientist. If he had been able to come to grips with Quantum Mechanics I do believe we would not be worrying about, where are we going to get our next barrel of oil!

Albert Went to his death bed trying to prove that "God Doesn't Play Dice" and with one of the greatest Scientific minds of all time, he couldn't do it.


TommyTrouble

[edit on 25-4-2006 by tommytrouble]

[edit on 25-4-2006 by tommytrouble]

edited to remove profanity

[edit on 25-4-2006 by masqua]

[edit on 26-4-2006 by tommytrouble]



posted on Apr, 25 2006 @ 07:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by tommytrouble

(Wrong) You can still walk along a line that stretches to and from infinity.
Which came first, the (chicken or the egg) answer: who gives a rats a$$

(Wrong) The Universe did not "Start" it has ALWAYS been......... Ta'da
Big Bang....Big Crunch....Big Bang.........Big Crunch......etc......etc........
Which came first the Big Bang or the Big Crunch............Who gives a .... LOL

But if a "Being" Created the Universe then why not the FSM????
www.venganza.org/index.htm
It seems he has just the right number of Noodly Appendages to get the job down in say.....................6 Days! with time to rest on the 7th Day! Ahhhhhhuuuuuummmmmmm........Thank you FSM!.........let us all pray! LMAO



Before you go telling me I know nothing of science... here's some food for thought:

You can't tell me that it's possible to walk along a line that streches from infinity to infinity. First, you have to prove to me, or rationally suggest without much doubt, that the universe is indeed an infinate place. I have reasons to believe that the universe isn't designed to deal with infinities. Here's a little story I use to demonstrate that point:

Did you hear about the library of Infinity? Let's go check it out. I heard they have an infinate selection of blue books, and an infinate selection of red books. I'd like to get a red book. Let's say I check a red book out. How many red books are left? Well... infinity... hmm. Let's say I check out 2 blue books on top of my red book. Are there now more red books in the library than blue books? Well, there should be, but there isn't... Infinities simply aren't applicable to the tangible universe.

I have reason to believe YOU are wrong about the nature of the universe. In fact, some scientists are now trying to map the universe and have a general idea of what shape they think the universe acutally is.

I may not be a scientist with a Ph.D., but I sure can tell you don't know much about science either. I've heard all of this crap before.

So since time can't be infinate, there has to be a start. As I may or may not have said, for you scientists, the second law of thermodynamics debunks your infinate oscillating model. If you apply it, your argument falls apart. By continuing to trace your idea back, you're merely sidestepping the question of where it came from. And we all know that infinate times are irrational, so may I ask you again? Which model makes more sense? One with a neccessary and independent creator, or the oscillating model?

On another note, scientists that have been mapping the universe have calculated the estimated density of the universe. It turns out, that the universe isn't dense enough to gain momentum gravitationally to pull itself back inward. The outlying matter will likely begin orbiting the center of the universe, much as our galaxy does.

Don't use profanity. It makes you look stupid.

Ryan



posted on Apr, 25 2006 @ 11:03 AM
link   
FghtinIrshNvrDie


Alright Fight, let me start over (ummm...... you are Irish I assume) "Bar Keep.................. bring my mate and I the best Ale in the house!.................. hehe. Hey we got's to get our minds right for what's to come ;-)

I never said you know nothing of Science I said "you are no Scientist" which I should have said "apparently" left that out of the exchange, my bad


Ok, please bare with me here, I mean no disrespect (in my prior post I was seeing what kind of response I would elicit, sometimes I get a smile and a wink and sometimes a slap in the chops). I'm just getting up off the floor now!


But I see that I got your attention wink, wink.

1. The Library.......Wow wouldn't that be neat! I wonder if you stepped into it and looked down the rows of books, first to the left then the right then up then down then back then forth......if it would be the same as standing in a room of mirrors???
I have stood in one with mirrors on every surface, it really kinda weird, I felt like I was falling!


Anyway, I think the bigger problem with infinity, is that our minds can not fully comprehend it. So, it's a subject that does not lend itself well to allegory, I kinda like the red book blue book deal though........... hard to comprehend no? hehe.
And I quote "The universe may be not only queerer than we suppose, but queerer than we can suppose." (J.S. Haldane 1860-1936)

Since the Universe has always been here, just not the state we see it in now (you must admit it is an ever changing place. What with everything flying apart with no apparent center) it is just always in a state of infinite flux.

After this last "Big Bang" ( I hate when "they" use these simplistic terms to try and label a VVVEEERRRRYYYY complex event). Kinda like the Brit's calling the Oceans ponds lol. At the very moment that "T" was no longer Zero, Gravity went Infinite,
from that moment on, everything else has been following suit. Once Everything catches up there will be 2 red books and 2 blue books and 3 pink books and 42 green books and...........uh........uh.....where was I again. Not unlike a catastrophic decompression at 50,000 ft


Finish that ale yet?..............................Bar Keep.........Bring us another!.........

Cheers my friend
TommyTrouble

[edit on 26-4-2006 by tommytrouble]



posted on Apr, 25 2006 @ 03:36 PM
link   
*confused as to the relevance of the post...*


I don't drink, but thank you for the offer, Sir.



posted on Apr, 25 2006 @ 06:15 PM
link   
The Fighting Irish

The shape of the Universe is most likely something akin to a Klein Bottle.

TommyTrouble



posted on Apr, 25 2006 @ 06:42 PM
link   
Fighten

Oh road apples, forgot to make the relevance connection, I do believe I'm at the point where brain cells die faster than they can regenerate


So since time can't be infinate, there has to be a start. As I may or may not have s
aid, for you scientists, the second law of thermodynamics debunks your infinate oscillating model. If you apply it, your argument falls apart. By continuing to trace your idea back, you're merely sidestepping the question of where it came from. And we all know that infinate times are irrational, so may I ask you again? Which model makes more sense? One with a neccessary and independent creator, or the oscillating model?
Actually the second law of thermodynamics (or for that matter any laws of the Universe that we are capable of getting our heads around at this point fall apart at (t=0)

On another note, scientists that have been mapping the universe have calculated the estimated density of the universe. It turns out, that the universe isn't dense enough to gain momentum gravitationally to pull itself back inward. The outlying matter will likely begin orbiting the center of the universe, much as our galaxy does.
Actually it should be dense enough, but there is a "force" that is accelerating the Universe beyond what the calculations show (Gravity went infinite t+)

Anyways, at the very moment that "t" ("t" being the time of this incarnation of the Universe, was not Zero (think of the smallest increment of time you possibly can and it is smaller than that). Gravity went infinite and everything else has been trying to catch up. So we are traveling along that infinite line.

What was there before this happened and what's going to happen when this cycle ends, is anyones guess at this point. But, that being said, why would anyone suppose that this is the responsibility of an Omni-Potent being, that part has always baffled me? Why can't it just be, that is until we find out for sure? What would be the harm in that?

TommyTrouble

[edit on 25-4-2006 by tommytrouble]

[edit on 25-4-2006 by tommytrouble]



posted on Apr, 25 2006 @ 08:31 PM
link   
my professor here at Rockhurst wrote a book I'd like to recommend if you up to reading it. It's enlightening, to say the least. He's my source for info, as he's the smartest man I've ever come across. Except maybe for my Granddad, but that's a different kind of smart.

Check out the book, "Truth & Religious Belief," co-authored by Curtis Hancock and Sweetman.

It's pretty awesome.

Ryan



posted on Apr, 26 2006 @ 12:10 AM
link   
Ryan,

It seems to be something that has impressed you so I will take a look. I'm always on the look out for a good read


TommyT



posted on Apr, 26 2006 @ 06:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by tommytrouble
The Fighting Irish

The shape of the Universe is most likely something akin to a Klein Bottle.

TommyTrouble





Which one? Do you have an article about this?

Zip



posted on Apr, 26 2006 @ 07:29 PM
link   


my professor here at Rockhurst wrote a book I'd like to recommend if you up to reading it. It's enlightening, to say the least. He's my source for info, as he's the smartest man I've ever come across. Except maybe for my Granddad, but that's a different kind of smart.


Every young student thinks their "professor" is the smartest person. Wait 30 years and you will wonder why you ever listened to someone so uninformed. I believe its one of the laws of the universe.

I refuse to worship a flying noodle head. I'd rather eat my noodles with a little red sauce.



posted on Apr, 26 2006 @ 10:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by Blaine91555
Every young student thinks their "professor" is the smartest person. Wait 30 years and you will wonder why you ever listened to someone so uninformed. I believe its one of the laws of the universe.

I refuse to worship a flying noodle head. I'd rather eat my noodles with a little red sauce.



I'm glad the respect you show helps your argument. It certainly helps me respect you and your 'opinion' that is so well formed and placed too...

[/scarcasm]

Grow up.

Ryan



posted on Apr, 27 2006 @ 02:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by Zipdot

Originally posted by tommytrouble
The Fighting Irish

The shape of the Universe is most likely something akin to a Klein Bottle.

TommyTrouble





Which one? Do you have an article about this?

Zip


Zip,

Sorry, but yesterday was a very long day for me. And it's late now to boot lol.
As an FYI, I'm an Engineer not a Physicists, so don't get too excited about my post, it's just my take on things and I did say "something akin to". Anyways I prefer the "Standard (tube through a tube) Bottle" to the Figure 8 one.

But to try and answer your first question, let's look at a definition:
In lower dimensions, a finite Euclidean space must have the topology of either a 2-torus or a Klein bottle (while a Klein bottle is 2 dimensional, we view it in 3 dimensions as a shape with intersections. Since it doesn't have intersections, we would need to go to 4 dimensions to view it properly.

I think the operative words here are "to view it properly". So I ask, "to view the Universe properly, what dimenson do we have to be in?" and is the reason we can't get to it's outside, because it's inside is it's outside? i.e. akin to a Klein Bottle.

I'm always interested in many aspects of science but I am sometimes so busy I let things laps and come back to them when time permits. The reason I say this is, I read a very interesting article awhile back that I think would interest you (since you knew of "klein Bottles"
) but have lost it. I'm looking for it now and if I find it I'll post a link for you


TommyTrouble

[edit on 27-4-2006 by tommytrouble]



posted on Apr, 27 2006 @ 07:59 AM
link   
I'd be interested in seeing that...

Ryan



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join