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.

 

Simple, yet Damning Proof Young Creationism is False!-?

page: 2
0
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 13 2006 @ 02:27 PM
link   
I think the most damning refutation of YEC is the correlation between many different forms of dating method - varves, radiodating, ice-cores etc etc.




posted on Nov, 13 2006 @ 02:31 PM
link   

Kallikak

Nope. Evolution doesn't deal with the 'BEGINNING,' it deals with some point after the 'BEGINNING.'


Umm.. wrong and that makes absolutely NO sense whatsoever when you apply simple logic. I'm simply focusing on the beginning ok? You can't divorce 'some point after the beginning' from 'the beginning' because the 'after the beginning' had to come from somewhere and that is the 'beginning'.

Again I ask, where did the information come from that gave us the 'beginning' RNA and DNA?

It's really a simple argument despite some peoples attempts at trying to complicate things and rationalize something to fit 'their' argument.

FACT. DNA had to come from somewhere.. WHERE DID IT COME FROM?

I can prove DNA had to come from somewhere but you can't prove that it came from evolution.

The hole gets deeper.



posted on Nov, 13 2006 @ 02:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by ViewFromTheStars
Umm.. wrong and that makes absolutely NO sense whatsoever when you apply simple logic. I'm simply focusing on the beginning ok? You can't divorce 'some point after the beginning' from 'the beginning' because the 'after the beginning' had to come from somewhere and that is the 'beginning'.

Fine, focus on the 'BEGINNING,' but what you are focusing on is abiogenesis, not evolution. It's not about 'divorcing' anything, it's about acknowledging two disparate but related areas of research: abiogenesis, or what you call the beginning, and evolutionary theory, everything after the beginning.

You're perfectly free to focus on whichever issue you choose. However, if you're focused on what you're calling the BEGINNING, then you're focused on abiogenesis, and if you're focused on evolution, and ID's refutation of it, then you're focused on nothing, because ID doesn't necessarily stand in opposition to evolutionary theory; and as I've mentioned at least a couple of times, 'evolution' is accepted to varying degrees by the most prominent ID theorists.


Again I ask, where did the information come from that gave us the 'beginning' RNA and DNA?

Who knows... why not read some articles on abiogenesis and see if you can get a better understanding? It certainly beats posting you know the answer to something on some forum, when it's clear the opposite is true. In any case, this isn't a question that evolution attempts to answer, abiogenesis does.


It's really a simple argument despite some peoples attempts at trying to complicate things and rationalize something to fit 'their' argument.

Nothing has been rationalized. Words have distinct meanings... get used to it. You can't just decide that evolution means something different to you than it does to everyone else. For the most part, even the ID community acknowledges that abiogenesis research is a different field than evolutionary theory. Evolution DOES NOT deal with the questions of biological origins, abiogenesis does.


FACT. DNA had to come from somewhere.. WHERE DID IT COME FROM?

No one disputes this fact, but the answer isn't relevant to the theory of evolution, which deals with what happens once DNA is in place.


I can prove DNA had to come from somewhere but you can't prove that it came from evolution.

No one is trying to prove this. This is derived from your own warped understanding of evolution, abiogenesis, creationism, and ID.


The hole gets deeper.

Then stop digging.

[edit on 13-11-2006 by kallikak]



posted on Nov, 13 2006 @ 02:49 PM
link   
I'm not the one digging the hole Kallikak.




Fine, focus on the 'BEGINNING,' but what you are focusing on is abiogenesis, not evolution. It's not about 'divorcing' anything, it's about acknowledging two disparate but related areas of research: abiogenesis, or what you call the beginning, and evolutionary theory, everything after the beginning.


I will, thank you very much.

One thing I'm not going to tolerate though is someone (And I'm not pointing a finger at anyone in particular in this threa) trying to foist the idea that "evolution" 'disproves' intelligent design because it simply CAN'T.


You guys can debate evolution all you want but don't come in here and try and tell us who know better that there is no Creator.



[edit on 13-11-2006 by ViewFromTheStars]



posted on Nov, 13 2006 @ 02:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by ViewFromTheStars
One thing I'm not going to tolerate though is someone (And I'm not pointing a finger at anyone in particular in this threa) trying to foist the idea that "evolution" 'disproves' intelligent design because it simply CAN'T.

You guys can debate evolution all you want but don't come in here and try and tell us who know better that there is no Creator.
[edit on 13-11-2006 by ViewFromTheStars]


You know nothing of the sort.

Nothing can 'disprove' intelligent design. It's not science as it is, for all intents and purposes, unfalsifiable. We can falsify certain claims made by IDers, but the notion of ID will never be falsified, it will just move goalposts.

All we have to do is present a rational SCIENTIFIC explanation. At this point there is no adequate scientific explanation for abiogenesis, many ideas and hypotheses exist but none have much evidence. But they are falsifiable, unlike ID...

[edit on 13-11-2006 by melatonin]



posted on Nov, 13 2006 @ 03:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by ViewFromTheStars
One thing I'm not going to tolerate though is someone (And I'm not pointing a finger at anyone in particular in this threa) trying to foist the idea that "evolution" 'disproves' intelligent design because it simply CAN'T.

Well... I'm not sure what position you're in to 'not tolerate' anything. I don't see a 'MODERATOR' or similar status associated with your username.

In any case, no one, at least from what I can tell has stated that Evolution disproves ID. In fact, ID isn't really even the topic of this thread, it's YECism. While YECism might fall under the big tent of ID... or is it ID falls under the big tent of Creationism... no matter, ID isn't the topic here, and thus far no one has claimed evolution disproves ID.


You guys can debate evolution all you want but don't come in here and try and tell us who know better that there is no Creator.

If you don't care for dissenting opinions, then why come to a forum and post your ideas? 'Discussion' (read: Debate) is what these forums are all about, if you want to discuss things, then don't, just lurk. Then again don't complain when someone calls you on something that you're clearly misinformed about.



posted on Nov, 13 2006 @ 04:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by ViewFromTheStars

Professor Werner Gitt, who works in the field of information science writes: "There is no known natural law through which matter can give rise to information, neither is there any physical process or material phenomenon known that can do this."3 This statement, if true, destroys the whole basis of the idea that no intelligent designer was involved in the formation of the first life. Is it true? In our every day experience it takes intelligence to produce not only information, but also to create the alphabets, languages and codes which carry information. Every language or code we have ever come across, and the information spoken or written in it originated in a mind. It did not spontaneously arise from chemicals.

[edit on 13-11-2006 by ViewFromTheStars]


I always cringe when someone goes accross fields and use, as above, their knowledge in information science to posit about cosmology and particle physics. Anyways back to the-dumbest-thing-I've-read-by-an-educated-person-today:

"There is no known natural law through which matter can give rise to information, neither is there any physical process or material phenomenon known that can do this."

Matter IS information. It doesn't have to give rise to itself. The quantities and interactions that occur at the subatomic level are literally information transformation. Edward Fredkin writes about matter as information often in his hypothesis of "Information Physics" and "Digital Philosophy." Every single natural law regarding matter IS about modifying some type of information (momentum, flux, energy state, spin, ect.) in order to create new informations (matter).

Now I can hear the crazy Prof. Gitt already replying, "The natural laws do not describe the process of getting more information (e.g. life from matter) by only performing information transformations." To which I would politely shout, "WRONG!"

Life is just a collection of the very same physical (information) transformations that have always (well since matter formed from protons and electrons) happened. The key difference is that in Life we see a high level of order to those transformations that we would usually not see. Order is not a unique concept of life though. In fact, we see order everywhere we look in the universe from stars to crystals. This means to me that order is simply another property of the universe.

The origin of that order is the sticking point that everyone since the beginning of human existence has argued over, fought wars over, and murdered over. Order and Chaos are intrinsic of the universe. I am of the belief that every known force (and time) are the children of one of the two principle forces of order or chaos. Matter is what exists where those two forces coexist together (actually simply cooperate - they never combine) temporarily.

If order is an intrinsic part of the universe and life simply ordered information transformations then we must assume that the universe at some macroscopic level is alive.

As humans stuck on this rock, we are like individual cells looking around wondering what force moves the blood around.

Check out Ed Fredkin's 'Digital Philosophy': www.digitalphilosophy.org...



posted on Nov, 13 2006 @ 05:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by ViewFromTheStars
Where did the DNA in the first cells come from in the first place?

Didn't think you could answer that.

We couldn't answer the question 'how are traits stored as a blueprint in cells' years ago, so what does our inability to ahve a definite answer to that now mean about anything?


The chances of 'life' just falling into place are astronomical, almost infinite if I'm not mistaken.

What calculation are you talking about?
The chances of raw unbonded chemicals falling into place is so unlikely as to be absurd. But, whats that matter, no one is claiming that that is what happened.


The "instructions" needed had to have came from somewhere

Why? This has not been demonstrated. People used to think that organic chemicals can't come from non-living processes, but that was wrong.



posted on Nov, 13 2006 @ 05:30 PM
link   
I happen to consider myself christian. I however, do not base my beliefs on tradition, but on what the bible says. Yes, in Genesis it does say that God created the earth in 7 days, but I do not take this as a literal passage. God's time is unmeasurable. His one day could be, and hour, a second, or a million years, we can never know.There are many places in the bible, especially in Moses' writings, where figurative language is used. I believe this to be true with the Great Flood as well. There are even thoughts that some old testament stories are simply parables. None of this changes the fact that God is real.

You also have to understand that in Moses' time (The author of Creation), he was creating a new country based on this religion. Religion was, at the time, the center of everything, and calendars were established based on religion. It would be easily conceivable that the idea of seven days was in order to establish the judaic week(which it did).

As Christians, and people as a whole, we really have to be leery of just following traditions. I don't doubt that the Earth is old, and I don't see why so many hold on to this non-biblical view that the Earth must be only 10,000 years old. It holds no significance.

To me, it is harder to believe that matter orchestrated itself into intelligent life. than to believe that there was a guiding hand. Why is this such a far stretch for people who believe in aliens and the spirit world?



posted on Nov, 13 2006 @ 05:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by k4rupt
Without a doubt, this most simple and yet most damning argument i've ever heard.

If the earth and universe were only 10,000 years old, then the light from stars and galaxies millions of light years away wouldn't even have reached us yet, and we wouldn't be able to see them.

how simple is that? is there some sort of argument against this? Has this been proven wrong or something... if not, then how can people still believe in a young earth?

I remember back in middle school (protestant private school), my science teachers were always trying to push how ridiculous evolution and the big bang was. I remember my science teacher getting all worked up saying that since dust on the moon was barely 1 foot deep, then the moon can't be BILLIONS of years old... or something like that.

If only I could see HER now...



Mod Edit: CAP title

[edit on 13-11-2006 by kinglizard]


Not suprisingly young earth creationists have already considered your "damning argument." Consider Russell Humphrey's argument in his book Starlight and Time. You can access the basics of the argument on his wikipedia article en.wikipedia.org... Or you may read a short article on the issue here www.answersingenesis.org...

For many conservative Christians your argument would be completely non sequitor. They see the Genesis creation account as merely an Ancient Near Eastern rendering of a deeper untold story of the creation and fall of mankind (why would the Judeo-Christian God explain a complicated scientific cosmological model involving subatomic physics, etc. to an ancient Near Eastern people in 20th-21st century terms?). Additionally, conservative Christians have developed alternate theories such as their Gap Theory. I doubt that you have just driven the last nail in the coffin of conservative Christianity.



posted on Nov, 13 2006 @ 05:45 PM
link   
Oh I like that k4rupt. That ought to send a loop into any creationist's head.

Which is why it happened all at once in the first place, easier to compartmentalize a complex universe with a WORD!!!

That must have been some WORD.



[edit on 13-11-2006 by clearwater]



posted on Nov, 13 2006 @ 05:46 PM
link   
As a veteran of formal training in the strange logic of christian apologetics, I am reasonably confident that they would argue that the stars existed in the void that existed in the beginning, or that the command "let there be light" superceded the laws of physics... afterall, if god can create a star he can create a few photons between that star and earth can't he?

Of course I'm pulling that out of thin air without one shred of good evidence or even explanation as to motive, but that's the beauty of believing in God. If it's impossible, God must have done it. If it doesn't make any sense, that's because God's smarter than you. Assuming you accept the Christian prejudice against starting with a scientific basis, God's really got astrophysics by the short and curlies.



posted on Nov, 13 2006 @ 05:50 PM
link   

The "instructions" needed had to have came from somewhere


I'm not so sure. I think the instructions are god perhaps. I'm told that God is infinite, that God hovered over the universe before it was formed, that he created everything that we experience, controls everything we experience, and yet that he doesn't generally lift a finger unless we prompt him (free will).

Phrased in that manner, god sounds alot like physics. And pardon my irony but god only knows how that might unfold as we advance in quantum physics.



posted on Nov, 13 2006 @ 06:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by ViewFromTheStars
There is no known natural law through which matter can give rise to information

A mineral crystalizing out of magma would be a rise in information, in the same way that this guy is saying life is a rise in information.

This pretty much nips it all in the bud.

Explain why.


that makes absolutely NO sense whatsoever when you apply simple logic

Kallikak is utterly correct. Evolution has nothing to do with the origin of life. Thats just how it is. Evolution is how life changes, not how it comes into being in the first place. Of course, lots of people that accept evolution would tend to also say that god wasn't required to create life, so they do tend to go hand in hand. But strictly speaking, abiogenesis has nothing to do with evolution. So a refutation of natural abiogenesis is not, strictly speaking anyway, a refutation that once life exists, it changes through evolution.

Again I ask, where did the information come from that gave us the 'beginning' RNA and DNA?

I think you really need to answer why we need to know the answer to that question, or else 'god did it'?

FACT. DNA had to come from somewhere.. WHERE DID IT COME FROM?

We don't know. What is your point? That, because we don't know, it had to be designed by god? We didn't know where amino acids could come from until the Miller-Urey experiment. Does that mean that they didn't exist previously, or that they were only made by god previously, or that it was unreasonable to think that they could be formed abiotically?

I can prove DNA had to come from somewhere but you can't prove that it came from evolution
\
Not for nothing, but thats not much of an accomplishment. We know that dna had to come from somehwere. All you are doing is saying 'I don't know where it came from, so it must be an intelligent designer or go'.
Let me ask you, what happens if in a few years, we have as good an answer for 'where dna comes from' as we do for amino acids and other complex organic molecules? Does that mean that god has been refuted?

trying to foist the idea that "evolution" 'disproves' intelligent design because it simply CAN'T.

I am unclear, do you mean that evolution can never disprove intelligent design, even if intelligent design is actually wrong, or are you just asserting that intelligent design is correct, so there's no way its going to be disproven?

You guys can debate evolution all you want but don't come in here and try and tell us who know better that there is no Creator.

Who said that there is no creator? People are discussing whether or not the speed of light and size of the universe refutes the idea that the universe is young. Short of inserting miracles, it looks like it does. No one is saying that evolution or abiogenesis proves that there is no creator, but it does show that there is no scientific need for a creator. Just like newtonian phsyics shows that there is no need for little angels to be flying around in space, carrying the planets in their orbit.
A person can beleive that there are, but it wouldn't be scientifically supported to say that there are. A person can beleive that go created the world as per the bible, but there is no scientific need to say that it did happen.


11bravo
I know alot of people ridicule him, and I dont believe everything he says, but I do like Kent Hovind

Kent Hovind is not worthwhile source for scientific information, or any information. He doesn't even understand 'how the sun can burn without there being air in space'

www.kent-hovind.com...


In that video there he debates the editor of Skeptic Magazine, and IMO whoops him.

There's a reason why kent hovind doesn't engage in written debate; its because he has no idea what he is talking about. He's convincing enough for some people when making a presentation, but he's basically a dolt, thats why he avoids written debate/discussion on the issues, because it becomes way too obvious.



posted on Nov, 13 2006 @ 06:51 PM
link   
Lol, you are trying to debunk the Biblical version of creationism... not much of a challenge there. The fact that our universe is older than 10,000 years is pretty obvious to anyone with half a brain. But that doesn't mean our universe was not created.



posted on Nov, 13 2006 @ 07:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by river rat
makes sense to me but if i told my mom about this (she's a devout christian), she would just say, well god must of made light speed up so it could reach us or some other nonsense like that.
the point is, people will blindly believe what they want to believe. and nothing will change their mind.
i wonder just what they think science is anyway? just someone's opinion?
so just let them live in there little fantasy world.


These people aren't actually Christians. These creationists pursue ideologies of lie and contempt in the name of spreading religion, and to prove the existential paradigms of life, and the Bible. A true Christian would not do such things, and most real members of the Church know truely that the mysteries of God are far greater than anything we can even begin to perceive. They know that as Humans we are subjective to God's omniprescence yet can not be made fully aware of his wonder. I don't think the Catholic Church would pursue such falsehoods as Creatonism.

I do however believe, that these self-depracating, neo-christian institutions of the North American West preach in a way that no doubt relates to their seperation in the first place. These institutions are ideological cults that were all initially spawned by the simple misinterpretation of text, and selfishness in that resolve, and therefore their religious culminations are more so related to the sociological and cultural aspects of their society members rather than in their connection to God. Their very argument of Creatonism proves this fact independant of any need for scientific investigation.

They are undoubtebly false in all regards. They are against both science and God, whilst falling prey to the entanglement of human emotion.



posted on Nov, 13 2006 @ 08:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by The Vagabond
As a veteran of formal training in the strange logic of christian apologetics, I am reasonably confident that they would argue that the stars existed in the void that existed in the beginning, or that the command "let there be light" superceded the laws of physics... afterall, if god can create a star he can create a few photons between that star and earth can't he?


Than that just means... that young creationism is UNARGUABLE against. Any scientific fact we throw at them, they'll just come back and say that God supercedes it. At that point, creationism, or a young earth, in general really is impossible to argue against.



posted on Nov, 13 2006 @ 08:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by k4rupt
Than that just means... that young creationism is UNARGUABLE against. Any scientific fact we throw at them, they'll just come back and say that God supercedes it. At that point, creationism, or a young earth, in general really is impossible to argue against.


Which brings to light an important point. Science and religion are disparate... disciplines. They don't necessarily preclude one another as they are concerned with different varieties of truth. We'd probably all do well to observe Gould's descriptions of science and religion as non-overlapping magisteria. (NOMA)

Religion isn't falsifiable via science. On the other hand... neither is religion confirmable via the scientific method.



posted on Nov, 13 2006 @ 08:13 PM
link   
Why do people have to believe there was a beginning?

Even the argument/belief that God created everything out of nothing does not stand to scrutiny, if at the beginning there was nothing, how could this ultimate divine being some people call God exist? Is this divine entity "nothing"? If it is not "nothing", then the Universe was not "created" out of nothing.

If people would take the time to examine everything around them in nature, the cycles of life, the 4 seasons, all are cycles which have no beginning and no ending. Everything just changes from one state to another.

Everything in the Universe portrays a cycle, or circle, which has no end and no beginning.

The wave that is most prominent, and most basic, in the Universe is the Sine Wave, and that wave is nothing more than a circle that keeps repeating with some changes of phase and frequency here and there.

From the macrocosm, planets, stars, galaxies revolving around each other, to the microcosm the particle/wave duality of electrons, and even atoms revolving around each other, with electrons revolving around the neutrons and protons, we can find that everything has a neverending cycle.

The scientific concensus tells us that the Universe had a beginning because it is expanding, and supposedly, scientists have been able to trace this expansion to what they think was the "beginning". But what if that is only "one" beginning out of thousands of millions of beginnings the Universe goes through?...maybe to infinity, never ending.

What if this expansion of the Universe we are witnessing, is just one of the infinite phases the Universe goes through?

What if the Universe, like everything else around us, just goes through different phases and frequencies expanding and contracting throughout eternity?

It is only in the mind of some people, that there needs to be just a beginning and an end to everything.

[edit on 13-11-2006 by Muaddib]



posted on Nov, 13 2006 @ 11:34 PM
link   
My dissociation with the bible began at age 5 when I asked my priest at my church about the beginning of the universe.. and how dinosaurs fit into it.. he simply couldn't give an honest answer. I found it kind of him to not know and let me know that rather than filling my mind with irrational occuring events of the past as described in the bible.

And to this day, I hold that as a key defining factor against any argument of creationalism. The LARGE time lapse between the era of Dinosaur and Humans just defies it. I've to this day, haven't seen "sound" arguments to refute this claim by me, I mean you can claim that dinosaurs and humans co-existed.. but wheres the proof. I remember the footprints in Texas claimed to be "human footprints" next to "dinosaur footprints" but that fell apart.

Personally I feel for Christians to deny the accuracy and competence of science in the matter of refuting creationism.. by ANY theory is to deny one's own way of life and its conventionalities.




top topics



 
0
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join