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.

 

Creationism and Evolution both are guesses in the dark

page: 1
1
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 1 2006 @ 11:30 AM
link   
If we are intellectually honest both Creation and Evolution take a large amount of faith or belief. Creation never claims to have facts in the scientific sense of repeatability as part of the process and this is a very honest view. Evolution on the other hand has never had any facts either just conjectures and guesses. Scientific guess are still guesses not facts. Regardless of the government or book publishers fancy illustrations there is no truly scientific basis for either theory or guess of how the universe started.
They both fail the test of repeatability and the test of not being proven true. thus, both are religious or faith based views.
Let's get over the debate and face the facts that evolution is just as religious a view disguised as science as creationism and move on to what we can really do as scientists.




posted on Dec, 1 2006 @ 11:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by jubal55
If we are intellectually honest both Creation and Evolution take a large amount of faith or belief. Creation never claims to have facts in the scientific sense of repeatability as part of the process and this is a very honest view. Evolution on the other hand has never had any facts either just conjectures and guesses. Scientific guess are still guesses not facts. Regardless of the government or book publishers fancy illustrations there is no truly scientific basis for either theory or guess of how the universe started. They both fail the test of repeatability and the test of not being proven true. thus, both are religious or faith based views.


You are joking, yes?

The theory of evolution is science. Creationism is not. As a historical science we could not repeat the evolution of life on earth. But the theory makes predictions, that is what scientific theories do. It is also falsifiable - any mammal in pre-cambrian stata would do, maybe a true chimera.

Evolution does have supporting evidence. Creationism has none, in fact, all the evidence suggests YEC is not true, if we consider YEC as making predictions it has been falsified. Now it is pseudoscience and relies on ignoring the wealth of evidence that refutes it.


Let's get over the debate and face the facts that evolution is just as religious a view disguised as science as creationism and move on to what we can really do as scientists.


Are you a scientist? Just wondering where the 'we' bit comes from. I guess from what I have read so far you are not.

[edit on 1-12-2006 by melatonin]



posted on Dec, 1 2006 @ 10:45 PM
link   
You're kidding right?


We can use science to disprove evolution. Can't do that with creationism. Science proves intelligent design.



posted on Dec, 2 2006 @ 05:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by Sun Matrix
You're kidding right?


We can use science to disprove evolution. Can't do that with creationism. Science proves intelligent design.


Sun, I know you like to make things up as you go along, but maybe you can show us how science 'proves' intelligent design creationism...



posted on Dec, 2 2006 @ 12:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sun Matrix
You're kidding right?


We can use science to disprove evolution. Can't do that with creationism. Science proves intelligent design.


Ok, show us this evidence. And please avoid so called "evidence" which can be disproved in a second.

Evolution is a fact. And now im going to use YOUR terminology, "Why are you afraid to face the facts?"


[edit on 2/12/06 by Jugg]



posted on Dec, 2 2006 @ 02:45 PM
link   
Science...sc science proves creationism.... . .. . .

honestly both sides cant prove #. enough said. its a meaningless arguement.

Science proves intelligent design? If anything it proves that we got lucky on a 1 in a 23981823098918231768263819827830912830918208309180923 chance. Why are we so special? For all we know - we are a universal anomoly - a fluke - a random chance. Hate to use this analogy but....

Neo - in the matrix. its all numbers - eventually you gotta come up with the perfect equation. Out of the 9182391-092-391092-0391-092309-10239-0123 stars and plants and systems there has to be atleast 1 perfect equation for life.



posted on Dec, 2 2006 @ 03:00 PM
link   
Creationism has no proof, except what some 2,000 year old book
that's been altered and translated so many times that it's not even
the same book anymore.


Intelligent design is just something created to keep people from
seeing the sham that abrahamic religion is.


Evolution has proof behind it, and no only can we witness it on a
microscopic scale, but also on a macroscopic, real world scale as
well.

True enough though we can't witness the two billion+ years of
evolution that has taken place on this planet, we have buildings
worth of proof with fossils and rock/ice core samples.



posted on Dec, 2 2006 @ 03:25 PM
link   
Here is a simple one for people to get their head around. The Flu. Every year it comes at us and makes some of us suffer. They can make a vaccine that helps but as they never know exactly what strain it will be there is no guarantee. Every year it comes at us again, yet different, so we cant treat it with 100% effectiveness. Wait ... what's that... it changes??? Yes, folks the lowly Flu virus EVOLVES and changes rapidly such that each year it is a different flu.
There are numerous examples of evolution going on around us that one cannot deny. Generally it is the long term Evolution that creationists have problems with. A slimy algae evolving into a bird for example. When you look at it on a shorter time frame ... oh ... say a wolf ancestor evolving into modern dogs .. Well, that's more understandable for them.

If you choose to believe in Creationism/intelligent design or such ... well by all means do so. To deny science on the other hand is like when the pope locked up Gallileo as a heretic for his proclamation that the earth revolved around he sun and not the other way around.



posted on Dec, 2 2006 @ 04:46 PM
link   
evolution had a hypothesis, then tests and research, and then a conclusion, making it science

ID/YEC/whatever you want to call it had a hypothesis, then a conclusion, and then there is evidence being gathered to support the conclusion, making it pseudoscience



posted on Dec, 4 2006 @ 08:08 AM
link   
Hey Sun Matrix, youve had a couple of days now. When are you going to post the evidence?

I cant wait to see it!



posted on Dec, 5 2006 @ 02:48 PM
link   
There is a huge difference between science which has protocols and repeated tests and blind tests and proofs. Evolution makes up its own pictures as conjectures or guesses with no basis in fact. Science likes facts not guesses like evolution produces. A fairy tale believed by thousands of deluded people is still a fairy tale. The THEORY of evolution is not science but a fairy tale made up to explain not the development of man but the adaptation of finches on an isolated island ( read the book dude). Adaptation is present in everything like the flu, colds, birds, animals ( see the draft horses), we all adapt but we do not through random chance become different species. If you still believe this fairy tale of so called science then you have made a leap of faith not fact. There never has been a missing link found that was not a fraud and immaculate evolution is as much faith as immaculate conception. Numerically it cannot work and statistics prove it out. try 10 to the 50th power is the chance of even a first time mixture working. If not creationism the very numbers require a designer of some sort. Lets not talk about quantum physics and the fact that we are all interconnected via the quantum field that is not random nor is it evolutionary yet it is proven over and over again in one of the most math driven science there is. Yet even that field cannot but say that there is something they call the mind of god driving the universe as we know it. Yes, all theories of our early beginnings are just that Theories not facts, not science, just fairy tales all unproveable in any way shape or form. Yes I am a scientist and I do not believe the evolutionary fairy tale regardless of government indoctrination and political correctness. Now you choose but at least be honest about the myth you choose and call it a myth.



posted on Dec, 5 2006 @ 02:50 PM
link   
No evolution has all the science of faith not facts that can be quantified and reduced to numerical proveable levels. Try a little discipline in real science like physics not soft sciences like biology and see if it still is science.



posted on Dec, 5 2006 @ 03:14 PM
link   
The biggest problem with evolution is the lack of transitional forms.

emporium.turnpike.net...

The above website has some pretty good information.

I think that people who cannot accept (for whatever reason) the idea of God blindly defend evolution.

And likewise, believers blindly defend creationism.

Like the OP said, they are both guesses in the dark. However, my point is that evolution is flawed.



posted on Dec, 5 2006 @ 04:33 PM
link   
every form is a transitional form
the problem in asking for every transitional form is that only a small percentage of bones actually fossilize



posted on Dec, 5 2006 @ 04:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by omega1
The biggest problem with evolution is the lack of transitional forms.

emporium.turnpike.net...

The above website has some pretty good information.

I think that people who cannot accept (for whatever reason) the idea of God blindly defend evolution.

And likewise, believers blindly defend creationism.

Like the OP said, they are both guesses in the dark. However, my point is that evolution is flawed.



The fossil record, our only documentation of whether evolution actually occurred in the past, lacks any transitional forms, and all types appear fully-formed when first present. The evidence that "pre-men" (ape-men) existed is dubious at best. So called pre-man fossils turn out to be those of apes, extinct apes, fully man, or historical frauds.


From your link.

That link certainly has no 'good information', just misleading creationist claims. There are lots of transitional forms, the 'fully-formed' statement is a red-herring, all species will be fully formed for what they are.

The theory of evolution does not need to explain abiogenesis. Chemists have that job.

The only blindness here is the ignorance of the available evidence...

Start here, read, then use external links



posted on Dec, 6 2006 @ 06:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by jubal55
The THEORY of evolution is not science but a fairy tale made up to explain not the development of man but the adaptation of finches on an isolated island (read the book dude).

If you think that's what it is, you haven't read the book dude.


Lets not talk about quantum physics and the fact that we are all interconnected via the quantum field that is not random nor is it evolutionary yet it is proven over and over again in one of the most math driven science there is. Yet even that field cannot but say that there is something they call the mind of god driving the universe as we know it.

And you say you're a scientist? What kind?

I think we're going to need to see a little proof here.



posted on Dec, 6 2006 @ 07:58 AM
link   
I will admit, for the record, that YEC is absolutely insane.

Real scientists believe that evolution and intelligent design need not be mutually exclusive. In fact, together with cosmology, the whole lifetime of the universe can be mapped out. Evolution deals with microscopic structures, their formation, and improvement. Cosmology deals with macroscopic structures in much the same way (really a lot of cosmology could be thought of as the theory of galactic evolution.) What intelligent design deals with is the period before time and space - the whats-it-called before the big-bang. That is where the line between religion and science is blurred and where cabals of amateur scientists spring forth claiming "its not science!"

What they fail to see is that many of the people researching into intelligent design are actually scientists and are actively trying to come up with some falsifiable hypotheses. It is difficult because you are talking about a time before time existed and a place before places existed. It takes a lot of mental gymnastics to even conceive of such a un-time-and-place let alone come up with a testable hypothesis!

Take gravity. For centuries, humans tried various ways to explain the damned force that made building those big stone monuments so difficult. There were spirits keeping us down or maybe the earth was sticky. Whatever theory the ancients came up with were, by today’s standards, pseudoscience at best or the realm of religion in some cases. The thing to remember is that everyone knew something was at work - that the earth sucked - but no one knew why.

Then along came Newton and his little cute hypothesis. What set it apart wasn't that he was able to prove it correct but that no one else was able to disprove it. Then people began making conjectures based on his theory and they couldn't disprove those either. That is science.

People who try to apply Intelligent Design to organisms do themselves and the world a great disservice. Intelligent Design has nothing to do with such little things like life. It deals with the universe itself and the origin of existence. What Intelligent Design is ultimately trying to prove is simply that the universe is alive - that it is a thing and not a place.

Jon

[edit on 12.6.2006 by Voxel]



posted on Dec, 15 2006 @ 06:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by jubal55
There is a huge difference between science which has protocols and repeated tests and blind tests and proofs. Evolution makes up its own pictures as conjectures or guesses with no basis in fact.

We have gazillions of skeletons that proves evolution. We even have viruses and bacteria as proof as we speak, for example the flu example given above.

Ignoring all this evidence is denying reality.

Originally posted by omega1
The biggest problem with evolution is the lack of transitional forms.

And it is very beautifully explained in the theory of punctuated equlibria which is very well accepted in the science community.



posted on Aug, 21 2011 @ 04:15 AM
link   
reply to post by Jugg
 


Evolution is NOT a fact.Here is a question for you, the philosophical question of evolution is, what does it prove? Does it in any way prove that God did not create the universe, earth and man upon it?



posted on Aug, 21 2011 @ 04:25 AM
link   
reply to post by Thain Esh Kelch
 



edit on 21-8-2011 by aero56 because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
1
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join