creationists/IDists, admit your defeat

page: 2
9
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 21 2007 @ 03:28 AM
link   
Greetings,

I would like to share something here if you don't mind. First I would like to say I don't care for religion and neither do I go church, but I do believe in God and his Son.

This is from a post I created about a month or so ago:

--------------------------------------
Thought some might find this interesting.

Awhile back when I first came across the Tyndale Translation of the bible, I read this that caught my attention:

"And there sprang a river out of Eden to water the garden, and there divided itself, and grew into four principal waters. The name of the one is Phison, he it is that compasses all the land of Hevila, where gold groweth. And the gold of that country is precious, there is found Bedellion and a stone called Onyx. The name of the second river is Gihon, which compasses all the land of Inde. And the name of the third river is Hidekell, which runneth on the east side of the Assyrians. And the fourth river is Euphrates."

Now this is what the KJV has written:

"10] And a river went out of Eden to water the garden; and from thence it was parted, and became into four heads.
[11] The name of the first is Pison: that is it which compasseth the whole land of Havilah, where there is gold;
[12] And the gold of that land is good: there is bdellium and the onyx stone.
[13] And the name of the second river is Gihon: the same is it that compasseth the whole land of Ethiopia.
[14] And the name of the third river is Hiddekel: that is it which goeth toward the east of Assyria. And the fourth river is Euphrates."


where gold groweth? Now check this out:


Bacteria Make Gold
" Now gold stops most bacteria dead in their tracks - with suffocation. It blocks up the tiny holes in the cell walls through which food comes in and wastes go out. But Pedomicrobium, has an unusual way of reproduction. Most bacteria make babies just by splitting into two separate cells. But Pedomicrobium reproduces by budding. It stretches out a narrow stalk which rises above the gilded cage closing around the parent bacteria. This narrow tube then opens up (at the end) to make a new bacteria. So new baby bacteria are continually being born just on the outside of an expanding ball of golden death. It's a slow process - it takes over a year to 'grow' a gold grain roughly the thickness of a human hair (about 0.1 mm). It would take a long time to 'grow' a 70 kg nugget. (Maybe we could speed the process up, by genetically engineering the Pedomicrobium bacteria.)"

More articles here:
Genuine Gold Bugs
Goldbugs


God Bless

------------------

As far as science goes, here is something which I posted on BTS last year:
www.belowtopsecret.com...

There are several other things that I have found rather interesting which are not mentioned in other bibles. I would be happy to share them here or maybe this should go into another thread within itself. It's up to you.



[edit on 21-1-2007 by DearWife]




posted on Jan, 21 2007 @ 03:43 AM
link   
One word to short circuit the topic completely.....Flagella.

Read up on that when you can explain how it can be irriducibly Complex I will argue with you until then you got your work cut out mate.



posted on Jan, 21 2007 @ 04:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by mazzroth
One word to short circuit the topic completely.....Flagella.

Read up on that when you can explain how it can be irriducibly Complex I will argue with you until then you got your work cut out mate.


I'll just point you to this article which describes how the poster child of the ID community has been well and truly refuted.

www.millerandlevine.com...



posted on Jan, 21 2007 @ 05:09 AM
link   
"God" is the ONLY explanation" (from Dock6's post)

I have voted Dock6 for the Way Above Top Secret award.

There does not seem to be any claims for evolution within this thread to equal this well written summary for creationism/God.


Mahree

[edit on 1/21/2007 by Mahree]



posted on Jan, 21 2007 @ 05:31 AM
link   
Please don't confuse the science with the scientist.

The scientific method, briefly, is to propose a theory and then look for evidence to support that theory, and finally to accept it if enough evidence is found. Thus, nothing is ever an absolute according to the scientific method.

The scientist, however, is a fallible, proud human who desires stability, just as the Creationists do. But the scientific method gives no stability! Anything could be proven wrong tomorrow given the evidence. There is no solid ground to stand on. Thus, it takes an exceptional person to really adhere to the scientific method.

It seems to me that both sides of the Creationist/Evolution controversy have one fault and that is pride. The Creationist, his pride forsaking his faith, attempts to point out how much scientists really don't know. The scientist, unwilling to admit the inherent instability in the scientific process, proclaims theory as fact.

It all boils down to basic arrogance on both sides, but the scientific method IMHO is a noble path.

[edit on 053131p://upSunday by Will To Power]



posted on Jan, 21 2007 @ 07:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by Toadmund
To dis science does not increase the likelyhood of a creators existence one iota.


Very true. But it also does not mean that science is any more right.

Neither "side" answers the question adequately by themselves. I personally go for the "God as Scientist" approach. The ultimate cop out...



posted on Jan, 21 2007 @ 08:24 AM
link   
Before i start my rant, i am not part of any religion, i am studying a bioscience degree, and i like pie. Ok, here we go.

-There is evidence to show that the big bang happened.
-There is evidence to show that evolution happens.

But what science can't tell us is HOW or WHY. it appauls me when i see people (like the thread starter) claim that science has all the answers and everyone else, whether they be religious, ID'er or creationist should just sit down and accept "defeat".

Science has not proven anything. All science has done is end up with a dollar sign on itself, along with everything else on this planet
Its initial goal was to quantitize the individual building blocks of reality, where we came from, where are we going, and so forth. But science has lost its focus on these objectives, and swayed more towards making profits for big pharma companies etc.

Don't get me wrong, science has helped mankind, but science is not THE answer. Science is no different from religion IMHO, it is nothing more than a train of consciousness, where it is used to directly bash those who believe in a religion or other theory regarding our origins. Slowly but surely we are seeing the media mention science and telling celebrities not to state things unless they know the "scientific facts". This is dangerous. It is now being used as a tool to close peoples minds off from other possiblilties without having actually demonstrated without a doubt that there is no God or other explanation for our origins.

One should ask why science has ended up being bashed against religion, instead of working TOGETHER to find answers. Does the motto "Divide and Conquer" mean anything to anyone anymore?..


In regards to the big bang and evolution, two of the most important ideas ever realised; Is it so hard to believe that there may actually be a purpose to both of these ideas? Cause and effect? If the big bang was everything exploding from nothing, into nothing, what triggered it? My own interpretation is that the big bang was similar to the birth of an organism, the birth of consciousness into this dimension. I find it stupid that people believe something like the big bang could just happen for no reason, and there was nothing before it...what kind of explanation is that?!

And evolution...I don't think people realise just how amazing DNA itself really is! Something so small containing a complex code..are we to believe that by "chance" the various pieces just fell together? I know its been demonstrated that you CAN create the various pieces in a controlled experiement by using electrical discharges and various gases, but that doesn't explain HOW they just came together to form a code. Even if you bashed the pieces together for all eternity, would you ever come up with a code for life? I doubt it.

And "junk DNA"...that just shows science in a nutshell. They haven't (or can't) work out what this portion of DNA does, so they just brand it as nothing important, when infact i believe it may be more important than anything realised previously about DNA, and it could hold the answer to evolution itself!

The fact is, science has done NOTHING to answer where we came from, how we came from that origin, and where we are heading.

Science, im afraid, is nothing but a "best guess". Even one of my University lecturers stated "the mechanism of evolution is not understood at all". In order for science to prove anything it must first realise that we, human consciousness, is the most important part of the equation. The "observer" of any experiement is as important as the results obtained, and until science factors in consciousness, it will get no where.

The answers are not "out there", but "in here" *points to myself*. Funny thing is, even the Shamans can tell you where we came from, what reality is all about, yet, they did no experiements other than with their own consciousness using various mind bending drugs...



posted on Jan, 21 2007 @ 08:51 AM
link   
well said, SS. finally a rational voice! nothing has been "defeated" one way or the other. it behooves us all to put aside our ideaological differences and work together to discover the truths that yet remain hidden. using science or religious beliefs to shore up our preconceived opinions degrades both science and religion.



posted on Jan, 21 2007 @ 09:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by HimWhoHathAnEar
My point exactly. Not only is that not 'useful' to me, but the 'power' of it totally escapes me. What did humanity ever do without the Tittitilak?


Scientific theories make predictions, ToE makes predictions. Tiktaalik adds to knowledge, ID creationsim adds nothing but political spin.

Lets try another approach...

PubMed search

'evolution' = 188668 articles (wow, seems there is quite a bit of science goin' on)

'intelligent design' = 62 articles (and many are on evolution as intelligent design, lol)

'creationism' = 54 articles (most discussing the evolution vrs creationsim non-controversy).

I think we have a first round knock-out.



posted on Jan, 21 2007 @ 09:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by shrunkensimon
And "junk DNA"...that just shows science in a nutshell. They haven't (or can't) work out what this portion of DNA does, so they just brand it as nothing important, when infact i believe it may be more important than anything realised previously about DNA, and it could hold the answer to evolution itself!


I have a lot of junk in my backroom. I call it junk because I don't use it, however, I'm sure most of it has uses and I may use it one day, which is the reason I keep it. However, some may be totally useless on closer analysis.

In one experiment, 1% of the 'junk' DNA of mice was removed. It had no obvious effect on the phenotype of the mice. It may therefore be useless, non-coding but maybe it has some unobvious effects we do not yet understand.

'Junk' DNA is parts of the genome that have, thus far, had no function identified, it doesn't mean it has no function. However, if Junk DNA is shown to be a fact, it is not an issue for evolutionary theory.



The answers are not "out there", but "in here" *points to myself*. Funny thing is, even the Shamans can tell you where we came from, what reality is all about, yet, they did no experiements other than with their own consciousness using various mind bending drugs...


I asked my parrot where we came from. He said "a cup of drink".

[edit on 21-1-2007 by melatonin]



posted on Jan, 21 2007 @ 09:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by melatonin

Originally posted by HimWhoHathAnEar
My point exactly. Not only is that not 'useful' to me, but the 'power' of it totally escapes me. What did humanity ever do without the Tittitilak?


Scientific theories make predictions, ToE makes predictions. Tiktaalik adds to knowledge, ID creationsim adds nothing but political spin.

Lets try another approach...

PubMed search

'evolution' = 188668 articles (wow, seems there is quite a bit of science goin' on)

'intelligent design' = 62 articles (and many are on evolution as intelligent design, lol)

'creationism' = 54 articles (most discussing the evolution vrs creationsim non-controversy).

I think we have a first round knock-out.


Just because there is majority does not mean ANYTHING! Have you not heard of the consensus trance, where everyone agrees everything is ok only because everyone else agrees the same??

And again, in regards to evolution, out of those 188668 articles i ask you to find me some evidence of HOW AND WHY evolution happens. Natural selection is not evolution, just incase you make that mistake.


I asked my parrot where we came from. He said "a cup of drink".


Thats fantastic, all thats proven to me and everyone else is that your in no way smart enough to hold a sensible discussion, so instead you just resort to trying to be funny in order to prove me wrong...

In about junk DNA; You can't call it junk DNA just because you don't know what its for yet. Again it just shows how ignorant science can be, because they have yet to realise what its for, but in the mean time, they said it does nothing...

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.



posted on Jan, 21 2007 @ 10:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by HimWhoHathAnEar

by madnessinyoursoul
it doesn't imply that i think they lost to me


This statement shows a serious disassociation tendency. Attempting to remove yourself from your own statements. Are you defending someone who could interject on your behalf?


well, if an ambassador tells a foreign ambassador that the foreign ambassador has lost a war, does it mean that said ambassador actually won it?
no, of course not, the soldiers did the fighting



Edit: Noticed your signature line. Quoting 'Science Fiction' as some great truth, when does your interstellar flight depart space dock?


you know, science fiction, like all mythology, has great truth in it
so, don't blast it



posted on Jan, 21 2007 @ 10:15 AM
link   
ok, i just want to bring something up, it infuriates me that i have to say it again

EVOLUTION
HAS NOTHING
TO DO
WITH
THE BIG BANG
NOR DOES IT HAVE SOMETHING
TO DO
WITH ABIOGENESIS

evolution deals with the origin OF SPECIES
not the origin of LIFE

also, we actually do have proper spectrum-shift evidence to support that some sort of great expansion (such as one that would occur after a big bang) is happeneing in this universe



posted on Jan, 21 2007 @ 10:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
ok, i just want to bring something up, it infuriates me that i have to say it again

EVOLUTION
HAS NOTHING
TO DO
WITH
THE BIG BANG
NOR DOES IT HAVE SOMETHING
TO DO
WITH ABIOGENESIS

evolution deals with the origin OF SPECIES
not the origin of LIFE

also, we actually do have proper spectrum-shift evidence to support that some sort of great expansion (such as one that would occur after a big bang) is happeneing in this universe


How do you know evolution has nothing to do with the big bang? what position are you in to state such a claim?

On the contary, it is my own personal belief that the big bang has everything to do with evolution. Well, maybe not the big bang itself, but that the cosmos controls our evolution. Micro evolution can happen with random gene mutations, but that doesn't explain how one species became so different to form another...there are MASSIVE gaps in the evolutionary theory! As i said, i am studying bioscience and that was one of the first things they made clear to us, that evolution is not properly understood, at all.

Evolution of species...what is a species...is it not life no? The first species or cellular organism had to have come from somewhere. Even if it came from outer space, hitchhiking on a meteor, then that had to have come from somewhere...

Life doesn't simply just create its own code DNA/RNA before its actually become life. As with the big bang, there has to be a HOW and WHY. Saying that there doesn't have to be is ignorance.

Again, absence of evidence does not equal evidence of absence.

It is the eternal dodging of the question which is what science seems to do so well in the present day. Which is why again i say Science is NO different from any religion, because people are saying something is true without actually having proven it. Sure, there has been evidence put forward, but no concrete conclusions have resulted.

Again, science is nothing more than best guess. It can tell us how things behave in a set of circumstances, mathematical equations for acceleration etc etc, but it can not tell us WHY things happen.

In the end it comes back to consciousness and the quantum world, and things don't just happen for no reason (evolution, big bang etc), but they happen due to consciousness itself..

Now, how that relates to god or higher levels is open to your own interpretation, but i assure you, a "god" or even just the other side/spiritual world makes a hell of alot more sense than;

"we are just the random result from a primordial soup, therefore we have no need for responsiblity or empathy towards other life because we are all accidents, and because therefore, there is no higher power, we must have a hierachy system of our own aka government to regulate the way us "accidents" live"



posted on Jan, 21 2007 @ 10:38 AM
link   
To the OP and the supporters of the OP:
How would your life be different if creationists "admitted their defeat"?
Why do you need them to share your beliefs about how life came to be?
Do you believe that you will actually change the beliefs of everyone in the world with a debate on ATS?
What's the real purpose of this thread - what is the conspiracy?

To the creationist/IDists and their supporters:
(Since you didn't start the thread, I will alter my questions somewhat.)
Do you feel it is necessary for everyone to share your beliefs concerning creation? If so, why?
Would you really rather have religion replace science in matters of "truth"?


When I see these threads I just have to wonder why all the anger toward religion? Why all the neglect of science?

Black is my favourite colour, but you don't see me trying to make everyone else agree. I am a religious person, but I don't have to go pushing my beliefs on others. I embrace science but why should I require everyone to do so? Do we really need to try to force others to be like us?



posted on Jan, 21 2007 @ 10:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by shrunkensimon
Just because there is majority does not mean ANYTHING! Have you not heard of the consensus trance, where everyone agrees everything is ok only because everyone else agrees the same??

And again, in regards to evolution, out of those 188668 articles i ask you to find me some evidence of HOW AND WHY evolution happens. Natural selection is not evolution, just incase you make that mistake.


If you actually read what I was saying in context, you would see that I was showing why the theory of evolution is a powerful theory.

It leads to scientific discoveries. ID creationism adds to nothing, it is a political game. It is not science, it is not falsifiable.




Thats fantastic, all thats proven to me and everyone else is that your in no way smart enough to hold a sensible discussion, so instead you just resort to trying to be funny in order to prove me wrong...


No, you were stating how shamans use entheogens to understand where we came from. However, their analysis is just purely subjective and due to the effects of chemicals on the mind. We cannot falsify it, it is just pure conjecture.

I asked my parrot, he also gave an answer. Now prove him wrong.

The point is, we can all make stuff up that has no basis in reality. My parrot gave just as valid an answer as the shamans.


In about junk DNA; You can't call it junk DNA just because you don't know what its for yet. Again it just shows how ignorant science can be, because they have yet to realise what its for, but in the mean time, they said it does nothing...

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.


No, they say that at this point it has been found to have no function. That is rather different.

Scientists have been saying for a long-time that parts of non-coding DNA may have some as yet unknown function. As the mice experiment shows, they are assessing what effects these areas of genome have.

ABE:

Anyway, we already know that the earth is just a super-computer created by slartybartfart for the mice, which are actually hyper-intelligent pan-dimensional beings. Even dolphins are more intelligent than us.

www.bbc.co.uk...

So long and thanks for all the fish...

[edit on 21-1-2007 by melatonin]



posted on Jan, 21 2007 @ 10:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by wellwhatnow

To the creationist/IDists and their supporters:
(Since you didn't start the thread, I will alter my questions somewhat.)
Do you feel it is necessary for everyone to share your beliefs concerning creation? If so, why?
Would you really rather have religion replace science in matters of "truth"?

When I see these threads I just have to wonder why all the anger toward religion? Why all the neglect of science?

Black is my favourite colour, but you don't see me trying to make everyone else agree. I am a religious person, but I don't have to go pushing my beliefs on others. I embrace science but why should I require everyone to do so? Do we really need to try to force others to be like us?


As you said, its not about forcing your beliefs on others. I think it is most important for the individual to come to his/her own conclusions, but of course, they need all the information to make a conclusion..

I think if we harmonized science with philosophy and religion we, as a race, would actually get somewhere in answering the bigger questions! It seems to me that the "truth" is half in science, half in the spiritual side of things, yet, both seem to be pitted against each other. Again, why "divide and conquer"? Im not saying there is a conspiracy there, but then again it does appear that way.

I think there is truth within all religions, but in the present day, that truth has been put aside for control of the peoples minds. I think most people just see the mind manipulation side of religion today, rather than the truths that are buried within.



posted on Jan, 21 2007 @ 11:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by thexsword
That's a rather heavy accusation, can you show me where science has proven Intelligent Design wrong?


No, the poster can't. At least not any more than one can scientifically prove Katie Holmes didn't create the universe.

Science and ID/creationism mix like oil and water. IDist are the ones that need to stop pretending they can prove Katie Holmes is the Alpha and Omega (metaphorically).



posted on Jan, 21 2007 @ 11:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by shrunkensimon
How do you know evolution has nothing to do with the big bang? what position are you in to state such a claim?



Because it specifically refers to life forms [biology]. It has absolutely nothing to do with the origin of the universe [astronomy]. They are seperate sciences.


there are MASSIVE gaps in the evolutionary theory!

Life has been on this planet for apx 2 billion years. Thats enough time.

Evolution of species...what is a species...is it not life no? The first species or cellular organism had to have come from somewhere. Even if it came from outer space, hitchhiking on a meteor, then that had to have come from somewhere...

I don't think you read what he/she said. Abiogenesis is not evolution.

Again, absence of evidence does not equal evidence of absence.

When it comes to scientific theories evidence is a must. 'Creationism' and ID have none.

Which is why again i say Science is NO different from any religion, because people are saying something is true without actually having proven it. Sure, there has been evidence put forward, but no concrete conclusions have resulted.

First you say nothing has been proven.. then you concede that there is evidence. There you will see how religion and science differ.
Religion: Faith.
Science: Facts based on unbiased scientific observations and evidence.

Now, how that relates to god or higher levels is open to your own interpretation, but i assure you, a "god" or even just the other side/spiritual world makes a hell of alot more sense than;

"we are just the random result from a primordial soup,

That may be what you are comfortable with but faith or wishful thinking do not make 'more sense' to me more than the proof to the contrary.

[edit on 21-1-2007 by riley]



posted on Jan, 21 2007 @ 11:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by shrunkensimon
... they need all the information to make a conclusion..


I can see the logic in that. However, I do not believe that this thread was started in an effort to merely inform. Whenever we antagonize others, we merely make them cling more tightly to their beliefs and we put them on the defensive about what they believe.

I do agree that people need information and it shouldn't be about pushing belief systems or beliefs.

Undoubtedly, some religion does act as brain washing that instills fear and manipulates people. I can't let that blind me to the positive actions that some churches (and their followers) take.

I am just as sure that some scientific research is imperfect, biased, incomplete, or misleading. Again, that shouldn't cause me to turn my back on what good science there is.

I can't say for sure what the creationists or the non-creationists really have in their heart. I will tell you what it looks like to me:

From my point of view, it appears that some have been hurt by a church or some religious practice and so they carry that pain as baggage through out their lives and become very antagonistic about religion.

It then appears that some relgious folks feel a little superior to others and want to flaunt it. Some of them appear just too afraid to change. Others may decide that the special feelings they get from their religion would be experienced by others, if only those others gave it a chance. (In other words, they have concluded that we all have the same likes and desires.)

Of course these are only my opinions based on the types of threads that I read on ATS. Not only are they only opinions, but I am sure that not everyone falls into these categories. I am generalizing to a degree.

I think there is one other category as well that applies to people from both camps: Some people just need to have their beliefs validated, and they'll take any form of validation they can get. That's okay, I think it is human nature and to be expected at times.

I don't mean to offend anyone. These are just my thoughts on the development of this thread.





 
9
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join