Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

creationists/IDists, admit your defeat

page: 4
9
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 21 2007 @ 04:51 PM
link   
I mean cmon people, have you looked at the tittle of this thread......


such a shame.




posted on Jan, 21 2007 @ 05:14 PM
link   
i dont think this is an arguement that can be won by either side. Creationists cannot prove beyond a doubt that a G-d does exist and others cannot prove through science that he doesnt.

As far as my personal beliefs. I can respect both angles. I am a scientist, specifically i study microbiology. Evolution is a fact. There is no doubt about that. On the other hand I also believe in G-d with every fiber of my being. My understanding from the literature I have studied( granted it is not my field) is that science can tell us exactly what happend 5 seconds after the big bang. However, science cannot explain why it is that an explosive expansion of a singulaity without space, and time suddenly happened. For my part my belief in G-d and my love of science do not interfere with each other. In fact they reinforce each other. G-d in my opinion was the first scientist.

I dont think that science is anti-G-d but rather it is not really concerned with G-d becasue if G-d exists then he is above space and time and thus it cannot be proven or tested. I have never really understood why creationists reject scientific theories when they dont rule out the existence of a supreme being. Just because recent discoveries dont fit within your view of how things happend doesnt mean they didnt happen that way. G-d never really tells us how he did things so it is silly in my opinion to reject science. Most scientist I know believe in G-d, but they go into science without preconcieved ideas about what they might find.



posted on Jan, 21 2007 @ 05:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by mazzroth
Ok so what is a Coelecanth ? supposedly 50 million years extinct then a whole conlony of them show up and they are anatomically identical to the fossils. So evolution stops in this one species ( and its far from a perfect animal ) and it remains unaltered from its decendants of 50 million years ?



Claim CB930.1:
The coelacanth, thought to have been extinct for seventy million years and used as an example of a fish-tetrapod transition, is found still alive, unchanged in form, today.
Source:
Morris, Henry M., 1974. Scientific Creationism, Green Forest, AR: Master Books, pp. 82-83,89.

Response:
The modern coelacanth is Latimeria chalumnae, in the family Latimeriidae. Fossil coelacanths are in other families, mostly Coelacanthidae, and are significantly different in that they are smaller and lack certain internal structures. Latimeria has no fossil record, so it cannot be a "living fossil."

Even if the modern coelacanth and fossil coelacanths were the same, it would not be a serious problem for evolution. The theory of evolution does not say that all organisms must evolve. In an unchanging environment, natural selection would tend to keep things largely unchanged morphologically.

Coelacanths have primitive features relative to most other fish, so at one time they were one of the closest known specimens to the fish-tetrapod transition. We now know several other fossils that show the fish-tetrapod transition quite well.

www.talkorigins.org...



posted on Jan, 21 2007 @ 05:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by selfless
I mean cmon people, have you looked at the tittle of this thread......


such a shame.


well it's a bit controversial and I think it depends on how you view the title and ID/creationism as to whether it is correct. But it has resulted in 4 pages of discussion in a forum that has been essentially dead for a while. I know, it used to be quite active till we lost the likes of mattison and Rren, two of the best IDers around here.



posted on Jan, 21 2007 @ 05:59 PM
link   
This argument always baffles me.

It has been observed thousands of times that in nearly all species the child does not resemble the parent 100%, it adapts to it's environment.

The most obvious evidence for this is the fact that when continents were joined the now seperate land masses have similair flora and fauna (S America / Africa) whereas Australia has a large number of unique animals and plants because it has been isolated for millions of years.

The problem I have with creationism is that it tries to prove a theory rather than developing a theory from evidence.

Why does evolution have to contradict your belief in God?

*Edit for spelling

[edit on 21-1-2007 by myowncrusade]



posted on Jan, 21 2007 @ 06:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by kokoro
i dont think this is an arguement that can be won by either side. Creationists cannot prove beyond a doubt that a G-d does exist and others cannot prove through science that he doesnt.

As far as my personal beliefs. I can respect both angles. I am a scientist, specifically i study microbiology. Evolution is a fact. There is no doubt about that. On the other hand I also believe in G-d with every fiber of my being. My understanding from the literature I have studied( granted it is not my field) is that science can tell us exactly what happend 5 seconds after the big bang. However, science cannot explain why it is that an explosive expansion of a singulaity without space, and time suddenly happened. For my part my belief in G-d and my love of science do not interfere with each other. In fact they reinforce each other. G-d in my opinion was the first scientist.

I dont think that science is anti-G-d but rather it is not really concerned with G-d becasue if G-d exists then he is above space and time and thus it cannot be proven or tested. I have never really understood why creationists reject scientific theories when they dont rule out the existence of a supreme being. Just because recent discoveries dont fit within your view of how things happend doesnt mean they didnt happen that way. G-d never really tells us how he did things so it is silly in my opinion to reject science. Most scientist I know believe in G-d, but they go into science without preconcieved ideas about what they might find.




Nice post


I am in a similar position, although the difference for me is "god" is not a supreme being, who does not also judge, but is rather just a higher level of consciousness, to which everything that exists is a part of.



posted on Jan, 21 2007 @ 11:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by selfless
I mean cmon people, have you looked at the tittle of this thread......


such a shame.


never judge a thread by it's title
sometimes, the best and most interesting threads have horrible titles
i remember being initially put off by the thread "The Absolute Power of Christianity" over in FST, but it was a generally interesting discussion



posted on Jan, 23 2007 @ 05:04 PM
link   
this thread seems to have fizzled (just like everything else on O&C these days..)

where are the voices of objection raising questions that show scientific literacy?



posted on Jan, 23 2007 @ 05:24 PM
link   
I think we have probably done this topic to death. You really didn't bring anything new to the tired old discussion when you began this thread. It almost seemed to say to me, "I am here again to tell you (creationist) that you are wrong."

Bring us something new to consider so that we can launch this discussion forward.



posted on Jan, 23 2007 @ 08:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by wellwhatnow
Bring us something new to consider so that we can launch this discussion forward.


well, i'm mainly bringing foward the lack of threads in which the topic of ID/creationism is attempting to show scientific legitimacy

mainly, this is a challenge
a challenge for IDists to try to argue their point and prove their metal

how about this
open request:
bring forth scientific backing for ID

specific request:
give me the hypothesis for ID

specific request 2:
explain the mechanism by which intelligence designs (fairly common question here, yet never answered)



posted on Jan, 23 2007 @ 08:17 PM
link   
Madness, Dude, just forget about it, this argument is already pointless, people have been arguing the exact same arugment for thousands of years.

I have heard nothing new said, it's all been said a million times before.



posted on Jan, 23 2007 @ 08:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by thehumbleone
Madness, Dude, just forget about it, this argument is already pointless, people have been arguing the exact same arugment for thousands of years.


um...
charles darwin... origin of species
not thousands of years ago



I have heard nothing new said, it's all been said a million times before.


well, every few months the fossil record grows and grows...
so, new evidence is coming in all the time
science advances faster than most (including me) can keep up with



posted on Jan, 23 2007 @ 08:28 PM
link   


um...
charles darwin... origin of species
not thousands of years ago


Um...
the essence of this argument is ultimately about GOD, and whether or not he exists.

It's been going on for thousands of years, like they say, there's nothing new under the sun.



posted on Jan, 23 2007 @ 09:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by thehumbleone
Um...
the essence of this argument is ultimately about GOD, and whether or not he exists.


Nah, Darwin's theory was about the origin of species. The development of life on earth over time, doesn't involve god at all...




posted on Jan, 23 2007 @ 09:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by melatonin

Originally posted by thehumbleone
Um...
the essence of this argument is ultimately about GOD, and whether or not he exists.


Nah, Darwin's theory was about the origin of species. The development of life on earth over time, doesn't involve god at all...



That may be true for Darwin's theory, but it's not true for this thread.



posted on Jan, 23 2007 @ 09:52 PM
link   
I think I will chime in on this one.
For starters, science, well grounded in facts has indeed traced the evolutionary part of life. It can explain how we came to be. Science has told us what makes the basics of life, but if you want proof of GOD, what science has not been able to do, is recreate the spark of life. It can mimic and give some semblance, but not start the life cycle. Even though you may scoff at religion, alot of the older religions, when you look at the myths and stories, explain alot that modern science is catching up to. It takes a combination of both. Yes it is stated that life was created in a day, but how long is a day in terms of divinity?

Just my thoughts.

Peace



posted on Jan, 23 2007 @ 10:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by thehumbleone
That may be true for Darwin's theory, but it's not true for this thread.


actually, you are wrong
my intention is to spark debate over the development of species over time on planet earth
i don't want to discuss the origins of the universe
i don't want to discuss abiogenesis
i want to have a debate of EVOLUTION vs ID/CREATIONISM



posted on Jan, 24 2007 @ 04:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul

actually, you are wrong
my intention is to spark debate over the development of species over time on planet earth
i don't want to discuss the origins of the universe
i don't want to discuss abiogenesis
i want to have a debate of EVOLUTION vs ID/CREATIONISM


Well if we are jsut talking about development of species here on earth then evolution is correct. However, it is a very hard thing to keep the origins of the universe and abiogenesis out of the debate as questions always lead you back in time to the "beginning".

It goes something like this, if species we have today evolved from previous species and eventually comes down to a few or one "first" life form on earth. If you assume maybe a comet or meteor brought this life to earth then where did it come from? And where did those come from ? And so on ... If the inital building blocks were brought here and then life evolved from them then we are right back at abiogenesis again. It is all just a big huge circle LOL



posted on Jan, 24 2007 @ 04:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by kokoro

It goes something like this, if species we have today evolved from previous species and eventually comes down to a few or one "first" life form on earth.


IF evolution were true there would be more species today then at any point prior.
ninety nine percent of all species are extinct.
Evolution is absurd.
There is less life on this planet then ever before.



posted on Jan, 24 2007 @ 04:59 PM
link   
Yes, and then you have to wonder when the thing that spawned out of the primordial ooze suddenly decided to become female, it preposterous.

Just look at woman, perfectly created for man.





new topics

top topics



 
9
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join