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.

 

If creationism is a scientific theory, put your money where your mouth is.

page: 3
6
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 22 2007 @ 08:56 PM
link   
god didnt "assemble" man, man evolved from related apes, they evolved from lesser primates, they from mammals, they from transitionl reptiles, and so on, seriously, how can you believe such illogical things




posted on Mar, 23 2007 @ 01:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by superevoman
man evolved from related apes, they evolved from lesser primates, they from mammals, they from transitionl reptiles, and so on, seriously, how can you believe such illogical things


Please explain the mechanism, provide the data, and show a model with testable results to support your "logical" assumption. After all, The Scientific Method is the staple of logic in science.

P.S. The thread is not "state your opinion on Creationism". Some proof-reading may help in posting relevant topic-based information.

[edit on 23-3-2007 by saint4God]



posted on Mar, 23 2007 @ 03:52 PM
link   
Wow! Been away from the board for awhile. This topic has really taken off. Hope to post more later when I have time. Until then thanks to both sides of the discussion.



posted on Mar, 23 2007 @ 04:05 PM
link   





posted on Mar, 23 2007 @ 07:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by saint4God
P.S. The thread is not "state your opinion on Creationism". Some proof-reading may help in posting relevant topic-based information.


Thank you saint.

Moving on,


How did God assemble man? Simple really. Carbon rings paired with Nitrogen and Hydrogen. Carbon from the earth. Nitrogen from the atmosphere, Hydrogen from the earth/water/air. Here's the structure of perhaps the first thing built: www.chem.duke.edu... . Next, build an opposite but complementary structure called Thymine. For variability, another set of pairs - Guanine and Cytosine. Great! We have a structure starting to build, but what holds them together? "The DNA backbone is a polymer with an alternating sugar-phosphate sequence." The word "sequence" implies a plan, an intelligent design. Sugar made of carbon, phosphate also found in the earth ( www.blc.arizona.edu... ). Twirl it around into a double-helix for maximizing the information in a tightly enclosed space. Bingo, we have the code to create organelles, cells, and entire individually unique organisms.


This sounds a lot like the theory of evolution, except you've added " 'sequence' implies a plan, an intelligent design". Why even bother inserting intelligent design. It adds nothing to the theory of evolution. You can't abstract any further information from that notion.

This is where the debate begins on whether or not intelligent design should be considered a scientific idea. It sounds almost as if you are trying to say intelligent design is part of evolution. Am I wrong to think so?



posted on Mar, 24 2007 @ 09:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by LuDaCrIs
This sounds a lot like the theory of evolution, except you've added " 'sequence' implies a plan, an intelligent design". Why even bother inserting intelligent design. It adds nothing to the theory of evolution. You can't abstract any further information from that notion.


The idea behind intelligent design is not to add to evolution. This is the point. Evolution states that living things come from non-living chemicals through some kind of chemical mixing luck (which by the way "luck" belongs to a separate religion entirely). Intelligent design designates an assembler of molecules to create a living being.

Why bother? Well, if we're barking up the wrong tree, we're going to be sorely disappointed for not taking the correct information under consideration. In other words, it will stunt our scientific growth. If you present the idea of "if there is an assembler" it rebalances the scientific approach from "what accidently bumped into what and how did it grow" to "how was all of this put together to be made to work as a unit". The difference may sound slight, but by taking a different approach, it may yield some surprisingly useful results.

To say "you can't abstract any further information from that notion" is candidly very narrow in viewpoint or scope. Changing the how can give us better tools to disect what it is we're looking at. It also supposes we will be able to better understand the model, describe it, test it and who knows, answer a lot of questions we would conveniently ignore in the past.


Originally posted by LuDaCrIs
This is where the debate begins on whether or not intelligent design should be considered a scientific idea.


Both evolution and intelligent design have the same substance/data/models/etc. Either consider neither or both. My vote is they're both ideas, but neither are theories.


Originally posted by LuDaCrIs
It sounds almost as if you are trying to say intelligent design is part of evolution. Am I wrong to think so?


Not from me, but there are those who believe that evolution was part of an intelligent plan. To that I say "maybe" and will pop it in as a third idea with the other two listed above.

[edit on 24-3-2007 by saint4God]



posted on Mar, 25 2007 @ 02:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by saint4God
The idea behind intelligent design is not to add to evolution. This is the point. Evolution states that living things come from non-living chemicals through some kind of chemical mixing luck (which by the way "luck" belongs to a separate religion entirely). Intelligent design designates an assembler of molecules to create a living being.


I'd like for you to point out where in the theory of evolution it states "that living things came from non-living chemicals through some kind of chemical mixing". It seems you are confusing abiogenisis with evolution.

Evolution doesn't attempt to explain the origin of life. It attempts to explain the origin of different species once that original piece formed.


Why bother? Well, if we're barking up the wrong tree, we're going to be sorely disappointed for not taking the correct information under consideration. In other words, it will stunt our scientific growth. If you present the idea of "if there is an assembler" it rebalances the scientific approach from "what accidently bumped into what and how did it grow" to "how was all of this put together to be made to work as a unit". The difference may sound slight, but by taking a different approach, it may yield some surprisingly useful results.


I am all for including as much information in the scientific community, but there are certain standards they have to meet. This thread is meant to adress this specific point. You say that ID can yield some suprising results; so what are they? This is why the scientific method is so powerful. It can predict results. The burden of proof lies ultimately in your hands. You have to convince the scientific community that ID deserves respect.


The idea behind intelligent design is not to add to evolution.....

then...

Both evolution and intelligent design have the same substance/data/models/etc. Either consider neither or both.


I am confused.


My vote is they're both ideas, but neither are theories.


While there is plenty of evidence to suggest evolution is a theory, which is a totally different thread and debate, I fail to see why you would suggest ID isn't a theory as this is exactly what we are debating. Are you conceding?



posted on Mar, 26 2007 @ 10:33 PM
link   
Everything is alive, consciousness eternal.

No such things are inanimate.

Life is eternal



posted on Mar, 27 2007 @ 06:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by LuDaCrIs
Evolution doesn't attempt to explain the origin of life.


Yeah, only cos it fails the 'peanut butter challenge':



Love this quote - "Life from non-life - apart from god's direct intervention - is a fairytale".


I reckon 'think 'n poof' is still the best proposal so far...

[edit on 27-3-2007 by melatonin]



posted on Mar, 30 2007 @ 03:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by LuDaCrIs
I'd like for you to point out where in the theory of evolution it states "that living things came from non-living chemicals through some kind of chemical mixing". It seems you are confusing abiogenisis with evolution.


I'm not talking about flies spawning from rotting meat...which is the history of abiogenesis.

Main Entry: abio·gen·e·sis
Pronunciation: "A-"bI-O-'je-n&-s&s
Function: noun
Etymology: New Latin, from 2a- + bio- + Latin genesis
: the supposed spontaneous origination of living organisms directly from lifeless matter
- abi·og·e·nist /"A-(")bI-'ä-j&-nist/ noun
www.m-w.com...

This has already been proven false hundreds of years ago.
"In 1668 Francesco Redi showed that maggots only appeared on spoiled meat if flies had laid eggs there. If he placed a screen to keep flies off, no maggots appeared, even though fly eggs were on the screen. But it remained for creationist Louis Pasteur, in 1861, to describe his simple, yet elegant, experiment that finally proved that life came only from life. Pasteur used a glass flask having a long curved neck, filled with a broth. He first showed that if a broth was exposed to air containing microorganisms, it was soon swarming with microorganisms. However, if the air was first heated or adequately filtered, no growth in the broth was observed. But when that germ-laden filter was put in the broth, growth was immediate. He announced at the Sorbonne, "Never will the doctrine of spontaneous generation recover from the mortal blow of this simple experiment."

Pasteur's experiment is still accepted as proof against abiogenesis."
www.rae.org...

I'm not "confused" here. Evolution does not say spontaneous organism, but does say lifeless chemical mixing in a primordial ooze to generate a primitive unicellular organism (or organelle), does it not?

"Proponents of evolution were left with only one chance. In 1924 Alexander Oparin suggested that maybe simple chemicals, under the right conditions, might spontaneously form complex organic molecules, and these might then combine to form simple living cells. J.B.S. Haldane, Harold Urey and others elaborated this idea, and many scientists began trying to explain how such a spontaneous decrease in entropy (an obvious violation of the Second Law of Thermodynamics) might actually happen. It quickly became apparent that this would require a reducing atmosphere, that is, one that was rich in hydrogen but that had no free oxygen. Other planets have been observed to have such an atmosphere, but all evidence still shows this was never true on the earth. Yet this has become the orthodox scientific description of our early earth -- in spite of evidence to the contrary, they maintain that we must have had a reducing atmosphere at one time, because without it life couldn't have evolved!"
www.rae.org...


Originally posted by LuDaCrIs
Evolution doesn't attempt to explain the origin of life. It attempts to explain the origin of different species once that original piece formed.


It begs the question, "where did the first living cell come from" and many textbooks believe they have the answer included within their definition of evolution.


Originally posted by LuDaCrIs
I am all for including as much information in the scientific community, but there are certain standards they have to meet. This thread is meant to adress this specific point. You say that ID can yield some suprising results; so what are they?


As soon as the university provides the funding, I'll sign on for the team. As I had mentioned before, I can only provide ideas for a framework in the same way evolution can only provide ideas for a framework. They are both in the idea stage, sadly. I'd like to see both of them provide some data, models, testing, reproducibility, and conclussions.


Originally posted by LuDaCrIs
This is why the scientific method is so powerful. It can predict results.


I'm glad you agree with the scientific method as well. It will help progress our discussion hopefully.


Originally posted by LuDaCrIs
The burden of proof lies ultimately in your hands.


Hehe, no it doesn't. I never stated I would provide a burden of proof, nor am I held responsible/accountable for it.


Originally posted by LuDaCrIs
You have to convince the scientific community that ID deserves respect.


I do? When did that letter come in the mail? It appears it may have gotten lost in the postal system if it was sent. Oh, and tell my boss I need a raise because of the expanded job responsibilities I have just received.


Originally posted by LuDaCrIs

The idea behind intelligent design is not to add to evolution.....

then...

Both evolution and intelligent design have the same substance/data/models/etc. Either consider neither or both.


I am confused.


I'll clarify. Evolution is idea "A". Intelligent Design is idea "B". Intelligent Design, being a separate idea does not necessitate a dependancy upon evolution.

Here is what both have in common. They are both ideas.


Originally posted by LuDaCrIs
While there is plenty of evidence to suggest evolution is a theory, which is a totally different thread and debate,


I agree it is a different debate and am currently on one of them. If you're going to use evolution compare the two, then do so justly.


Originally posted by LuDaCrIs
I fail to see why you would suggest ID isn't a theory as this is exactly what we are debating. Are you conceding?


I would not know what I'm conceeding to. Have I stated somewhere that I believe ID is a theory? I'll review my notes, but if I did, I was mistaken. Both Evolution and Intelligent Design are ideas. Why?

Scientific Method for a theory:
Data
Tests
Results
Reproduce Tests
Predictable Results
Working model

[edit on 30-3-2007 by saint4God]



posted on Mar, 30 2007 @ 03:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by LastOutfiniteVoiceEternal
Everything is alive, consciousness eternal.

No such things are inanimate.

Life is eternal


"Bulog had to stabilise the price of rice for both producers and consumers. It did this by setting a ceiling price for the benefit of consumers, and a floor price for producers. As far as consumers were concerned it was necessary to have adequate stocks available. This meant running stocks down when there was a surplus and the reverse when there was a shortage, usually by increasing imports. At the appropriate times, the agency purchased rice from the domestic or the international market. "
www.insideindonesia.org...



posted on Mar, 30 2007 @ 09:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by saint4God
I'm not talking about flies spawning from rotting meat...which is the history of abiogenesis.


Neither am I. And by the way, flies spawning from rotting meat is not abiogenesis.


I'm not "confused" here. Evolution does not say spontaneous organism, but does say lifeless chemical mixing in a primordial ooze to generate a primitive unicellular organism (or organelle), does it not?


Again, point it out for me please!

And it seems you are confused. "Evolution...does say lifeless chemical mixing in a premordial ooze to generate a primitve unicellular organism, does it not?" Based on your own defintion, isn't that abiogenesis?

Your defintion in the quote and your words in the brackets:

"spontaneous origination of living organisms (the primitive unicellular organisms) directly from lifeless matter (lifeless chemicals)"



It begs the question, "where did the first living cell come from" and many textbooks believe they have the answer included within their definition of evolution.


Again, show me these textbooks and the exact phrase which states this.


Hehe, no it doesn't. I never stated I would provide a burden of proof, nor am I held responsible/accountable for it.


I meant the ID'ers and creationists in general, not specifically you. Ditto the rest of the times I said "you". Sorry for not making that clear.



Here is what both have in common. They are both ideas.

I agree it is a different debate and am currently on one of them. If you're going to use evolution compare the two, then do so justly.

I would not know what I'm conceeding to. Have I stated somewhere that I believe ID is a theory? I'll review my notes, but if I did, I was mistaken. Both Evolution and Intelligent Design are ideas. Why?


First off, you are right that both are ideas. Evolution, though, is also a theory. But this is not what this thread is about. Push the theory of evolution aside for a sec and get back to what the point of the thread is; whether or not ID and creationism is a theory. By saying you don't think ID or creationism is a scientific theory you are essentially conceeding the arguement because that is the point I am trying to get across.

[edit on 30-3-2007 by LuDaCrIs]



posted on Mar, 30 2007 @ 09:49 PM
link   
I clicked on this thread because I wanted to see some proof of Intelligent Design as follows scientific theory.

What I find is a couple of folks who are tugging their forelocks about "bias" and how wrong evolution is.

Can I please get some proof that an unfathomably superior being managed to set the existence and development of all life on this tertiary solar rock into motion, please?



posted on Mar, 30 2007 @ 10:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by LuDaCrIs
Neither am I. And by the way, flies spawning from rotting meat is not abiogenesis.


Didn't bother reading what I just posted eh? It's still there if you care to have a look.


Originally posted by LuDaCrIs
Again, point it out for me please!


I did, see last post.


Originally posted by LuDaCrIs
And it seems you are confused. "Evolution...does say lifeless chemical mixing in a premordial ooze to generate a primitve unicellular organism, does it not?" Based on your own defintion, isn't that abiogenesis?


No, see last post.


Originally posted by LuDaCrIs
Your defintion in the quote and your words in the brackets:

"spontaneous origination of living organisms (the primitive unicellular organisms) directly from lifeless matter (lifeless chemicals)"


Modern evolutionary theory.


Originally posted by LuDaCrIs
Again, show me these textbooks and the exact phrase which states this.


If you're not even going to read my post, nor the articles associated with my post, why should I start digging up college books? You're really not giving me any incentive to do extra credit here.


Originally posted by LuDaCrIs
I meant the ID'ers and creationists in general, not specifically you. Ditto the rest of the times I said "you". Sorry for not making that clear.


Fair enough. Remember though, I have no theory for ID, Creationism nor Evolution as all three are ideas. Nothing more. I believe we need to be advancing these ideas into some kind of substance according to the scientific method, which all three lack.


Originally posted by LuDaCrIs
First off, you are right that both are ideas. Evolution, though, is also a theory.


It is not a theory. Can you please just take a second to read what I said as to why it is not. Bulldozer tactics don't work without bulldozers.


Originally posted by LuDaCrIs
But this is not what this thread is about. Push the theory of evolution aside for a sec and get back to what the point of the thread is; whether or not ID and creationism is a theory. By saying you don't think ID or creationism is a scientific theory you are essentially conceeding the arguement because that is the point I am trying to get across.


I've already stated that all three are not theories, demonstrated why, and had not made claim otherwise. What is it that I'm yielding to? What is it that I'm acknowledging grudgingly or hesitantly to? I have issue with the use of the word conceded incorrectly (or so it seems until you can clarify the point). www.m-w.com...

I call into question the sincerity of your opening statement at this point. You want a fight, fine, go fight but leave me out of it (as you have no fight with me). I'm looking for a progressive discussion myself.

[edit on 30-3-2007 by saint4God]



posted on Mar, 30 2007 @ 11:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheWalkingFox
Can I please get some proof that an unfathomably superior being managed to set the existence and development of all life on this tertiary solar rock into motion, please?


Admittedly I hoped there would be some more ID or Creationists who could advance the idea further or create a convincing case as to why we should be considering it for theory creation.

But, I'll do my best to help. Let's start with Diversity.

Dr. Stephen J. Gould threw together a book called "The Diversity of Life" where he discusses in the first few chapters the necessity of multiple lifeforms needing to exist in order to have a thriving ecosystem. It was beautifully written for the first few chapters, however it sounds like he realized he was moving towards Creationism/ID and away from evolution. The second half of the book turns ugly where he's reeling, trying to explain how diversity came about if interdependency was so necessary and fragile. It apparently isn't the first time he had a case of foot-in-mouth disease: www.peripatus.gen.nz... . Let's look at two approaches to diversity as it applies to our discussion:

Approach A: Diversity grew from 0 to 1 to a multiplicity over time. This is how we get a conical divergence in taxonomy resulting in trans-species evolution.

Approach B: Diversity was always a necessary part of a thriving ecosystem.

Let's discount A, as you've pointed out as well as LuD, it's not what this topic is about.

On to Approach B. This ecological diversity means that food chains are:
1.) Short
2.) Flexible
3.) Dependant upon one another (more like a web than a chain)

Question. Is this true? Point by point it appears to be the case:
1.) Food chains are short, not usually going more than three or four organisms long. For example = plant, deer, mountain lion. Not many things other than maybe desparate humans eat mountain lions. That's a problem for evolution, as due to the nature of changing mutations and such it should be much much longer, but makes a lot of sense if it were pre-established.
2.) Flexibility means that critters have the ability of limited variance (as demonstrated by Mendel) either physically and/or behaviourally to their environment. This seems to be true, can be tested, etc. We have generalists and specialists species alike according to the abundance and diversity of the resources in the area. Finches may eat seeds, but have a genotypic flexibility to different kinds of seeds. Crows will eat just about anything.
3.) Why to environmentalists panic over endangered species? Well, it's not just for purposes of that one species. Environmentalists realize that species are often interdependant upon one another. In other words, if we shoot all the mountain lions, we're going to have too many deer. This is the case in the woodlands U.S. and Canada. Hunters get their justification as controlling the deer population, which they are. Lyme disease and auto accidents would grow increasingly more prevalent amoung other complications otherwise. Conversely, when a species is running scarce, every organism that is parasitic, symbiotic, predatory, or otherwise is going to be effected. If you don't think this is true, tell an ecologist that they don't need to preserve the salt marshes and we should sandbag the whole place to build a golf course.

So what does this all mean?

Essentially if diversity is necessary from an ecological standpoint to have a thriving ecosystem, then the ecosystem must be created as a unit, else it would meet the collapse or extinction of many thousands of species within a few short years. If this point cannot be agreed upon, then there's really no point in pursuing any further.

[edit on 30-3-2007 by saint4God]



posted on Mar, 31 2007 @ 12:17 AM
link   
Saint, I don't get you.

I don't know why you got the impression I want to fight. I had no intention. I don't understand how this got blown up like it did. You said textbooks include the start of life in the theory of evolution and I asked you to point out the textbook. As far as I am concerned you haven't shown me a textbook quote that states this. What's the source of the Revolution Against Evolution article?

But again, I don't even understand why we are spending so much time on evolution. Let's drop it right now.

I start a thread discussing whether or not ID and/or creationism should be considered a scientific theory and what happens? You come in an say ID and/or creationism is not a scientific theory.

My question to you is why are you still posting in this thread?



posted on Mar, 31 2007 @ 12:56 AM
link   
so what's the hypothesis with creationism? i might have asked this already, but i'm pretty sure i didn't get an answer



posted on Mar, 31 2007 @ 10:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by LuDaCrIs
I start a thread discussing whether or not ID and/or creationism should be considered a scientific theory and what happens? You come in an say ID and/or creationism is not a scientific theory.

My question to you is why are you still posting in this thread?


To show some sort of false equivalence between ID creationism and evolutionary biology?



posted on Mar, 31 2007 @ 01:55 PM
link   
Instead of arguing, why don't we mix the two and see what happens?

An intelligent design of evolution evolving intelligence to understand its own evolution through its created language that came through an intelligently evolved intelligence through a design that has no design other than what it conforms to through adapting to its environment, that which it all ready knew Existed to begin with, a beginning that it knew never Existed.

Have fun


[edit on 31-3-2007 by LastOutfiniteVoiceEternal]



posted on Mar, 31 2007 @ 02:05 PM
link   
Saint,

This isn't proof of a creative and intelligent designer, which is what I'm asking for. This thread is about showing your stance to be scientific. In order to accomplish this, you need to give us some observable, empirical, and measurable evidence of a sentient designer or force, or at least explain the means one would go about collecting this evidence

You don't seem to understand how complex biological systems can come about without an intelligent designer. That's opinion though, not evidence. It's like saying that the Giant's Causeway on Ireland was really created by giants because you don't see how it could have happened naturally, and then citing it as evidence that there were giants in Ireland.

For the record, I'm not interested in what Evolution can bring forward, so please don't give me the "evolution can't provide any evidence!" argument - We're talking about intelligent design, after all.



new topics

top topics



 
6
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join