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 ID and creationism were given funding and grants...

page: 4
3
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 9 2007 @ 11:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by Fromabove
1. Right and wrong, how do you know the difference and from where do you get your morality from.

You cannot give a vaid answer to this because if you say it was by chance ot nature you are deceiving yourself. If that were so, you or I should have no problem with killing the guy next door for his car and then going out to dinner in it with your friends.

Question: Where does morality come from? How do you know right from wrong, and if two atheists disagree.... who is right?

Atheism doesn't mean you don't have philosophy... I think atheism is idiotic, personally, due to the limitation of human knowledge.

But morality doesn't have to come from a designer, it is part of human nature. It's something you see in pack animals so that they can live together. If you use evolution, animals that could band together could survive better than those that fought one another. Social interaction is pretty complex.




posted on Dec, 9 2007 @ 12:15 PM
link   
reply to post by Johnmike
 


Philosophy maybe, but absolutes of right and wrong are different. This goes beyond philosophy and deep into the part of man that cannot be said to be physical or energy, but rather spiritual. I know it is right or wrong. In support of a Creator and ID, I would say that laws of conscience were fixed in the created object to govern productive behavior. If it were all reletive to the situation, I should have no problem with stealing or killing as it is neither good or evil and therefore has no consequences. Even animals have certain behavior patterns for it's species. That they also have them cannot negate the fact overall that they exist but are neither physical or energy, but rather thought and will. Atheists have a hard time pushing evolution over ID when they try to make a square peg fit into a round hole. They cannot explain to a certainty, morality.



posted on Dec, 9 2007 @ 12:29 PM
link   
I cannot resist throwing this article into the mix: Food for Thought

Let the games begin.



posted on Dec, 9 2007 @ 05:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by Fromabove
Why is it more believeable to think that "God" created the universe.

1. You cannot get something from nothing at all.

2. Thermodynamics: Energy is neither created nor destroyed:

A Therefore to be created, an even greater force is needed to bring cause into effect.


it falls apart at A

i'll amend:

A Therefore, energy has always existed.

hmm.. odd that i cut out more than half of your "reasoning" there with that swift bit of logic.



posted on Dec, 9 2007 @ 05:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Fromabove
Why is it more believeable to think that "God" created the universe.

1. You cannot get something from nothing at all.

2. Thermodynamics: Energy is neither created nor destroyed:

A Therefore to be created, an even greater force is needed to bring cause into effect.

B. That force cannot consist of matter, nor can it be part of the total energy of the entire sum total of the universe.

C. That force cannot be subject to any laws of this universe.

D. That force must be something that is neither matter or energy


" In the beginning God (outside spiritual force) created (cause) the heavens and the Earth (effect).... and God said, Let ther be (catalyst) light, and there was light (BIG BANG!).

Yes, ID is definately a valid approach to apply alongside the fairytale of evolution which has no real answers, and many holes, and leaves one with a sour feeling in the belly.

I support the teaching of ID as the alternative to fairy tales.


How is this testable and falsifiable??

Please read the whole thread before you comment!!!!!!!



posted on Dec, 9 2007 @ 08:06 PM
link   
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
 



I see that you are still unable to take on the important meat and potatoes again. Even here you lose the debate. But I'll make it verrry easy.

1. Energy can not be created nor destroyed, right?

Q. Where did that energy (universe) come from?

2. If the total energy of the universe cannot be added to, nor subtracted from.

Q. What was the catalyst that caused it to be?


3. Since logic dictates that all things that exist must have a beginning, lifetime, and end.

Q. How do you have a universe without a beginning, without any outside force creating it, and yet it exists ?


Remember, I am making a case for ID. If you think you can answer these very simplistic (and I made the questions easy) without short meaningless retorts, If you can do this, I will take on the task of dismantling the very fragic piecework, the only hope you have in support of atheism, namely the so called "evolution theory"

Personal thought: I think I'll only get more of the same.



posted on Dec, 9 2007 @ 08:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by Fromabove
1. Energy can not be created nor destroyed, right?

Q. Where did that energy (universe) come from?


From what came before? Maybe it has always existed in one form or another. Maybe such laws that apply within this universe do not outside it. We might even find that the total energy of the universe is zero being a mere vacuum fluctuation.


2. If the total energy of the universe cannot be added to, nor subtracted from.

Q. What was the catalyst that caused it to be?


Maybe it was two strings in collision? Maybe universes form within black holes? Maybe it's just a cyclic processes that just keeps on doing its thang.


3. Since logic dictates that all things that exist must have a beginning, lifetime, and end.

Q. How do you have a universe without a beginning, without any outside force creating it, and yet it exists?


I guess this logic also applies to your IDer? Who caused it?

Also, why does logic dictate this?


the only hope you have in support of atheism, namely the so called "evolution theory"


None of your arguments have anything to do with evolutionary theory. They also provide no support for ID. All you have so far is 'goddidit'.

Is this all you got? We are waiting for an experiment or something, rather than bad logic.

The idea in this thread is something like, I give you $500,000, what science would you do to support ID? Or would you just post bad arguments on the intertubz, buy a ferrari and lots of champagne?

[edit on 9-12-2007 by melatonin]



posted on Dec, 9 2007 @ 09:00 PM
link   
reply to post by melatonin
 


No.. I'm not going to accept you "flipping it around" on me. It is clear that it is more acceptable to believe the universe was created by ID rather than imaginary strings colliding, or "the universe was always here. I don't have to see an actual God to know that he exists, and the proof of that is the very universe itself. I can say that it was a spiritual entity that is not subject to the laws of the universe made the universe. A being who is not matter nor energy but spirit, who being before the universe, created it. Evolution has no couter arguement. It can only attack, not defend itself.

Evolution? Let me see, the universe.. it was always here so I need not look futher. Or I can't actually see God so the universe just "popped" into being with order and laws to follow, amazing really. At least ID has something to show for itself. Evolutionists can't even explain the simple things, how can the rest possibly be believable.



posted on Dec, 9 2007 @ 09:02 PM
link   
Those who are opposed to ID, explain to me how you get a very huge universe, from nothing at all, surely evolution holds the key.

[edit on 9-12-2007 by Fromabove]



posted on Dec, 9 2007 @ 09:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by Fromabove
No.. I'm not going to accept you "flipping it around" on me. It is clear that it is more acceptable to believe the universe was created by ID rather than imaginary strings colliding, or "the universe was always here.


So, you'd rather posit an imaginary sky-daddy who breaks your own logical premises, heh.

It might be more acceptable to you, but that's not science. This thread is about me (or Lude) giving you a lump of dosh, what science would you do? As much as you can posit a magic-man, I can posit strings colliding or a flatulant spaggetti monster. I think of all three, one has a better chnace of being science, and that's the one based in maths.


Evolution has no couter arguement. It can only attack, not defend itself.


Eh? Evolution is about biology. People can be deist, theist, pagan and still accept evolution as a valid explanation of the development of life.

It can easily defend itself, and has done for around 150 years.


Evolution? Let me see, the universe.. it was always here so I need not look futher. Or I can't actually see God so the universe just "popped" into being with order and laws to follow, amazing really. At least ID has something to show for itself. Evolutionists can't even explain the simple things, how can the rest possibly be believable.


ID has nothing to show. Nada. Zilch. Just poor arguments like the one you have raised.

I just provided counter arguments to your propositions. You are trying to use poor logic in an attempt to play the cosmological argument, it just does not hold. If you want to say 'all things have a cause', you can't start with the special pleading for your magic-man.

ABE:


Those who are opposed to ID, explain to me how you get a very huge universe, from nothing at all, surely evolution holds the key.


Who said 'nothing at all'? I don't recall any scientists saying that. It appears to be cdesignpropentsists who suggest this strawman.

This is just another negative argument. How do we support your ID proposition? We don't want to hear - because I say you are wrong, I must be right. What science would you do?

Science requires forming a falsifiable, testable hypothesis. So, lets start with that...

[edit on 9-12-2007 by melatonin]



posted on Dec, 9 2007 @ 11:15 PM
link   
reply to post by Fromabove
 




1. Energy can not be created nor destroyed, right?


The First Law of Thermodynamics, as taught in many schools, is a simplification. Classically (in Newton and Einstein) the universe is presumed to be a "closed system" governed by laws that are local, causal, and determinist in nature. A closed system is more like an automobile engine running in a perfectly-insulated vacuum than something like a living organism: when the energy put into the system dissipates, the system works; when the energy has dissipated, the system stops working. Ideas such as the "slow heat death" of the universe are a consequence of this intellectual framework.

The net total of matter and energy in the universe is presumed to be a constant, but Einstein's famous equation e=mc2 provides the ratio (c^2) whereby quantities of matter can be converted into equivalent quantities of energy.

The Second Law of Thermodynamics is commonly understood to be more about entropy and information than matter and energy. More contemporary scientific thought views the universe as possibly an "open system," one whose structure (like living organisms) causes it to seek new sources of energy. Living things maintain themselves by reducing local disorder. This reduction in local disorder may have more global effects, such as humans organizing themselves into cities. Consider why God might test humans: is it strictly for God's amusement that Adam and Eve were expelled from Eden, or might God have reasons for what He does? Divine foreknowledge is perfectly compatible with human free will: just because God knows something will happen doesn't mean that knowledge brings it about. If God seeks order over chaos, humans may be as important a part of God's own sense of purpose as the laws of gravity which allow us to fulfill God's purpose. Each man, woman, and atom might be each just as important as the cosmic whole.

God may have created all the matter and energy in the universe, but that matter and energy still behaves according to patterns that are identifiable to humans. Evolution makes sense in terms of the thermodynamics of open systems.




3. Since logic dictates that all things that exist must have a beginning, lifetime, and end.

Q. How do you have a universe without a beginning, without any outside force creating it, and yet it exists ?


If time is an illusion (or a construct provided by human cognition).

Einstein said the Universe as we experience it in space is like the surface of a basketball: finite but unbounded. You can walk along the surface of a basketball forever, never encounter a boundary past which you cannot walk, but only cover a limited amount of surface. You can walk across that surface in an infinite number of ways, but there is still only so much baskeball you can walk on.

If space

1) appears to go on forever
2) has stuff in it everwhere

and

3) doesn't appear identical in all directions,

then, statistically speaking, space is likely to contain every possible combination of stuff.

In all liklihood, somewhere, you are reading this post five minutes ago. And, somewhere, you are reading this post five minutes from now. Somewhere, time began five minutes earlier, and somewhere, time is just now coming into being.




[edit on 9-12-2007 by America Jones]

[edit on 9-12-2007 by America Jones]



posted on Dec, 10 2007 @ 08:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by Fromabove
Those who are opposed to ID, explain to me how you get a very huge universe, from nothing at all, surely evolution holds the key.


it isn't "from nothing"
it's from something.
sure, there may be a prime mover in there somewhere (or not, could be cyclical), but that doesn't mean said prime mover is a conscious being, it just means it's there and did the first thing.

oh, and you've repeated a second fallacy... evolution only mentions what happened from the first speck of life on earth... nothing before or after.



posted on Dec, 10 2007 @ 11:07 AM
link   
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
 


Even for the first "spark" of life to begin, there has to be a source. Even before the universe began there has to be a source. And whatever that source is has to be greater than the universe itself, and not be part of what the universe is, and not be bound by the laws that the universe is.

The evolution theory really has no certain proofs at all. When the first "presto chango" cell, bio-entity- whatever, was created (oops scratch that last word) uh.. was "spontaniously and accidentaly put together",

A. How did it know to live?

B. How did it know to eat?

C. How did it know to survive?

D. How did it know to reproduce?

E And how did it know to continue?

F. Where did it get the "desire" to do anything?


Yet in support of ID, I would say that the creator programmed such things as laws into the structure that was created, into the DNA itself.

Like morality and right and wrong, again evolution has no certain answers beyond wishful speculation. Just like atheism.



posted on Dec, 10 2007 @ 11:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by Fromabove
Even for the first "spark" of life to begin, there has to be a source. Even before the universe began there has to be a source. And whatever that source is has to be greater than the universe itself, and not be part of what the universe is, and not be bound by the laws that the universe is.

The evolution theory really has no certain proofs at all. When the first "presto chango" cell, bio-entity- whatever, was created (oops scratch that last word) uh.. was "spontaniously and accidentaly put together",

A. How did it know to live?

B. How did it know to eat?

C. How did it know to survive?

D. How did it know to reproduce?

E And how did it know to continue?

F. Where did it get the "desire" to do anything?


Yet in support of ID, I would say that the creator programmed such things as laws into the structure that was created, into the DNA itself.

Like morality and right and wrong, again evolution has no certain answers beyond wishful speculation. Just like atheism.


I think you've miss the point of this thread entirely. This is not a debate on whether ID and creationism should be discarded as an idea. This is a debate on whether or not this idea is "science" and whether or not it belongs in a science class.

What is the issue with putting this concept in an elective philosophy or religious class?

By saying:

Even for the first "spark" of life to begin, there has to be a source. Even before the universe began there has to be a source. And whatever that source is has to be greater than the universe itself, and not be part of what the universe is, and not be bound by the laws that the universe is.

you've conceded that it is not science, as it calls on the supernatural, which science has nothing to do with.

By saying:


Yet in support of ID, I would say that the creator programmed such things as laws into the structure that was created, into the DNA itself.

you would have to answer the following questions for ID to be considered science:

1) What was the process of "programming"
2) Why did he "program" in such a manner?
3) What experiments could you perform to falsify the claims listed above?

AGAIN, I really don't know how I can make this easier, what experiments would ID proponents perform with funding?

Its not a matter of questioning evolution; that is irrelevant to the topic! DO NOT BRING EVOLUTION UP TO BASH OR DISCREDIT IT!

If you want to contribute please post experiments which would falsify ID and creationism.



posted on Dec, 10 2007 @ 01:02 PM
link   
reply to post by Fromabove
 


turnabout

how did god come into being?
how did it know how to create?
etc etc etc...

it's fair play and we're really distracting from the actually point of this thread

how would you test ID?



posted on Dec, 10 2007 @ 07:43 PM
link   
Intelligent Design theory and creationist theory should be taught alongside the THEORY of evolution, but it must be explained to the students that all of these are THEORIES and there is no concrete proof for either one of the theories to prove it to be the truth.

It is up to each student to come to their own conclusions after being presented with the facts. As a Raelian, I'm all for Intelligent Design because we believe that we were created by advanced people from another planet. This theory wasn't plucked from thin air - you can look into the ancient religious texts, but more specifically, look at the science behind this idea. For me, this is the conclusion I've come to.

When we talk about creationism, we're not talking about mythical gods or the Bible, we're discussing the idea of a design, a deliberate plan and this would take us into the area of genetic engineering, genetic codes, DNA etc.

It's arrogant for people to only teach evolution in schools as the only truth....there is a lot of scientific research that discounts evolution!

It is up to science to explore all of the theories and facts and not to just pick and choose what it wants to teach as truth.


-Josh
www.rael.org



posted on Dec, 10 2007 @ 08:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by archangel_josh

Intelligent Design theory and creationist theory should be taught alongside the THEORY of evolution, but it must be explained to the students that all of these are THEORIES and there is no concrete proof for either one of the theories to prove it to be the truth.

It is up to each student to come to their own conclusions after being presented with the facts. As a Raelian, I'm all for Intelligent Design because we believe that we were created by advanced people from another planet. This theory wasn't plucked from thin air - you can look into the ancient religious texts, but more specifically, look at the science behind this idea. For me, this is the conclusion I've come to.

When we talk about creationism, we're not talking about mythical gods or the Bible, we're discussing the idea of a design, a deliberate plan and this would take us into the area of genetic engineering, genetic codes, DNA etc.

It's arrogant for people to only teach evolution in schools as the only truth....there is a lot of scientific research that discounts evolution!

It is up to science to explore all of the theories and facts and not to just pick and choose what it wants to teach as truth.


-Josh
www.rael.org



Personally, I am getting very sick of posts like these ones. Clearly you haven't read the thread or understand what this thread is about. For example, if you had read the thread, you would not have posted things like this: "there is a lot of scientific research that discounts evolution!" This is completely irrelevant to the topic at hand.

Your idea of what a theory and what a scientific theory is are clearly the same. But they are not. A scientific theory is not merely a hypothesis. Its something that has falsifiable tests to support it.


LET ME POSE THE THREAD TOPIC QUESTION IN THIS WAY:

Let's pretend evolution is not a scientific theory and is not mentioned in a science class ever again. If you feel ID should replace it in that class, what kind of experiments would you show the kids to support the theory of ID? What tests and results are there to show and how are these tests falsifiable?

Again, DO NOT MENTION EVOLUTION IN THIS TOPIC; IT IS COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT!



posted on Dec, 11 2007 @ 05:43 AM
link   
reply to post by archangel_josh
 



I agree with you on your last post. There are some here (atheists) who cannot see that the whole idea of science is to explore, discover, and understand. When they limit one idea, that is, that the universe quite possibly have been the result of intelligent design, they stop scince short. When they leave out one idead, they limit all others and their worldview becomes very narrow. None of us here has said we should throw out the evoloution theory as it is a theory, but they have said so of ID. They know that if the two are presented together and taught as theories, evolution will lose every time as it has no conclusive asnswers, even from the start.



posted on Dec, 11 2007 @ 05:46 AM
link   
reply to post by LuDaCrIs
 


Let's say that evolution were valid, what kind of experiment would you show to prove that the alternative theory is wrong and that evolution is correct. Not speculative, but correct. The students would need to know why there could be no intelligent designer, and why evolution is the only answer.

A Fact can only be astablished when all other possibilities have been proven wrong.

[edit on 11-12-2007 by Fromabove]



posted on Dec, 11 2007 @ 09:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by Fromabove
I agree with you on your last post. There are some here (atheists) who cannot see that the whole idea of science is to explore, discover, and understand. When they limit one idea, that is, that the universe quite possibly have been the result of intelligent design, they stop scince short. When they leave out one idead, they limit all others and their worldview becomes very narrow. None of us here has said we should throw out the evoloution theory as it is a theory, but they have said so of ID. They know that if the two are presented together and taught as theories, evolution will lose every time as it has no conclusive asnswers, even from the start.


No scientist has ever conclusively said ID is 100% bunk as an idea (not a scientific theory-i will get to that in a bit). To say that would be ignorant. The reason why ID can't be disproved 100% is because there have been no tests or experiments to disprove it. Right now its an idea (not a scientific theory - far from science) This is exactly why it's not science. There are no tests, so far and this is exactly what the thread deals with, to falsify ID. Scientists don't start with the conclusion that ID is not science. On the contrary, they first come up with questions like: how can we tests this? how can we falsify this? and then decide whether it is science or not. Because ID doesn't have any falsifiable experiments, it is NOT science. This is what the thread is about. What experiments would ID scientists perform, with grants and funds, to falsify ID? Why haven't you answered that question yet?

Science is more than open armed about new ideas. But, there are standards that have to be met for these ideas to be considered legitimate science. I am not saying ID should never be considered science; nor are scientists. But as of right now it has no place in a science class because it hasn't met those standards. If ID comes out with a scientific theory, scientists will be more than happy to include it in a science class. ID'ers are the ones that want to teach it in science class. Therefore they have to show why it is science. So, again, what experiments can be performed to falsify ID?



Originally posted by Fromabove
reply to post by LuDaCrIs
 


Let's say that evolution were valid, what kind of experiment would you show to prove that the alternative theory is wrong and that evolution is correct. Not speculative, but correct. The students would need to know why there could be no intelligent designer, and why evolution is the only answer.

A Fact can only be astablished when all other possibilities have been proven wrong.
[edit on 11-12-2007 by Fromabove]


No one is saying there could not be an intelligent designer. All scientists are saying is show me how he would do it. What falsifiable experiments would you perform to show that there is a designer? Thats what the thread is about. It has nothing to do with evolution and its merits. Why do you keep bringing up evolution? It is completely irrelevant to the legitimacy of ID. Please don't bring it up.

This thread has now leaked into a 4th page and what do we have to show for it? There has been one experiment posted on ID (irreducibly complex). I am kinda disappointed to tell you the truth.

Why aren't more ID'er and creationist willing to help each other out than simply bash evolution? Don't you get it that in order for ID to be taught as science, it must meet standards. Those standards come in the form of experiments and methodology. So, again, what are the experiments and methodologies used to falsify ID, so that it can be taught in science?

[edit on 11-12-2007 by LuDaCrIs]



new topics

top topics



 
3
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join