It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

creationism, where is the evidence???!!! i see none

page: 21
5
<< 18  19  20    22  23  24 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 20 2008 @ 01:10 PM
link   
Why do Christians continue to blindly argue against science? I'm a Christian but God gave me free will and reason to examine the world around me. First, my reason tells me that arguing a faith (which by its definition requires an illogical step) against a science (which needs logic), is a flawed argument to begin with. It's like debating if G.I. Joe's are better than human soldiers. To clarify, it's illogical because if there wasn't a 'leap' of faith, or there was absolute proof, free will would be compromised.

Second, why doesn't the thought of a self evolving universe, as opposed to a static one, excite Christians? Or look at a periodic table, everything we see is made from those building blocks. And each element is a combination of only three chemical bricks (proton, neutron, electron). Heck, that's a trinity right there.

Third, and I know my fellow Christians won't like this, educate yourself on evolution. Seriously read and attempt to understand it with an open mind. Pretend you're an atheist for a moment if you have to, God won't strike you down. You can kindly tell Him you're trying to learn more about His world and mean no disrespect. I have not read through all twenty pages but I've seen some quote pulling and misunderstandings of current evolutionary theory. It might be asking like a non-Christian to read through the Bible to give it a chance, but if we never try to see the world from the other side, we'll always argue like this.

Fourth, who cares? Be proud of what you believe in. Be happy to find differences between yourself and others. Arguments like these put people against each other, not their ideas or beliefs. I'm going to read over the rest of the post but I'll be back.




posted on Jan, 20 2008 @ 01:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by Xtrozero
But how does non-living building blocks come together to form life? There are no basic life forms teeming in space so I miss you point there.


To the first point, chemistry and biochemistry. To the second, I never said basic life-forms, but the building blocks. Organic molecules. Although, who knows, maybe some forms of life can be found in space. Some forms of bacteria appear particulary hardy. The abiogenesis process would be something like this:



Each process being a step towards greater complexity from more simple pre-existing events. Whilst you want to posit a omnipotent supercomplex interdimensional biochemist who listens to prayers and frowns at bottom sex, and uses a lab to make bacteria and possibly humans for his own happiness or something.


I think my points are more along the lines that if a person believes that random events create life then it would be hypocritical to also believe that intelligent Alien contact is plausible . My other point is since we have no proof as to how life started in the universe then all hypotheses are equally correct or incorrect since none can be proven, and so the OP’s title is moot.


No, they are not. You are also still stuck on random stuff. Chemistry is not random. Na + H20 ----> NaOH + H2^ is not random. Abiogensis would be some non-random, some random, but totally undirected.

This is comparable to saying that because we haven't yet found evidence of the graviton, it is equally plausible that little invisible red-haired scottish pixies push and pull objects around.

We have evidence that basic elements do form more complex compounds in nature. We don't have evidence of interdimensional biochemists. I won't say it is impossible for your supernatural biochemist to exist, but this same supernatural scientist has been posited to account for all kinds of stuff in nature, only for purely natural accouts to be provided.

Again, experience tells us that such supernatural explanations tend to be way off the mark and simply arguments from ignorance, and so we can further suggest the natural hypothesis is more likely.

This stuff is being worked on right now. It was only 50 years ago when we discovered the mechanism of heredity for life, the essence of biochemical replication, patience my friend



I know this part is slightly off topic, but it strikes me funny that an atheist would believe that UFOs are alien design, or that we would ever be visited by one.


I don't think UFOs are alien design. I think they are nothing but elements of human activity, anomalies, and a bit of wishful thinking. Just my opinion, of course


However, I still think that intelligent life elsewhere in the universe is more likely than your interdimensional supernatural biochemist.

[edit on 20-1-2008 by melatonin]



posted on Jan, 20 2008 @ 01:27 PM
link   
conversely, i see no arguements against creationism holding water either. most people who debate it debate creationsim vs evolution, which is a mute point since creationism does not exclude evolution.

you cant prove a negative seems to be the problem here.

Existance is not proof of creation, however no school of thought has been able to disprove existance.



posted on Jan, 20 2008 @ 01:30 PM
link   
I've never had any qualms with life in an evolutionary sense, but one thing that has plagued me, especially as a secular "Humanist" has been the origin of time and space. No one here can claim they know anything about where the physical energy in it's origin created itself or "how" it was created. Even Earthly physics negates the notion that it has always "been," as energy cannot be created or destroyed, but is in an infinite lingo of kinetic and potential. I know as a species, we're still in what can and should be considered as our infancy of science and technologies, but even taking into consideration of what we know now, it still boggles my mind.

And as a counter argument, one could probably say the same about modern science. As it seems our current sciences are probably just as far away as to figuring out where and why as their religious counterparts.



posted on Jan, 20 2008 @ 11:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by melatonin
I don't think UFOs are alien design. I think they are nothing but elements of human activity, anomalies, and a bit of wishful thinking. Just my opinion, of course


However, I still think that intelligent life elsewhere in the universe is more likely than your interdimensional supernatural biochemist.


Well I like that you hold true to your convictions.


Actually I'm not so much arguing for intelligent design as much as it must be a lonely place out there and if not then some kind of intelligent interaction took place that made it not so lonely, so I’m waiting for the ending of the book to see which way it goes.

Maybe Acetylene, hydrogen cyanide, and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons molecules are the basic source for life .



posted on Jan, 21 2008 @ 06:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by AncientVoid
reply to post by Fromabove
 


What is wrong with you? Just look up two post...



In order to validate creationism, one has to invalidate the opposing view. So one cannot argue in behalf of one view without annuling the other viewpoint.

[edit on 21-1-2008 by Fromabove]



posted on Jan, 21 2008 @ 06:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by melatonin

Originally posted by Fromabove
and the time and place were right for a bolt of lightning to come down and in impossible odds, it hits the pool.


Heh, impossible odds?

Come on, you're not being serious? If this is the sort of event that is required, over a period of a billion years it would be impossible for a strike of lightening to hit one in any number of such pools?

Your argument shows it vacuity right at the start. I mentioned this earlier (in this thread or t'other), but this sort of post-hoc probability argument is naff. You don't even know the probability of such events, and even if you did, even at 1 in 128567639590400272652648902684932020029376192, it could happen on the very first trial.

Billions of galaxies, billions of habitable planets, billions of years, billons of simultaneous trials. One abiogenesis event required on one planet (although life could be all over the universe for all we know, time will tell).

But as AV points out, still not a positive argument for creation.

[edit on 19-1-2008 by melatonin]



This is why evolution is so impossible. You would have to "get it right" the first time, and have everything set to go. And the "lifeform" that would be made would have to have "ready to go" intelligence, the need and desire to continue itself through reproduction, and the need to eat, and progress. The possibilities of this happening during the expected lifespan of our sun alone make it an impossible task. The same could be said for the countless billons of galaxies out there, which I do believe are teeming with various forms of life. The difference between us is that I believe all life is the act of creation, and you believe (beyond all impossible odds) that all life is random chance of "getting it right" the very first time.

So again, math has proven evolution impossible leaving only creationism to shine in the sun.



posted on Jan, 21 2008 @ 08:01 AM
link   
In response to DeadFlagBlues,

I have asked the same question regarding the origin of existence. Evolution or Creation, my question is if it was the "big bang" that started it all where did the matter that caused the big bang come from? If it was a supreme being did energy spring forth from nothing and if so then how is that in our current existence energy cannot be created only transfered. Maybe I need a science class but both sides seem to me to require some leaps of faith.



posted on Jan, 21 2008 @ 08:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by Fromabove
So again, math has proven evolution impossible leaving only creationism to shine in the sun.


Keep telling yourself that. The big problem is that you really don't understand what you are talking about. You clearly showed this by the 'impossible odds' of a lightning strike and a pool of chemicals. We don't need to 'get it right first time' at all. We have billions of years, billions of planets, billions of galaxies, and billions of your pools of chemicals.

You have no understanding of statistics and probability, or what is required from abiogenesis.

[edit on 21-1-2008 by melatonin]



posted on Jan, 21 2008 @ 11:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by melatonin

Originally posted by Fromabove
So again, math has proven evolution impossible leaving only creationism to shine in the sun.


Keep telling yourself that. The big problem is that you really don't understand what you are talking about. You clearly showed this by the 'impossible odds' of a lightning strike and a pool of chemicals. We don't need to 'get it right first time' at all. We have billions of years, billions of planets, billions of galaxies, and billions of your pools of chemicals.

You have no understanding of statistics and probability, or what is required from abiogenesis.

[edit on 21-1-2008 by melatonin]


Actually... I do. Let's say that a living organism needs to have the number 1 through 10 in exact order to become what we might call "alive", and that only in this sequence is it possible. Then let us say that in addition to this more nmbers say 11 to 50 need to be present added to the 1 through ten in order to become a cell able to reproduce. Then say you need another 11 to 1,000 to become a higher form able to form the first species, and so on. The chances of this happening are too vast. Even if it were possible, the ability to "know" it is alive and "must continue" is again too vast to imaginge. Chemical responses cannot take into account "knowladge" and "will". Those things are beyond the area of chemical combinations.

Take ten sets of dice. Let's say that you need to have every one be a six when you roll them. Start now and write back in about five years and tell me how it went. But before that, every time you get it right you add another dice and do it again, and they all must be sixes except the eleventh dice which is a number nine, followed by eight, and so on, this accounts for mutations and improvements with modifications. And every third time you get it right you have to start over to allow for enviromental conditioning, then come back in 100 billion years and let us know how it went. Except that at that time the sun will be a white dwarf star and the Earth will be a black cinder with no atmosphere or life on it.

So, math makes it simply impossible to achieve an evolutionary model.



posted on Jan, 21 2008 @ 11:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by DeadFlagBlues
I've never had any qualms with life in an evolutionary sense, but one thing that has plagued me, especially as a secular "Humanist" has been the origin of time and space. No one here can claim they know anything about where the physical energy in it's origin created itself or "how" it was created. Even Earthly physics negates the notion that it has always "been," as energy cannot be created or destroyed, but is in an infinite lingo of kinetic and potential. I know as a species, we're still in what can and should be considered as our infancy of science and technologies, but even taking into consideration of what we know now, it still boggles my mind.

And as a counter argument, one could probably say the same about modern science. As it seems our current sciences are probably just as far away as to figuring out where and why as their religious counterparts.


For creationists, the answer is able to be understood in one sense and remains a mystery in another. No one has seen God. But we know the universe does exist because we see it and know we live in it. Since energy can neither be created nor destroyed, and since matter and energy are interchangable, they themselves cannot be the source for their own existence, this is logic. So the question is, what force made everything we see and ourselves in it. That force cannot as a matter of logic be part of nor consist of matter or energy or that force would be subject to the very laws that contain both, therfore that force would have to be greater than and outside of, the universe itself, yet able to interact in it though not subjected to it's laws. Logic would dictate that that force is not energy or matter. This leaves the question as to the make up of the "force". Creationists call this force "spirit". We believe that the universe consists and exists at three levels, Matter, energy, and spirit. But the spiritual is "life" the physical is not "life" but a container for which life moves through and in. We exist within a body made of matter and of energy, but it is the life "force" that holds it together to act and to move. Take away the life force and the energy and matter body have no purpose or meaning and start immediately to decay to it's basic forms. "God" is the supreme spirit as it is He that created what we call the universe today. yet we humans possess on a vastly small scale the ability to create in ourselves. Buildings and cars etc did not just happen, they were conceived in the mind where they were brought into existence, then they were made, but everything starts the same way. The part where mystery comes in is in "who is God" and "where did God come from". No one knows this not even me, but I know the universe exists and I exist, and that it could not have happened by itself, so one cannot dismiss God as a plausible reasonable answer to the question.

[edit on 21-1-2008 by Fromabove]



posted on Jan, 21 2008 @ 11:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by Fromabove
In order to validate creationism, one has to invalidate the opposing view. So one cannot argue in behalf of one view without annuling the other viewpoint.


actually... if you could, for the sake of argument, invalidate evolution, you wouldn't prove creationism.
you'd still have to independently prove creationism...
so get cracking on that 'prove creationism' thing



posted on Jan, 21 2008 @ 12:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul

Originally posted by Fromabove
In order to validate creationism, one has to invalidate the opposing view. So one cannot argue in behalf of one view without annuling the other viewpoint.


actually... if you could, for the sake of argument, invalidate evolution, you wouldn't prove creationism.
you'd still have to independently prove creationism...
so get cracking on that 'prove creationism' thing


Ahh.. but it feels so good to at least get us half way there. And it opens the door to the other being a real possibility.



posted on Jan, 21 2008 @ 12:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by Fromabove
Take ten sets of dice. Let's say that you need to have every one be a six when you roll them. Start now and write back in about five years and tell me how it went. But before that, every time you get it right you add another dice and do it again, and they all must be sixes except the eleventh dice which is a number nine, followed by eight, and so on, this accounts for mutations and improvements with modifications. And every third time you get it right you have to start over to allow for enviromental conditioning, then come back in 100 billion years and let us know how it went. Except that at that time the sun will be a white dwarf star and the Earth will be a black cinder with no atmosphere or life on it.

So, math makes it simply impossible to achieve an evolutionary model.


Heh, if you say so.

Again you show that you simply just do not understand this stuff.

Taking the simplistic dice model you want to play with, it's not a case of rolling say 10 dice and needing all sixes in one throw. The odds of that would be p=.167 for each dice, for 10, raised to the power 10: p=1.6x10^-8.

But this is not how evolution would occur. It would be more a case of throwing ten dice, then selecting the most adaptive (a six) , or roll again. Then throwing the remaining 9 looking for a six to select, and so on and so forth.

Thus, the odds of finding a six in one throw with 10 dice is p=1/6 x 10 > 1 Then, a six in 9 dice, 1/6 x 9 = p>1; etc etc.

[maths might be flaky, I quickly bashed that out on my electric abacus whilst making spag bol]

You essentially completely ignore selection, along with the fact we would have multiple simultaneous groups of 10 dice on multiple planets, in multiple galaxies. Thus, even if it was p=1.6x10^-8 (or even -80), we would have billions of dice rolls happening together over billions of years.

Moreover, you ignore the fact that chemistry and biochemistry is not random. It would be more like using a set of loaded dice.

[edit on 21-1-2008 by melatonin]



posted on Jan, 21 2008 @ 01:44 PM
link   
What I find rather interesting is warm blooded creatures are a fragile life form and humans are one of the most fragile of them all. Outside our intelligence our physical limitations are huge. For life to successfully go in this direction is amazing. When you look at mold or algae as maybe the first really complex form of life I think to just get to that stage from non-living organic molecules is an incredible leap.

I know that we have (let’s keep it to our galaxy) 300 billion stars with around 30 billion like our sun. You first need a planet in the life range of distance to its sun, and other things like gravity and water would most likely need to fall within a life range to have life possible. Some form of atmosphere that not only provides basic life needs but also protects life from dangerous radiation would need to be within some kind of life range. This for me all starts to dwindle the number drastically.

It is a logical assumption that for life to happen there needs to be energy of some form to create the chemical changes needed, and the three common ones are thermal, electrical and solar. I feel that thermal and solar are the two that would be the most likely choice for both of these are long term effects to constantly manipulate chemicals where lightning though the strongest is also the shortest, and so I just do not see it being the energy source. I feel that life would normally start in water around thermal vents for this would allow for 10s of millions years (a billion?) for constant chemical reaction, and it is safe to assume that this type of environment was happening all over the earth at the same time.

One day it happened and simple life started, and I would think it would have started in many areas over a long period of time. Sometime in the future (10s of millions or billions of years) after the initial start I can envision this life reaching a complex stage of algae to the point that the world’s oceans could have been completely covered with it 20 feet or more thick.

It might be due to my ignorance, but this is where it all gets rather strange for me. Life on earth should have started about the same way with the same needed chemicals and energy, this to me would say life on earth should be very similar and that environment, radiation, and natural evolution would be what would affect its path. For that path to branch off as it is today, when we can say that humans are related to grass and every other living organism out there, is really hard for me to see the logic or capabilities in nature to do this. That is why I have a hard time progressing past plant life to more advanced life. I can see plant life evolving from this, but I start to have a problem with all the other life forms on earth. The other problem is much of this other advance life on earth is actually inferior when you look at it base on survivable only, and to me that would contradict the laws of evolution and nature.



posted on Jan, 21 2008 @ 03:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by melatonin

Originally posted by Fromabove
Take ten sets of dice. Let's say that you need to have every one be a six when you roll them. Start now and write back in about five years and tell me how it went. But before that, every time you get it right you add another dice and do it again, and they all must be sixes except the eleventh dice which is a number nine, followed by eight, and so on, this accounts for mutations and improvements with modifications. ...

So, math makes it simply impossible to achieve an evolutionary model.
[Parabol's emphasis]


Taking the simplistic dice model you want to play with, it's not a case of rolling say 10 dice and needing all sixes in one throw. The odds of that would be p=.167 for each dice, for 10, raised to the power 10: p=1.6x10^-8.

But this is not how evolution would occur. It would be more a case of throwing ten dice, then selecting the most adaptive (a six) , or roll again. Then throwing the remaining 9 looking for a six to select, and so on and so forth.

Thus, the odds of finding a six in one throw with 10 dice is p=1/6 x 10 > 1 Then, a six in 9 dice, 1/6 x 9 = p>1; etc etc.


This is why I said earlier, if you want to believe in creationism you have to research and understand science and current evolutionary theory. This is the second time on this page alone that a creationist has argued using a made up system of dice or picking random numbers between 1 and 10, 11 and 50, 51 and 100, etc. Meanwhile, scientists have actually taken the time to define all of those variables to see what the actual odds are.

Spoken as a Christian who believes in evolution because it's what God shows me, not what men tell me in books.



posted on Jan, 21 2008 @ 04:31 PM
link   
The problem with everyone is that they see a difference between creationism, and evolution.

The FACT is, G0D CREATED EVOLUTION. So both side of the debate win.



posted on Jan, 21 2008 @ 06:27 PM
link   
reply to post by ALLis0NE
 


This is my general stance. Who are we to limit God's ability to create? At the least we know he created everything we see.

Creationism limits God's power by assuming there is a way He could not do it. Even if I view the supposed way in a negative light, who am I to perceive God's intention or the result of His choice?



posted on Jan, 21 2008 @ 07:18 PM
link   
Just so that everyone here knows, I never said that evolution in some intelligent guided form is impossible, only that "chance" evolution is. What would "progressive advancement" be. Like one of the people stated above, plantlife would seem the most able to survive and humans less likely. There is no way to know why evolution should work the way some would think. I sincerely doubt random evolution, but there is this one doorway open in Genesis which says, "And God said, Let the Earth bring forth the living creature..." But this would be "guided intelligent evolution" and not the speculative random chance evolution of some science minded people. It would be manipulated. It is just impossible for random evolution to happen. I used the "dice" method because it was easy to understand. Now try it instead with the double helix DNA and try to get it right the first time. There are billions of combinations. And take into account that survival takes desire to live and continue. chemical reactions do not "know" they must live, nor do they desire to do so.



posted on Jan, 21 2008 @ 07:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by Fromabove
only that "chance" evolution is. What would "progressive advancement" be...

I sincerely doubt random evolution....

and not the speculative random chance evolution of some science minded people...

It would be manipulated. It is just impossible for random evolution to happen...

Now try it instead with the double helix DNA and try to get it right the first time. There are billions of combinations. And take into account that survival takes desire to live and continue. chemical reactions do not "know" they must live, nor do they desire to do so.


Please stop, think of what Augustine said.

You just keep showing that you have no insight into, firstly, what evolutionary theory is and, secondly, the application and meaning of probability.

Evolution is not random. It is not random. Keep repeating until it is consolidated. Firstly, it is not random because non-random selection is essential to the theory; secondly because chemistry and biochemistry is also not random.

Probability should not be applied the way you are doing it. You just can't apply it the way you are doing it and expect to talk sense. Firstly, because we are not talking about a chance process; secondly, because we are talking about a step by step process with billions of simultaneous trials all at the same time with non-random selection.

The tornado in the junkyard argument is a vacuous strawman of the science of evolution.

OK, lets finish this once and for all - read what Dr Dr Bill Dembski says:


Universal Probability Bound

A degree of improbability below which a specified event of that probability cannot reasonably be attributed to chance regardless of whatever probabilitistic resources from the known universe are factored in. Universal probability bounds have been estimated anywhere between 10^50 (Emile Borel) and 10^150

www.iscid.org...

Agree?

[edit on 21-1-2008 by melatonin]




top topics



 
5
<< 18  19  20    22  23  24 >>

log in

join