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: 22
5
<< 19  20  21    23  24  25 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 21 2008 @ 08:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by melatonin

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]



What you don't understand is that there is no valid reason for "anything" in nature to "need" to evolve into anything at all. How would anything know it should improve or even what an improvement would be? And just to clarify, that statement given was "estimated". It is merely the opinion of the author and not written in stone. And given the laws of probablility, in any case, the chances that anything should evolve by itself are still to great to overcome.




posted on Jan, 21 2008 @ 08:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by Fromabove
What you don't understand is that there is no valid reason for "anything" in nature to "need" to evolve into anything at all. How would anything know it should improve or even what an improvement would be? And just to clarify, that statement given was "estimated". It is merely the opinion of the author and not written in stone. And given the laws of probablility, in any case, the chances that anything should evolve by itself are still to great to overcome.


That would be like saying that because Sodium, oxygen and hydrogen don't 'know' how to become more complex, that Na + H2O ---> NaOH + H2^ is impossible.

FA, Dembski is an intelligent design dude. He uses his number of 10^150 (ABE: it basically means, if you don't understand the lingo - 1 in 10 to the power 150)* as the boundary of undesigned processes, anything above that he says must be designed. I'm just trying to get a number to work with.

So far all you have really done is make assertions of the sort 'this is impossible' and said 'random' a few times

* thus, to throw a six once is 1 in 6

10^150 is 1 in 1000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 etc (150 zeros)

[edit on 21-1-2008 by melatonin]



posted on Jan, 21 2008 @ 09:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by melatonin

Originally posted by Fromabove
What you don't understand is that there is no valid reason for "anything" in nature to "need" to evolve into anything at all. How would anything know it should improve or even what an improvement would be? And just to clarify, that statement given was "estimated". It is merely the opinion of the author and not written in stone. And given the laws of probablility, in any case, the chances that anything should evolve by itself are still to great to overcome.


That would be like saying that because Sodium, oxygen and hydrogen don't 'know' how to become more complex, that Na + H2^ ---> NaOH + H2O is impossible.

FA, Dembski is an intelligent design dude. He uses his number of 10^150 (ABE: it basically means, if you don't understand the lingo - 1 in 10 to the power 150)* as the boundary of undesigned processes, anything above that he says must be designed. I'm just trying to get a number to work with.

So far all you have really done is make assertions of the sort 'this is impossible' and said 'random' a few times

* thus, to throw a six once is 1 in 6

10^150 is 1 in 1000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 etc (150 zeros)

[edit on 21-1-2008 by melatonin]


One chemical reacts to another based upon it's probabilities. ID is an inteference into enviromental factors to cause a change for the condition of life. There are no probailities only certain outcomes. It is evolution absent from creation by design that is against vast odds.



posted on Jan, 21 2008 @ 09:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by Fromabove
One chemical reacts to another based upon it's probabilities. ID is an inteference into enviromental factors to cause a change for the condition of life. There are no probailities only certain outcomes. It is evolution absent from creation by design that is against vast odds.


I don't think probability is such a big issue for this purpose in such chemical reactions. If you want to go right down to the quantum level and talk about kinetics, statistical thermodynamics/mechanics and stuff maybe.

But I'm quite sure that p=1 that if I add Na to H20 at standard temps and pressure, I'll get sodium hydroxide with hydrogen gas emitted. Try it in a chem lab sometime.

I've just presented some odds we can work with. I just need you to agree with Dr Dr Dembski that an event of such probabilities (10^150) should be impossible unless designed. That's vast odds, no? At this point you are still using an argument from incredulity. Lets play with the numbers and see what happens.

10^150. Above this probability an event must be designed? It cannot be random?

[edit on 21-1-2008 by melatonin]



posted on Jan, 21 2008 @ 09:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by melatonin

Originally posted by Fromabove
One chemical reacts to another based upon it's probabilities. ID is an inteference into enviromental factors to cause a change for the condition of life. There are no probailities only certain outcomes. It is evolution absent from creation by design that is against vast odds.


I don't think probability is such a big issue for this purpose in such chemical reactions. If you want to go right down to the quantum level and talk about kinetics, statistical thermodynamics and stuff maybe.

But I'm quite sure that p=1 that if I add Na to H20 at standard temps and pressure, I'll get sodium hydroxide with hydrogen gas emitted. Try it in a chem lab sometime.

I've just presented some odds we can work with. I just need you to agree with Dembski that an event of such probabilities (10^150) should be impossible. That's vast odds, no? At this point you are still using an argument from incredulity. Lets play with the numbers and see what happens.

10^150. Above this probability an event must be designed? It cannot be random?

[edit on 21-1-2008 by melatonin]


Maybe I'm not understanding you here at this point. In support of what does the 10^150 lean. What I am trying to say is that given the vast odds, evolution is not possible unless such an event is guided and manipulated by intelligence (creation). So I guess I need a little more detail as to what it is you are trying to relate to me to understand.



posted on Jan, 21 2008 @ 09:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by Fromabove
Maybe I'm not understanding you here at this point. In support of what does the 10^150 lean. What I am trying to say is that given the vast odds, evolution is not possible unless such an event is guided and manipulated by intelligence (creation). So I guess I need a little more detail as to what it is you are trying to relate to me to understand.


I know what you are saying, but I guess you don't understand me.

If I throw one die, the probability of getting a 6 is 1 in 6, yes?

If I throw two dice, the probability of getting two 6s is 1 in 36, yes?

Dr Dr Dembski suggests that events with probabilties of above 1 in 10^150 are impossible. That they must be designed. They couldn't be random. Thus, if the probability of an evolutionary event is above this boundary, then he says it must be designed. It cannot be from an evolutionary process.

Dr Dr Dembski is an intelligent design 'theorist'. Bascially a christian creationist in a cheap tuxedo.

So, do you agree that this is the sort of vast odds you mean?

ABE: if you are still unclear, at this point I suggest you go and read about this sort of stuff. Probability theory would be the best starting point (try wiki), then spend some time hunting down creationist arguments which use this notion of improbability for evolution.

If you can grasp that stuff, then we'll carry on.

[edit on 21-1-2008 by melatonin]



posted on Jan, 21 2008 @ 09:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by melatonin

Originally posted by Fromabove
Maybe I'm not understanding you here at this point. In support of what does the 10^150 lean. What I am trying to say is that given the vast odds, evolution is not possible unless such an event is guided and manipulated by intelligence (creation). So I guess I need a little more detail as to what it is you are trying to relate to me to understand.


I know what you are saying, but I guess you don't understand me.

If I throw one die, the probability of getting a 6 is 1 in 6, yes?

If I throw two dice, the probability of getting two 6s is 1 in 36, yes?

Dr Dr Dembski suggests that events with probabilties of above 1 in 10^150 are impossible. That they must be designed. They couldn't be random. Thus, if the probability of an evolutionary event is above this boundary, then he says it must be designed. It cannot be from an evolutionary process.

Dr Dr Dembski is an intelligent design 'theorist'. Bascially a christian creationist in a cheap tuxedo.

So, do you agree that this is the sort of vast odds you mean?

ABE: if you are still unclear, at this point I suggest you go and read about this sort of stuff. Probability theory would be the best starting point (try wiki), then spend some time hunting down creationist arguments which use this notion of improbability for evolution.

If you can grasp that stuff, then we'll carry on.

[edit on 21-1-2008 by melatonin]


Without doing some research into how he arrives at his estimates it would be hard to agree with him, however, I don't believe the odds have to be infinately vast. It just has to be beyond the expected lifespan of the sun of even the Earth itself. And I believe that the odds are against the possibility due to the lack of time. And not to mention why anything once spontaniously made should want, or even know that it should continue.



posted on Jan, 21 2008 @ 09:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Fromabove

In support of what does the 10^150 lean. What I am trying to say is that given the vast odds, evolution is not possible unless such an event is guided and manipulated by intelligence (creation). So I guess I need a little more detail as to what it is you are trying to relate to me to understand.


How can you, a single human mind, state you understand how enormous the odds are, and that it is simply not possible, unless guided by an intelligent creator? You continue to deal in abstracts and it is killing any argument you attempt to make. You can't offhand assume the odds of an event are too great because you're dealing with big numbers, or any other reason.

I know this will come off bad but I honestly mean this, with best intentions, from one Christian to another. If your arguments against evolution, or for creationism, are based on these abstract 'odds' scenarios, please reevaluate your belief. I'm not saying you are wrong, but the basis of your argument is very flawed. And if you use that style of debate nothing will come of it, and you won't learn much.

You have to realize you are making things up when you say "given the vast odds, evolution is not possible unless guided." If you have no literal basis for those odds, if you merely mentally added up how big you think the universe is or something along those lines, you are creating an argument from nothing.

Again, I say this as another Christian because I don't want to see you, as an actual person, walking around basing decisions on logic that is easily deconstructed. If you want to say I believe it because of my faith, cool, that's not the issue. It's supporting your statements with random, abstract situations whose only purpose for creation was to back the original belief up. And honestly, if you find these arguments are all you have then ask yourself this question. Do I believe in creationism because I've studied the facts and choose this belief, or because it is associated with Christians and evolution is associated with atheists?


Spin it the other way around, how could you justify proving God to someone using statements so weak as...

"Well the universe is big, I don't know how big, but big... and we haven't found other life yet, even though we look at a small percentage of a universe i've already admitted is enormous... so odds (that I have no basis for calculating, definitions of variables, etc.) are something had to create us, meet God."

I know it sounds like I'm attacking you in some way, but I mean this with the best intention. It's like seeing someone throwing a football oddly, and stopping to show them a form they can apply to the throw. It doesn't help me in anyway, I'd just like to see others strengthen their own beliefs.



posted on Jan, 21 2008 @ 09:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by Fromabove
Without doing some research into how he arrives at his estimates it would be hard to agree with him, however, I don't believe the odds have to be infinately vast. It just has to be beyond the expected lifespan of the sun of even the Earth itself. And I believe that the odds are against the possibility due to the lack of time. And not to mention why anything once spontaniously made should want, or even know that it should continue.


Maybe look up 'universal probability bound' on wiki. I'm sure it will be on there.

But, I don't care how vast they are. I just want something to use to make a point. I can work with 10^150. That's very improbable.

You're using words like 'want' and 'know'. I don't think bacteria or viruses want or know anything. They just survive and reproduce.

Replicators do what replicators do. You might apply such purposeful motivations to higher organisms, but I don't see how a virus wants or knows anything. I don't want (see, I can want or not want) to get sidetracked. Maybe later.

[edit on 21-1-2008 by melatonin]



posted on Jan, 21 2008 @ 09:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by melatonin

Originally posted by Fromabove
Without doing some research into how he arrives at his estimates it would be hard to agree with him, however, I don't believe the odds have to be infinately vast. It just has to be beyond the expected lifespan of the sun of even the Earth itself. And I believe that the odds are against the possibility due to the lack of time. And not to mention why anything once spontaniously made should want, or even know that it should continue.


Maybe look up 'universal probability bound' on wiki. I'm sure it will be on there.

But, I don't care how vast they are. I just want something to use to make a point. I can work with 10^150. That's very improbable.

You're using words like 'want' and 'know'. I don't think bacteria or viruses want or know anything. They just survive and reproduce.

Replicators do what replicators do. You might apply such purposeful motivations to higher organisms, but I don't see how a virus wants or knows anything. I don't want (see, I can want or not want) to get sidetracked. Maybe later.

[edit on 21-1-2008 by melatonin]


If you've ever watched bacteria under a microscope, you would know that they "want" to eat to live, and they "know" that they must.



posted on Jan, 21 2008 @ 09:56 PM
link   
reply to post by Parabol
 


You're doing your best to show that these type of creationist arguments are vacuous. Pity more christians on here don't understand why. I hope trying to get FA and xtro to learn and think beyond poor arguments from incredulity might help them in future.

I think it's well-established by many theologians that 'god of the gaps' arguments are bad theology, never mind bad science and reason. It's a perilous basis for anyone's faith.



[edit on 21-1-2008 by melatonin]



posted on Jan, 21 2008 @ 10:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by FromaboveIf you've ever watched bacteria under a microscope, you would know that they "want" to eat to live, and they "know" that they must.


I knew this would end up an obfuscation. Yes, their genes and biochemistry make them do things, they are like little biological automatons. They 'want' and 'know' like sodium 'wants' and 'knows' to form NaOH when in presence with water, or the thermostat in my home 'knows' and 'wants' to keep my room at a particular temp.

Back to probability?

[edit on 21-1-2008 by melatonin]



posted on Jan, 21 2008 @ 10:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by Fromabove
If you've ever watched bacteria under a microscope, you would know that they "want" to eat to live, and they "know" that they must.


Abstract statements. You've watched some bacteria in a microscope and now you can determine what they want and know? Maybe they want to goof around but someone is forcing them to eat. The point is you don't know all of the variables, you can't back up assertions with general hearsay.

Imagine looking at Earth through a microscope and seeing people work for a few seconds, how much about our species could you tell? Would you understand how greed factors in? Social pressure? Expectations from parents?

Scientists spend their lives looking through microscopes, and creationists dismiss their work. But you can look for a few moments and suppose to know what's going on. The double standard argument is very flawed.



posted on Jan, 21 2008 @ 11:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by melatonin
Maybe look up 'universal probability bound' on wiki. I'm sure it will be on there.

But, I don't care how vast they are. I just want something to use to make a point. I can work with 10^150. That's very improbable.


I see your point in probabilities, but that seems to be based on infinite time where carbon has been around about 9 billion in the universe, and using the earth as a typical example we are talking about 4 billion years to get past small organisms. So other life might at best be 2 to 3 billion years older than life on earth, and more likely closer to our time line. Since we are here the probability for life cannot be assigned a true value of zero, but when you add time to the equation and in this case 9 billion at the max for the start of a 4 billion year process the 10^150 for an impossibility is much too high. As we ignore vast distances of the universe we also seem to ignore big numbers too.

For a 1 component organism to evolve into a 200 component organism much less that of a millions of component organism such as animals are today it would be a probability of about 10^60.

“Therefore, let us imagine that every one of the earth's 10^14 square feet of surface harbors a billion (i.e., 10^9) mutating systems and that each mutation requires one-half second (actually it would take far more time than this). Each system can thus go through its 200 mutations in 100 seconds and then, if it is unsuccessful, start over for a new try. In 1018 seconds, there can, therefore, be 10^18/10^2, or 10^16, trials by each mutating system. Multiplying all these numbers together, there would be a total possible number of attempts to develop a 200-component system equal to 10^14 (10^9) (10^16), or 10^39 attempts. Since the probability against the success of any one of them is 10^60, it is obvious that the probability that just one of these 10^39 attempts might be successful is only one out of 10^60/10^39, or 10.21.
cite

We tend to think in terms of billions when we talk about our Galaxy and a good chunk of the universe such as 15 billion years for the age of it, 9 billion years for when carbon first arrived on the scene, 300 billion stars in our galaxy, 30 billion like our sun, 5 billion years for the life of the earth, 4 billion years for the process of life, and 1 billion of our closest galaxies and even with all these billions the chance that a 200-component organism could be formed by mutation and natural selection is less than one chance out of a trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion.



[edit on 21-1-2008 by Xtrozero]



posted on Jan, 21 2008 @ 11:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by Parabol
Scientists spend their lives looking through microscopes, and creationists dismiss their work. But you can look for a few moments and suppose to know what's going on. The double standard argument is very flawed.


I don't take evolution or creation scientists at their word anymore because both sides have been caught in hoaxes and putting forth false evidence to defend their view only to later be debunked. But please remember, there is some evidence provided by creation scientists and those who question the age of the earth and universe. There is also a double standard in that respect as they are almost immediately dismissed as Christian holly rollers.

I believe in both creationism and microevolution but not macroevolution. And this is because genetic mutations, adaptations, and cellular degeneration have been proven without a doubt. Coincidentally, these things compliment what the Bible says about nature.

But because macroevolution has really never been proven undoubtedly, I have a hard time accepting it. Transitional fossils have often later been proven false or cases of mistaken identity. Not to mention the ancestral lineages have been altered so many times. It's as if nobody can ever make up their mind and guesses are taken as fact until later proven wrong. I don't think macroevolution would conflict with the existence of a creator but I don't see any concrete evidence- just suggestions. Not to mention the many gaping holes and problems in the theory.

At the end, I've basically thrown my hands in the air when it comes the whole business. I don't believe in a 6,000 year old earth (although I may be wrong) or an Earth that is billions of years old (although I could be wrong).

Sorry because you weren't talking to me but I wanted to throw my hat into the ring.



posted on Jan, 22 2008 @ 12:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by Parabol

Originally posted by Fromabove
If you've ever watched bacteria under a microscope, you would know that they "want" to eat to live, and they "know" that they must.


Abstract statements. You've watched some bacteria in a microscope and now you can determine what they want and know?


Well, we can determine very easily that bacteria need to eat to survive and that's why they eat. Same thing goes for all living organisms.
According to your logic, if we don't know what bacteria want or know, who does? Either the bacteria must know themselves or someone else must know who causes them to eat, otherwise they wouldn't keep eating.

[edit on 22-1-2008 by ppkjjkpp]



posted on Jan, 22 2008 @ 12:24 AM
link   
Some more evidence to prove a young earth is the recession rate of the moon, the decaying of the magnetic field and the earth's rotation rate.



The moon is very slowly drifting away from the earth. Currently, it is at a distance of approximately 239,000 miles away from the planet's surface and receding at a miniscule, but steady rate. However, "if one multiplies this recession speed by the presumed evolutionary age, the moon would be much farther away from the earth than it is, even if it had started from the earth. It could not have been receding for anything like the age demanded by the doctrine of evolution." (Barnes) Furthermore, even if the moon had started much closer to the earth, not only would the tides it created have drowned everything on the planet twice daily, but the effect it would have had upon the earth's rotation rate at such a close distance would have cause the earth to be a different shape, slightly elliptical, rather than spherical, as it is now.

Second, the earth has a magnetic field surrounding it, which is weakening at a rate of 5% of its present total every hundred years. At the present time, the earth's magnetic field is only one third as strong as it was when Jesus walked the earth. With the deterioration of that field being so relatively rapid, if the earth were actually 4 billion years old, such a field would no longer exist, and so much harmful radiation would have hit the surface that life as we know it could not exist.

Finally, the rotation of the earth is slowing down at a rate of one thousandth of a second per day. While that doesn't seem like much, only one second per millennia, in one billion years, it adds up to one million seconds, or 227 hours. At that rate of rotation, the centrifugal force on the earth would have torn it apart.


Yes it is assumed that these rates were always steady. But then again, if one doesn't believe that these rates have always remained the same, then they would be assuming as well.
Is it a coincidence that these rates gives the appearance of a young earth? Is it a coincidence that everything remained stable for billions of years but only now in the last thousands of years, things started deteriorating steadily?



posted on Jan, 22 2008 @ 12:38 AM
link   
reply to post by ppkjjkpp
 


Click Here for a whole lot of interesting articles that support a younger earth and refute evolution, PPKJJKPP. Although I don't agree with everything the website says, it raises a lot of good questions. Click Here to see some more.

I love both sites equally. The second site mainly provides evidence for creationism while the first site mainly provides evidence to debunk evolution. Both back up their research with tons of reliable resources and actual evidence- not silly things like fake casts of human footprints inside dinosaur footprints.


[edit on 1/22/2008 by AshleyD]



posted on Jan, 22 2008 @ 07:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by Xtrozero
but when you add time to the equation and in this case 9 billion at the max for the start of a 4 billion year process the 10^150 for an impossibility is much too high.


I haven't really attempted to apply it yet. I think Dembski's stuff is BS and so is Morris' - he hasn't applied probability properly either.

But lets just get a number to work with.

Is 10^150 good for you, 10^60 if you really want it? An event with a probability at this level cannot happen by a random process, it must be designed?

I'll get to Henry Morris after we've got this first part completed that I spent hours with last night.

Like nailing jello to the wall...

[edit on 22-1-2008 by melatonin]



posted on Jan, 22 2008 @ 07:55 AM
link   
reply to post by AshleyD
 


all of the arguments on here have been refuted time and again.. except for two of them... and i think that's just because the arguments are far too...well, stupid.

the ones about the development of agriculture and writing...

they basically state that those advancements are obvious, so the biblical timescale is better because there is less time between humanity's beginning and their invention

...with the agriculture one... cultures lasted into the last 1000 years without going agricultural

the written language argument...
the inca had no written language, yet they were about as advanced as the romans.
in fact, the only civilization in the western hemisphere to have writing is the maya..
this goes to show you exactly how ethnocentric this particular argument is.




top topics



 
5
<< 19  20  21    23  24  25 >>

log in

join