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.

 

Creation is a Scientific Fact

page: 10
11
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 9 2008 @ 12:23 PM
link   
I don't get it, how does the big bang being true support religion more then Atheism?? Last time I check us Atheists believed in the big bang and theists believed in their farfetched creation ideas. Big bang does not equal universe, life and planets made in 7 days

EDIT: The funny thing is he says creation is a scientific fact (doesn't matter if he's talking about creationism or just the big bang), and yet nobody who has the power to actually declare it a scientific fact would agree with him. This is just a dumb kid who goes up to his mom "CANDY IS GOOD FOR YOU! ITS A SCIENTIFIC FACT" This is wishful thinking no more

[edit on 9-7-2008 by Damien_Hell]




posted on Jul, 9 2008 @ 02:16 PM
link   
reply to post by Bigwhammy
 



The selection is you watching it waiting for something that isn't nonsense. The problem is there is never anything to select. So it is a very valid argument for the fact random processes do not create usable valid information.


This is fallacious. Observation is not selection. Selection is the deletion of mutations which are not either benign or advantageous. In nature, this occurs by an organism's death or it's inability to breed and pass on those genes. The placing of the letters and spaces in the original represents the (faiap) optimal configuration for the current environment. Now, lets say the environment changes. Now it no longer favors "The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog" - it favors " The lazy brown dog jumped over the quick fox". Now, if you run the simulation again and keep the mutations which DO match the modified sentence while allowing for deletion or change the mutations that do not match modified sentence - with enough generations, you will have successfully modified the sentence from the first to the second using nothing but mutation and selection.

This is basically how EA's (to keep this all virtual) work, except there is not a final design in mind - only a set of parameters which the final product must adhere to. So, for example, if you wanted to create a new router which worked similarly to a Linksys model but did not infringe on copyright patents, you could use an EA to produce one for you using the performance of the Linksys and it's patents as selectors.

Evolutionary Algorithms vs. Human Designs

This system of reproduction with variation and selection (Evolution) has not only been proven beyond reasonable doubt in the field of biological sciences, but simulations of this process are creating design systems that exceed even human designers. Awards are given out to the best EA applications yearly, called the "Humie" awards.

Humies

Here's a short video to demonstrate.


However, don't be misled. This video isn't meant to represent how evolution works, only how selection works in regards to random variables. In biological evolution, there is no pre-set "Goal" as in these videos. There is only adaptation to the environment, which can take many differing and divergent forms.

[edit on 9-7-2008 by Lasheic]



posted on Jul, 9 2008 @ 02:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by LasheicIn biological evolution, there is no pre-set "Goal" as in these videos. There is only adaptation to the environment, which can take many differing and divergent forms.

In a sence that is a "goal"



posted on Jul, 9 2008 @ 03:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by JPhish
Is the G*d of the Gaps argument even valid when addressing theologians in modern times? ;scratches head; For the most part, I don’t think so.

[edit on 7/9/2008 by JPhish]


If I was addressing modern theologians that might be a concern.

I think I'm talking to the likes of whammy, some musically-orientated engineering graduate who thinks using specious arguments from probability to suggest the inability of natural processes to account for the universe enables a gap to shove his pet puppy.

Thus, natural explanation has to be so improbable therefore god. BS. Not much different than Paleyistic 'oh it's all so complex, therefore god'.

Physics is only really just being able to break through the veil of planck time. So, in sum, no more than taking an area of high ignorance and shoving a pet magic-man - god of the gaps.

I'll try to answer the rest later, got to run...



posted on Jul, 9 2008 @ 05:23 PM
link   
reply to post by melatonin
 




I think I'm talking to the likes of whammy, some musically-orientated engineering graduate who thinks using specious arguments from probability to suggest the inability of natural processes to account for the universe enables a gap to shove his pet puppy.


God is a pet puppy now? If you were dyslexic you'd hate "dog" too.

The so called gap is more like a small crack dude. It's not just warm fuzzy feeling as you like to dismiss it as. You are very short sighted.

It's not a very big gap if you look at ALL the evidence and don't blindly pigeon hole yourself in a corner. I'm not pooling for only one field of evidence like you do. There are fulfilled Bible prophecies, the very survival of the Jews is unheard of in historical terms. The eye witness accounts of the resurrection and miracles. The rise of the Christian church in spite of overwhelming persecution. the testimonies of believers. Last would be my warm fuzzy feelings but they help too.

The Gap is all in your own misunderstanding. You have a reasoning gap because you bury your head in the sand.


[edit on 7/9/2008 by Bigwhammy]



posted on Jul, 9 2008 @ 05:33 PM
link   

There are fulfilled Bible prophecies,

You mean the really simple ambigous ones that could be interpreted any number of ways? What about all the failed prophecies?

The eye witness accounts of the resurrection and miracles.

In the bible?? Ever heard of LIEING TO MAKE PEOPLE BELIEVE YOU? There is no recording of these miracles anywhere but in the bible

The rise of the Christian church in spite of overwhelming persecution.

Wow, religious persecution, of course christianity is the only religion EVER to recieve persecution and survive

Congratulations, your reading out of the list of already solved religious arguements, to you I say:


[edit on 9-7-2008 by Damien_Hell]



posted on Jul, 9 2008 @ 06:03 PM
link   
reply to post by Damien_Hell
 


Real original post... get your own graphic. Your a just an easily dismissed stereotype - a bigoted waste of bandwidth. Everything you said has been refuted so many times it's silly. Ignored...



posted on Jul, 9 2008 @ 06:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bigwhammy
God is a pet puppy now? If you were dyslexic you'd hate "dog" too.


You got the reference!

Well done...

"You see, this battle's been ragin' since Zeus was on the bottle,
'tween Science like Democritus and Faith like Aristotle,
who said the mover was unmovin' like some magic trick but that's no good logic,
my posse is far too quick for this religious schtick."




The Gap is all in your own misunderstanding. You have a reasoning gap because you bury your head in the sand.


Heh, that's quite funny.

Just replacing your skyhooks with cranes, dude.

reply to post by Lasheic
 


That ground has been gone over numerous times with these dudes. You're battling willlful ignorance.

[edit on 9-7-2008 by melatonin]



posted on Jul, 9 2008 @ 08:36 PM
link   
reply to post by Bigwhammy

Your a just an easily dismissed stereotype - a bigoted waste of bandwidth. Everything you said has been refuted so many times it's silly. Ignored...


LOL the hypocrisy is just too funny


[edit on 9-7-2008 by Damien_Hell]



posted on Jul, 9 2008 @ 09:37 PM
link   
reply to post by Bigwhammy
 

Hey you big de-tuned tremolo. Where are my credits on your idiotic propaganda video? You want proof your ignorance is a fact? Here is proof you didn't know jack crap about astrophysics the day before you posted it!

Posted on the "proof against evolution" thread on 7/3/2008:

Originally posted by Bigwhammy
reply to post by Eyemagistus
 

...
Creation is a fact. Since in the 1960s Edwin Hubble found the red shift in the stars. Now the residue heat radiation of the big bang creation event has also been detected. The finite nature of the universe is a given among all serious scientists. It's only New Age dreaming atheists that deny the reality of creation.


[edit on 7/3/2008 by Bigwhammy]



Originally posted by Eyemagistus
reply to post by Bigwhammy
 


You are awfully persickety when it comes to the fuzzy, archaic languages of Biblical apologetics, but every last one of you creationists is incapable of understanding the plain, modern English definitions of the most basic scientific terms every high school graduate should understand, like: theory; evolution; Big Bang; species; entropy; method; fossilization; evidence; proof; and a great many more, which only demonstrates a concerted willful ignorance on your part. I see no signs of any critical thinking skills on mundane topics that don't require rationalizing supernatural mumbo-jumbo.
But, hey, that doesn't stop them, or you, from believing you understand more about science that scientists!
The Bible is totally irrelevant to science. Get over it.

You expect me to think you actually know anything about astrophysics?

The person who first proposed what later became known as the "Big Bang," was Georges Lemaitre. He was a Jesuit priest and had the integrity to give even the pope a hard time for trying to use it to justify the Biblical creation story. But not you. Oh no. You know better!


Edwin Hubble did absolutely nothing in the 1960's. He died in 1953. Hubble's Law concerning red shift distances was formulated in 1929. It was Penzias and Wilson who measured the residual background microwave radiation confirming the Big Bang model in the 1960's and were awarded a Nobel Prize for it in 1978. You don't need an obscure antiquities scholar to know that.
The "Big Bang," is an unfortunate misnomer that happened to stick in the popular media. It does not describe the actual model very well at all.
FYI, the Big Bang is still vulnerable.

The Ekpyrotic model is what is gaining momentum lately.

We have to wait for the Alpha Magnetic Spectrometer to be installed in the ISS and complete it's survey before we know more.

Stop pretending to understand science unless you are willing to change what you believe, in light of the best available evidence. You can't, so stop pretending.

Tell you what. You quit thinking you can understand science, and I'll quit thinking I can understand the Bible.


[edit on 3-7-2008 by Eyemagistus]


Yeah. Your "modern science" is about half a century out of date already, wiseass.



posted on Jul, 9 2008 @ 09:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by Damien_Hell
I don't get it, how does the big bang being true support religion more then Atheism?? Last time I check us Atheists believed in the big bang and theists believed in their farfetched creation ideas. Big bang does not equal universe, life and planets made in 7 days

EDIT: The funny thing is he says creation is a scientific fact (doesn't matter if he's talking about creationism or just the big bang), and yet nobody who has the power to actually declare it a scientific fact would agree with him. This is just a dumb kid who goes up to his mom "CANDY IS GOOD FOR YOU! ITS A SCIENTIFIC FACT" This is wishful thinking no more

[edit on 9-7-2008 by Damien_Hell]



Hi, perhaps these videos will answer your questions about the logic of this thread.





To figure out the logic of the OP's mind, watch the videos in my previous posts.

That being said, please note that the OP has the right to misuse and misquote mainstream science, Big Bang theory, the good name of Albert Einsteins to advance his agenda, especially in ATS where tolerance, respect, pro choices and pro views are encouraged.



posted on Jul, 10 2008 @ 12:40 AM
link   
reply to post by Gigantopithecus
 


Gig I am confused. Please explain?

www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...

I am not trying to be rude (and actually have watched two of the videos in spite of the fact I am not good at understanding foreign accents
) but I am confused by all the videos (often the same videos) being posted in multiple threads and sometimes even in the same thread. I saw someone else point it out and I don't want you to feel like you are being attacked but I am curious. Have you considered starting a thread with the videos? It would probably be a very successful thread.



posted on Jul, 10 2008 @ 12:49 AM
link   
reply to post by AshleyD
 


fest


Actually most of them are the same video over and over and over.



posted on Jul, 10 2008 @ 05:12 AM
link   
reply to post by AshleyD
 


indeed BW



The moderators should seriously do something about this. The videos are not even relevant.


[edit on 7/10/2008 by JPhish]



posted on Jul, 10 2008 @ 06:57 AM
link   
reply to post by JPhish
 


They are indeed relevant. They point out how irrelevant your arguments are of ID. Its about how you misuse and twist the facts so it fits your _Believes_. The fact of you failing to see that, strengthens our claim of ID people being ignorant.

Ps: sorry for the bad sentence



posted on Jul, 10 2008 @ 09:28 AM
link   
reply to post by Gigantopithecus
 


AHH I see now, its not spam, it's showing peoples promotion of their own ignorance to further their own ideas



posted on Jul, 10 2008 @ 09:37 AM
link   
I know this is incredibly off topic, but the title for this thread reminded me of this...


Ridiculous.



posted on Jul, 10 2008 @ 09:43 AM
link   
reply to post by Chewlip
 


The funny part is that clip is not far from the truth. There is no evidence for intelligent design, yet proponents of this thread argue it is scientific fact.

Nice addition!



posted on Jul, 10 2008 @ 10:07 AM
link   
reply to post by Chewlip
 


Thats a perfect example of this topic



posted on Jul, 10 2008 @ 10:11 AM
link   
I've said it before, and I'll say it again.

Creationism and intelligent design are philosophical views, not scientific ones. Proponents can scream until they're blue in the face, and that will not change this fact.







 
11
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join