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: 15
11
<< 12  13  14    16 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 23 2008 @ 04:35 PM
link   
Anyway, it's really silly. You're saying that atheism is a religion because people formed an organization called a church of atheism, or that evolution is related to atheism.

Atheism is more diverse than that, probably moreso than Christianity is. There's the dogmatic atheists, who really do believe in no god, and then you have those who simply don't believe in gods. And you have to remember that atheism is distinct from nihilism. You can't generalize or assume that the vast majority are connected in an organized way.

The only reason evolution seems tied to atheism is that evolution sort of goes against the grain of many religions.

It's just that evolution is the best scientific theory we have of why life is what it is. You're right, macroevolution is very speculative, but it makes scientific sense. Whether or not it happened is another story, but it's certainly better than throwing our hands in the air and screaming, "It was God!" Could it have been a divine power? Sure! Could a divine power have guided evolution, for all we know! Sure! Don't let your mind get clouded by dogma. Intelligent design is not science. It's simply a hypothesis with no basis, save for some arguments (which are really invalid) of such things as irreducible complexity. At least evolution has a premise and some supporting evidence, not that you should believe it.

You shouldn't get caught up in the "believe in this or that" nonsense. You can accept a possibility as likely or unlikely, while not deciding to "believe" in something, for that becomes faith, rather than logic. And this faith is the foundation of religion.

[edit on 23-7-2008 by Johnmike]




posted on Sep, 22 2008 @ 12:03 AM
link   
Here is a question for those who believe our existence has a natural cause. This question is poised humbly and I am open to all valid debunking. All criticism is welcome because I need to know if this is sound before it is used for another purpose.

We now know 'creation' is a scientific fact. Not in the sense that there was a creator but in the sense that the universe is not eternal. We know that the universe had a beginning.

So this is a question. According to physics, particularly the first law of thermodynamics, energy is neither created nor destroyed.

So if we know we had a beginning and 'something from nothing' is impossible according to the laws of physics, would that mean a natural explanation is impossible for our existence? In other words, something that is beyond all natural laws would need to be responsible for this existence of energy?

The universe contains a lot of energy. But energy cannot be created nor destroyed. Then we see that the universe had a beginning. How could nature have defied itself to 'create' us?

Sorry to place this into a pre-existing older thread but it relates to the topic. If no one responds, I'll bite the bullet and start a new thread. I am genuinely interested in all views.



posted on Sep, 22 2008 @ 02:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by AshleyD
Here is a question for those who believe our existence has a natural cause. This question is poised humbly and I am open to all valid debunking. All criticism is welcome because I need to know if this is sound before it is used for another purpose.

We now know 'creation' is a scientific fact. Not in the sense that there was a creator but in the sense that the universe is not eternal. We know that the universe had a beginning.


Hi Ashley,

Creation is not yet a fact.

The idea of a finite universe - Big Bang - has been being challenged from it's inception.

There are a few fundamental issues with the big bang theory, such as the overall temperature of the universe. This has been explained by "inflation" which works but did not predict some things, e.g. dark matter.

A relatively new model, called the cyclic universe model covers all the bases that inflation does and also answers or predicts some things that inflation can't.

The basic idea of the "cyclic" universe is:



space and time exist forever

the big bang is not the beginning of time; rather, it is a bridge to a pre-existing contracting era

the Universe undergoes an endless sequence of cycles in which it contracts in a big crunch and re-emerges in an expanding big bang, with trillions of years of evolution in between

the temperature and density of the universe do not become infinite at any point in the cycle; indeed, they never exceed a finite bound (about a trillion trillion degrees)

no inflation has taken place since the big bang; the current homogeneity and flatness were created by events that occurred before the most recent big bang

the seeds for galaxy formation were created by instabilities arising as the Universe was collapsing towards a big crunch, prior to our big bang


Not that an infinite universe contradicts the idea of a creator, but it certainly dismisses any assumption of "creation"



So this is a question. According to physics, particularly the first law of thermodynamics, energy is neither created nor destroyed.

So if we know we had a beginning and 'something from nothing' is impossible according to the laws of physics, would that mean a natural explanation is impossible for our existence? In other words, something that is beyond all natural laws would need to be responsible for this existence of energy?

The universe contains a lot of energy. But energy cannot be created nor destroyed. Then we see that the universe had a beginning. How could nature have defied itself to 'create' us?


The criticism of abiogenesis that it teaches that "something came from nothing" is one of the fundamental falsehoods of Creationism.

Abiogenesis does not claim that life spontaneously appeared from nothing ... that is Creationism.

Abiogenesis speculates that life came about from already existing ingredients combined under the right conditions.

Some very important things to realise and remember about abiogenesis.

1) The ingredients that where the building blocks of life where already present on Earth before life began.

2)Abiogenesis does not claim that the first single celled organism spontaneously appeared out of the primordial soup fully formed ... again, spontaneous creation is the realms of Creationism ... but rather that there where in fact several steps that lead to the first singled celled organism to form.


Add to this the fact that organic molecules form naturally in all sorts of environments, and we know from the Urey/Miller experiment and other discoveries, that even the nucleotides required for genetic structure also form naturally even in the hostile environments we should expect of the pre-biotic earth. We also know through repeatable experiments how these can combine in the right common medium into polynucleotides and so on. Even Christian biologists admit that at its most basic, life is simply chemistry, and living tissues conform completely to those guidelines. The elements which form basic cell structures for example create a phospholipid bilayer automatically upon contact with water, due to their combined polarity. Even the function of enzymes and transport vesicles and other miniscule but critical elements within a cell all conform to the functions of chemistry. Consequently, there are a number of competing concepts to explain exactly how the first replicative polymers lead to the next stage, known as hypercycles, and then on to still more advanced stages before they qualify as life. Teams of biochemists around the world are still working out the long, complicated string of chemical combinations which began with simple and already self-replicating polymers and eventually lead to the first metabolic cells capable of maintaining some level of homeostasis, a balanced internal environment. That is the definition of life.


3) There is NO contradiction between abiogenesis and the 1st Law of thermodynamics. All the energy and ingredients needed for life already existed. Life began when they where combined in the right way.

So you can see, there is no hypocrisy between the fundamentals of science and the science that studies the origin of life on Earth.



posted on Sep, 22 2008 @ 06:18 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Sep, 22 2008 @ 11:56 AM
link   
reply to post by Horza
 


Hey, thanks. I appreciate your reply so much. I'll look into the first things you said. One quick thing though- I never mentioned abiogenesis or even living cells or the species. That isn't what I am interested in at the moment or referring to. I'm actually talking about the universe, matter, and energy. As in, inorganic. I'd like to know how this could have come to be when it is a violation of every natural law we know. This would lead me to assume it would have been a physical impossibility to be natural but instead supernatural.

So let's try to step away from abiogenesis and organic life and focus on the actual existence of the universe and inorganic matter and the energy.

[edit on 9/22/2008 by AshleyD]



posted on Sep, 22 2008 @ 12:58 PM
link   
reply to post by AshleyD
 


" How could nature have defied itself to 'create' us? "

I've said the same thing myself.

Along with, I've never seen the hall closet organize itself, ever!



posted on Sep, 22 2008 @ 01:46 PM
link   
reply to post by AshleyD
 


Read this and you'll have better understanding of the subject. Saying it violates all known natural laws is showing your ignorance, as the universe (and indeed the physical laws we know now) was very different back then. There are various competing theories out there, and no-one knows if any of them have pegged it.

The beauty is all of those scientists want to be proven wrong. They yearn for more evidence. No-one is sticking their fingers in their ears going "la la la la la I can't hear you la la la" as is common in another competing world-view I dare not mention lest I be burned at the stake.



posted on Sep, 22 2008 @ 02:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by dave420
The beauty is all of those scientists want to be proven wrong. They yearn for more evidence. No-one is sticking their fingers in their ears going "la la la la la I can't hear you la la la" as is common in another competing world-view I dare not mention lest I be burned at the stake.


Dave, I specifically said this:

'This question is poised humbly and I am open to all valid debunking. All criticism is welcome because I need to know if this is sound before it is used for another purpose... I am genuinely interested in all views.'

So you were either taking a jab at me where you are flat out wrong. Or you are making a general statement in which would be an off topic jab at theists in general.

So far it looks like a finite universe has all the evidence behind it and the models of cyclical crunches and bangs or the multiverse belief lags far behind.

Also, this statement by you intrigues me:


Saying it violates all known natural laws is showing your ignorance, as the universe (and indeed the physical laws we know now) was very different back then.


It intrigues me because when I was new to ATS, I screamed this from the roof tops that this was so- only to be told by the resident atheists that I was wrong, wrong, wrong and 'didn't understand science.'

Can you please tell me how they have changed? In your own words and not a link fest? And as usual, please explain it to me like the intellectual two year old you believe me to be. Use very small words and please be thorough.

I'm open to debunking. Explain to me how the laws have changed, please back up what you say with evidence, how the way things used to be make it possible for what I hypothesized above as being impossible.

Keep it on track, make it scientifically sound, keep the anti-theist jabs out of it, back it up with evidence, and put it simply. If you can do that, I promise you I will listen. I'm actually working on a project away from ATS so if you can debunk this, with sound science and evidence, I will be very grateful to you. I'll chunk this argument altogether if you can prove it is wrong. Or at least bring a reasonable amount of doubt, supported by evidence, to the table. Like your precious scientists, I'm saying 'bring on the debunking.' This is something I need to know. Just stay on track. Thanks.

[edit on 9/22/2008 by AshleyD]



posted on Sep, 22 2008 @ 02:31 PM
link   
From the article davebot420 linked



Based on measurements of the expansion using Type Ia supernovae, measurements of temperature fluctuations in the cosmic microwave background, and measurements of the correlation function of galaxies, the universe has a calculated age of 13.73 ± 0.12 billion years.


Hmmm they put an AGE on the universe.... that means they believe it is finite.

The entropy laws also fully support that one day all the stars will burn out and the universe will die a heat death - no energy. So it is finite. Evidence fully supports the creation model. All subsequent theories are based on objections to the philosophical ramifications not any real evidence. They severely violate Occams razor in that the contrivances they create to justify them are comical. All the evidence supports creation. Anything else is new age dreaming and blind faith. I just don't have that much faith - sorry.



posted on Sep, 22 2008 @ 02:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by toasted
reply to post by AshleyD
 


" How could nature have defied itself to 'create' us? "

I've said the same thing myself.

Along with, I've never seen the hall closet organize itself, ever!




Hey buddy! I know I have been scarce around here lately. I have thriving ministry going over at the youtube. Funny how they believe something came from nothing (irrational) and we believe something came from something - the mind of God (rational). Yet they act superior? It's funny and sad at the same time. Mostly sad considering the eternal consequences.

We are created in Gods image - so can we create something from nothing. Actually we can. What are scientific theories made of? Not material - not atoms. I can think of a melody and then whistle it and create something that never existed before out of thin air. So we do have a little creative abilities similar to that of our creator. It's our thoughts.



posted on Sep, 22 2008 @ 03:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bigwhammy
Funny how they believe something came from nothing (irrational) and we believe something came from something - the mind of God (rational). Yet they act superior? It's funny and sad at the same time. Mostly sad considering the eternal consequences.


I don't much appreciate your misinformed yet smug attitude. No theory in science suggest where everything came from, in the beginning of time. Even the big bang doesn't explain the origin of matter, and nor does it try to. Evolution, like the big bang theory for the universe, only explains what life does once it already exists. So before you start condemning scientists for their [imaginary] irrationality, perhaps you should get a clue that science does not try to explain away God, or suggests the something comes from nothing. That's just a tired old narrow theistic interpretation. And a poor interpretation at that.



posted on Sep, 22 2008 @ 03:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Good Wolf
No theory in science suggest where everything came from, in the beginning of time. Even the big bang doesn't explain the origin of matter...


Is there anything (hypotheses included) that even tries to explain the origin of matter? Due to the fact we can date the rocks of the earth shows to me they have an origin and are not eternal. So where did this matter come from? And if 'something from nothing' is impossible (please correct me if I am wrong), would the existence of matter not be possible under naturalistic explanations? I'm open. Thanks.



posted on Sep, 22 2008 @ 03:40 PM
link   
The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.





These appearances are always short lived because antiparticles are destroyed when they collide with normal matter. The meeting leaves a trace, often as high energy x-rays or gamma-rays.[1]


Anti-Matter is something you may want to check into. It is theorized that the 'Big Bang' should have created equal amounts of 'matter' and 'anti-matter' in our universe. However, that is not the case.

And here's a fun article...Galaxies Made of Nothing? New Theory of Mysterious Dark Matter

There is no substantial evidence that matter can come from 'nothing', as the entire basis of scientific method is based on "cause and effect".

And that is what this ongoing discussion is based upon, the absence of evidence. And I asure you that I personally will not be daunted nor swayed by the writings of men, regardless of how long ago they were written.

For what it's worth, I think that the Easter Bunny created the universe and left the running of it to Babe the Blue Ox (Paul had better things to do)...

As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.



posted on Sep, 22 2008 @ 03:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by AshleyD

Originally posted by Good Wolf
No theory in science suggest where everything came from, in the beginning of time. Even the big bang doesn't explain the origin of matter...


Is there anything (hypotheses included) that even tries to explain the origin of matter?


I don't know, but it doesn't matter. For all we know, the universe has always existed, the big bang just obscures our ability to understand what was before. However we do know that the big bang was not actually the beginning. The singularity had been existing before the event.


Due to the fact we can date the rocks of the earth shows to me they have an origin and are not eternal. So where did this matter come from?


The dates correspond the time that the rocks formed, not created (in the sense that you appear to be thinking).


And if 'something from nothing' is impossible (please correct me if I am wrong), would the existence of matter not be possible under naturalistic explanations?


No one has said that this is impossible. Hopefully the LHC will generate the theorised Higg-Bosen (aka "God particle") and we will know some more about the possibility of nothing => something.

[edit on 9/22/2008 by Good Wolf]



posted on Sep, 22 2008 @ 03:53 PM
link   
reply to post by MemoryShock
 


That looks interesting- thanks for showing that to me. Although I won't lie- it's a bit over my head. After reading that link's article, I googled 'dark matter' and read a bit more about it. I'll be looking into that for sure. Thanks again.

 



Originally posted by Good Wolf
I don't know, but it doesn't matter.


Ah, see. But it matters a whole lot to me at the moment.
That is why I am humbling myself to ask in an effort to get to the truth. Seems others can't help but make the theist jabs. It's ok though. I can sort through the muck to find what I'm looking for.

Thanks for the rest of your thoughts and reply. That helped a lot. I'll be looking into all of this over the next couple of weeks.



posted on Sep, 22 2008 @ 04:02 PM
link   
reply to post by AshleyD
 


We can't see far back enough to make any kind of informed decisions of any certainty of a hypothetical beginning. We do know how the universe got to how it is now (basically anyway), but just not how things started.



posted on Sep, 22 2008 @ 04:08 PM
link   
reply to post by Good Wolf
 


Ok, thanks again.

Note to anyone else: Please feel free to keep whatever contrary evidence you have coming my way. I'm totally open to it.

If anyone also has any other explanation for matter, energy, and universe origins, I'd love to hear them. Any way you could possibly debunk what I am saying is welcome. The only thing I ask is that they are substantiated by science in some way. Not wild hypotheses like multiverse scenarios. Thanks so much. I truly appreciate it. I chose ATS to ask this question due to the knowledge of the science crowd here.



posted on Sep, 22 2008 @ 04:11 PM
link   
GW...not actually true...according to Dr. Michio Kaku, we will have the capacity to see that far back.

I don't normally post in this fashion, but I think a few here in this thread would be interested in these interviews of the Dr....

Interview with Dr. Michio Kaku Part 1

Interview with Dr. Michio Kaku Part 2

Listen when you have a few hours, though the second part is heavey on the repitition. Also, one of these two interviews tells that we can theoretically 'view' events prior to the Big Bang....still theory though.



posted on Sep, 22 2008 @ 04:16 PM
link   
reply to post by MemoryShock
 


It's times like this that I hate dialup the most.



posted on Sep, 22 2008 @ 04:16 PM
link   
Do you, and the people in the video claim to know where the universe ends, or how big the universe is?
I mean how can you determin the odds of life forming when you dont even know the figures.
There are a lot of varriables possible you know.

If this is the only base of your theory, than i think it is rather thin and not solid.




top topics



 
11
<< 12  13  14    16 >>

log in

join