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.

 

Why creation?

page: 4
5
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 29 2008 @ 05:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Good Wolf

Originally posted by irongunner

this is also true for the evolution of man. Scientists agree that man most likely evolved from old world apes, but they have no scientific grounds from saying that it DID happen. They can only say that they have found no evidence to the contrary.


Well, I'll give you that one, the evolutionary path of man is fairly undefined. But that is no where near saying that thee is no evidence for it happening at all. That's like looking at a blurred image and saying because it is undefined that it isn't there, there most certainly is something there, but what is up for debate.


Well that is all faith needs.


Faith has nothing to do with science.
[edit on 9/29/2008 by Good Wolf]


Ahhh, but it does. You believe that though "the evolutionary path of man is fairly undefined" the path from ape to man follows this evolutionary course. So, without the proof; the solid evidentiary chain, you have faith that the path is indeed un broken and continuous. So you too have faith that eventually scientists will find that evidence and if not you will still believe the entire theory based on what evidence is available.

So, now we are back to an argument on faith and what we believe.




posted on Sep, 29 2008 @ 05:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by Good Wolf
I hope you work out how bad of a movie Expelled is for yourself. Stein disagrees with evolution but it becomes fast apparent that he does not even understand it. It has been rated lower than Cat Woman (shudder).
[edit on 9/29/2008 by Good Wolf]


I disagree, I think the thesis of that movie is missed. He is not arguing whether or not evolution is better or worse than creationism. He is only pointing out that most scientists will not even test the theory or discuss it like they do evolution or alien seeding.

So, if you have never seen it I would recommend it. After all I would be considered a "neo-con" ( I like to think of my self as a "tradio-con" or traditional conservative) and even I can sit through documentories on subjects I disagree with; in fact I have seen all of Michael Moore's Bowling for Columbine, Fahrenheit 911, and Sicko. I am still planning to see Al Gore's Movie as soon as I have time from school.



posted on Sep, 29 2008 @ 06:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by irongunner
Ahhh, but it does. You believe that though "the evolutionary path of man is fairly undefined" the path from ape to man follows this evolutionary course. So, without the proof; the solid evidentiary chain, you have faith that the path is indeed un broken and continuous. So you too have faith that eventually scientists will find that evidence and if not you will still believe the entire theory based on what evidence is available.

So, now we are back to an argument on faith and what we believe.


No it doesn't.


Faith /feɪθ/ [feyth] –noun

2. belief that is not based on proof.

[Source]

Science doesn't work like that. I have already explained what a theory is, something that explains all the facts and makes accurate predictions, so when something comes up that is problematic, then the theory gets altered to fit- getting ever more accurate.

I don't need a 100% detailed fossil record of old world apes to us to know that we evolved. I can see the process throughout the fossil record for other animals. The problem for the human family tree is that it is so full of dead end species and the Homo Erectus was around a million years, it's hard to know what came from what.

Since Erectus walk on two feet and used tools and looked almost exactly like us, a strong case can be made that we evolved from them.

I don't need faith to know what is likely and what is unlikely, I can look at the evidence.


I disagree, I think the thesis of that movie is missed. He is not arguing whether or not evolution is better or worse than creationism. He is only pointing out that most scientists will not even test the theory or discuss it like they do evolution or alien seeding.


He's arguing to have a hypothesis taught that has no evidence, is not falsifiable, makes no predictions and goes completely contrary to a well established, proven, theory that makes accurate predictions....

He also doesn't understand the theory of evolution. I've seen him in interviews about the film, he thinks for some reason that evolution is supposed to explain gravity.

He is no authority to suggest what should and shouldn't be taught. He made a fool of himself in that film.


I am still planning to see Al Gore's Movie as soon as I have time from school.


If you're talking about his global warming stuff, then don't forget that he is not a scientist let alone a geologist or a climatologist. He is a politician, and 'An Inconvenient Truth' is politically motivated. The jury is not back on human caused climate change, especially among climatologists, but the consensus is that the sun is tha main contender.



posted on Sep, 29 2008 @ 07:42 PM
link   
reply to post by Good Wolf
 


I am sorry, but from what I understand about science if you do not have 100% proof that only one outcome is possible from a certain event then it is a law or theory.

If you are trying to tell me that scientists have enough evidence to say that with 100% accuracy that evolution will occur every time such as the events played out on earth...I will have to respectfully disagree. The margin of error is infinitely small and the probability that a planet would exist that has the characteristics such as ours is even smaller. In fact it is statistically impossible except for the size of the universe, which help balance it out a little but does not account for resilience and evolution.

I think you are to blinded by your belief in science to see that their is a possibility that scientists got it wrong... like flight, and space travel.



posted on Sep, 29 2008 @ 07:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by irongunner
reply to post by Good Wolf
 


I am sorry, but from what I understand about science if you do not have 100% proof that only one outcome is possible from a certain event then it is a law or theory.


Then you don't understand much about science. Only mathematics is 100% provable. Gravity is only a theory, but you seem to accept it as fact. A theory is the logical conclusion drawn from the available facts. Evolution has passed this test. The Creation Myth has not.



posted on Sep, 29 2008 @ 08:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by JaxonRoberts

Originally posted by irongunner
reply to post by Good Wolf
 


I am sorry, but from what I understand about science if you do not have 100% proof that only one outcome is possible from a certain event then it is a law or theory.


Then you don't understand much about science. Only mathematics is 100% provable. Gravity is only a theory, but you seem to accept it as fact. A theory is the logical conclusion drawn from the available facts. Evolution has passed this test. The Creation Myth has not.


Math is a science. Math is the base of science. Look at the way the periodic table of elements is arranged.
Your argument based is based on an assumption and educated guess not fact. Deal with it. Wait for more evidence. After all Creationists believe that in time we will be proven right, do you not have the same "faith" in the strength of your argument that you would preclude discussion with large pieces of the puzzle missing?



posted on Sep, 29 2008 @ 08:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by irongunner
After all Creationists believe that in time we will be proven right, do you not have the same "faith" in the strength of your argument that you would preclude discussion with large pieces of the puzzle missing?


We don't need any more evidence, even though we are constantly making more finds and filling out the fossil record and demonstrating in the lab the evolutionary processes. We don't need faith.


I will have to respectfully disagree. The margin of error is infinitely small and the probability that a planet would exist that has the characteristics such as ours is even smaller. In fact it is statistically impossible except for the size of the universe, which help balance it out a little but does not account for resilience and evolution.


What?! Are you kidding? The statistics for an Earth-like planet aren't as small as you think. The ballpark figure for Earth planets in this galaxy alone are 250,000. Conditions for life are not that rare.


I think you are to blinded by your belief in science to see that their is a possibility that scientists got it wrong... like flight, and space travel.


Well they are going to know it better than I am, they are the scientists. Besides, like I said, if a discovery is made that conflicts, contrasts, contradicts or is otherwise problematic then the theory is modified to cover it, science is a self correcting process.

So what then? Am I blinded by evidence and facts? Perhaps my eyes should be opened to a hypothesis with no evidence, postulated by a bronze age book of fables?

It's plain and simple to see when you gain a great understanding of evolution, it explains how all life got to where it is now.

[edit on 9/29/2008 by Good Wolf]



posted on Sep, 29 2008 @ 08:08 PM
link   
reply to post by irongunner
 


Small, very small peices of the puzzle are missing. Meanwhile, the only thing the creation 'theory' has is the box the puzzle came in. And Mathematics and Science are not the same thing. Try reading books that don't start with 'In the begining...'



posted on Sep, 29 2008 @ 08:21 PM
link   
reply to post by JaxonRoberts
 


So only small parts of the puzzle are missing? I think this is debatable. Scientists have no idea what the whole puzzle is. They don't know what the beginning is, what scientist do have are a few fossils (compared to how many animals would have needed to be alive), DNA which has humans close to several animals including quadropeds, and "logical" assumptions.

Even if you can go from monkey to man, how do we go from dead to living?



posted on Sep, 29 2008 @ 08:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by irongunner
So only small parts of the puzzle are missing? I think this is debatable. Scientists have no idea what the whole puzzle is. They don't know what the beginning is


Abiogenesis, a simple model for organic matter to become technically alive including DNA. Look ot up.


, what scientist do have are a few fossils (compared to how many animals would have needed to be alive),


A few?! Hundreds of thousands. The fossil record is far more rich than any layman could possible suspect.


DNA which has humans close to several animals including quadropeds, and "logical" assumptions.


Note to mention entire mapped genomes producing a picture of how, when and where things evolved. The field of genetics is consistently spewing out evolutionary evidence.


Even if you can go from monkey to man, how do we go from dead to living?


I'm getting sick of this. How life started is no the field of evolution, what life does over time is the field of evolution. Think of it this way, Chemistry explains what atoms do, what they are made of and how they behave but it doesn't explain where they came from, but physics does.

YOU GET THAT?! Evolution does not cover the start of life!



posted on Sep, 29 2008 @ 08:37 PM
link   
first the experiment that created proteins has come under question due to the composition of the atmosphere that was used.

Also, creationism deals with the origin of life and if evolutionists cannot prove that life began by a natural mechanism wouldn't that challenge the rest of the assumptions..

Why are you getting tired? do you not feel that this is worth continued debate? I think that you are closed minded and am willing to spend my time trying to get you to think and accept alternatives. After all, I have conceded how evolution could replace creation in my mind, all you have done is tell me how wrong I am and how stupid I am for believing in this non-scientific mysticism.



posted on Sep, 29 2008 @ 08:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by irongunner
Also, creationism deals with the origin of life and if evolutionists cannot prove that life began by a natural mechanism wouldn't that challenge the rest of the assumptions..

No it does not. ToE deals with the diversity of life.. not the beginning of it. Again. Abiogenesis and evolution are two seperate things.



posted on Sep, 29 2008 @ 08:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by irongunner
first the experiment that created proteins has come under question due to the composition of the atmosphere that was used.


And so more were done. And the findings show that the proteins and amino acid chains are shown to form by themselves rather than being encouraged to by the environment. If you have all the ingredients, they will come together on their own.


Also, creationism deals with the origin of life and if evolutionists cannot prove that life began by a natural mechanism wouldn't that challenge the rest of the assumptions..


No, we know evolution occurs, we've yet to make abiogenesis happen. After all, the early earth had hundreds of thousands of years and vast expansive environments to do it. It only takes one chemical reaction to start life and saying that since it hasn't been done in the lab is like saying that we can't get to the moon because the Wright brothers didn't do it.


Why are you getting tired?


I'm getting tired becuase people like you keep assuming that evolution needs to explain how life began.


After all, I have conceded how evolution could replace creation in my mind, all you have done is tell me how wrong I am and how stupid I am for believing in this non-scientific mysticism.


I'm trying to show you how you just don't understand evolution. I don't think you are stupid. I used to be a creationist too.

I think you just need to look at the evolution misconception thread.

[edit on 9/29/2008 by Good Wolf]



posted on Sep, 29 2008 @ 09:28 PM
link   
reply to post by irongunner
 


OK, let's try this:

Cosmology- Origin and evolution of the Universe.

Abiogenesis- The Origin of life.

Evolution- The diversity of life after it's creation.

Let's use a gun as an example:

Scientific explanation: Where the materials for the gun where found and what they are. How they were refined. How and where they were made. What each part does and how they are assembled. The use of the final product.

'Creation' like explanation: Man made gun. Gun go bang.

In other words, the Creation Myth is an extremely dumb-downed version to explain the creation of the Universe, Earth and life on this planet. So back to the original question: Why Creation?



posted on Sep, 30 2008 @ 07:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by JaxonRoberts
reply to post by irongunner
 


OK, let's try this:

Cosmology- Origin and evolution of the Universe.

Abiogenesis- The Origin of life.

Evolution- The diversity of life after it's creation.

Let's use a gun as an example:

Scientific explanation: Where the materials for the gun where found and what they are. How they were refined. How and where they were made. What each part does and how they are assembled. The use of the final product.

'Creation' like explanation: Man made gun. Gun go bang.

In other words, the Creation Myth is an extremely dumb-downed version to explain the creation of the Universe, Earth and life on this planet. So back to the original question: Why Creation?




okay lets break it down. creation started with "In the beginning" and carries through western civilization. What does that mean?

1. If creation happened then Cosmology is wrong.

2. If cosmology is wrong and the universe was created then that would lead to the possibility for Abiogenesis to also be caused by creationism.

3. If Abiogenesis is also wrong that would mean that some intelligence created the universe and life.

So, if we follow that logic you would then have to be arguing that an intelligence created a home for life and life itself but left it to change and morph on its own.... but wait! that would be the DESIGN of the INTELLIGENCE!

this is how if you cannot simply comparing evolution to ID, you have to look at the whole concept of ID because it attempts to explain all three of these events.



posted on Sep, 30 2008 @ 07:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by irongunner
okay lets break it down. creation started with "In the beginning" and carries through western civilisation. What does that mean?

1. If creation happened then Cosmology is wrong.


But it isn't, that's why it's science.


2. If cosmology is wrong and the universe was created then that would lead to the possibility for Abiogenesis to also be caused by creationism.


Creationism holds that the universe isn't old enough for abiogenesis to happen at all.


3. If Abiogenesis is also wrong that would mean that some intelligence created the universe and life.

So, if we follow that logic you would then have to be arguing that an intelligence created a home for life and life itself but left it to change and morph on its own.... but wait! that would be the DESIGN of the INTELLIGENCE!


But you don't even need a creator since current astrophysics holds that the universe did not have a beginning. And it's not like the universe is especially tuned to harbour life. The habitable band around suns the size of our own isn't big enough for any more than one planet. Sun's that are too big or too small will complicate habitability beyond probability and most produce superflares which will consistently sterilise the planets. Statistically in our own galaxy there are around 1 million stars that will support life as we know it. Of those, about a quarter will sprout civilisation. not much when you consider the billions of unused stars out there.

Intelligent Design is rubbish scientifically because we've seen how evolving organisms can be more functional and seemingly more designed than anything that could in fact be designed.


this is how if you cannot simply comparing evolution to ID, you have to look at the whole concept of ID because it attempts to explain all three of these events.


It doesn't explain anything because it goes against the evidence not to mention, known and understood natural laws.



posted on Sep, 30 2008 @ 08:44 PM
link   
your evidence is computer models based on SWAG.... That is why Einstein never finished his unified theory, he knew he made an error in his estimations of universal constants and others.

So, before you go touting computer models based on guesses...no matter how "good" and how many scientists agree on them they are not fact. They may be used as a standard to base other research on, but it is not a FACT.

You really need to come to terms with the fact that much of scientific study about the origin of life, man, and the universe is based on assumptions and estimations.



posted on Sep, 30 2008 @ 09:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by irongunner
your evidence is computer models based on SWAG.... That is why Einstein never finished his unified theory, he knew he made an error in his estimations of universal constants and others.

So, before you go touting computer models based on guesses...no matter how "good" and how many scientists agree on them they are not fact. They may be used as a standard to base other research on, but it is not a FACT.


I'm getting really tired of your foolishness, irongunner! I never said computer models but since you bring them up. Computer models in evolution theory are not based on universal constants because there are none in evolution. Natural Selection is just that selective. So it doesn't matter what the pre-set selective properties are, you still demonstrate how natural selection and mutations make things evolve.

But they aren't meant to be fact (and no one says they are) they are just proof of concepts, used to demonstrate how population sizes, genetic diversity, rate of mutation, birth rates, and differing environmental pressures change the rate of evolution.


You really need to come to terms with the fact that much of scientific study about the origin of life, man, and the universe is based on assumptions and estimations.


No it isn't because that is not what science is. You need to understand that you have a religious bias. Unlike us who's beliefs are subject to change depending on the evidence.



posted on Sep, 30 2008 @ 09:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by irongunner
You really need to come to terms with the fact that much of scientific study about the origin of life, man, and the universe is based on assumptions and estimations.



No, unlike 'creation', it is based on the facts of nature. And in no way does science try to prove or deny a Creator. They cannot tell you what was before the Big Bang. In fact, if you ask me, your version dumb-downs the Creator itself. Now your 'theory' is only based on assumptions and a story created by a people who had just barely mastered fire! If you were to travel back to that time with an Uzi, there would be a story in the book about 'one of God's Angels with a staff of fire to bring down the wicked!' Your assumptions have absolutely no data to back them up! None, nil, nada!



posted on Sep, 30 2008 @ 11:31 PM
link   
first; JaxonRoberts and Good Wolf you two need to get on the same page. One says it is fact and the other says it isn't.

I think Good Wolf is more accurate, and I am just drawing different conclusions. I do not think there is enough evidence to prove undeniably that evolution and other natural processes are entirely responsible for Man and intelligence.




top topics



 
5
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join