It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


Evolution Cannot be Proven

page: 5
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in


posted on Sep, 19 2008 @ 11:05 PM

Originally posted by JaxonRoberts
reply to post by savagediver

See answer on the Why people laugh at creationists thread.

ED. And I do have a problem with the quality of the scientific education of a theologist! Not to mention the bias.

[edit on 19-9-2008 by JaxonRoberts]

I am sure you do as theology is Spiritual not scientific.In the same light I am sure theologists/creationist have problems with science as the end all know all as I do too.I like science and c=science has made possible a great many things but it is not the answer to life.Take this for example from a whole site on evolution from big bang to now:

The question of life’s origin has engaged the minds of humans since they first contemplated our place on Earth and in the Universe. The subject often elicits emotion—first because it involves ourselves, and second because biochemists don’t yet have a comprehensive account of the specific steps that led to life on our planet.

Today’s scientific method, which is a philosophy of approach based on reasoned logic bolstered by experimental and observational tests

Three Scientific Proposals Several alternative theories for the origin of life do not require the help of supernatural beings. Each of these theories relies on natural principles and each can be tested experimentally. These theories are thus based on science rather than on theology, and only one of them has thus far survived the test of time, criticism, and debate.

A third theory of life’s origin is known as chemical evolution. In this idea, pre-biological changes slowly transform simple atoms and molecules into the more complex chemicals needed to produce life. Favored by most scientists today, the central premise of chemical evolution stipulates that life arose naturally from nonlife. In this sense, the theories of chemical evolution and spontaneous generation are similar, but the timescales differ. Chemical evolution doesn’t occur suddenly; instead, it proceeds more gradually, eventually building complex structures from simpler ones. This modern theory then suggests that life originated on Earth by means of a rather slow evolution of nonliving matter. How slowly and when precisely we are unsure.

Today’s scientific method, which is a philosophy of approach based on reasoned logic bolstered by experimental and observational tests, cannot be used to study supernatural ideas for the origin of life. Accordingly, such ideas, unprovable even in principle, seem destined to remain beliefs forever, hence beyond the subject of science.

I am pointing these out because they are theories.Test and experiments have proved what?A string of amino acids?When science has observed life form from matter and can repeat it, it will be science fact.Until then science has not proved matter just turned into life through time,coincidnce etc.

Peoples supernatural beliefs cant be proved or disproved by science so most wise scientists avoid the argument to start with.

posted on Sep, 19 2008 @ 11:37 PM
reply to post by savagediver

I'm afraid we're going to have to agree to disagree on Thomas Heinze's credentials to give a scientific justification for creationism. He is as qualified an expert on science as Stephen Hawking is on Theology. Get my point on this?

posted on Sep, 20 2008 @ 12:45 AM
reply to post by the_watcher

.....all this talk of `god` as in the `bible god`... are all you ignorant followers blind to the FACT that Roman Emperor Constantine `created` your bible as a means of better controlling his population who were warring amongst themselves?? Your bible is Intel. Design .....

posted on Sep, 20 2008 @ 01:16 AM
reply to post by JaxonRoberts

I agree with you with you on this.I just found some points on there that seemed to make sense to me and some of the questions and points that he made I have not seen any scientist answer is all.Think I have just gotten abit worked up over this to no constructive end on my part.It has been an interesting exchange for me and I always enjoy learning from others and about others way of thinking.

posted on Sep, 20 2008 @ 01:29 AM
Of course it can't be already has been proved...

Nobody, not even the greatest scientists on earth, is GOING TO WASTE THEIR TIME PROVING THINGS TWICE...

posted on Sep, 20 2008 @ 01:33 AM
reply to post by NorthWolfe CND

Tell that to a Creationist!

posted on Sep, 20 2008 @ 02:13 AM
I suppose that one should approach this by first looking at the 2 extreme sides of the question. Either A.) God exists and the biblical story of creation is literally true, or, B.)The universe conforms to a scientific certainty that God does not exist and all can be explained by unassailable scientific fact.

Both positions are demonstrably false, therefore the truth must lie somewhere in between. An omnipotent God could certainly do what the Creationists claim, but science proves this to be false. On the other hand, science proposes theories (some more likely than others) regarding the origins of the universe and mankind as yet unproven (that's why they are still theories).

That's where Intelligent Design, panspermia, and other interesting ideas come into play.

What existed before the Big Bang? What lies beyond the boundaries of the observable universe? If red-shift can be used as a measure of distance, are there objects beyond our capacity to observe which are traveling at supra-light velocities which would violate and force us to reexamine Relativity?

Was the Big Bang the inspiration for "Let there be light" and the remaining story of creation an explanation of evolution reducing epochs to "days" in an effort to make the overall concept understandable to most people? If so, how would authors thousands of years ago have had this information?

Even the confirmation of the Higg's Boson (God particle) by the experiments at Cern will not answer all questions. I suspect, in fact, that it will actually open up more questions as to the origin of the universe than it solves.

Think about "2001"....beings that had evolved to the point where they transcended physical bodies and became sentient free-flowing entities. Would they not be considered "gods" by most standards?

The truth lies somewhere between the two extremes. God and evolution CAN coexist.

posted on Sep, 20 2008 @ 03:02 AM

Originally posted by RR98
On the other hand, science proposes theories (some more likely than others) regarding the origins of the universe and mankind as yet unproven (that's why they are still theories).

ERrr! I'm getting sick of this misconception. A theory isn't a guess, or is it an educated guess. It is a something that explains all the facts know related to the study and makes accurate predictions. A theory is the highest level of 'truth you can get in science. The only thing that can go higher is in maths.

I only just posted this in another thread:

Secondly, you have fallen into the 'theory' trap.

The way of which scientists prove what they find is accurate is the ‘Scientific Method’.

Let’s look at that next:
1. Observe some aspect of the universe.
2. Invent a tentative description, called a hypothesis, that is consistent with what you have observed.
3. Use the hypothesis to make predictions.
4. Test those predictions by experiments or further observations and modify the hypothesis in the light of your results.
5. Repeat steps 3 and 4 until there are no discrepancies between theory and experiment and/or observation.

Here’s a flowchart.

A theory is not an

intellectual guess
, and it certainly isn't

sometimes backed with observations, and sometimes with nothing
Scientists don't

think of it and then try to find facts to back it up
scientists think up hypotheses after making an observation- which is then falsifiable by tests.

Hypotheses is not equal to theory.

A theory is like a scientific assomtote (or however it's spelt)

And you know what. Evolution is a theory, has been since the 1940's. It's the closest thing to truth that we have right now and it ain't gonna get much closer to truth.

[edit on 9/20/2008 by Good Wolf]

posted on Sep, 20 2008 @ 01:13 PM

Originally posted by RR98
I suppose that one should approach this by first looking at the 2 extreme On the other hand, science proposes theories (some more likely than others) regarding the origins of the universe and mankind as yet unproven (that's why they are still theories).

From the American Heritage Science Dictionary: theory-(thē'ə-rē, thîr'ē) A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena. Most theories that are accepted by scientists have been repeatedly tested by experiments and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.

In science, only mathematics is considered nontheoretical. Everything else comes under theory. Why do you think it's still called the Theory of Gravity? Does anyone dispute Newton? Nope! Has this theory been proven? Yep! But it's still theoretical. Get it? Evolution is a theory, but as of yet, no one has come up with a better theory to fit the observations made in nature. Intelligent Design, which is what you are proposing, does not stand up to the data either. Does this automatically mean there is no God? No, it does not. What most refuse to even contemplate is the idea that maybe God does not exist outside of the Laws of Nature, but within them. Of course, this would mean accepting that God is not omnipotent or omniscent, which would contradict all those ancient books that the religious cling to like a lover. A true Spiritual person seeks the truth, no matter what direction that search takes them.

posted on Sep, 20 2008 @ 01:25 PM
Thanx Roberts' but I got this one. See above your post

posted on Sep, 20 2008 @ 01:26 PM
reply to post by Good Wolf

I saw it, just wanted to add my two cents!

posted on Sep, 20 2008 @ 02:00 PM
Rather than finding proof for evolution, Darwin came up with a philosophical world-view and then spent 20 years trying to find enough proof for it.

posted on Sep, 20 2008 @ 02:05 PM
reply to post by Librarian

And how did you come to this conclusion?

posted on Sep, 20 2008 @ 03:55 PM
Not my conclusion, a conclusion I read about in a book.

Its serious.

posted on Sep, 20 2008 @ 03:57 PM
reply to post by Librarian

What book? Sources, people, sources!

posted on Sep, 20 2008 @ 04:35 PM
If I might offer a suggestion.. Perhaps we are trying too hard to find an easy answer to the origin of our existence. We all seem very eager to pin a label or plant our respective flag when Creationism, Intelligent Design and Evolution could very well have all played a part.

The raw materials from which we are composed are produced naturally by dying stars. Self-replicating molecules developed into the earliest known forms of life. Creationism or 'the hand of God' may have played a part in this. Over millions of years, Evolution would have ensured that the most suitable species were able to survive whilst others died out. Intelligent Design could also have resulted in the improvement of certain species.

There is absolutely no reason at all to discount any of these theories in favour of another.

[edit on 20/9/08 by Myrdyn]

posted on Sep, 20 2008 @ 05:04 PM
here in new york i come across soo many ignorant evolution/catholic believers who believe in evolution and God... its sad because there is no proof what so ever of evolution ... there is prove of God... many people who have had a near death experience have spoke of hell and God as they were dying before they came back to life... i don't believe that any person who died for a few minutes before coming back to life would lie about anything they saw. As for the "ICE AGE" that was Noah's arc story, if it were to rain for 40 days and nights with out the sun (our only source of heat), then the world will freeze .. yes? Science proving Religion... as for the dinosaurs it is clearly said God hand picked the animals he wanted to live as for the rest of the animals, they were destroyed and froze after drowning after a long period of time... as far as humans having DNA matching Apes... hellooo we were all made by God therefore why would be be different in our DNA? and man evolving from ape? so why has the apes in the forest stop evolving? show me a monkey turn into an ape and then i will believe it, i was watching the science channel and they had a whole hour segment on the creatures that lived before the dinosaurs.. OMG seriously???? come on

posted on Sep, 20 2008 @ 06:12 PM
reply to post by Myrdyn

That is so true. I totally agree. I will stop argue about this, I only argue because everybody else is doing it. But i do think like you, that has been my view for a long while now. That they're all part of eveythings existence.

posted on Sep, 20 2008 @ 08:13 PM

Originally posted by savagediver
Got something against the quality of education of theologist????How about trying to discredit the education of these scientist who accept biblical creation:

*snip large list*

You do know the vast majority of those you listed with dates lived before Darwin proposed Evolution right?

Also, may I refer to you to Project Steve?

Evolution is a fact. A 'Theory' in Science is the highest level that can be acheived.

The 'theory' of evolution is a framework that draws together all the FACTS of Evolution.

Evolution is the bedrock of biology, and has been for many decades. The 'theory' of Evolution has more proof in its favour than our currently accepted model of gravity.

For Evolution to be wrong, practically every branch of science as it exists today would also have to be irretrievably, irreconcilably wrong.

The truth, and what you want the truth to be, are two very different things.

No amount of creationist propaganda, misinformation or flat out lies is ever going to change the facts.

[edit on 20-9-2008 by kegs]

posted on Sep, 20 2008 @ 08:33 PM
reply to post by kegs


new topics

top topics

<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in