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.

 

Creationists, what experiments are you doing?

page: 3
2
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 30 2008 @ 07:02 PM
link   
I think we can close this thread. Almost all of the posters here have admitted that man can create life...or at least the building blocks. So lets do the math


Man=intelligence

Man=creating life

intelligence = creating life


So, by biologist and chemists own experiments they have proven that it is possible for some intelligent being to kick start life.

I guess we can all go back to debating which one really occurred.




posted on Oct, 1 2008 @ 01:38 AM
link   
No, the thread is far from closed.

Any fool knows that intelligent design is a theoretical possibility with respect to anything that exists - stars, galaxies, even the universe itself. If this were not the case, the concept of an all-powerful Creator would be untenable. Since the concept exists, the possibly that the universe and all that is in it is intelligently designed follows.

But just because something could be designed doesn't mean that it is, though Thomas Aquinas might have thought it did*.

Anyway, that is not the subject of this thread. We are not arguing about whether life was 'intelligently designed' or not. We are asking what scientific research is being conducted in order to establish that it was.

Look:


Originally posted by LuDaCrIs
When I ask for experiments to be put forward, I am not looking for anyone's own mental experiment or anecdote--unless of course you yourself is a scientist in the field. I would like to see what actual scientists on the field are doing. Lets see some references here. This is meant to be quite formal, not merely expressing ones views.

Allow me to repeat it one last time, since some people don't seem to have grokked it yet.

What experimental research is currently being conducted to investigate and falsify the ID hypothesis?

Enough with the beads and strings already. This ain't no kindergarten thread.

 
*Well, that wasn't exactly what he said; his arguments for the existence of God were even more obtuse than that.

[edit on 1-10-2008 by Astyanax]



posted on Oct, 1 2008 @ 05:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by Astyanax
But just because something could be designed doesn't mean that it is


true. i 100% agree with you. the next logical question would be: can that something be created at random without guidance?

if you answer that question, then you will have a clearer picture.



Enough with the beads and strings already. This ain't no kindergarten thread.


just because the experiment is simple doesnt mean its any less valid. obviously, god is a possibility. but in order to truly prove that he exists, one MUST ask without prior leanings whether life could start without him. because if it cant, then there is proof that something or someone intelligent exists. its simple logic really

the achilles of evolution and abiogensis (and yes im mentioning the 2 because it is relavent) is DNA.

if a simple string cannot thread simple beads at random, how can complex chemical reactions form DNA? keep in mind that the only way we know new DNA is created is from preexisting DNA, there is nothing ¨natural¨ that come even close.

just look at the protein molecules. the probability numbers i put in the last ¨experiment¨ were joke numbers to make a point. noone argues with them because everyone understands the futility of shaking a box and hoping to have a beaded necklace. but 10110 is an actual probability number placed on the possibility of a protein molecule corralessing by complete chance. keep in mind, 1050 is considered ¨never happening.¨ 10110 is also more than all the estimated atoms in the universe. its a big number. and this is without factoring the other things needed. like the other 140 protein chains needed that have to form at the same time as the first.

so essentially, you have now information back scientifically that life at random is an ¨impossible event¨.

even the conditions on earth now or before are not in anyway helpful to the formation of these proteins. everyone agrees that oxygen was present when the first amino acids formed, however, oxygen would prevent this formation. stanley miller, a scientist conducting experiments on recreating ancient atmosphere had to admit that when the 4 of the 20 amino acids that did form, only formed when oxygen was absent. but if oxygen was absent, the the radiation would have killed the process. even then if the reaction somehow survived long enough to make it to the water, any chemist will tell you that water inhibits growth of complex molecules.

so the question becomes, is random life formation even a possibility?



posted on Oct, 1 2008 @ 07:07 PM
link   
Again I tell you that any time an experiment is done that creates life you can proven the possibility of ID as you have admitted, and every time one of those experiments fail it is a possibility that is false.

so, you have already answered you own question.



posted on Oct, 1 2008 @ 10:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by miriam0566
just because the experiment is simple doesnt mean its any less valid. obviously, god is a possibility. but in order to truly prove that he exists, one MUST ask without prior leanings whether life could start without him. because if it cant, then there is proof that something or someone intelligent exists. its simple logic really


So your logic is this:

If life can't be randomly created, then it must be intelligently designed?

Why does it have to be intelligently designed if its not random? Thats a bit of a false dichotomy.

Apart from that its also a weak stance in terms of an logic arguement. Negative arguments against one thing is not strong evidence for another because more than one possibility is possible. With that said, you now need to prove that another possibility is likely. We do that by experimentation. So what are your experiments and what do they predict?

[edit on 1-10-2008 by LuDaCrIs]



posted on Oct, 2 2008 @ 03:03 AM
link   
reply to post by miriam0566
 


the next logical question would be: can that something be created at random without guidance?

if you answer that question, then you will have a clearer picture.

My emphasis.

Forgive me, miriam0566, but you are being deliberately obtuse. The opposition isn't between God and 'chance', as you know very well. Chance and randomness have very little to do with how the world came to be.

In fact, the next logical question is simply 'could the world have come to be without being designed?

And knowing what we know about natural laws and processes, the answer is - emphatically - yes.

The rest of your post simply illustrates that you haven't quite figured out what this thread is about.



posted on Oct, 2 2008 @ 04:34 AM
link   
reply to post by miriam0566
 


Because it's not random! Clearly you have missed a fundamental point of evolution (no pun intended). It is not random.

It's not like the ol' "infinite number of monkeys typing on keyboards will eventually write Shakespeare's entire body of work" analogy, but a cumulative approach, where every keystroke the monkeys make that is not part of Shakespeare's body of work is discarded. That is the 'selection' part. Natural selection states that mutations (new keystrokes, in my monkey analogy) that are detrimental (not correct, in my analogy), are removed from the gene pool (the page).

I implore you, as one sentient human being to another, to at least understand evolution before you try to say how outlandishly unlikely it is. It really is incredibly simple. It is one of the most elegant theories out there. It is beautiful in every single way.



posted on Oct, 2 2008 @ 04:58 AM
link   
reply to post by miriam0566
 


Just because humans are complex, somebody had to design us? Lady, the earth has been around for something like 5 billion years. Life has been here, in some form or another, for the last 3 billion years (or something).

3,000,000,000 years
3,000,000 centuries.
3,000 Milenna, or however you spell it.

We can't really comprehend how long of a time that is. Like, ever.

You know how I disprove the intelligent design theory of "God"?

Fossils. That's it. Don't tell me god put them there to test us. Quit grasping at straws. Dinosaur bones were mentioned in the book of Job. One more example of the extreme discontinuity of this theory.

Not saying that evolution is without it's questionable points.

But let's deny ignorance here, really. Was the world spun out of darkness 6,000 years ago with a complete fossil record and geological history? Hardly.

But we can agree on a few points.

1. Natural selection does exist and we have been able to observe the effects and trends of evolution during our time of studying the theory.

2. The Earth is far older than 6,000 years.

3. There exists no hard evidence (that is tangible and available to us) of a 'missing link'. But I offer the following: That the 'link' we happen to be looking for to fill in the gap actually has already been discovered, and that is, in my opinion the cross-breeding between Neanderthal and Cro-Magnon man. We're not looking for a holy grail, really. It's all there in front of us.

Or, on the other hand, the kind of link that will quiet the dissenters to Evolution is in fact so old that we have either not recovered it from the fossil record or all record has been destroyed.

4. Humans are Primates.


The evidence is there for evolution, and it is decidedly lacking for ID of God. I'm just not convinced. You're asking people to choose to either take something on complete faith, or to be of assenting opinion to the scientific community's best guess.

In 3 billion years I'm sure that there was ample time to sprout a multi-celled organism out of the primordial ooze and then we were off to the races.


Sorry to say this, but I have to point it out again: Arts and Crafts do not speak to the existence of god. Just because we can make something with our hands means we are tool-users. A being with the ability to create a world such as ours would have to ask themselves a really good question before doing it. "Why?"



posted on Oct, 2 2008 @ 12:50 PM
link   
I appreciate all the posters who cleared up what evolution is, but I want to remind you that we need to keep this topic to a minimum.

I understand people will come in here and start ranting about how evolution is bunk etc etc, and people feel obliged to defend the position of evolution, but we need to keep the topic in focus.


miriam0566, please stay on topic!! Any further evolution discussion should be dealt with in another thread--I am sure there are plenty of them out there.

I seriously don't think I can put it to you any simpler:

If you are a believer in ID/creationism, what are the leading scientists in the field doing in the lab?



posted on Oct, 2 2008 @ 03:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by irongunner
I think we can close this thread. Almost all of the posters here have admitted that man can create life...or at least the building blocks. So lets do the math


Man=intelligence

Man=creating life

intelligence = creating life


So, by biologist and chemists own experiments they have proven that it is possible for some intelligent being to kick start life.

I guess we can all go back to debating which one really occurred.

*sigh*

The entire point of the experiment was that they created proteins by simulating natural causes. They didn't try to design them in the same way one would try to design a machine.

[edit on 2-10-2008 by SamuraiDrifter]



posted on Oct, 2 2008 @ 05:55 PM
link   
While I'm a firm believer in evolution, I'm disappointed that no college educated ID's could come up with a rational hypothesis or experiment to test their theory . . . so, I'll help them out . . . off the top of my head. Discuss (although I realize there will be flawed logic here).

Hypothesis: An Intelligent Supernatural Being created life and mankind seperate from all other beings and lifeforms; in their entirety and complete to walk (or be planted) on the Earth. This being accomplished this by providing a divine spark (or specialized lightning) to synthesize the primordial ooze.

First take the most common elements (H, C, N, O) and heat, pressurize, collide said elements to produce simple protiens, amino and nucleaic acids.

Then, simulate lightning, in the form of electricity, to see if this energizes the stains to form more complex organisms.

Use different forms of electricity to see if the varying plasma's result in different beings or make complexity all at once.

Once it's been established that electricity can be a catalyst for protien synthesis, it will be attribituted to the afore mentioned supernatural force. Proving the possiblility and therefore the existence of a omnipresent supernatural being. Voila.

Seems rational . . . no? Sure . . . it's taking a lot for granted, but at least it's something . . .
Otherwise it's just all irrational drivel about a poof of smoke.


And for the ID'er that mentioned micro v. macro evolution . . . the only difference is the passage of time. Unless time doesn't exist in the Bible, a belief in micro supposes a belief in macro. That is unless you don't believe in the passage of time . . . ?



posted on Oct, 9 2008 @ 03:31 AM
link   
reply to post by miriam0566
 


Your argument is sound and backed up by real science. It is quite evident that evolutionists would rather stick with science fiction and fantasy rather than admit that there is a God. I think there is a passage in the bible that talks about futile debates. Better to move on to someone with an open mind.



posted on Oct, 9 2008 @ 09:47 AM
link   
reply to post by Anonymous ATS
 


No, she didn't have any science, and people who believe in the theory of evolution usually do so because that's what all the evidence points to.

Sheesh - at least try to form a decent argument. Making half-baked assertions and labeling things as you want them to seem (regardless of the truth) is not decent.



posted on Oct, 9 2008 @ 10:04 AM
link   
"ELF and FAIRY believers, what experiments are you doing?

This should be quite easy to understand for everyone. If ELF and FAIRY believers are pushing for their ideas to be taught in science class, then some sort of experimentation should be going on. That is a requirement of science.

So, let's have it. We don't need to get too complicated or drown ourselves in too many examples. Let's begin with one experiment and discuss it. Maybe have a couple as suggestions, but only go into depth with one.

A couple of things to remember, please:

1. Stick to the topic at hand
2. Do not mention GNOMES in this discussion, unless it's part of the FAIRY/ELF experiment or hypothesis. THIS TOPIC WILL FOCUS ON ELVES AND FAIRIES. I don't want anyone bashing ELVES or GNOMES in this thread; that is not what this is about.

3. Do not add to this discussion by saying "There are no experiments that can be done" without actually explaining why this particular experiment is not scientific. If you are going to say anything it must pertain to the experiment which is being discussed.

If you are doing to submit an experiment to be discussed, please state the hypothesis first and then the experiment process after.

This thread doesn't necessarily need to include conclusions to the experiments about to be discussed. The important thing here is the METHODOLOGY. We can discuss the conclusions from the experiment(s) later or in another thread.


Ok, I'm all ears." ~ LuDaCrIs
EDITED






if you believe that GNOMES exist and that their existence refutes that of ELVES and FAIRIES You should not be unwilling address GNOMES. Asking for evidence of FAIRIES and ELVES that is procurable through real time experimentation is laughable if you can not provide evidence for the existence of GNOMES with real time experimentation as well.

I really hope you're not serious. This is a joke and a half and Man_Versus_AntiMan pointed this out in his very first post.

[edit on 10/9/2008 by JPhish]



posted on Oct, 9 2008 @ 10:09 AM
link   
reply to post by Loki
 


you sir, are missing the point. The point is WHY.

It has nothing to do with fossils.


Originally posted by dave420
people who believe in the theory of evolution usually do so because that's what all the evidence points to.


ALL??? i'm drooling at the mouth here; but i'll give you the chance to take that one back.



[edit on 10/9/2008 by JPhish]



posted on Oct, 9 2008 @ 10:14 AM
link   
reply to post by miriam0566
 

(((Miriam)))



Originally posted by LuDaCrIs
Why does it have to be intelligently designed if its not random? Thats a bit of a false dichotomy.


If it is not random, it is driven by intent.



Originally posted by LuDaCrIsIf you are a believer in ID/creationism, what are the leading scientists in the field doing in the lab?
scientists are not going to research their own idealogical destruction; the same way a nazi isn't going to research the possibility that black people are superior to white people.


[edit on 10/9/2008 by JPhish]



posted on Oct, 9 2008 @ 07:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by JPhish
if you believe that GNOMES exist and that their existence refutes that of ELVES and FAIRIES You should not be unwilling address GNOMES. Asking for evidence of FAIRIES and ELVES that is procurable through real time experimentation is laughable if you can not provide evidence for the existence of GNOMES with real time experimentation as well.



To use your analogy, the point here is this:

All I want you to do is present facts that prove ELVES and FAIRIES exist. Before you even go further and say it disproves GNOMES, you have to establish that ELVES and FAIRIES exist. Thats all I want right now.



posted on Oct, 9 2008 @ 07:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by JPhish
If it is not random, it is driven by intent.



You'd have to exclude ever other explanation in order to present this as ONLY two explanations.

Even still, you still you have to establish how its driven by intent. And that's what this thread is about. How do scientists in the field establish that a designer was "designing"? What experiments are they doing to falsify it? What predictions are scientists in the field making using this idea and experiments?



posted on Oct, 9 2008 @ 10:02 PM
link   
reply to post by LuDaCrIs
 


I used the analogy of fairies, elves and gnomes for a reason. Any attempt to prove or disprove their existence is inane.

reply to post by LuDaCrIs
 


if it is agreed that everything is not random. It is logical that the "universe" has "intent".



posted on Oct, 10 2008 @ 12:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by JPhish
if it is agreed that everything is not random. It is logical that the "universe" has "intent".


What if its both? What if somethings are random and some have a helping hand? How would you distinguish between the two? How can you say one is not the other? How do you distinguish coincidence with plan?


This thread is about understanding how we know something. How do you know the universe has intent? How does it "intend"? What is the process behind it?



new topics

top topics



 
2
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join