Evolution is Science, Creationists Delusional, page 5

Pages: << 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 22 times

reply posted on 19-12-2008 @ 12:25 PM by Ghost147

Originally posted by spy66
Only a creator can create a beginning or a source for evolution to take place. Only something that is Eternal or infinite can create. Because it is always there.
What better explanation than God fits that role.

This is the main problem with the idea from theists, if it cant be explained thoroughly and constantly backed up than people who want an answer so badly reach for the nearest possible simple outcome. "god did it". Theists constantly hide behind many sayings, one of my favorites is "a human mind can grasp the reason"

Unfortunately, Theists tend to be very close minded, so even the most significant and perfect example of evidence will still not alter their state of mind, in most theists (not all). On the other hand, if an Atheist were to be proven god in some form of way that is completely unfake-able, then they would instantly change their state of mind on the possition.

Another unfortunate thing is the statement that "because science has yet to explain this event, this event explains the existance of god" which is the main point to your comment, which has no proof what so ever of the existence of a creator. You have to give evidence to back up your simple statement other than "if you cant explain it, god did it", other wise it is a completely irrelevant statement.

reply posted on 19-12-2008 @ 12:29 PM by Ghost147

reply to post by one_man24

I think you misread my post

what you explained is what i was explaining. lol.

reply posted on 19-12-2008 @ 12:29 PM by one_man24

reply to post by Ghost147

Unfortunately, you cannot "prove" God. But you can't prove evolution either. We have the same sets of facts, with different explanations. Some things seem to make more sense for evolution, some things seem to make more sense for creation. If you have really studied both sides, I don't see how anyone can't agree that neither theory has enough proof to prove or disprove the other. Unless you believe in the Bible, which I do.

reply posted on 19-12-2008 @ 12:30 PM by one_man24

reply to post by Ghost147

Maybe so.

reply posted on 19-12-2008 @ 12:31 PM by one_man24

reply to post by one_man24

Sorry to re-explain. lol.

reply posted on 19-12-2008 @ 12:31 PM by spy66

The clue is:

Is Time,Matter and Space (dimensions) Eternal or infinite.

If so! Have and when did it start. Have can something that is Eternal or infinite have a beginning.

When and have would it start?
Remember that it ain't Eternal or infinite if it has a start.

Have can Time,Matter and Space create it self and everything with out a creator or a source that is Eternal or infinite ?

And the definition of Eternity or infinity is God. He has no beginning and no end. So God or the "source" has always been there.

You cant put Eternity or infinity into time. Because have would you start time.

You cant put Eternity into Matter with out time,because when would you put it in.
What can Matter do with out time. It could never do anything. So then it couldn't create anything. And if it cant do anything, we cant have time.
Because Time is the measure of changes in Matter.

We have given God the definition of Eternity. We have Given the source of everything (Eternity) a name and that is "God" .

[edit on 27.06.08 by spy66]

reply posted on 19-12-2008 @ 12:33 PM by Ghost147

Originally posted by John Matrix
One of the posters said that creationists are not showing their evidence. I suppose I could spoon feed you with evidence for creation from all the sources on the Intenet. But why not do your own research. Start here:
www.darwinismrefuted.com...

The first thing i read was "the logic that nothing, but chance, is scientific is a flawed one". The first sentence in the banner (you know, after all the flashing advertisement ones at the bottom) is already a clear misinterpretation of all science. please feel free to explain to me how this is at all a reasonable site for correct information?

reply posted on 19-12-2008 @ 12:37 PM by Ghost147

Originally posted by one_man24
reply to post by Ghost147

Unfortunately, you cannot "prove" God. But you can't prove evolution either. We have the same sets of facts, with different explanations. Some things seem to make more sense for evolution, some things seem to make more sense for creation. If you have really studied both sides, I don't see how anyone can't agree that neither theory has enough proof to prove or disprove the other. Unless you believe in the Bible, which I do.

Very true, you cannot prove god, nor can you disprove it. However you can still vastly assist your side by giving examples and credible explanation through evidence and tests. That is generally the only real way to argue this. not who is right or wrong, but who's is more logical.

[edit on 19/12/08 by Ghost147]

reply posted on 19-12-2008 @ 12:45 PM by John Matrix

Originally posted by one_man24
reply to post by Ghost147

To make things clear, evolution is not the study of life's origin, that is abiogenesis, but it is the study of how the earliest life forms changed into what we have today.

I never heard the above argument put forth by an evolutionist before. Sounds like dodging the old argument. One thing for sure, the arguments are evolving. So you decided to let the abiogenesis guys worry about the challenges creationists raise concerning the transition of non life to life at a celular level. It makes no difference.

By the way, the term evolution is really misleading....it should be evolutions(plural) because there would be many parallel evolutions taking place among all the species on earth including plants and insects. None of which are observable or have been observed by the way.

If we can't dazzle them with brilliance, we'll baffle them with BS.
Repeat a lie often enough and the masses will believe it to be truth.

Evolutionsist certainly have faith in their hypothisis.

reply posted on 19-12-2008 @ 12:53 PM by John Matrix

reply to post by Ghost147

Dig a bit deeper and sort out the good from the bad yourself. Turn off the tunnel vision first.

reply posted on 19-12-2008 @ 01:02 PM by Mozzy

reply to op:

i love voting for the underdog, so feel free to classify me however you want.

first of all, if you were so high minded (with evolution) you would NEVER lower yourself to a meager comparison to the creationsists. obviously you don't understand that (barring that fact that you're trolling for points) or you never would have made this post.

second of all, creationism is a good theory. it's like pop music; yeah it sucks, but it's ok and it doesn't tell people to kill each other. it talks about god and satan and blah blah... who cares? it's a decent theory.

by contaminating yourself with this argument; which by default adds an umbilical to your brain with science; you've admitted that you do not understand EITHER argument. you can't do anything but reproduce. which by the way, supports BOTH theories.

reply posted on 19-12-2008 @ 01:05 PM by Ghost147

Originally posted by John Matrix

Originally posted by one_man24
reply to post by Ghost147

To make things clear, evolution is not the study of life's origin, that is abiogenesis, but it is the study of how the earliest life forms changed into what we have today.

I never heard the above argument put forth by an evolutionist before. Sounds like dodging the old argument. One thing for sure, the arguments are evolving. So you decided to let the abiogenesis guys worry about the challenges creationists raise concerning the transition of non life to life at a celular level. It makes no difference.

By the way, the term evolution is really misleading....it should be evolutions(plural) because there would be many parallel evolutions taking place among all the species on earth including plants and insects. None of which are observable or have been observed by the way.

If we can't dazzle them with brilliance, we'll baffle them with BS.
Repeat a lie often enough and the masses will believe it to be truth.

Evolutionsist certainly have faith in their hypothisis.

You've honestly never heard an evolutionist state that they are not trying to argue the creation of life, but the adaptation of life? are you new to this forum?

I am in no way "dodging" the old argument, which is "are evolutionists delusional, or are creationist", by saying that claiming that evolutionists are delusional because they believe life started randomly is an incorrect interpretation of evolution. Its the same way that you would defend yourself if i started claiming you are delusional because Christianity believes in (place Muslim beliefs here).

You guys are throwing accusations at us when we aren't even talking about them. For me to do the same thing i should start talking about some random verse about Jesus coming back to life for no reason what so ever. You are stating irrelevant remarks. how do you not see this?

The term Evolution is the generalized form of everything evolving. We use evolution as a word to gather all the little bits of evolution into one thing. just the same way we don't refer to Creation as creations, because that would imply that we are talking about a select group of things, not the whole idea in its entirety.

I cant believe you havent noticed any form of evolution. Micro-evolution is around us constantly, you see it in your children, and their children. You see it in animals, insects, plants and everywhere. They are adapting to the environment around them. If someone becomes immune to an illness then they are adapting to their environment and evolving into a being that allows them to become immune to that illness. I could go on for days explaining so many obvious adaptations that anyone can witness. How? because i have confirmed evidence to the facts i have. Yet you so blatantly state that we have not seen it. please, give me some evidence to your facts that we have not seen any form of evolution throughout the history of man kind or even today.

If we can't dazzle them with brilliance, we'll baffle them with BS. Repeat a lie often enough and the masses will believe it to be truth.

I cant believe you just used that. That is the exact thing any atheist would say about theists. Does "The world is flat" ring any bells?

All the technology and medicine you see and use to this day are all brought through the same science that founded Evolution.

The reason you will most likely live past 25 Years Old is because the quality of life has sky rocketed because of the birth of modern science. And what happened before that? Religion and science coexisted. its called the dark ages.

[edit on 19/12/08 by Ghost147]

reply posted on 19-12-2008 @ 01:10 PM by Ghost147

Originally posted by John Matrix
reply to post by Ghost147

Dig a bit deeper and sort out the good from the bad yourself. Turn off the tunnel vision first.

The point of a debate, which is what this topic is based on, is for the opposition to prove their points, not for our side to find our way on why your side is correct. We've already gone through all the things you are looking at and believing as fact, we already have passed those obstacles and have moved on from scientific illiteracy and ignorance. If you believe something is correct, and have a position to make, you better be willing to back it up for your self or your presence is irrelevant.

reply posted on 19-12-2008 @ 02:01 PM by TruthParadox

Originally posted by centrifugal
Two common arguments among creationists(christians) are that
A) Satan created the fossils to deceive us, making them appear to be aged

Which is an assumption.

Originally posted by centrifugal
B) The timeline in the bible is not to be taken literally, and that God allowed for evolution to occur. In this case evolution would support creationism. According to Genesis God created all forms of life in the same order that evolution describes.

There are still some major flaws/questions with this theory...
When does man evolve 'enough' to get the choice of heaven or hell?
At what point of the millions of years of evolution does God say "Ok, you've evolved enough to have a soul and have the choice of Heaven or Hell"?
The Bible says that God made man in his image... At what stage of man's evolution is this image reflected? What about when we evolve past that 'image'?
In Genesis, it says that God made Adam and then made Eve. If God worked through evolution, then how could man have evolved without a female counterpart? Or is all of Genesis a lie?
Did God also make every other animal in his image (an image which will one day be acheived through evolution), or are they doomed to never recieve consciousness? If not, then why not?
Doesn't this theory go against the idea of original sin? The idea which explains why we were cast out of the garden in the first place?
Or was it a metaphorical garden?

reply posted on 19-12-2008 @ 02:02 PM by nouse35

Hmmm I find this evolution information interesting. I've always believed in God but had interest in the theory of evolution. The poster gave an incredible amount of scientific information but if you can get past the intelligent words and scientific rantings there's still holes in the theory.

First of all....the poster describes creationists as dellusional and dumbs down the belief in a creator by saying he has "super powers". That it's so hard to believe in a creator with no beginning or end......but scientists say that the universe had no beginning and no end. Why is that different?

"scientists" can only explain so much. For example....the poster explains all the elements involved in the "accidental" creation of the earth but fails to explain the origin of the elements he says came together to form them.

To suggest that things just started appearing out of nonethingness is even more dellusional than to think someone created them! And when I say "things" I mean the building blocks of life and earth which the poster forgets to explain the origin of in his post. And to think that after mass and cells just start popping up out of thin air and forms the vastly complex and balanced world that we live in is insanely improbable.

And the one thing that bothers me the most is that if you ask them how life came to be not a single one of them can tell you exactly how it happened.....and yet we're supposed to believe that they're somehow more enlightened than we are because they have this "theory" that darwin himself admitted to making up. All the fossils in the world is not going to give you a conclusive answer since there will always be missing links between certain species. And does this theory suggest that in a million years we'll be accompanied by other forms of intelligent life? i.e. advanced chimps or dolphins? I'll venture to say that's highly unlikely.

reply posted on 19-12-2008 @ 02:10 PM by spy66

Originally posted by TruthParadox

Originally posted by centrifugal
Two common arguments among creationists(christians) are that
A) Satan created the fossils to deceive us, making them appear to be aged

Which is an assumption.

Originally posted by centrifugal
B) The timeline in the bible is not to be taken literally, and that God allowed for evolution to occur. In this case evolution would support creationism. According to Genesis God created all forms of life in the same order that evolution describes.

There are still some major flaws/questions with this theory...
When does man evolve 'enough' to get the choice of heaven or hell?
At what point of the millions of years of evolution does God say "Ok, you've evolved enough to have a soul and have the choice of Heaven or Hell"?
The Bible says that God made man in his image... At what stage of man's evolution is this image reflected? What about when we evolve past that 'image'?
In Genesis, it says that God made Adam and then made Eve. If God worked through evolution, then how could man have evolved without a female counterpart? Or is all of Genesis a lie?
Did God also make every other animal in his image (an image which will one day be acheived through evolution), or are they doomed to never recieve consciousness? If not, then why not?
Doesn't this theory go against the idea of original sin? The idea which explains why we were cast out of the garden in the first place?
Or was it a metaphorical garden?

God made us in his image?
Well first of all we humans gave God a name therefor we image God as a human.
Maybe that's the first clue.

What image dose God really mean? I dont think it has to do with what we look like.
But its more about whats inside of us like our soul and spirit.

reply posted on 19-12-2008 @ 02:58 PM by Lasheic

reply to post by John Matrix

If we were to write down the information coded in DNA, then we would have to compile a giant library consisting of 900 volumes of 500 pages each. But the information this enormous library would hold is encoded inside the DNA molecules in the cell nucleus, which is far smaller than the 1/100th-of-a-millimeter-long cell itself.

To put this in perspective. The entire human genome, digitized, would take up approximately 700mb. That's smaller than the size of a CD. Smaller than the size of Windows XP. If you just record the differences between individuals, the part of the DNA which makes you unique from every other human on earth, the amount of data necessary would be about 4mb. That's about the size of an MP3 file.

I love how creationists try to take impressive numbers, and then use wording that artificially inflates those numbers by impression - to make you think they're much bigger than they are. Then rant and rave about all the speculated impossibilities supposedly inherent in such large bodies of data.

Evolution is a conspiracy and a fraud.

Logically, the conspiracy would lie with certain religious institutions. The more people involved in keeping a secret will increase the likelyhood of that secret being revealed exponentially. If there is a conspiracy regarding evolution vs. creationism, one would expect from the conspiracy side many dissenting voices who hold up evidence and demonstrable truth in the face of this lie. The position with the larger body of support, with a preponderance of evidence, and the least dissenting voices is least likely to be the one perpetuating the conspiracy or hoax. It's most likely to be the position which has less supporters (less to give away the secret), with little to no evidence (which the natural world would refute), and the most dissenting voices (those who are willing to tell the truth and apt to not keep a secret).

In these terms, which position seems to be the conspiracy and hoax? The Evolution position - which has many orders more researchers, teachers, and other proponents. Or the Creation position which has comparatively few researchers, scant promoters, and almost no scientific publication.

In these terms, which position seems to be the conspiracy and hoax? The Evolution position which is completely synchronous across thousands of professionals with practical applications in the field and plenty of supporting evidence. Or the Creation position with multiple contradictory interpretations of the data (YEC, OEC, Fundies, Moderates, etc), no real consensus on terms and verification, no practical applications, and no real scientific publication.

In these terms, which position seems to be the conspiracy and hoax? The Evolution position which is supported and endorsed by practically the entirety of sciences, even across multiple differing fields, teachers, politicians, and even the Roman Catholic and Anglican churches? Or the Creationists who hold precious few politicians, comparitively no scientists or professionals, a handful of educators, and not even the entirety of the religious communities even among their own denominations.

In these terms, which position seems to be the conspiracy and hoax? The Evolution position which has a mountain of evidence to support it, and can make it's case on it's own merit. Or the Creationist position which has no evidence to support it, and can exist SOLELY on the proposition of debasing Evolution. Creationism never has contradictory evidence, only differing "interpretations" and attacks on the theory of Evolution.

To any reasonable person, I would think, Creationism would be revealed to be the hoax - because reality does not support it, and the logistics of the size of a conspiracy needed to cover up reality would not be anywhere near as consistent as it is considering the sheer amount of people involved. Creationism, however, has no solid positions supported by physical evidence and leads to an abundance of multiple differing positions and a house of cards without a solid foundation in reality.

Money is heavily weighted on both sides of the equations. Especially since some of the most vigorous proponents of Creationism are the Evangelical mega-church preachers who dupe their flock into buying books, media, music, talks, and (of course) sequestering donations for the sake of Jesus having his own personal theme park and satellite network so "his" ministry can propagate across the world.

[edit on 19-12-2008 by Lasheic]

reply posted on 19-12-2008 @ 03:16 PM by Yoda411

Originally posted by ALLis0NE
LOL, NATURE IS GOD!!!!!

There is no difference. Read this again, GOD IS THE ENERGY INSIDE EVERY SUB-ATOMIC PARTICLE. Those sub-atomic particles created water, dirt, air, everything you see, ALL OF NATURE. That is why they say God is all powerful, and everywhere at all times. God literally IS power/electrical/energy.

Once again this demonstrates that the creationist argument is; we don't know therefor it is supernatural.

Just because the current human intellect has not discovered all of the answers to sub-atomic particles does not mean they are representative of God. It merely shows sub-atomic particles are the future of scientific investigation.

If we were less technologically sophisticated as a culture and did not understand how we derive our own energy as a living organism we would also call this God.

reply posted on 19-12-2008 @ 04:01 PM by ALLis0NE

reply to post by Yoda411

Your problem is that whenever you see/hear the word "God" you automatically think it is some "excuse" for something "unexplained".

However, I am not of that type. I came to the conclusion of God with purely logical reasoning.

First thing you need to do, is clarify your exact definition for a God. Obviously since you are debating about a God, you MUST have some type of definition for 0ne.

My definition of God is as follows:

Is all powerful
Is all knowing
Is everywhere at all times
Is responsible for creating everything
Is immortal

Now, scientifically, if I had to find something that was similar to God, it would probably be "energy", or "electromagnetism".

Why?

Well because all light, and all matter, and all electricity, is electromagnetic. Without electromagnetism, the hydrogen atom would not exists because the proton and electron used to create it would not be attracted to each other. If hydrogen didn't exist, then about 75% of the mass in the entire universe wouldn't exist. Including stars, the Sun, water, YOU (made of 70% h2o), the Earth, actually NOTHING PHYSICAL WOULD EXIST WITHOUT ELECTROMAGNETISM. NONE OF THE ELEMENTS IN THE PERIODIC TABLE WOULD EXIST.

So, electromagnetism "is responsible for creating everything". It is my father, my mother, my creator.

Oh, electromagnetism is energy, and according to science, energy can NOT be created or destroyed. So, electromagnetism "is immortal".

Since electromagnetism is responsible for almost every actions we do in daily life, and every physical object is made of electromagnetic particles, it is pretty obvious that electromagnetism "is everywhere at all times."

Since an "electric charge" creates a "electromagnetic field", and electricity can not be made without a magnetic field, and electricity can be used for work, and to power things, its safe to say that electromagnetism and electricity (imo the same thing) "is all powerful".

Now I could explain how the entire universe acts like a huge storage hard drive. Or I could explain how the entire universe and all the particles in it can work together to create a functional brain. Or I could tell you how all physical objects in the universe leave a "footprint" behind of their existence, no matter what. In, the end, I could just say that the actual word "knowledge" would not have been invented by man, if it wasn't for the energy and electromagnetism around us.

There are many examples I can give you that would explain how energy and electromagnetism can actually "know", but the easiest of them all is your own brain, which works off of electrical energy, and electromagnetism, between elements. This is why I truly believe that energy and electromagnetism can be considered "all knowing.".

-----

So you see, God is not only an excuse for people who can't explain things, it is also a definition of a force that CAN be explained by science.

[edit on 19-12-2008 by ALLis0NE]