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.

 

Don't let them tell you that "The Theory of Evolution" is a fact.

page: 22
14
<< 19  20  21    23  24  25 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 8 2009 @ 08:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by ravenshadow13
reply to post by melatonin
 


Oh you're right. My bad. A theory is a hypothesis that has been repeatedly tested and shown the same result. Mm. I don't think miracles count towards that.

I meant, personally, religion could be a theory as in, hey it COULD be true type of theory. Not scientific theory.


Yup, it is a theory in the non-scientific sense of being a conjecture. But it doesn't make even the level of scientific hypothesis - it would have to be testable and falsifiable.

'Some unknown probably unknowable thing, did something, via some unknown method, for some unknown reason' isn't really conducive to science, lol.

It explains everything and therefore nothing. Essentially worthless.




posted on Mar, 8 2009 @ 08:57 PM
link   
reply to post by melatonin
 


It would be so much easier if we COULD just test it somehow. But what kind of experiment could you draft for creationism? Pray and hope it works? Or like... say that because creation already occurred it cannot happen again?

I do apologize again I was not thinking scientific definition I was thinking of the connotation of the word "theory"



posted on Mar, 8 2009 @ 09:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by ravenshadow13
reply to post by melatonin
 


It would be so much easier if we COULD just test it somehow. But what kind of experiment could you draft for creationism? Pray and hope it works? Or like... say that because creation already occurred it cannot happen again?


Yeah, probably true. The problem is that the way they formulate the notion of ID is essentially as a negative argument against evolution. Hence, irreducible complexity - too complex for evolution, therefore design - is no more than an attempted argument from ignorance.


I do apologize again I was not thinking scientific definition I was thinking of the connotation of the word "theory"


No worries.



posted on Mar, 8 2009 @ 09:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by ravenshadow13
reply to post by melatonin
 


It would be so much easier if we COULD just test it somehow. But what kind of experiment could you draft for creationism? Pray and hope it works? Or like... say that because creation already occurred it cannot happen again?

I do apologize again I was not thinking scientific definition I was thinking of the connotation of the word "theory"


Any draft of an experiment to study Abiogenesis would do.

Can Abiogenesis happen again?



posted on Mar, 8 2009 @ 09:37 PM
link   
reply to post by B.A.C.
 



Originally posted by B.A.C.

I can PROVE that "The Theory of Evolution" is NOT a fact.

[edit on 6-3-2009 by B.A.C.]


Well of course a theory is not a fact. A theory is made of A LOT of facts but does not BECOME one.

No matter how set, as with the theory of gravity, there is always room to amend one of the subsections of the theory in a way that would better explain the observed facts. We thought we had a complete theory of gravity with Newton until Einstein. If we actually find a graviton particle or a way to unify gravity with radiation, we'll have a HUGE new chapter in that theory. But explaining mutual mass attraction is a factual way of dealing with stuff falling in a way that other explanations would not be.

Similarly, saying evolution and natural section are facts may be TECHNICALLY wrong, but they are factual ways of dealing with all the real facts (fossils, geologic stratification, DNA) while other explanations are just myth and guesswork. We still argue issues like whether birds came from dinosaurs or were wiped out by a meteor, but that they lived a LONG time ago and evolved pretty much CAN be considered a fact. Plus, we do observe evolution in microorganisms in real time.

So play your word games, a theory is not a fact, yet in a layman's debate we really CAN say that the process of evolution is as factually based as the electricity in the computer in front of you.



posted on Mar, 8 2009 @ 09:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by B.A.C.


Any draft of an experiment to study Abiogenesis would do.

Can Abiogenesis happen again?


The problem is that the chemistry of the earth's atmosphere has changed (and I believe this is something we consider more fact than theory based on the chemistry of deep rocks). The very presence of life has changed that chemistry which would likely allow for abiogenisis. Even IF it were possible for it to occur again in the current atmosphere, the chances of advanced life eating or in some other way crowding out the new form make it highly unlikely to be seen again in anything but a laboratory.

This is an area we may always, have to do with theory based on limited experiments, because we don't know if a single tidepool somehow developed into DNA and a cell or if it took the mixing of stuff across a whole ocean. But there HAVE been limited experiments that have shown some interesting results.



posted on Mar, 8 2009 @ 09:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by TrevorALan

Originally posted by B.A.C.
Any draft of an experiment to study Abiogenesis would do.

Can Abiogenesis happen again?


...


The real answer to the point is that it would actually not be a test of intelligent design. Any attempt to infer from a negative result for a natural process to intelligent design is no more than an argument from ignorance.

The experiment would have to be formulated as a test of ID, not natural abiogenesis. For example, testing to see if amino acids do x under certain conditions is not a test of ID. If the result is positive it would not falsify ID, if it's negative it wouldn't be 'proof' positive of ID. 'Testing' ID is like testing a amorphous ghoul.

We'd have to test every single possibile mechanism under every single condition, (essentially possess omniscience) to make the leap from a negative result for naturalism to ID.

[edit on 8-3-2009 by melatonin]



posted on Mar, 8 2009 @ 11:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by TrevorALan

No matter how set, as with the theory of gravity, there is always room to amend one of the subsections of the theory in a way that would better explain the observed facts. We thought we had a complete theory of gravity with Newton until Einstein. If we actually find a graviton particle or a way to unify gravity with radiation, we'll have a HUGE new chapter in that theory. But explaining mutual mass attraction is a factual way of dealing with stuff falling in a way that other explanations would not be.

Similarly, saying evolution and natural section are facts may be TECHNICALLY wrong, but they are factual ways of dealing with all the real facts (fossils, geologic stratification, DNA) while other explanations are just myth and guesswork. We still argue issues like whether birds came from dinosaurs or were wiped out by a meteor, but that they lived a LONG time ago and evolved pretty much CAN be considered a fact. Plus, we do observe evolution in microorganisms in real time.

So play your word games, a theory is not a fact, yet in a layman's debate we really CAN say that the process of evolution is as factually based as the electricity in the computer in front of you.


I would say there is a sizable difference in the theory of gravitation: (physics) the theory that any two particles of matter attract one another with a force directly proportional to the product ...

And the theory of evolution. Especially when applied to the Macro scale.
That difference is observation. As you have stated, we have observed the evolution of microorganisms in real time. But that is a FAR cry from the claims made by most evolutionists. In fact, the reason we have witnessed the "evolution" of creatures on this scale is because for them to "evolve" requires very little genectic variation. Its just easier, and thus more likley. I believe that the more complex an creature is, the more difficult it would be for them to proressively evolve by only natural means.

We've seen bacteria and the like evolve, but the never become more than that. We've seen some evolution of higher life forms from mutation, but we still never see those progress to anything new. Most often we see that creatures that change via mutation either A) revert to form, in subsequent generations or B) are simply not well "designed" for survival. So I don't know that literal interpertation of the genesis account that God created each animal according to its "kind" is ever contradicted from observation. We've simply never seen any one "kind" of animal evolve into another "kind" of animal.

I don't think we can list any observations in support of the kinds of evolution that is necessary to explain the current life on our planet.
While we can see that evolution is a "possible" explaination from looking at these micro organisms, its FAR different thing al together to suggest that evolutons is the LIKLEY means by which we have the variation of Life we do today.

If a person presumes naturalism it makes perfect sense for that person to conclude that natural evolution/abiogenesis is the means by which all life came to be. After all, even if there is no conclusive observations made to verify it, what other process are we to conclude? In fact, "Once you eliminate the impossible. Whatever is left, no matter how unprobable, must be true". In this case, any supernatural cause is initially eliminated. We are left with no choice but to accept the only scientifically acceptable conclusion that is left to us, no matter how improbable it must be.

In conclusion, I can certianly see the scientific reasons for believing that evolution is the explaination for life as we know it. I also, see that Theistic evolution must be rejected if one presumes a stance of total naturalism. Just don't make the mistake of assuming that scientists and others don't begin with some presumptions.



posted on Mar, 8 2009 @ 11:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by melatonin
The real answer to the point is that it would actually not be a test of intelligent design. Any attempt to infer from a negative result for a natural process to intelligent design is no more than an argument from ignorance.

The experiment would have to be formulated as a test of ID, not natural abiogenesis. For example, testing to see if amino acids do x under certain conditions is not a test of ID. If the result is positive it would not falsify ID, if it's negative it wouldn't be 'proof' positive of ID. 'Testing' ID is like testing a amorphous ghoul.

We'd have to test every single possibile mechanism under every single condition, (essentially possess omniscience) to make the leap from a negative result for naturalism to ID.

[edit on 8-3-2009 by melatonin]


We could get an award winning scientist, an average joe, a normal 6 year kid, an autistic child, and a self contained worldwind all to sit down in seperate rooms. We give them each a set of random numbers and letters and ask them to arrange those in the most complex yet ordered pattern possible. What do you expect the results to be? I think you would agree that the one with the most intelligence would produce the most complexity and order. The least intelligent would likley produce the least ordered and complex.
Now, its fairly clear that our universe is ordered and complex. Its also fairly clear that life is ordered and complex. We can assume from observation that intelligence is needed for order and complexity. SETI uses this very criteria when searching for signals sent from intelligent life.
The naturalist will object on the basis of occums razor. Demanding that the theist must now find an explaination for that intelligence. However, this does not remove the naturalist from the same dillema. The theist is left to explain where God comes from. The naturalist is left to explain where nature comes from. Any honest thinker knows that it is impossible for either side to provide a conclusion. Ultimatley neither side will be able to answer where thier "ultimate cause" comes from. (the theist likley will not bother to try beyond this point, as he/she recognizes it as the ULTIMATE cause)
At this point, both sides are at a stalemate. Each left with an impossible explaination. No one "impossible" concept is anymore "impossible"
than another. Each side is left with no prior explaination to an ULTIMATE CAUSE (for if there is a prior explaination, that cause would not be "ULTIMATE") .
So now we can apply occums razor, (perhaps somewhat reverse engineered). Which philosophy then best explains the universe as it currently is? Is it the more simlple solution that order arises out of random chaos, or is the more simple solution that order arises out of intelligence?
For the record, I am not totally opposed to evolution, but I feel that if evolution actually worked on a macro scale, it was most likley directed by intelligence.



posted on Mar, 9 2009 @ 02:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by ravenshadow13

It would be so much easier if we COULD just test it somehow. But what kind of experiment could you draft for creationism?
there isnt one whih is why its not sience


Pray and hope it works?
thats been tested the results in most of the studies have been that nothing what so ever happens unless a religeous person knwos they are bieng prayed for and know its an experiment which leads to a slight drop in results ... performance anxiety they were so desperate to show a posative result the unconcious stress of showing it had negative effects on thier recovery

ive also seen a coin flip prayer test based on the bibles descritpions of pray and the ultimate outcome being so statistically probable (1:36) that even if you gain that result its no where near a statistical imporbability it will convince others unless they already want to ....... results again just fit right ito the statitical norm



[edit on 9/3/09 by noobfun]



posted on Mar, 9 2009 @ 03:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by hulkbacker
The theist is left to explain where God comes from. The naturalist is left to explain where nature comes from. Any honest thinker knows that it is impossible for either side to provide a conclusion. Ultimately neither side will be able to answer where their "ultimate cause" comes from. (the theist likely will not bother to try beyond this point, as he/she recognizes it as the ULTIMATE cause).


But, there is a little problem there...

Nature does not need an ULTIMATE or FIRST cause.

From the scientific point of view, infinite causality chain is as acceptable as finite one. Nothing contradicts it


Ultimate cause is only necessary when you try to fit concept of God in



posted on Mar, 9 2009 @ 05:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by hulkbacker
Now, its fairly clear that our universe is ordered and complex. Its also fairly clear that life is ordered and complex. We can assume from observation that intelligence is needed for order and complexity.
well you can asume but well just point and laugh

snowflakes are complex and ordered ... are they intelligent?

infact ALL crystals naturally selfform into complex and ordered structures .. shall we see how one does in an IQ test?

so i there a crystal making ID/god that piece together all these little complex water crystals and sprinkles them down?

put strata of differing mass and size into a bottle fill with water cap it of and flip the bottle ... instantly formed complex and ordered banding appears ... is rock+water the equation for intelligence science has been searching for?

tip oil in to a half full glas of water and as if by magic they form a well orderd horizontal divide that is complex enough to always stay at the horizontal if you tilt the glass

the assumption is faulty ..throw it out and try another


SETI uses this very criteria when searching for signals sent from intelligent life.
The naturalist will object on the basis of occums razor.
really you should try talking to a few and asking them

why on earth would we object to someone making first contact, probability states there almost certainly life out there somewhere and theres a reasonable chance some of that is inteligent

why would we object to the anthropic principle and the drake equation ... we practically love the thing


Demanding that the theist must now find an explaination for that intelligence.
trust me when we start demnanding acurate explenations of natural occurance from theology .... grab your bible buddy hells just froze over and jesus and satan just woke up in bed together after a drunken night out turned into a man love night in


However, this does not remove the naturalist from the same dillema.
sorry what dilema? that life outside the earth may exist,
drake equation as stated says its almost guaranteed to be there somewhere ..... unless you think naturalit have some object fear of probability and statistics working?

thats only a dilema if you think the univere and earth and everything else was made especially for us as were so great and were the special ones.. fidning life else where would imply it want made just for us and were not the most special anymore

find me a naturalist saying earth the universe and everything was made esepcially for us as were the most special and youll be showing me someone that doesnt know what the term natiuralist means so doesnt realise they are using it wrong when refering to them selves


At this point, both sides are at a stalemate
no not a talemate just us lot stood around wondering if you realsie starting from faulty assumptions and jumping to even larger ones means your going to end up no where near a rational or reasonable conclusion

p.s. that want occams razor that was yahweh sheep shears you were trying to cut things up with

while saying god/super intelligent space monkies did it is a simplistic answer

by occam razor it really isnt a simple one because every detail required to formulate a god/super intelligent space monkies that is capable of doing what your suggesting is another assumption

we dont have to asume nature exists it does so any speculation on where it come from has a foundation

you have to assume god/super intelligent space monkies capable of creating the universe life or what ever your claiming, thier existance is an assumption and everything following it is an asumption

stack the two up side by side

naturalistic view
nature - assumption - assumption - assumption

god/super intelligent space monkies view
assumption - assumption - assumption -assumption

now use occams to cut away those pesky uneccessary assumptions

naturalistic view
nature

god/super intelligent space monkies view
.....


they have this stuff pegged in teh far east i want me one of these


[edit on 9/3/09 by noobfun]



posted on Mar, 9 2009 @ 07:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by 5thElement

Originally posted by hulkbacker
The theist is left to explain where God comes from. The naturalist is left to explain where nature comes from. Any honest thinker knows that it is impossible for either side to provide a conclusion. Ultimately neither side will be able to answer where their "ultimate cause" comes from. (the theist likely will not bother to try beyond this point, as he/she recognizes it as the ULTIMATE cause).


But, there is a little problem there...

Nature does not need an ULTIMATE or FIRST cause.

From the scientific point of view, infinite causality chain is as acceptable as finite one. Nothing contradicts it


Ultimate cause is only necessary when you try to fit concept of God in


why do we have a universe as opposed no existence at all?



posted on Mar, 9 2009 @ 07:38 AM
link   


why do we have a universe as opposed no existence at all?


Because a Christian god created it some 6000 years ago so he could kill lots of humans so that he could send himself here to die so he could love all humans who believed in him and send all the ones that didn't to Hell. I mean isn't it obvious?

Do you seriously expect to find a reasonable answer for your question?

We have the Universe, because given enough time everything that can happen, will happen.

[edit on 9-3-2009 by iWork4NWO]



posted on Mar, 9 2009 @ 09:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by hulkbacker
Now, its fairly clear that our universe is ordered and complex. Its also fairly clear that life is ordered and complex. We can assume from observation that intelligence is needed for order and complexity. SETI uses this very criteria when searching for signals sent from intelligent life.
The naturalist will object on the basis of occums razor. Demanding that the theist must now find an explaination for that intelligence. However, this does not remove the naturalist from the same dillema. The theist is left to explain where God comes from. The naturalist is left to explain where nature comes from. Any honest thinker knows that it is impossible for either side to provide a conclusion. Ultimatley neither side will be able to answer where thier "ultimate cause" comes from. (the theist likley will not bother to try beyond this point, as he/she recognizes it as the ULTIMATE cause)
At this point, both sides are at a stalemate. Each left with an impossible explaination. No one "impossible" concept is anymore "impossible"
than another. Each side is left with no prior explaination to an ULTIMATE CAUSE (for if there is a prior explaination, that cause would not be "ULTIMATE") .
So now we can apply occums razor, (perhaps somewhat reverse engineered). Which philosophy then best explains the universe as it currently is? Is it the more simlple solution that order arises out of random chaos, or is the more simple solution that order arises out of intelligence?
For the record, I am not totally opposed to evolution, but I feel that if evolution actually worked on a macro scale, it was most likley directed by intelligence.


Yup you're right.

I would have to say we don't need science to logically conclude that order does not arise out of chaos. Therefore order created order.

The infinite chain of causality doesn't apply to life formation. If it did, Abiogenesis and Evolution would be the same field of study.

We don't have to say that the design is intelligent, only it's designer. Which is sometimes apparent.

Excellent points!

[edit on 9-3-2009 by B.A.C.]



posted on Mar, 9 2009 @ 09:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by hulkbacker
We could get an award winning scientist, an average joe, a normal 6 year kid, an autistic child, and a self contained worldwind all to sit down in seperate rooms. We give them each a set of random numbers and letters and ask them to arrange those in the most complex yet ordered pattern possible. What do you expect the results to be? I think you would agree that the one with the most intelligence would produce the most complexity and order. The least intelligent would likley produce the least ordered and complex.
Now, its fairly clear that our universe is ordered and complex. Its also fairly clear that life is ordered and complex. We can assume from observation that intelligence is needed for order and complexity. SETI uses this very criteria when searching for signals sent from intelligent life.


Nope, sorry, we see order and complexity from natural causes.

And SETI is looking for simple signals.


In fact, the signals actually sought by today’s SETI searches are not complex, as the ID advocates assume. We’re not looking for intricately coded messages, mathematical series, or even the aliens’ version of “I Love Lucy.” Our instruments are largely insensitive to the modulation – or message – that might be conveyed by an extraterrestrial broadcast. A SETI radio signal of the type we could actually find would be a persistent, narrow-band whistle. Such a simple phenomenon appears to lack just about any degree of structure, although if it originates on a planet, we should see periodic Doppler effects as the world bearing the transmitter rotates and orbits.

www.seti-inst.edu...

Cheers.

[edit on 9-3-2009 by melatonin]



posted on Mar, 9 2009 @ 09:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by noobfun

why on earth would we object to someone making first contact, probability states there almost certainly life out there somewhere and theres a reasonable chance some of that is inteligent



why would we object to the anthropic principle and the drake equation ... we practically love the thing



sorry what dilema? that life outside the earth may exist,
drake equation as stated says its almost guaranteed to be there somewhere ..... unless you think naturalit have some object fear of probability and statistics working?


SETI Institute


The equation is usually written:

N = R* • fp • ne • fl • fi • fc • L


Sounds scientific right? Well lets put in what each variable is huh


N = The number of civilizations in The Milky Way Galaxy whose electromagnetic emissions are detectable.
R* =The rate of formation of stars suitable for the development of intelligent life.
fp = The fraction of those stars with planetary systems.
ne = The number of planets, per solar system, with an environment suitable for life.
fl = The fraction of suitable planets on which life actually appears.
fi = The fraction of life bearing planets on which intelligent life emerges.
fc = The fraction of civilizations that develop a technology that releases detectable signs of their existence into space.
L = The length of time such civilizations release detectable signals into space.


Oops… EVERY single variable requires ASSUMPTIONS. Not one- EVERY one!


no not a talemate just us lot stood around wondering if you realsie starting from faulty assumptions and jumping to even larger ones means your going to end up no where near a rational or reasonable conclusion


Couldn’t agree more.. pity you don’t follow the same edict. And SETI, the place you pay such high esteem too;


Besides illuminating the factors involved in such a search, the Drake Equation is a simple, effective tool for stimulating intellectual curiosity about the universe around us, for helping us to understand that life as we know it is the end product of a natural, cosmic evolution, and for making us realize how much we are a part of that universe. A key goal of the SETI Institute is to further high quality research that will yield additional information related to any of the factors of this fascinating equation.


LMAO… so what you are saying after all the postulating you do about assumptions is that it is fine for evolutionists to use bogus unreliable assumption laden methods to further your cause… but not anyone else?

This is classic of an Evo showing supposed ‘good’ evidence to support their stance… but Noob has only proven how dodgy his sources are. Assumptions, assumption, unreliable, invalid.. LMAO

LOL… good one Noob… thanks for giving me a thigh slapping laugh


So according to your own rhetoric…


…starting from faulty assumptions and jumping to even larger ones means your going to end up no where near a rational or reasonable conclusion


Thanks for that




[edit on 9-3-2009 by Fundie]

[edit on 9-3-2009 by Fundie]



posted on Mar, 9 2009 @ 09:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by melatonin

Nope, sorry, we see order and complexity from natural causes.

And SETI is looking for simple signals.



If a Causer created Nature then we would observe what you describe. Fit's perfectly.

Why "Causer"? Not sure, I like that term now...hehe

SETI is good information or lack of information for Creationists/ID'ers.



posted on Mar, 9 2009 @ 09:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by B.A.C.
If a Causer created Nature then we would observe what you describe. Fit's perfectly.

Why "Causer"? Not sure, I like that term now...hehe

SETI is good information or lack of information for Creationists/ID'ers.


The problem is that SETI is nothing like the escapades of IDers. They try to raise it as an example, but it's nothing like SETI.

A 'causer' isn't a bad term - it leaves open natural and supernatural, I guess, but the 'created' does imply teleology and intention. The problem is that your sort of amorphous supernatural causer could explain any eventuality - absolutely anything, and is therefore pretty vacuous.

However, it isn't impossible for the 'cause' of nature to be a noncaused/random event - I think Hawking went down this route with his wave thing (can't remember the name) - a stuff happens sort of possibility. Not very endearing, of course.

[edit on 9-3-2009 by melatonin]



posted on Mar, 9 2009 @ 09:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by B.A.C.
SETI is good information or lack of information for Creationists/ID'ers.


Works better for Destroyists. Intelligent life evolves on lots of planets, but an evil race of aliens is out there to get it. The lack of observed signals pretty much proves it.

[edit on 9-3-2009 by iWork4NWO]



new topics

top topics



 
14
<< 19  20  21    23  24  25 >>

log in

join