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.

 

what is the difference ???

page: 2
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 19 2009 @ 09:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by pdpayne0418
The evolution of a complex eye is something creationists (and I include intelligent design proponents in that category) latch onto with fervor.


yes that would be correct. evidence of design would be "latched" on by proponents of design.


Evolution shows that simple eye systems, being better than nothing at all, gradually evolved into more complex system.


where does evolution show this? show me 1 evolutionary line that clearly shows the eye developing....

you cant. you can show me several eyes in "various stages of development" but none of them evolved from any related lines.

and it still needs to be answered how bony fish had complex eyes from the beginning way back in the cambrian "expolosion", even before the nautilus had his "less developed" pinhole eye! (which he STILL has btw)


Another problem is that though evolutionists have massive amounts of fossil evidence for transitional forms (see Transitional Fossils), the number of fossils yet to be found is surely higher than the number already found. Be patient. Evolutionary science is a work in progress, and there's absolutely no need to jump on the "God did it" bandwagon just to fill in supposed gaps.


yes, im familiar with "transitional forms". but i disagree with the interpretation.

i say interpretation because thats what it is. they are connecting these fossils because they look alike, which isnt proof, its speculation. any honest hearted scientist will admit that. thats why things are constantly being readjusted, they make a connection but then find a fossil that lived in a time it shouldnt have. thats one of the details that fuels the whole neaderthal debate.

basically, evolution's "evidence" is pure conjecture. yes it is a work in progress, but it seems like every time they make progress, they have to rethink the basics which usually happens when you are shoveing the round peg in the square hole.


All the evidence we have points toward evolution working over time through natural selection. Whether you like it or not, it's the best explanation we have.


its the only explanation you have, and thats because you refuse to admit the obvious which is design.

we imitate nature because of its amazing design. the dragon flies wings helped with helicoptor design. yet the dragonfly has been there since the beginning! whole and complete.

protodonata suddenly appears. like a dragonfly, but alot bigger. scientists need to place this fossil somewhere, so they claim that its a transitional between palaeodictyoptera and odontata except besides some superficial similiarities like 4 wings, 6 legs and 3 segments, protodonata looks nothing like palaeodictyoptera!

its like saying a koala has 2 arms, 2 legs and a ., therefore its related to humans!

sorry, thats not evidence


Please watch Foundational Falsehood of Creationism before replying. It will be obvious if you do not, and if you don't, you can keep posting of course, but I will withhold further comment.


would love to, but i have no sound on this computer. so you may be waiting a few days till i get back


By the way, using the sentence, "Fine, then, prove it" makes you sound like a 12 year old, which for all I know, you may be.


trying to insult me personally doesnt change the fact that you didnt prove it. you simply said what you were saying... again.




posted on Aug, 19 2009 @ 10:27 AM
link   
reply to post by miriam0566
 


Just because we live in a universe that seems to be designed does not make it so. And just because we have evolved on this earth during the time period we have, does not make the universe fine-tuned.

Our earth is spiraling towards the sun, albeit slowly, and eventually will be fried. Some design, eh? The other planets do not have sentient life. Why just ours? Anyone who knows anything about the violence and disorder of the universe knows that the "Intelligent Design" thesis falls on its ear when taking the entire universe and 13.8 billion years into consideration.

Try to see beyond your anthropic lenses to the wider picture that there really is no order, only seeming order due to our minute time-frame on this earth and our tendency to personify natural processes.

Peace,
Daniel



posted on Aug, 19 2009 @ 11:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by pdpayne0418
Just because we live in a universe that seems to be designed does not make it so. And just because we have evolved on this earth during the time period we have, does not make the universe fine-tuned.

Our earth is spiraling towards the sun, albeit slowly, and eventually will be fried. Some design, eh? The other planets do not have sentient life. Why just ours? Anyone who knows anything about the violence and disorder of the universe knows that the "Intelligent Design" thesis falls on its ear when taking the entire universe and 13.8 billion years into consideration.

Try to see beyond your anthropic lenses to the wider picture that there really is no order, only seeming order due to our minute time-frame on this earth and our tendency to personify natural processes.


according to your argument, it seems you wouldnt be able to tell the difference between a laptop and a rock on the ground.

its all just "seeming" order to you.

the fact is, design is obvious. its not something you even need to think about. even when an artist makes an abstract statue that resembles nothing you have ever seen before, we're never sitting there wondering "was it formed naturally?"

to fight the shear blatant obviousness of design, theorists have to form things like complexity theory, or emergence just so that they can sleep at night without their .s popping from the contradictions they create.

if it is impossible for random unrefined metal to suddenly form into a fully operational and charged watch, then why is it possible for random chemicals to spontaneously form a single celled organism that is in-arguably many times more complex?

why does one theory earn you respect and grant money while the other earns you a trip to the looney bin??



posted on Aug, 19 2009 @ 12:14 PM
link   
reply to post by miriam0566
 


One theory earns respect over others because the evidence points to that theory. I think I am finished "dialoguing" with you, but feel free to continue without me.

Peace,
Daniel



posted on Aug, 19 2009 @ 12:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by pdpayne0418
One theory earns respect over others because the evidence points to that theory.


except in this case it doesnt does it?

evidence says life appeared. before there wasnt life, now there is. the only reason that randomness is accepted is because its assumed that god/aliens/whatever had nothing to do with the process.

basing an entire theory on an assumption is not very scientific is it?



posted on Aug, 19 2009 @ 01:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by pdpayne0418
reply to post by badmedia
 


I think you could have shortened your post to, "DNA does what it does." The rest of your post is a metaphysical position that simply cannot be proven, at least not with the current tools of science.


Sure it can be proven in the current tools of science. All you need to do is show me 2 different organisms that have the same DNA. Of course, that would completely undermine our entire understanding of DNA, but that is what you need to do.

It is pre-determined. You don't need evolution at all really, which modern genetics can show if/when they start creating new organisms out of dna.

I really got nothing against evolution, and I think that survival of the fittest is self apparent in nature and society. However, one can't simply ignore the fact that the organisms DNA creates is already predetermined, and couldn't have produced anything other than what it does. Meaning, the real determining factor is outside the DNA itself, and the DNA is nothing more than a configuration file/information.



posted on Aug, 19 2009 @ 01:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by pdpayne0418
If you do not accept the premises of my first post to the OP, that's your business, but I think there is a huge difference between those who believe and those who do not. The difference lies in probabilities for the existence of God (as defined in the monotheistic religions), and there is no doubt the atheists have the upper hand.

Peace,
Daniel


Both are based on the acceptance of information handed down to them, where the only difference is what they accept as the "authority". As such, neither actually understands anything, and if you knew the bible you would know that real knowledge is understanding.

As such, neither side of that argument knows anything, just a bunch of repeaters.

Because these things are based on beliefs rather than real understanding, it's about like people who don't understand math arguing over what mathematical equations are correct. If they are right or wrong is based purely on chance/luck.

Being locked into either belief set is to simply put yourself in a box. Which ensures you will never gain any real understanding of things. Those who accept, as both these sides do, deprive themselves of understanding as rather than seeking real truth and understanding, they only seek to validate their pre-existing beliefs.




[edit on 8/19/2009 by badmedia]



posted on Aug, 19 2009 @ 01:36 PM
link   
reply to post by badmedia
 


I do not think you're saying anything that I fundamentally disagree with. I believe in the holographic paradigm of the universe as presented by David Bohm, so I have no problem saying the underlying, implicate order "determines" what enfolds in the "physical" world.

Peace,
Daniel



posted on Aug, 19 2009 @ 01:39 PM
link   
reply to post by badmedia
 


This post, on the other hand, I almost completely disagree with. You seem to be a fideist of the extreme order. Do you think it's possible to know anything? And as far as understanding the Bible is concerned, I am a seminary graduate and understand it fairly well I think. However, the Bible has nothing to do really with this conversation.

Peace,
Daniel



posted on Aug, 19 2009 @ 03:36 PM
link   
reply to post by pdpayne0418
 


Actually, the fact that you say you are a seminary graduate pretty much confirms to me that you don't understand it. There is but 1 true teacher, and you didn't find it there.

That you would even call me a "fideist" is absurd. I spend day after day talking about understanding instead of acceptance(blind faith).

At the end of the day, there are only 2 honest positions, and neither of them are theist or atheist. You are either truly agnostic, or you are gnostic. Gnostic is the ultimate goal, but agnostic is a step on the way(commonly referred to as becoming like a child).

"Any fool can know, the point is to understand" - Einstein.

Proverbs 9:6 Forsake the foolish, and live; and go in the way of understanding.



posted on Aug, 19 2009 @ 05:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by badmedia
reply to post by pdpayne0418
 


Actually, the fact that you say you are a seminary graduate pretty much confirms to me that you don't understand it. There is but 1 true teacher, and you didn't find it there.

That you would even call me a "fideist" is absurd. I spend day after day talking about understanding instead of acceptance(blind faith).

At the end of the day, there are only 2 honest positions, and neither of them are theist or atheist. You are either truly agnostic, or you are gnostic. Gnostic is the ultimate goal, but agnostic is a step on the way(commonly referred to as becoming like a child).

"Any fool can know, the point is to understand" - Einstein.

Proverbs 9:6 Forsake the foolish, and live; and go in the way of understanding.


First of all, Einstein would roll over in his grave if he knew you were using a quote of his in defense of gnostic "enlightenment."

What does one do when another throws out those who are supposed to be the experts in the exact fields they are studying? It's like saying, "Let's talk about a certain topic, but we MUST start from scratch." This just seems to me to be a pure yearning for ignorance.

Listen, just because you spend day after day talking about something doesn't mean you have the slightest clue what you're talking about. I do not believe in evolution because of blind faith, but because of the thousands of honest, brilliant scientists who've dedicated their lives to understanding the universe in which they live.

Fideism: a theory that holds faith and reason are hostile to one another, and that faith is superior for arriving at particular truths. You state, "there are only 2 honest positions [a much more fundamentalist position than I would ever take], agnosticism or gnosticism." Agnosticism is basically refusing to take a position based on the available evidence, and gnosticism is pretending to have special truth nobody else has, usually through means of hidden teachings. Only a fideist would then conclude that gnosticism is the final goal.

As I said in the conciliatory post you chose to ignore, I have no problem with there being things beyond our knowledge, things yet to be discovered and explained. But we are responsible for making the best of the information we have, and in holding tentative truths. That's all I claim to do. You, on the other hand, claim access to some pie in the sky, hidden gnosticism that can only be understood when you refuse to deal with the facts in front of you.

I must say I am sick and tired of so many posters on ATS and BTS treating experts in their fields (unless it happens to be UFOlogy) as dunces, and then going on to proclaim their own high-school level enlightenment. That, not studying certain disciplines for years in search of understanding, is evidence of arrogance. I have dedicated my life to understanding the Bible and religion, and I resent the fact that you, in one sentence, make generalizations about seminarians. Is that your gnostic enlightenment speaking, or simply your hatred of fact-based learning?

Peace,
Daniel

[edit on 19-8-2009 by pdpayne0418]



posted on Aug, 19 2009 @ 09:27 PM
link   
reply to post by drock905
 


There is a difference. This is a favorite and famous quote by acclaimed writer Fyodor Dostoyevsky in the book The Brother's Karamazov.


If God does not exist, then are all things permissible...


People that believe in God, believe they will be held accountable to a higher authority so they are more inclined to self control even when no one is looking.

People that don't believe in God only answer to themselves and are more inclined to hedonism because they delude themselves into believing that no one is looking. But of course God is looking.



Thus you will recognize them by their fruits. (mat 7:20)


Fruits of Atheism



posted on Aug, 20 2009 @ 07:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by Bigwhammy
reply to post by drock905
 


There is a difference. This is a favorite and famous quote by acclaimed writer Fyodor Dostoyevsky in the book The Brother's Karamazov.


If God does not exist, then are all things permissible...


People that believe in God, believe they will be held accountable to a higher authority so they are more inclined to self control even when no one is looking.

People that don't believe in God only answer to themselves and are more inclined to hedonism because they delude themselves into believing that no one is looking. But of course God is looking.



Thus you will recognize them by their fruits. (mat 7:20)


Fruits of Atheism


This is one of the weakest arguments for theism. The Southern US, one of the most fundamentalist Christian segments of society, have equal or higher crime, divorce and adultery rates than the rest of the US. Surprisingly for Christians, the liberal, more "godless" Northeast has some of the lowest divorce and adultery rates.

If you need a god to tell you to be moral, and are moral because you believe you will punished if you are not, then your morality is automatically called into question compared to those who are moral just because certain things are the right things to do. There does not need to be absolute morality for people to act morally.

That said, I do believe (as I've stated earlier) in the holographic paradigm of the universe, which basically states there is an underlying, implicate order of which we are all a part. Though I do not consider this underlying order to be synonymous with God, I do believe it provides a naturalistic foundation for the moral imperative, "do unto others as you would have them do unto you." In fact, in a very real sense, I believe what we do to others we are actually doing to ourselves.

Peace,
Daniel



posted on Aug, 20 2009 @ 04:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by pdpayne0418
First of all, Einstein would roll over in his grave if he knew you were using a quote of his in defense of gnostic "enlightenment."


You don't know that at all. What he is saying is there is a difference between someone who understands math(or the equation) and someone who is just repeating the statement. Repeating the statement "any fool" can do, but the point is to understand.

"Faith" is pushed off as "blind faith" more times than not, and blind faith is the result of accepting what someone or a book tells you to accept. That is just like someone who repeats E=MC2, but doesn't actually know what it means. And that is what mainstream Christianity is about, and that you went to seminary and had teachers tell you what it meant doesn't make you an expert on it, anymore than the Pharisees in the time of Jesus were. Oh sure, they could repeat the verses very well, but then it was "Now, let me show you what it means". Jesus speaks in parables in order to give understanding.

What Einstein could understand and what he could prove in math are 2 different things. As I just showed you, I think the quote is appropriate and true, and if Einstein has a problem with it, I'll take his name off and say it myself.



What does one do when another throws out those who are supposed to be the experts in the exact fields they are studying? It's like saying, "Let's talk about a certain topic, but we MUST start from scratch." This just seems to me to be a pure yearning for ignorance.


If you were the "expert" you claim to be then you would know there is only 1 true teacher, and one can only get real understanding from that source. You are telling me you learned about those things which stand at the path of the holy is learned from men on earth.

It's nothing to do about starting from scratch, it's about finding the real thing rather than accepting what men say. Even the bible says many times over that people can find god and so forth. But apparently, I am to believe this is instead the studying of a book among men? Nah.



Listen, just because you spend day after day talking about something doesn't mean you have the slightest clue what you're talking about. I do not believe in evolution because of blind faith, but because of the thousands of honest, brilliant scientists who've dedicated their lives to understanding the universe in which they live.


Why do you think I have a problem with Science? Theories are made by those who disagree with the current wisdom and look beyond it. This is how science is progressed.

And when it comes to DNA, the particular configuration has no choice but to yield the same organism each time. The study of genetics is really the reverse engineering of the configuration file of something that runs on a deeper code. To understand this, all you need to do is think of all the possible DNA configurations, rather than just those we've found etc. Nothing different than if we had completely mapped out DNA and made a book of all the creatures, a book of life. Throw them in together with survival of the fittest, and things will evolve and adapt over time. But there is no way around the fact that the organism each DNA configuration brings is already pre-determined.



Fideism: a theory that holds faith and reason are hostile to one another, and that faith is superior for arriving at particular truths. You state, "there are only 2 honest positions [a much more fundamentalist position than I would ever take], agnosticism or gnosticism." Agnosticism is basically refusing to take a position based on the available evidence, and gnosticism is pretending to have special truth nobody else has, usually through means of hidden teachings. Only a fideist would then conclude that gnosticism is the final goal.


You either know or you don't know. Beliefs are just beliefs. Right and wrong is simply a matter of chance. I personally find beliefs to be a bit foolish, but people with good hearts will be just fine anyway.

As well, gnosticism means "with knowledge", and the bible says to always see knowledge, and that real knowledge of the holy is understanding. Wisdom and understanding is also how the father rewards those who find him early. Proverbs 8 and 9 talk about this.



Proverbs 8

8All the words of my mouth are in righteousness; there is nothing froward or perverse in them.

9They are all plain to him that understandeth, and right to them that find knowledge.

10Receive my instruction, and not silver; and knowledge rather than choice gold.

11For wisdom is better than rubies; and all the things that may be desired are not to be compared to it.

...

17I love them that love me; and those that seek me early shall find me.

18Riches and honour are with me; yea, durable riches and righteousness.

19My fruit is better than gold, yea, than fine gold; and my revenue than choice silver.

20I lead in the way of righteousness, in the midst of the paths of judgment:

21That I may cause those that love me to inherit substance; and I will fill their treasures.


Proverbs 9




4Whoso is simple, let him turn in hither: as for him that wanteth understanding, she saith to him,

5Come, eat of my bread, and drink of the wine which I have mingled.

6Forsake the foolish, and live; and go in the way of understanding.

7He that reproveth a scorner getteth to himself shame: and he that rebuketh a wicked man getteth himself a blot.

8Reprove not a scorner, lest he hate thee: rebuke a wise man, and he will love thee.

9Give instruction to a wise man, and he will be yet wiser: teach a just man, and he will increase in learning.

10The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom: and the knowledge of the holy is understanding.





As I said in the conciliatory post you chose to ignore, I have no problem with there being things beyond our knowledge, things yet to be discovered and explained. But we are responsible for making the best of the information we have, and in holding tentative truths. That's all I claim to do. You, on the other hand, claim access to some pie in the sky, hidden gnosticism that can only be understood when you refuse to deal with the facts in front of you.


Actually, it's not hidden at all, and that is one of the things that kind of "get" you. What do you think it means "to become like a child"? A child is agnostic, that is why the child asks so many questions.



I must say I am sick and tired of so many posters on ATS and BTS treating experts in their fields (unless it happens to be UFOlogy) as dunces, and then going on to proclaim their own high-school level enlightenment. That, not studying certain disciplines for years in search of understanding, is evidence of arrogance. I have dedicated my life to understanding the Bible and religion, and I resent the fact that you, in one sentence, make generalizations about seminarians. Is that your gnostic enlightenment speaking, or simply your hatred of fact-based learning?


You mentioned the seminary thing as a way of trying to flash credibility/authority and "experts". Such is no different than the Pharisees had, but they could not hear or see what Jesus was talking about.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join