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.

 

Let's Even The Playing Field in This Hot Debate

page: 1
2
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 11 2010 @ 01:16 PM
link   
First we must get a definition of terms. From a secular unbiased source just to satisfy the parameters by which we will from this point forward use the following terms: Source for definitions = www.merriam-webster.com...

1) Science= First the word comes from the Latin scientia which literally means "having knowledge."
a. knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through scientific method (obsevation and experimentation)
b. a department of systemized knowledge as an object of study (the science of Theology)
So, first it must be noted that the "Science of Origins" is NOT science, based on definition "a." The creation of the universe will unfortunately never be observed nor can it be experimented on. (Unless science can create a WHOLE UNIVERSE and wait 14 BILLION years for evolution to be observed to its present state.)
Second, based on definition "b" BOTH the "Science of Origins" and "Creationism" ARE science. Both of these fields are exactly "a department of systemized knowledge as an object of study"

2) God =
a. The Supreme or Ultimate Reality
b. a being or object believed to have more than natural attributes and powers and to require human worship; specifically : one controlling a particular aspect or part of reality
First, Evolution according to BOTH definitions "a" and "b" is God. Evolution is the ultimate reality. It is what brought about humans and ALL life. It is a force with power to organize the elements of the universe into complex beings. It is controlling the flow of life as far as survivability, complexity, reproducability, inteligence, etc. You may only disagree about Evolution being worshipped, but I would argue that it is. The process of Evolution, by its very primitive and basic definition IS GOD.
The ONLY difference between Evolution as a god and the God of the Bible is personality.

3) Faith = akin to the Latin fidere which literally means "to trust"
a. belief and trust in and loyalty to God. Belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion.
b. firm belief in something for which there is no proof (2) : complete trust
First, according to definition "b" both the "Science of Origins" and "Creationism" are NOT based on faith. Both sets of systematized knowledge have "proof." That includes physical proof as well as abstract proof.

However, and this is the whole point of the thread so don't miss this... BOTH do require faith when the proof must fall under the definition of science. (I.E. proof obtained by direct observation and direct experimentation)
Hypothesis' are NOT proof as defined by science
Infering, conjecturing, self imposing, etc. are NOT proof of origin in the strictly scientific form of the word. Experiments and direct observation BASED on hypothesis, conjecturing, infering, and self imposing is NOT proof of origin. The origin of reality can never be studied scientifically because it can never be replicated. To do so you must step OUTSIDE of reality to a time before reality in order to create reality. the study of Origins is BEYOND SCIENCE.

So hence forth, when speaking on your faith of how the world came about, please use definition "b" for science which also includes "Creationism" and never present any experiment based on a guess of how things MIGHT have happened. That is not science. And it WILL be completely rejected and you will be linked to this thread.

Now that the ground work has been laid this Board can be discussed properly.




posted on May, 11 2010 @ 02:35 PM
link   
According to what you've written isn't "Science of Origins" science base on definition "b"?

Just wondering.

[edit on 11-5-2010 by stereologist]



posted on May, 11 2010 @ 02:46 PM
link   
I think that I would dispute that evolution is god. Evolution does not describe the origins of life. It does not describe the universe. Evolution and the theories as to why it happened describe the diversity of life. Due to its limited scope I'd hardly claim it fits definition "a". Nor would I attribute definition "b" to evolution since evolution is not a directed process. It is an observed result. Evolution is not a force. Evolution does not tend towards complexity.


The ONLY difference between Evolution as a god and the God of the Bible is personality.

I disagree on a number of points.

  1. Evolution does not describe the origins of life
  2. Evolution does not involve supernatural phenomena
  3. Evolution has many theories as to why it happened
  4. Evolution is not goal oriented
  5. Evolution is anything but perfect, or omnipotent



posted on May, 11 2010 @ 02:54 PM
link   
It will be impossible to ever know for sure.

Philosophy is one of the things I'm studying in college and I can see good points in some of these theories, but there can never be any absolute proof for any of them.

Your reality starts with you so if you believe this then I am in no position to tell you it's wrong.



posted on May, 11 2010 @ 06:05 PM
link   
There is no debate: Evolution occurs, end of story.

Go ahead and deny it, you're not hurting anyone but yourself.



posted on May, 11 2010 @ 06:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by trueperspectiveHowever, and this is the whole point of the thread so don't miss this... BOTH do require faith when the proof must fall under the definition of science. (I.E. proof obtained by direct observation and direct experimentation)
Hypothesis' are NOT proof as defined by science

Saying God created is not equal to all the evidence we have for evolution.
Until you show "God" or who/what created "God" your case is invalid.

Your post really shows you know nothing about science. All you are trying to do is put creationism on the same level as the Theory of Evolution, It is not.

Can you even give one valid reason why "creationism" should be thought of as a legitimate theory ? Give one reason why you believe some deity created the world/universe/life/etc. Just one reason ..

Remember not even the Discovery Institute would say under oath intelligent design is science.

[edit on 11-5-2010 by nophun]



posted on May, 11 2010 @ 07:17 PM
link   
reply to post by PieKeeper
 


Where exactly did anyone much less the OP say that? Of course it does. But the ideas of evolution and the existance of a prime mover *aka "creator"* are not mutually exclusive. You CAN have both. Only the boneheads with blinders on and an ideological dogmatic axe to grind, which comprises both camps can't see that.



posted on May, 11 2010 @ 07:22 PM
link   
reply to post by nophun
 


You sir are showing an ignorance within your little rant. Neither case can truly prove their case as the subject can only be guessed at and at current not observed or tested. BOTH abiogenesis and "creation" cannot be proven, only assumed to be as we were not there and time travel currently not possible. It's all a silly battle of "could've happend" spun into ignorant declarations of "did happen".



posted on May, 11 2010 @ 07:34 PM
link   
I agree with Piekeeper that evolution is a fact. There are theories to explain the fact.



posted on May, 11 2010 @ 08:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Watcher-In-The-Shadows
reply to post by PieKeeper
 


Where exactly did anyone much less the OP say that? Of course it does. But the ideas of evolution and the existance of a prime mover *aka "creator"* are not mutually exclusive. You CAN have both. Only the boneheads with blinders on and an ideological dogmatic axe to grind, which comprises both camps can't see that.


Here you say "You CAN have both" you are clearly talking about Evolution and Creation, then in the very next post you say ...


Originally posted by Watcher-In-The-Shadows
reply to post by nophun
 


You sir are showing an ignorance within your little rant. Neither case can truly prove their case as the subject can only be guessed at and at current not observed or tested. BOTH abiogenesis and "creation" cannot be proven,


See the problem ? Abiogenesis and Creation cannot both be correct. I was clearly talking about Evolution because we all know how creationist love to think evolution has something to do with the beginning of life.

We might not know all the details on the beginning of life of earth but we already know enough we do know enough that there is no need to believe some jealous, homophobic, racist in the sky created us.

You people that think Creation agrees with Evolution are crazy. You are picking and choosing what you want to believe in your silly old book. If you believe God created everything you should at least believe the rest of the creation story .. you know the whole God created man in our present form.

See I have no burden to explain the beginning of life if great detailed because we are not sure .. You have to drop parts of your "Theory/story" because it does not fit with the facts.

Or do you have some kind of personal god that does not follow any known scripture .. or modify a known religion to fit you beliefs and fit better with the known facts ... but this is just silly for obvious reasons



posted on May, 11 2010 @ 08:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by nophun

Originally posted by Watcher-In-The-Shadows
reply to post by PieKeeper
 


Where exactly did anyone much less the OP say that? Of course it does. But the ideas of evolution and the existance of a prime mover *aka "creator"* are not mutually exclusive. You CAN have both. Only the boneheads with blinders on and an ideological dogmatic axe to grind, which comprises both camps can't see that.


Here you say "You CAN have both" you are clearly talking about Evolution and Creation, then in the very next post you say ...


Originally posted by Watcher-In-The-Shadows
reply to post by nophun
 


You sir are showing an ignorance within your little rant. Neither case can truly prove their case as the subject can only be guessed at and at current not observed or tested. BOTH abiogenesis and "creation" cannot be proven,


See the problem ? Abiogenesis and Creation cannot both be correct. I was clearly talking about Evolution because we all know how creationist love to think evolution has something to do with the beginning of life.

We might not know all the details on the beginning of life of earth but we already know enough we do know enough that there is no need to believe some jealous, homophobic, racist in the sky created us.

You people that think Creation agrees with Evolution are crazy. You are picking and choosing what you want to believe in your silly old book. If you believe God created everything you should at least believe the rest of the creation story .. you know the whole God created man in our present form.

See I have no burden to explain the beginning of life if great detailed because we are not sure .. You have to drop parts of your "Theory/story" because it does not fit with the facts.

Or do you have some kind of personal god that does not follow any known scripture .. or modify a known religion to fit you beliefs and fit better with the known facts ... but this is just silly for obvious reasons


It seems you are misinformed, and are trying to presuppose that Creation and Evolution don't go together. It in fact does agree with Creation on some points if in fact we are using the correct terms of evolution when speaking in relation to Creation.

The scientific term for evolution is:

"Evolution can be precisely defined as any change in the frequency of alleles within a gene pool from one generation to the next."


That sounds right but then people try to generalize "evolution" even though there are different kinds of evolution such as: divergent, convergent, organic, emergent, orthogenic, and saltatory evolution.

If you are going to argue for evolution at least understand what form of evolution you are arguing for and not generalize it all in to one. It seems like you are picking and choosing. Also, your assumption that ALL creationist think that Evolution = Abiogenesis is pure opinion with no factual basis to support it. Maybe you would be wiser in pointing out that Creationist enjoy arguing Biogenesis since that's what Biology covers; you know life from life where Abiogenesis is life from non-life.



posted on May, 11 2010 @ 09:16 PM
link   
reply to post by nophun
 


Ahh fallacy coupled with the assumption of polarization due to disagreement amongst other silliness. Works for some I guess, but I prefer to at least attempt to see the world for what it is.
First for the fallacy *on a part by part basis*:

You assert that you cannot have both, which is known as False Dichotomy Fallacy aka this or that/black or white fallacy. Which shows you either lack the imagination to see how that would work or are not allowing yourself to see it.
The idea that perhaps what we would call a "god" or "creator" set up the rules *evolution, physics, etc, etc* to achieve the results it has is not a new or incredibly hard idea.
And why exactly must the concept of a creator be immediately assumed to be the god of Christian mythology? Your opinion on it not withstanding. You list attributes that are not central to the concept as if they were.

Now, on to the assumptions, I am going to assume that by your saying "my bible" you are assuming that I am a Christian. Why is that? Because I don't dance to the same "I'm smarter/better/sweller/whatever than the Christians" and dare to point out the holes in your stance?
I assure you I am not. I stand firmly with the "wait and see what we find out" crowd as I see your and their sides as little more than spurious fools fighting a war by proxy for reasons other than the ones stated.



posted on May, 11 2010 @ 09:39 PM
link   
reply to post by nophun
 


And if you don't believe abiogenesis = evolution. Then why exactly are you arguing that evolution and creationism is mutually exclusive?



posted on May, 11 2010 @ 09:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by novastrike81

That sounds right but then people try to generalize "evolution" even though there are different kinds of evolution such as: divergent, convergent, organic, emergent, orthogenic, and saltatory evolution.


What ?
Did you just copy and paste this from somewhere ?
Seriously ? What are you trying to argue here ? No matter if everything you listed is true or false they are still would/are apart of the Theory of Evolution.


I guess this is a improvement from the micro/macro evolution argument


Obviously I am arguing for the Theory of Evolution .. you might have heard of it ?
en.wikipedia.org...



posted on May, 11 2010 @ 09:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by Watcher-In-The-Shadows
reply to post by nophun
 


And if you don't believe abiogenesis = evolution. Then why exactly are you arguing that evolution and creationism is mutually exclusive?

I am just ignoring your first post completely, you never really said anything anyways.

" if you don't believe abiogenesis = evolution"

Evolution has nothing to do with the start of life! Obviously I don't believe abiogenesis = evolution .. They are not the same thing.

But to answer your question ... There is no God, therefor God could not have created. Hows that for a theory.


Seriously though ..
Your right Evolution does not disprove a god or creator .. Evolution does how ever discredit all known creation myths. We KNOW humans evolved .. Not one creation myth follows this fact ..



posted on May, 11 2010 @ 10:00 PM
link   
reply to post by nophun
 


It's ok. I knew you'd take that route as I do rather thoroughly smash that facade of BS. You are of course going to avoid commenting with some BS derogatory tripe. Nature of the beast I know.

So, you going to actually answer the question you claim yet completely fail to answer?

If that was the case why exactly did you claim the two are mutually exclusive?

And you say every creation myth yet confine your comments to purely the Christian one even when no specific beliefs are stated or even obliquely infered. Then there's the allogory argument... The amount of pidgeon holing, stereotyping and overt attempts at offense makes one question you have any clue beyond well learned rhetoric and a need to demean those with whom you disagree by party lines.

[edit on 11-5-2010 by Watcher-In-The-Shadows]



posted on May, 11 2010 @ 10:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by nophun
reply to post by nophun
 


But to answer your question ... There is no God, therefor God could not have created. Hows that for a theory.


That's not a theory that's your opinion try not to confuse them.


Seriously though ..
Your right Evolution does not disprove a god or creator .. Evolution does how ever discredit all known creation myths. We KNOW humans evolved .. Not one creation myth follows this fact ..


If there is no God and we are some cosmological accident then how do you explain the constants we experience in every day life? Humans evolve genetically every time they reproduce it doesn't mean we evolved from a common ancestor.

How do you explain the fossil record supposedly showing a gradual increase in various organisms alive today (gradualism)? Then suddenly they just appeared out of nowhere with all of their inherent characteristics with no change over time (punctuated equilibrium)? And you are aware of the conditions needed to make that scenario happen; it has to be practically perfect in a theory that basis itself on chance.



posted on May, 11 2010 @ 10:22 PM
link   
Are thick ?
I answered your question. Evolution disproves all creation myths because all creation myths assumed that are distant ancestors where human .. we know this is false.

Hint: God did not say he created homo habilis then man (homo sapiens) evolved.

Meet Adam of the Old Testament ?



[edit on 11-5-2010 by nophun]



posted on May, 11 2010 @ 10:30 PM
link   
reply to post by trueperspective
 


As our knowledge and understanding of the Universe expands we will grow closer and closer to understanding the origins of the Universe and life on Earth. Right now you are right, all we can do is guess based on what we do know. Based on what we do know we believe it all started when the Universe was condensed into a super-dense spot that than erupted outward in a big bang about 15 billion years ago.

Science isn't perfect and it never will be but it sure is preferable to slapping on a "God did it" label and calling it a day.



posted on May, 12 2010 @ 12:03 AM
link   
reply to post by nophun
 


Actually, the Christian creation myths say that man was created from dust *inorganic matter* which it breathed life into *sounds like abiogenesis to me, life from nonlife*. At least that is what I remember, could have that mixed up. It can be taken to mean many ways. One is that it is merely speaking in broad terms that omitt mostly the nuts and bolts of how...



new topics

top topics



 
2
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join