Evolutionist I can prove to you that what you believe (evolution) is based on illogical reasoning, i

page: 1
26
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
+17 more 
posted on Jul, 17 2010 @ 03:49 PM
link   
Full Thread Title:Evolutionist I can prove to you that what you believe (evolution) is based on illogical reasoning, illogical science and most of all based on DESIRE. You don't believe me? Then take this simple test.

(Believers of Creation can chime in too.)

OK, now that you've decided to take this test, please note this this simple rules:

1.Pick the answer from the list that you believe explains the figures below. Pick one or two or all of the figures, your choice.
2.Explain why your answer is the correct one.
3.Use logical reasoning and true science (as oppose to junk science) to explain your answer.

(Note:
So that even kids can grasp the test I brought it down to their level of thinking: pictures.)

The Answers:
a) Maker needed.
b) Maker not needed.
c) Both were made.
d) Both were not made.
e) All were made by a creator.

The Figures:

























My answer: Creation

THEY ALL REQUIRE A CREATOR. The complex the 'thing' the complex the design becomes, the higher the knowledge is required.
(I'll just start with thess two and do the rest later if time permits)

Figure 1: The Body

Fact: Following 11 long years of painstaking research and development—and after spending untold millions of dollars—Japanese engineers achieved that amazing technical feat in September 1997. Since then, humanoids have been developed to the point that they can climb stairs, run, dance, carry items on a tray, push a cart, and even pick themselves up off the floor when they fall!
Fact: To describe the marvels of the human body in all its glory on this thread or this site is not enough. Consider just one book: Gray's Anatomy – it will take a lifetime to study and fully understand it. Combine this with the thousands of books published about the human body, then the evidence of it being as a masterpiece of design and engineering is staggering.

www.bartleby.com...

Logic: If it takes a team of engineers, scientist and programers to 'create' a robot what would it take to 'create' a human body? If such a complex machine requires that much knowledge to 'create' it how much more knowledge is needed to create a human body? If a robot requires an intelligent 'creator' why wouldn't the human body require a 'creator' a more advance intelligent Creator?

Only someone who desires to ignore common sense will accept and believe something that is illogical: a robot is created while a human body is a product of chance.

A machine requires a 'creator' while a human body does not require one. Makes sense?

Figure 3: The Brain

Fact:A microprocessor -- also known as a CPU or central processing unit -- is a complete computation engine that is fabricated on a single chip. The first microprocessor was the Intel 4004, introduced in 1971. The 4004 was not very powerful -- all it could do was add and subtract, and it could only do that 4 bits at a time. But it was amazing that everything was on one chip. Prior to the 4004, engineers built computers either from collections of chips or from discrete components (transistors wired one at a time). The 4004 powered one of the first portable electronic calculators.

computer.howstuffworks.com...

Fact: Of all the marvelous things on earth, none is more astounding than the human brain. For example, every second some 100 million bits of information pour into the brain from the various senses. But how can it avoid being hopelessly buried by this avalanche? If we can think about only one thing at a time, how does the mind cope with these millions of simultaneous messages? Obviously, the mind not only survives the barrage but handles it with ease.

How it does so is only one of the many wonders of the human brain. Two factors are involved. First, in the brain stem there is a network of nerves the size of the little finger. This network is called the reticular formation. It acts as a kind of traffic control center, monitoring the millions of messages coming into the brain, sifting out the trivial and selecting the essential for attention by the cerebral cortex. Each second this little network of nerves permits only a few hundred, at most, to enter the conscious mind.

Logic: Being involved the semiconductor industry, I can go on and on and describe how semiconductor materials are transformed into the brains of computers. But the fact is it takes years, a team of brilliant scientist, engineers, programers to produce a microprocessor. If such a complex device requires that much knowledge to 'create' it how much more knowledge is needed to create a human brain? If a microprocessor requires an intelligent 'creator' why wouldn't the human brain require a 'creator' a more advance intelligent Creator?

Only someone who desires to ignore common sense will accept and believe something that is illogical: a microprocessor is created while a human brain is a product of chance.

An inanimate device requires a 'creator' while a human brain does not require one.
Makes sense?

Conclusion:
Due to the DESIRE to believe something that is not, evolutionist will try give the most illogical explanation to something that is so simple, clear and logical. Case in point – this simple test.

Make sense?

Thanks,
edmc2

Edit - title truncated - added full title


[edit on 17-7-2010 by edmc^2]



+57 more 
posted on Jul, 17 2010 @ 03:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by edmc^2
Due to the DESIRE to believe something that is not, evolutionist will try give the most illogical explanation to something that is so simple, clear and logical. Case in point – this simple test.


And creationists do...



Edit to add- Your test proves absolutely nothing...its not the desire to believe, its observing and interpreting data and following patterns which lead to ones conclusion

Too many of these thread topics on ATS


[edit on 17/7/2010 by OzWeatherman]



posted on Jul, 17 2010 @ 03:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by edmc^2

Evolutionist I can prove to you that what you believe (evolution) is based on illogical reasoning,


The only dimension of consciousness that the theory of evolution can touch upon, inasmuch as it is based upon the consciousness of the "self" and the 'thinker' which is the restricted consciousness of the scientific method, is the dualistic consciousness itself.

It must categorically ignore or deny not only the consciousness Created "by and in the image of God" (Genesis 1:27); but, also, not the non-dualistic "observing consciousness" of the Buddhists and Eastern esoteric traditions.

It is based upon a 'classical' perspective on consciousness; which is precisely the same perspective of the "scientists of consciousness" who must also ignore the evidence in support of the existence of a non-dualistic consciousness (among that evidence being the memories of previous lives; and, in the monotheistic traditions, Prophecy).

Michael Cecil

[edit on 17-7-2010 by Michael Cecil]


+22 more 
posted on Jul, 17 2010 @ 04:01 PM
link   
This entire thread could just be summed up by saying watchmaker argument, we all know what it is.
And for both of those things, the CPU and the other, we have plans of how to make them, it took years for us to make, we can identify the makers of these items, we can teach others how to make these items, because of THAT we know they were created by a person.
Just another argument from ignorance. "I don't understand how this got here, therefore god did it"

[edit on 17-7-2010 by hippomchippo]



posted on Jul, 17 2010 @ 04:09 PM
link   
Good job.... but the evolution theory is very similar to the climate change theory... it's roots are political... thus only logic that directs towards that political objective will be used.


+2 more 
posted on Jul, 17 2010 @ 04:12 PM
link   
Is this just another anti-Atheist and anti-Evolution thread on ATS? It's not like we have seen the same threads over and over again. What is with creationist wanting disprove Atheism and Evolution? The original poster has no clue what he is talking about. Making fun of evolution and calling it childish will not make it seem logical creation is correct. For easily understanding evolution check out this great site.
evolution.berkeley.edu...
www.swarthmore.edu...
www.usbible.com...

[edit on 17-7-2010 by Romantic_Rebel]



posted on Jul, 17 2010 @ 04:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by soleprobe
Good job.... but the evolution theory is very similar to the climate change theory... it's roots are political... thus only logic that directs towards that political objective will be used.


No, it isn't political at all.
The people who claim that are those that can't falsify the theory of evolution so instead attack it.


+19 more 
posted on Jul, 17 2010 @ 04:30 PM
link   
Evolution is a matter of fact, and should be not confused with the theory of how the first thing that should be considered "life" came about.

Evolution is very simply and based on the following observations(not theories, actual data):

Genes largly determine biological characteristics. Genes are passed on from parents to children. Mutations occasionally occur that result in a novel genetic trait, although inheritence is the dominant factor in an individual's genetics. The biological characteristics determined largly by genes contribute to or detract from the reproductive success rate of an individual.

Therefore, as a matter of logical alone applied to these observations, every successive generation of a population will contain more of the genetic traits that increase reproductive success rates and less of those traits that hinder reproduction rates. Mutations will occur, and the resultant novel genetic trait will either be integrated into the population or will be eliminated, depending on its effect on rates of reproduction.

This is the observed state of affairs.

This is different, though, than the argument made in the OP. You're confused about what evolution is. That's why I didn't play your mutliple choice game. You may know creationism to be the enemy of evolution, but evolution is not a theory of initial creation, it is a theory of developement.

Evolution only has something to say about what happens once a certain set of circumstances is in place, namely the circumstances described in the set of observations listen above. Evolution, strictly speaking, does not have anything to say about how it all got started.

Your beef is not with evolution. Your problem is cosmological and philosophical. That's why your images of the earth and galaxies fit so nicely into the rest of the images. Your claims are not specific to biology. It's not really even an issue that can be argued very meaningfully. Somehow the universe began; initial conditions were put in place at some point. Everything that has happened since has been a natural process of developement which can be described quite well at all levels by physics, and more conveniently at certain levels by sciences like astronomy or biology or chemistry.

The problem is that human beings explain things in terms of cause and effect, where the cause preceeds the effect. As long as this is the structure of explanation, we will have the problem of infinite regression. You think that the initial conditions of the universe were created by an intelligence, I think they arose from something spontaneous, or so far removed from any meaningful concepts that we might as well call is spontaneous. You will say that it doesn't make sense for everything to appear from nothing, without a creator, and I will say that the same problem applies to the creator as well; if the universe had to be created, and you say it it did and was by something, then where did that thing come from?

Well, certainly we won't get to the bottom of it here. It was one of the first questions to be asked. I think you put too much faith in your intuition about cause and effect, and that that way of understanding things is a product of brains which evolved to be useful at navigating the earth. As we apply these tools that evolved here to more and more foreign problems we find those problem to be unmanageable; quantum mechanics, the begining of the universe, time, the edge of space, ect. . .

Anyway, your argument is not with evolution. You're correct in your OP to see that there is no important distinctions between the products of man, like robots and art, and the products of any other processes, like the sun or the stars. All of it is what happens in the universe over a long enough time period given some initial conditions. The issue is, how did those initial conditions come about? And if something caused them, what caused that cause? And on and on forever and ever. You'll draw a lot of unecessary flak by claiming the origin of reality is the reason that evolution has be wrong and is illogical.



posted on Jul, 17 2010 @ 04:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by OzWeatherman

Originally posted by edmc^2
Due to the DESIRE to believe something that is not, evolutionist will try give the most illogical explanation to something that is so simple, clear and logical. Case in point – this simple test.


And creationists do...
...

Edit to add- Your test proves absolutely nothing...its not the desire to believe, its observing and interpreting data and following patterns which lead to ones conclusion

Too many of these thread topics on ATS


[edit on 17/7/2010 by OzWeatherman]



Your test proves absolutely nothing...its not the desire to believe, its observing and interpreting data and following patterns which lead to ones conclusion


So what's your observation and interpretation then?

If a simple pencil requires a maker then the stars and galaxy does not require a maker. Is that your position?



My ears are open waiting for a logical reply.

ty,
edmc2


+9 more 
posted on Jul, 17 2010 @ 04:43 PM
link   
reply to post by edmc^2
 




THEY ALL REQUIRE A CREATOR


You think Evolution requires Desire and yet you put this assertion forth based on your own biased religious belief when we KNOW that such is not the case. Organisms do NOT require a Creator, science has proved this beyond reasonable doubt. Many organisms have massive flaws which leave them weak to predators or incapable of certain feats or wired up in round-about unintelligent ways:



Our own human eyes have a blindspot. If we are created we are done so incompetently and were created to have genetic, physical and behavioral similarities so similar to other animals as to suggest evolution. But why would a creative God be so deceptively unimaginative?



If a robot requires an intelligent 'creator' why wouldn't the human body require a 'creator' a more advance intelligent Creator?


This is very poor reasoning. We can study a robot and find evidence that it has been created. We did the same thing when we studied life, most biologists set out looking for the fingerprints of God. We found nothing but natural process and we still have yet to find even an inkling of intelligent design in life. Perhaps if we had some evidence suggesting a God other than your irreducible complexity fallacy you might have a point, as it stands you have none.



A machine requires a 'creator' while a human body does not require one. Makes sense?


Yes, a human is not a machine that needs to be manufactured. We are a molecular machine that replicates through sexual reproduction. This reproduction forms changes in our genes over successive generations that can lead to permanent changes within a populations gene pool and eventually lead to the divergence of species. A robot, on the other hand, doesn't have DNA or the reproductive capability therefore it has to be built.




Due to the DESIRE to believe something that is not, evolutionist will try give the most illogical explanation to something that is so simple, clear and logical. Case in point – this simple test.


All you've proven is that you can argue from irreducible complexity and ignorance about how evolution works. The test is a failure, you are comparing something we know to be designed (man-made things) to something we know is not designed (life). Not only is this poor reasoning but it only proves that we humans are an intelligent designer.

This thread is an epic fail, I came in here expecting to see sound logic and scientific proof, oh wait no I didn't, you're a creationist


[edit on 17-7-2010 by Titen-Sxull]

[edit on 17-7-2010 by Titen-Sxull]



posted on Jul, 17 2010 @ 04:43 PM
link   
reply to post by edmc^2
 


idk if you have the science channel but after watching creating synthetic life you will understand we and everything else aint as complex as one would think!



posted on Jul, 17 2010 @ 04:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by Romantic_Rebel
Is this just another anti-Atheist and anti-Evolution thread on ATS? It's not like we have seen the same threads over and over again. What is with creationist wanting disprove Atheism and Evolution? The original poster has no clue what he is talking about. Making fun of evolution and calling it childish will not make it seem logical creation is correct. For easily understanding evolution check out this great site.
evolution.berkeley.edu...
www.swarthmore.edu...
www.usbible.com...

[edit on 17-7-2010 by Romantic_Rebel]



No Romantic_Rebel, not anti this anti that, it's just a simple test to see illogic of evolution and the desire to believe on something that is not.

As for making fun - nah - i just made it simple so that kids can understand it too.

BTW, did you notice the picture after my thread. It's funny huh.

here's that picture:


thanks for the link though, I'll take a look at them later and let you know what i think.

ty,
edmc2

edit: added pix.

[edit on 17-7-2010 by edmc^2]



posted on Jul, 17 2010 @ 04:45 PM
link   
reply to post by edmc^2
 


f) One is known to be man-made, the other is naturally occurring.

Your quiz is highly flawed.


+3 more 
posted on Jul, 17 2010 @ 04:49 PM
link   
reply to post by edmc^2
 


Again, your comparisons are completely redundant. A pencil (an inanimate object) vs a complex system of gases and matter....there's nothing to compare, they are two different things....your test is yet another BS test creationists use to reassure themselves that a creator exists.

Unlike your simple assumptions along the lines of "i dont know what causes it, so it must be a supernatural being"...myself and other evolutionists and scientists actually attempt to use logic and empirical data, rather than assume, to solve an issue.

And like your post in your OP


Conclusion:
Due to the DESIRE to believe something that is not, evolutionist will try give the most illogical explanation to something that is so simple, clear and logical. Case in point – this simple test.


My version:

Due to the desire to believe in something that is not, Creationists will try to use the most redundant, illogical questions, and hide behind their religious self righteousness and ignorance, to reassure themselves that the one book (thats been rewrittebn countless times) holds the truth about the universe.




posted on Jul, 17 2010 @ 04:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by edmc^2
 


f) One is known to be man-made, the other is naturally occurring.

Your quiz is highly flawed.


So if a simple pencil requires a maker (man-made) then the bird does not require a maker because it's naturally occuring. In other words, the one known was "caused" while the other more complex "thing' was not caused.
Am I understanding you correctly?

ty,
edmc2



posted on Jul, 17 2010 @ 04:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by edmc^2

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by edmc^2
 


f) One is known to be man-made, the other is naturally occurring.

Your quiz is highly flawed.


So if a simple pencil requires a maker (man-made) then the bird does not require a maker because it's naturally occuring. In other words, the one known was "caused" while the other more complex "thing' was not caused.
Am I understanding you correctly?

ty,
edmc2

So, because humans can create simple objects, God exists?



posted on Jul, 17 2010 @ 04:56 PM
link   
reply to post by edmc^2
 


If we study a pencil we will find that it had to have been designed, we will find no examples of it occurring naturally, markings on the wood, it being cut in a shape that we don't find in nature, etc.

The point is that if we study these things we can find whether they are designed. Guess what science does Einstein - It studies things. Stars, planets, life itself, all have been studied and we have yet to find evidence of a designer, whereas three seconds of looking at the pencil we can see what kind of pencil it is and probably whether its a number 2 or number 1.

The Universe and life have no evidence of being designed.

The questions of your quiz are 100% invalid and downright stupid.

[edit on 17-7-2010 by Titen-Sxull]

[edit on 17-7-2010 by Titen-Sxull]


+6 more 
posted on Jul, 17 2010 @ 04:59 PM
link   
I can't believe I just wasted five minutes of my life to read this.



Originally posted by edmc^2

...the desire to believe on something that is not.


I could not have said it any better myself.

I'll give you the biggest, most important difference between those who believe in evolution VS those who do not...

No one has ever been killed for questioning evolution.



[edit on 17-7-2010 by {davinci}]



posted on Jul, 17 2010 @ 05:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by edmc^2

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by edmc^2
 


f) One is known to be man-made, the other is naturally occurring.

Your quiz is highly flawed.


So if a simple pencil requires a maker (man-made) then the bird does not require a maker because it's naturally occuring. In other words, the one known was "caused" while the other more complex "thing' was not caused.
Am I understanding you correctly?

ty,
edmc2


You are putting words in my mouth. We know from direct observation and experience that certain things are produced by man. Naturally occurring objects and phenomena require empirical observation and study to understand. A priori assumptions about their origins and nature are an impediment to this process.



posted on Jul, 17 2010 @ 05:04 PM
link   
reply to post by OzWeatherman
[mor]


Again, your comparisons are completely redundant. A pencil (an inanimate object) vs a complex system of gases and matter....there's nothing to compare, they are two different things....your test is yet another BS test creationists use to reassure themselves that a creator exists.


So OZ are you saying that a simpe pencil requires a maker while the super complex universe with all of its stars and galaxies does not require a maker? Just happen to be?

Hmmm, highly illogic and unscientific don't you think?

ty,
edmc2





top topics
 
26
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join