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.

 

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

page: 15
26
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 24 2010 @ 02:38 PM
link   
...
Astronomer Robert Jastrow:

“To their chagrin [scientists] have no clear-cut answer, because chemists have never succeeded in reproducing nature’s experiments on the creation of life out of nonliving matter. Scientists do not know how that happened.”—The Enchanted Loom: Mind in the Universe (New York, 1981), p. 19.


New Scientist:

“An increasing number of scientists, most particularly a growing number of evolutionists . . . argue that Darwinian evolutionary theory is no genuine scientific theory at all. . . . Many of the critics have the highest intellectual credentials.”—June 25, 1981, p. 828.


Physicist H. S. Lipson said:

“The only acceptable explanation is creation. I know that this is anathema to physicists, as indeed it is to me, but we must not reject a theory that we do not like if the experimental evidence supports it.”—Physics Bulletin, 1980, Vol. 31, p. 138


Do you think this issue is now resolved? The more they know the bigger the problem becomes.

Here's the latest so far:

“As of 2010, no one has yet synthesized a "protocell" using basic components which would have the necessary properties of life (the so-called "bottom-up-approach"). Without such a proof-of-principle, explanations have tended to be short on specifics. However, some researchers are working in this field, notably Steen Rasmussen at Los Alamos National Laboratory and Jack Szostak at Harvard University. Others have argued that a "top-down approach" is more feasible. ..... – snipit from wiki link provided above.

As for the claim that:
[Quote]Evolution is the incremental advancement of the biological form by tiny amounts over millions of years. - spacedonk

From A Guide to Earth History:

“By the aid of fossils palaeontologists can now give us an excellent picture of the life of past ages.” – p 48.


What does the evidence show?


”The critical first billion years, during which life began, are blank pages in the earth’s history.”-- Red Giants and White Dwarfs, by Robert Jastrow, 1979, p. 97


I wonder why?


“The fossil record contains no trace of these preliminary stages in the development of many-celled organisms,” says Jastrow.
Instead, he states: “The record of the rocks contains very little, other than bacteria and one-celled plants until, about a billion years ago, after some three billion years of invisible progress, a major breakthrough occurred. The first many-celled creatures appeared on earth.”-- The Enchanted Loom: Mind in the Universe, by Robert Jastrow, 1981, p. 23.

From The New Evolutionary Timetable:


“The record now reveals that species typically survive for a hundred thousand generations, or even a million or more, without evolving very much. . . . After their origins, most species undergo little evolution before becoming extinct.” p. xv


Regarding the finding of a fossil fly that was labeled “40 million years old,” Dr. George Poinar, Jr., said:


“The internal anatomy of these creatures is remarkably similar to what you find in flies today. The wings and legs and head, and even the cells inside, are very modern-looking.” - The New York Times, “Prehistoric Gnat,” October 3, 1982, Section 1, p. 49


Xiamara - as for the Darwin's Theory of Evolution:

The scientific magazine Discover put the situation this way:

“Evolution . . . is not only under attack by fundamentalist Christians, but is also being questioned by reputable scientists. Among paleontologists, scientists who study the fossil record, there is growing dissent from the prevailing view of Darwinism.” – Discover, “The Tortoise or the Hare?” by James Gorman, October 1980, p. 88.


Francis Hitching, an evolutionist and author of the book The Neck of the Giraffe, stated:

“For all its acceptance in the scientific world as the great unifying principle of biology, Darwinism, after a century and a quarter, is in a surprising amount of trouble.” – The Neck of the Giraffe, by Francis Hitching, 1982, p. 12


After an important conference of some 150 specialists in evolution held in Chicago, Illinois, a report concluded:


“[Evolution] is undergoing its broadest and deepest revolution in nearly 50 years. . . . Exactly how evolution happened is now a matter of great controversy among biologists. . . . No clear resolution of the controversies was in sight.” - The Enterprise, Riverside, California, “Macroevolution Theory Stirs Hottest Debate Since Darwin,” by Boyce Rensberger, November 14, 1980, p. E9; Science, “Evolutionary Theory Under Fire,” by Roger Lewin, November 21, 1980, pp. 883-887.



“A century after Darwin’s death, we still have not the slightest demonstrable or even plausible idea of how evolution really took place—and in recent years this has led to an extraordinary series of battles over the whole question. . . . A state of almost open war exists among the evolutionists themselves, with every kind of [evolutionary] sect urging some new modification.”—C. Booker (London Times writer), The Star, (Johannesburg), April 20, 1982, p. 19.


Spacedonk, et al, do you agree with these findings? Do you think there's truth to what they said?

Conclusion:
Whether it's “abiogenesis” or “evolution” the results remains the same – life can't come from non-life and the evolutionary changes as evidence by the fossil records shows otherwise.

Clearly, the impartial inquirer would be led to conclude that fossils do not support the theory of evolution. On the other hand, fossil evidence does lend strong weight to the arguments for CREATION.

Zoologist Coffin:

“To secular scientists, the fossils, evidences of the life of the past, constitute the ultimate and final court of appeal, because the fossil record is the only authentic history of life available to science. If this fossil history does not agree with evolutionary theory—and we have seen that it does not—what does it teach? It tells us that plants and animals were created in their basic forms. The basic facts of the fossil record support creation, not evolution.” - Liberty, September/October 1975, p. 14


Finally:

Astronomer Carl Sagan candidly acknowledged:

“The fossil evidence could be consistent with the idea of a Great Designer.”
-Cosmos1980 p. 29.

Ty,
edmc2

later...




posted on Jul, 24 2010 @ 02:49 PM
link   
reply to post by edmc^2
 


other than one very recent wiki article snippet the most recent source you cited is from 1982. Not exactly cutting edge my friend. As anyone who studies Anthropology can attest, new finds come in with astounding frequency and we are constantly updating and expanding our models so using 30+ year old information to back you up is only going to float in the dead sea. Yes, I will be the first to admit that we do not know everything there is or will be to learn regarding evolution and our own history but the majority of us are nowhere near arrogant enough to claim we have all the answers and are open minded enough to allow for and accept new and verifiable data. See the last 4 words of my previous sentence. If anyone ever shows me legitimate and reproducible scientific evidence of creationism I'll gladly shred my diploma.



posted on Jul, 24 2010 @ 02:53 PM
link   
Science vs religion:



Basically, only around 15% of scientists working a field related to evolution/biology/cosmology/astronomy believe in a creator. The info you posted is from the 80s, and highly outdated. Just look at how much the number of "believers" decreased since then.

Why intelligent design isn't intelligent at all:



[edit on 24-7-2010 by MrXYZ]



posted on Jul, 24 2010 @ 02:54 PM
link   
reply to post by edmc^2
 


I'm still wondering this: In your opinion, who made God then?

Or at least give me a hint as to how this being came to existence please.



posted on Jul, 24 2010 @ 02:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by SkurkNilsen
reply to post by edmc^2
 


I'm still wondering this: In your opinion, who made God then?

Or at least give me a hint as to how this being came to existence please.


Clearly, God is the only thing that can come into existence on its own...don't you see? It makes total sense



posted on Jul, 24 2010 @ 03:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by oilwatchernx2
If there was a god he blew his own ass to hell to make everything you see around you. Time had no beginning and will have no end therefore even if there is a god it's pointless. What is god when time has no end? What is satan when time has no end? All I know is all that junk in space got there somehow and over a ridiculous amount of time that junk formed the right mix for life.

Sometimes I think the world was created around me.


It's not pointless oilwatchernx2, because if life was created - then life has a purpose but on the other hand if life was not created - then what advantage do we have with the animals - only a higer form of life?

Also, how we view life - i.e. origin affects how we live our lives. Think about it, as a believer of a Creator, I try my best to conform to the will of my creator, obey his laws and rules - to be a true follower of Christ so that I can attain that which was promised long time ago - true life in a paradasaic earth. Humanity at peace with each other and with nature.

thus, the Biblical hope is for a bright future of everlasting life in a paradise earth. Each one makes his own choice

let me just quote you one scripture:

"With that I heard a loud voice from the throne say: “Look! The tent of God is with mankind, and he will reside with them, and they will be his peoples. And God himself will be with them. And he will wipe out every tear from their eyes, and death will be no more, neither will mourning nor outcry nor pain be anymore. The former things have passed away." Rev 21:3-4


As for evolutionist, here's what I know - live your life as best as you can, be good to your fellowman, get the best out life, raised a family, grow old then finaly everything ends in death. In other words make the best of your life for the end is nothing.
Others say survival of the fittist for you are only accountable to yourself.

Think about this too. If we credit our presence here to evolution, eliminate God and the Bible and moral restraints, we also eliminate any purpose and meaning our lives might have had. We become brother to ants and elephants, worms and crabgrass, cockroaches and cats. Of what consequence are ants? Or crabgrass? Or men?

Thus:

Scientist Peacocke: “Thus science fails to answer ‘the ultimate question of hope.”’ It “raises questions about the ultimate significance of human life in a universe that will eventually surely obliterate it.”


If our end is eternal oblivion, nothing really matters and renders the evolutionary “hope” as hopeless. It is eternal oblivion.

So before you make a decision, be fully informed.



ty,
edmc2



posted on Jul, 24 2010 @ 03:18 PM
link   
The thing is, you believe in the Christian god. If Muslims are correct, you will be the one being "rewarded" with eternal hellfire. If Hindus are correct, you will be disappointed as well. Those other religions have just as much wanna-be proof as you. Most major religions are mutually exclusive too.

I really don't understand what's so hard about saying "we just don't know what will happen once we die". If it worries or scares you, all you accomplish by picking a religion is self-deception. Of course if you repeat those scriptures long enough, you will start believing them even more, because you self-indoctrinate those thoughts. Your brain willingly takes it in because it feels good to "not be scared or confused". It doesn't even matter if those concepts are rational or logical...

In the end you don't have any more proof for "your" religion (or the fact that a super being communicates with you) than any other religious believer. You can't all be right (if anyone's right at all), so the large majority of religious people on this planet follow a self-deceiving fairy tale.

If that makes them feel good, FINE. But once it starts holding back scientific progress, or once it limits people's freedom, it becomes a hindrance to the progress of the human species.



posted on Jul, 24 2010 @ 03:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by edmc^2
It's not pointless oilwatchernx2, because if life was created - then life has a purpose but on the other hand if life was not created - then what advantage do we have with the animals - only a higer form of life?


Just because some people need an imaginary friend to feel useful or like they have a purpose means nothing other than the fact that there is something missing inside them that they choose to fill in with the easiest possible solution -

magic!



posted on Jul, 24 2010 @ 03:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by MrXYZ
Science vs religion:



Basically, only around 15% of scientists working a field related to evolution/biology/cosmology/astronomy believe in a creator. The info you posted is from the 80s, and highly outdated. Just look at how much the number of "believers" decreased since then.

Why intelligent design isn't intelligent at all:



[edit on 24-7-2010 by MrXYZ]


Thanks for the video but I'm not a proponent of "ID" but I believe based on evidence that there's Intelligence in Design.

As for the decrease in the belief of a Creator - I'm are not surprised at all as this was to be expected. In fact there will come a time 9if not already here) where true Christians will be a minority.

As for the source that I quoted - can you despute them? Just because the source are old(er) that it's no longer valid. If so again please disprove them.

Take for example - "abiogenesis" - it's an old concept yet it is accepted as fact amongst evolutionist.


ty,
edmc2



posted on Jul, 24 2010 @ 03:33 PM
link   
reply to post by edmc^2
 


Those scientists made those claims because at the time they made them (70s/80s), the matter they tried to discuss was so complex (esp in the case of cosmologists) that they felt it was the easiest explanation. If they're religious in the first place, it's not really surprising.

Thousands of years ago, people believed lightning and fire was an act of god. Now we know how fire and lightning works. To them, it seemed so complex, attributing it to a super-being was the only explanation for them.

Today, we are still facing gaps in knowledge. We don't know what happened before the big bank for example. It seems very complex to us, but that's just because we're "stupid". I don't like to admit being stupid, but it's the truth.



Us humans are such an arrogant species. We think we're soooooo special, and some believe they're so special, a creator will surely communicate and look out for them. Fact is, we are "stupid", but we're constantly learning...and a lot of the things we learn directly contradict religion.

Complexity and not having all the answers doesn't make it right to make things up!



posted on Jul, 24 2010 @ 03:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by SkurkNilsen
reply to post by edmc^2
 


I'm still wondering this: In your opinion, who made God then?

Or at least give me a hint as to how this being came to existence please.


(please read the my post on page 13)
www.abovetopsecret.com...

here's part of what I said:


I would also like to ask a question going back to page 2 or so of this thread... if the energy that created the universe is sentient or "god" then where did this energy come from? who created your god? if "god" creates everything how did "god" come to be?


I’m not sure if you read my older post dealing with the same question.
Anyway here it is. I’ll expand it further though.

‘What kind of answer are you looking for?

For if I say God has no beginning and no end then you will say what?

On the other hand if i say God was created by someone higher than him, then the next obvious question will be who created the higher being, then who created the one higher than the higher....on and on.

A very illogical reasoning imho.

So the ONLY answer is

He always existed. He always was.



The Bible speaks of him as being ‘from everlasting to everlasting.’ He was the great supreme cause.” Thus He was the “‘always-existing first cause.’

Does this seem hard to comprehend Peter?

Now think about this very carefully, if there’s no “always-existing first cause”, what is the alternative?

The answer would have to be, nothing, absolutely nothing.

If that were so, where would the first thing to exist come from? It just couldn’t exist because there was nothing, not even a cause, to bring it about. So there must have always been a causing power in existence—and there would have to be a thinking power, a person, to bring about all those things in nature.”

So the ULTIMATE ANSWER to the question “WHERE DID GOD CAME FROM” is He always was.

Is this scientific?

Consider this:

In science and mathematics we have this concept called "infinity'.

We can imagine infinite space, and as far as astronomers can tell, the universe may be infinite, boundless. The farther their telescopes enable them to see, the more galaxies they behold.

Then, going in the other direction, into the infinitesimally small, physicists still cannot find the ultimate particle. When the atom was discovered, it appeared simple: The atom was the indivisible particle, scientists thought. Experiments with the atom, however, have shown their theory to be a fallacy. The list of particles, or supposed particles, making up the atom has grown quite long, and the end is not yet.

With this same line of logic, can we not, then, conceive of a God who had no beginning—who existed forever?

This is what he declares of himself. (Deuteronomy 32:40; Romans 16:26) If we accept this claim from God, we can believe that he could infuse life into persons who obey him, and could sustain that life forever.

Consider another concept: E = mc2. This equation says that the amount of energy released when an atom is split equals the loss of its mass times the speed of light squared.

According to this formula also, energy can be transformed into matter. And based on scientific finding energy (light) was/is always present. Can you understand this concept?

Where’s the energy coming from? Who posses this energy? Sadly, science is still at a lost as to the source of energy.

The only available source for answer is the Bible (Isa 40:26) “Raise YOUR eyes high up and see. Who has created these things? It is the One who is bringing forth the army of them even by number, all of whom he calls even by name. Due to the abundance of dynamic energy, he also being vigorous in power, not one [of them] is missing.”

Notice the source of the energy “Due to the abundance of dynamic energy, he also being vigorous in power, not one [of them] is missing.” E= mc2

Another side of this formula is the Einstein’s special theory of relativity, published in June 1905, disagreed with a fundamental belief of scientists such as Isaac Newton—that the measurement of time is a constant throughout the universe. The implications of Einstein’s now generally accepted theory seem quite bizarre.

For example, imagine that you and a friend perfectly synchronize your watches. Your friend then flies around the world, while you stay at home. When he returns, the time displayed by his watch will lag a fraction behind the time shown on your watch. From your perspective, time slowed down for your traveling friend. The difference is, of course, infinitesimal at human speeds. However, when approaching the speed of light, not only does time slow down significantly but objects also become smaller and their mass increases. Einstein’s theory maintained that the speed of light, not time, is constant across the universe.

Yet we believe this concept.

Consider this too: According to current estimates, normal matter accounts for about 4 percent of the mass of the universe. The two big unknowns—dark matter and dark energy—appear to make up the balance. Thus, about 95 percent of the universe remains a complete mystery!

Do you believe they exist? Can you even explain them or know what they are and where they come from?


Q:
SkurkNilsen, if you are able to grasp the examples I've mentioned above and have no problem believing them, why is it too hard to believe then in an "always-existing first cause"?


ty,
edmc2



posted on Jul, 24 2010 @ 03:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by edmc^2
Also, how we view life - i.e. origin affects how we live our lives. Think about it, as a believer of a Creator, I try my best to conform to the will of my creator, obey his laws and rules - to be a true follower of Christ so that I can attain that which was promised long time ago - true life in a paradasaic earth. Humanity at peace with each other and with nature.

So how are you so certain that the beard guy is the correct God instead of Allah or Krishna or any other of the 10s of thousands of Gods?



posted on Jul, 24 2010 @ 03:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by MrXYZ
reply to post by edmc^2
 


Those scientists made those claims because at the time they made them (70s/80s), the matter they tried to discuss was so complex (esp in the case of cosmologists) that they felt it was the easiest explanation. If they're religious in the first place, it's not really surprising.

Thousands of years ago, people believed lightning and fire was an act of god. Now we know how fire and lightning works. To them, it seemed so complex, attributing it to a super-being was the only explanation for them.

Today, we are still facing gaps in knowledge. We don't know what happened before the big bank for example. It seems very complex to us, but that's just because we're "stupid". I don't like to admit being stupid, but it's the truth.



Us humans are such an arrogant species. We think we're soooooo special, and some believe they're so special, a creator will surely communicate and look out for them. Fact is, we are "stupid", but we're constantly learning...and a lot of the things we learn directly contradict religion.

Complexity and not having all the answers doesn't make it right to make things up!


Agree MrXYZ! as indicated in my signature .

ty,
edmc2

later...gotta go..



posted on Jul, 24 2010 @ 04:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by edmc^2
Take for example - "abiogenesis" - it's an old concept yet it is accepted as fact amongst evolutionist.

The idea that life arose from non-living is indeed old. However it's only during the last few decades that we've started to understand the processes that most likely led to it. For example it was only last year that a chemist found out how (2 out of 4) ribonucleotides can form spontaneously. This was a huge win for the RNA world hypothesis.

[edit on 24-7-2010 by rhinoceros]



posted on Jul, 24 2010 @ 04:05 PM
link   
reply to post by edmc^2
 


We can discuss morality as soon as you point out where I am wrong on propabilites.
Be it by math, or by common sense.
2 Pages ago you seemed pretty confident in being able to do so.



posted on Jul, 24 2010 @ 04:10 PM
link   
Dr Kent Hovind debates Dr Michael Shermer on Evloution:

google video link:
video.google.com...#



posted on Jul, 24 2010 @ 04:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by edmc^2


So the ONLY answer is

He always existed. He always was.





Ok, kinda like the universe then?

You seem to think that the big bang is the beginning of the universe, but that is wrong, it's the beginning of the known universe.

You see this is where things get a bit hazy and intertwining, string theory comes up with a couple of good theories, but your god does not.

It's a bit hard to buy the story the bible puts forth rather than science because the bible is kind of keeping back on the details.

It's a bit like this cartoon imo:



posted on Jul, 24 2010 @ 04:18 PM
link   
* 2000 years ago: "We do not know what causes lightning, therefore it must be a god throwing lightning bolts from the sky."
* 1000 years ago: "We do not know what keeps the planets in their courses. There must be angels pushing them along."
* 500 years ago: "We do not know what causes diseases, therefore they must be punishments from God."
* 200 years ago: "We do not know how the many species of plants and animals could have appeared, therefore God must have created them."
* 100 years ago: "We do not know how the universe started, therefore God must have done it."
* 60 years ago: "We do not know how genes are passed from parent to child, therefore traits must be imprinted upon the soul."
The gaps in human knowledge are slowly being filled with valid scientific knowledge, while in the meantime religion plays catch-up with the latest scientific theories that they will then try to poke holes in to fill up with their specific choice of god.

Thats also why you saw the OP of this thread switch from evolution to cosmology, because we know quite a bit about evolution now and can combat ignorance on the topic, while "before the big bang" and other nonsense we simply don't know, so it's a creationist playing field.

[edit on 24-7-2010 by hippomchippo]



posted on Jul, 24 2010 @ 04:19 PM
link   
reply to post by SkurkNilsen
 

Obviously the potential for the existence of the Universe always existed because the Universe now exists. I don't really see a paradox there. There's no need for a God. We can for example assume that the non-existence of the Universe was imperfect (like everything is) and this lead to a catastrophic failure of non-existence and thus big bang took place



posted on Jul, 24 2010 @ 04:30 PM
link   
String theory are at times weirder than the notion of a god, just explained a hell of a lot better


Here's some of my favorites: New String-theory notion redefines the big bang.
Probing questions: What happened before the big bang. Revised theory of gravity doesn't predict the big bang.



new topics

top topics



 
26
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join