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: 19
26
<< 16  17  18    20  21  22 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 19 2010 @ 11:56 PM
link   
reply to post by edmc^2
 


The point of the video is not to convince you that the universe is "ugly" or "a bad place." It's simply pointing out that IF it was actually the product of a designer, a creator... then that designer should be freaking embarrassed by its own utter incompetence. It's slipshod, last-day rush at best, and I'm certain that any one of us, given the means to create a universe, would be able to do a better job of it. Some of the stuff is just counterintuitive.

Take for example, the bubonic plague bacterium, Yersinia pestis. I'm sure Y. pestis is quite happy with its own existence (As much as a bacteria can be happy). However, this organism could be removed from our world and leave nothing in the universe missing is presence. It could be argued that life would only improve if Y. pestis were to become extinct. Maybe not for the bacterium, but everything else would either be indifferent to or happy with the new situation.

So what designer would create an organism that is superfluous at best and actively harmful to the rest of its creation at worst in the first place? It could just be that the designer is a sadist, but if so, bubonic plague is pretty tame by sadist standards. Making leprosy more contagious would be a much better method of bacteriological sadism. (Incidentally, Mycobacterium leprae is another "superfluous / harmful" organism)

A more logical conclusion is that nothing "designed" Y. pestis. The organism simply developed the way it dud due to the pressures of its environment and hosts. If something did in fact design this species of bacteria, it's got a very strange way of thinking, and I suspect its species has rendered itself extinct due to shoddy engineering making their own world collapse.

Incidentally this is the same creator that supposedly designed vertebrates as inside-out and upside-down echinoderms with backwards eyes that have a blind spot. And of course decided that its "favorite" species, humans, would have secondary color sight, which while making us special among placental mammals, still leaves us nearly blind compared to birds, turtles, marsupials, crocodiles, some snakes, amphibians and a fair number of fish. and insects.

Go us?




posted on Aug, 20 2010 @ 12:02 AM
link   
Well all things are made somehow, but the question would be whether by intellectual design or not.



posted on Aug, 20 2010 @ 12:10 AM
link   
reply to post by edmc^2
 


wouldnt your creator need a creator aswell?

How is yours somehow magical and always existing?

Abiogenisis is the only logical explination as to the origination of life in the universe... regardless in lack of the scientific understandings we have now.



posted on Aug, 20 2010 @ 01:28 AM
link   
reply to post by edmc^2
 



So the only answer is He always existed.


So if god doesnt need a creator and always existed, why couldnt the universe(or multiples) have always existed.

If god is infinite, why cant the universe(s) be infinite?



posted on Aug, 20 2010 @ 01:52 AM
link   
You have Got to be kidding me...

19 pages Already?


Look, Doc... I hate to break it to you, but your logic is ALL KINDS of incorrect.


Your test does nothing but make suggestions of the motivations of its "Creator".





But, just for the Lulz... I'll take a nibble...


Human Body: Does not require a Designer.

Robot Body: Does require a Designer.



Because the Human Body is the product of reproduction, which even stupid people can do...

And the Robot requires someone who is intelligent to design, build, and program it.


Therefore... I think your point is irrelevant.



Stuffed Chimpanzee: Intelligent designer....

Because someone had to know enough to make it look like a Chimpanzee.


Chimpanzee: You do realize that Chimpanzees are not that intelligent... and they can still make more of themselves...



Honestly, I can't really see why you are asking about an Intelligent creator.

We all know that Reproduction does not require Intelligence...


Bacteria... for one.



What was your point, exactly?

-Edrick

[edit on 20-8-2010 by Edrick]



posted on Aug, 20 2010 @ 03:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by edmc^2
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





So you are saying that the super complex universe needs a maker, but the EVEN MORE complex maker does not require a maker?

Highly illogical don't you think?



posted on Aug, 20 2010 @ 03:42 AM
link   
I'm also extremely puzzled why edmc^2 would use an avatar of Einstein considering Einstein was an EVOLUTIONIST....



posted on Aug, 20 2010 @ 03:54 AM
link   
Maybe you should start by comparing the "man-made" objects to what they have "evolved" from. Someone didn't just sit at a desk and "create" a microprocessor from scratch. It evolved over decades of research, development and refinement. Even the humble pencil is an evolved form of ochres or charred sticks.



posted on Aug, 20 2010 @ 05:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by Firepac
I'm also extremely puzzled why edmc^2 would use an avatar of Einstein considering Einstein was an EVOLUTIONIST....


Firepac, thanks for posting,

But it's becoming obvious to me that you're not paying attention to my postings. Anyway, here's what I said on page 15:


....
As for science, like what I said before, science or for that matter, scientific achievement is not at issue here. Every informed person is aware of the amazing accomplishments of scientists in many fields. Scientific study has dramatically increased our knowledge of the universe and of the earth and of living things. Studies of the human body have opened up improved ways of treating illnesses and injuries. Rapid advances in electronics have ushered in the computer age, which is altering our lives. Scientists have performed astounding feats, even sending men to the moon and back. It is only right to respect the skills that have added so greatly to our knowledge of the world around us, from the micro to the macro.

The issue is when illogical (unscientific) reasoning or scientific discipline becomes a matter of “faith”, then just like religion or creationism#, without a solid foundation it becomes a form of fanaticism and 'blind faith'.

#Scientific Creationism (i.e. Little Rock trial).

Take for example:
1. That creation took place only a few thousand years ago.

Evidence shows the earth is about 4B years old.

2. That all geologic strata were formed by the Biblical Deluge.

According to geologists, they have classified the rocks that make up our globe into three basic categories: (1) igneous; (2) sedimentary and (3) metamorphic

Interestingly, I'm not sure if you noticed it or even aware of it, the word ‘chance’ has been personified as if we were talking about a “causal agent, - an entity”.

This what biophysicist Donald M. MacKay noted when he said that “chance” somehow made a transformation into
“...an illegitimate switch from a scientific to a quasi-religious mythological concept.”



Do you think there's truth on what he said?

Here's another similar observation from Robert C. Sproul, he points out:
“By calling the unknown cause ‘chance’ for so long, people begin to forget that a substitution was made. . . . The assumption that ‘chance equals an unknown cause’ has come to mean for many that ‘chance equals cause.’”



Most notable of all, Nobel laureate Jacques L. Monod, used this chance-equals-cause line of reasoning.

Notice what he said:
“Pure chance, absolutely free but blind, [is] at the very root of the stupendous edifice of evolution,”

. He further wrote:
“Man knows at last that he is alone in the universe’s unfeeling immensity, out of which he emerged only by chance.”


Here's the kicker, ‘BY chance.’ Monod does what many others do—he makes or elevates 'chance' to a creative principle. Chance is offered as the means by which life came to be on earth.

In fact, dictionaries show that “chance” is “the assumed impersonal purposeless determiner of unaccountable happenings.” Thus, if one speaks about life coming about by 'chance', he is saying that it came about by a causal power that is not known. Could it be that some are virtually spelling “Chance” with a capital letter—in effect saying, Creator? What do you think?

In other words: Abiogenesis/Evolution = Chance = Causal Agent

On the other hand:
Creation = Creator (an Intelligent Entity)

Which one makes sense? To me creation makes sense.

(btw, majority of the people I've quoted are believers of evolution)

.....


As a matter of fact I also read the late great Dr. Carl Sagan's books and most of the shows he made. Then there's Dr. Stephen Hawkins and other great men of science.
But what about you, do you know any of the works of great men in science who believed in creation?

It's a pity if you are not able to study their works becuase of a pre-concieved idea.

As for Einstien being an 'evolutionist' - i dunno but here's a riddle for you:

WHEN an American rabbi once asked Einstein, “Do you believe in God?” he replied: “I believe in Spinoza’s God, who reveals Himself in the orderly harmony of what exists.”

"What I see in nature is a magnificent structure that we can comprehend only very imperfectly, and that must fill a thinking person with a feeling of ‘humility.’ This is a genuinely religious feeling that has nothing to do with mysticism. . . . My religiosity consists in a humble admiration of the infinitely superior spirit that reveals itself in the little that we, with our weak and transitory understanding, can comprehend of reality. . . . I want to know how God created this world. I want to know his thoughts, the rest are details.” -- The Other Einstein by Timothy Ferris.

Any idea what he meant?


btw, nophun - thanks for the post, lot's of reading to do and hopefully 'semi-intelligent' folks like me will learn a great deal from SUPER-INTELLIGENT' folks like you. But at least I'm a bit wiser than a bug.


..be a back asap...

ty,
edmc2

[edit on 20-8-2010 by edmc^2]



posted on Aug, 20 2010 @ 07:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by edmc^2

As for Einstien being an 'evolutionist' - i dunno but here's a riddle for you:

WHEN an American rabbi once asked Einstein, “Do you believe in God?” he replied: “I believe in Spinoza’s God, who reveals Himself in the orderly harmony of what exists.”



What does being an evolutionists have to do with believing in God? I love how you continue to equate evolution to the belief/disbelief in God even though you have been repeatedly told that they are mutually exlusive. This just shows how incredibly dishonest you truly are.

Oh and btw, why did you not answer my previous question?

[edit on 20-8-2010 by Firepac]



posted on Aug, 20 2010 @ 08:12 PM
link   
reply to post by edmc^2
 


OP, an absolute beautifully written 1st post...

Logical and convicting!!!!

A deadly combination for the skeptic...

Well done!



OT's sorry for being late to the game...



posted on Aug, 20 2010 @ 09:49 PM
link   
I'm going to take my own advice in my sig.

[edit on 21-8-2010 by iamcamouflage]



posted on Aug, 22 2010 @ 12:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by OldThinker
reply to post by edmc^2
 


OP, an absolute beautifully written 1st post...

Logical and convicting!!!!

A deadly combination for the skeptic...

Well done!



OT's sorry for being late to the game...


Nice of you to chime in OldThinker and thanks for the positive feedback! I hope you don't mind if I use you as a springboard to bounce back the logic of creation and show the illogic of evolution.

By now, you've prolly already noticed how believers of evolution had been trying hard to show the illogic or disprove the logic of this thread but actually ending up confirming my premise that evolution is based not on logic but by desire.

You've prolly also noticed how a simple logic is rejected because of preconceived ideas even though the facts do not support their theory. They persist and insist that it is scientific by knowingly or unknowingly disregarding scientific rules and processes in order to denigrate if not ridicule the logic of creation. But I guess it's understandable because to admit otherwise is detrimental to the very foundation of their entire 'belief' system.

To further prove my point, let's take a look at some of responses:


Human Body: Does not require a Designer.
Robot Body: Does require a Designer.

Because the Human Body is the product of reproduction, which even stupid people can do...
And the Robot requires someone who is intelligent to design, build, and program it.

Therefore... I think your point is irrelevant. – iamcamouflage


Can you see the illogic between the two statements?

Living things – designer/creator not required.
Inanimate things – designer/creator required.

Let's step it down and see how deep this illogic hole will go (macro to micro):

Universe: Does not require a Designer.*
Galaxies: Does not require a Designer.*
Stars: Does not require a Designer.*
Planets: Does not require a Designer.*
Earth: Does not require a Designer.*
Human Body: Does not require a Designer.
Human Brain
oes not require a Designer.
Human eye: Does not require a Designer.
Human Nail: Does not require a Designer.
Chimpanzee: Does not require a Designer.
Fish: Does not require a Designer.
Cockroach: Does not require a Designer.
Banana: Does not require a Designer.
Blade of grass: Does not require a Designer.
Amoeba: Does not require a Designer.
A single celled organism: Does not require a Designer.

*Living or inanimate?

On the other hand,

A Robot: sure it's inanimate therefore it requires a designer/creator.
A CPU: sure it's inanimate therefore it requires a designer/creator.
A camera: sure it's inanimate therefore it requires a designer/creator.
A house: sure it's inanimate therefore it requires a designer/creator.
A simple pencil: sure it's inanimate therefore it requires a designer/creator.
A flint arrow tip: sure it's inanimate therefore it requires a designer/creator.

But what about:
A piece rock: Does it require a maker or not? Is it living or inanimate?
A grain of sand: Does it require a maker or not? Is it living or inanimate?
A single drop of water: Does it require a maker or not? Is it living or inanimate?
An atom: Does it require a maker or not? Is it living or inanimate?
A proton/electron: Does it require a maker or not? Is it living or inanimate?
A boson: Does it require a maker or not? Is it living or inanimate?
Other exotic particles: Does it require a maker or not? Is it living or inanimate?

Oldthinker, I prolly know your answer already but any idea how evolutionist will answer the Qs above (logically and scientifically speaking)?

So to summarized the rules or facts according to abiogenesis/evolution:

1) IF a 'thing' is alive, therefore it MUST and DOES NOT require a designer/creator.
2) But something that is inanimate MUST HAVE and require a designer/creator.
3) Blind Chance (abiogenesis) is the causal agent responsible for creating life.
4) Living things are naturally occurring (therefore a designer/creator is not required).
5) Laws are naturally occurring (therefore an intelligent lawmaker is not required) thus:
1. Laws that govern life and the universe are products of blind chance.
6) Since life is a product of blind chance (abiogenesis/evolution) therefore there's no ultimate meaning.
7) Natural selection is enthroned as the “designer” of life.

8) All forms of life came from a “selfish gene” in an “organic soup” thru “abiogensis” billions and billions of years ago then climbed up the “evolutionary ladder” to form the “evolutionary tree of life” then “punctuated” it to “naturally select” the “fittest” forms of life then evolved again and again and again to arrive at the present stage – but (somehow still evolving). All of these happened by CHANCE – accepted in the “evolution” community as scientific.

Makes sense?

These rules or invented facts are blindly accepted in spite of the fact that real scientific evidence shows that:

1) Life can ONLY come from Life.
2) Blind Chance cannot produce even the simplest form of life.
3) Energy can be turned into matter vise versa.
4) Unless acted upon by an outside force a body at rest tends to stay at rest, and a body in motion tends to stay in motion. – Newton's First law
5) Law require an intelligent mind/lawmaker to put is together and implement it.
6) Fossil records contradicts the evolution theory.
7) All created things (animate/inanimate) has a purpose be it a simple pencil or man.
8) I can list more but these should be enuff.

As for the Scientific method, here's how the process works:

Observe what happens; based on those observations, form a theory as to what may be true; test the theory by further observations and by experiments; and watch to see if the predictions based on the theory are fulfilled.

And to quote Espyderman:

“We can observe only for so long, the only way to prove a theory is through testing it out in a real world scenario under the same exact conditions and after testing it multiple times, only then can you say your theory is correct.”



Cont...



posted on Aug, 22 2010 @ 12:41 PM
link   
...
Now let's consider the scientific method using a simple logic (that I posited a while back):

Lets just say for all intents and purposes, that by means of a carefully designed and directed experiments, scientists successfully created a complex molecule. Then from there were somehow able to build all the parts needed to construct a simple cell.

What do you think an evolutionist will say?
I'm sure they will call it proof of abiogenesis/evolution! Espyderman, agree?

But is it? Analyzing the data further, to simple minded/semi-intelligent folks like me, the experiment shows that:

That they accomplished something truly amazing! But is it a PROOF that the cell could be made by CHANCE or by ACCIDENT? Absolutely Not!

The fact that the experiments conducted by great minds so many times over (by trial and error) were or are in controlled environments with all the proper tools, proper guidelines with extensive knowledge and experience, shows quite the opposite:

THAT LIFE CAN NOT BE CREATED BY CHANCE BUT RATHER BY AN INTELLECT!



Now lets take a look at some facts:

Fact1: Researchers have recreated in the laboratory the environmental conditions that they believe existed early in the earth's history. In these experiments, a few scientists have manufactured some of the molecules found in living things.

Question to Evolutionist:

If the chemicals in the experiment represent the earth early environment and the molecules produced represents the building blocks of life, WHOM DOES THE scientists who performed the experiment represent? DOES HE/SHE represent BLIND CHANCE or INTELLIGENT ENTITY?

(evolutionists please insert answer here if you are courageous enuff to take on this Q)

Fact2: Protein and RNA molecules must work together for a cell to survive. Scientists admit that it's highly unlikely that RNA formed by chance. The odds against even one protein forming by chance are astronomical. It is exceedingly improvable that RNA proteins should form by chance in the same place at the same time and able to work together.

Question to evolutionist:

What takes greater faith to believe that the millions of intricately coordinated parts of a cell arose by chance or to believe that the cell is a product of an intelligent mind?

(evolutionists please insert answer here if you are courageous enuff to take on this Q)

Continuing...

OldThinker, I know that you believe as I do that the concepts listed below exists and are factual! I'm also sure evolutionist will agree with me and believe that these concepts are also based on sound and logical reasoning:

1)Space and Time continuum
2) Infinity
3) Gravity
4) Dark matter
5) E=mc2

6) There's more but I think these s/b more than enuff (for starters).

Now, if 'semi-intelligent' folks like me is able to understand and accept these concepts, why do proponents/believers of evolution believe/say then that an always-existing Creator is “an outrageous statement”?

Why is it hard for them to logically and scientifically fathom this simple concept of an always-existing Creator – God? That is, no creator needed to create an always-existing Creator!

Instead they always come up with very obvious evading questions like:


“So you are saying that the super complex universe needs a maker, but the EVEN MORE complex maker does not require a maker?



“wouldnt your creator need a creator aswell?
How is yours somehow magical and always existing?
Abiogenisis is the only logical explination as to the origination of life in the universe... regardless in lack of the scientific understandings we have now. – Wertdagf”



“Your comparisons are like comparing apples to oranges. Robots were made by man, the universe is massive and quite alot more complex then a robot. Any comparison you gave, the former was always much more complex.” – Espyderman


It is truly fascinating yet puzzling why they are not able to accept the logic behind an always-existing creator but are able to accept similarly out of this world concepts.

Why? IMHO, it is because it will bring down the entire theory of evolution/abiogenes and will prove that their belief system was/IS based on ILLOGICAL/ERRONEOUS SCIENCE and DESIRE!

(of course as mentioned already – erroneous and unscientific teachings/doctrines/unchristian acts in the religious community is also responsible for confusing and alienating many from the true teachings of the Bible but that alone is not a good and valid reason to abandon the facts.)

So OT which one is more outrageous or makes sense (even to 5th grader)?

Life can ONLY come from NON-LIFE by BLIND CHANCE?

Or

Life can ONLY come from LIFE by an Intelligent Creator?

Ty,
edmc2

P.S.

btw, nophun, I'm still reading your links but just to let you know, "If we say "God" was always here, why not say the universe was always here?" or “If god is infinite, why cant the universe(s) be infinite? - iamcamouflage”

We can “not say the universe was always here” or “infinite” because according to the evidence provided by astronomers and great men/women of science – the universe has a beginning (“big-bang” they call it - c13Gyr). On the other hand God (YHWH – Jehovah/Yahweh) has no 'beginning' and 'no end', an always-existing Entity – just like Infinity/Space/Time.

And not “magic” as some (of YOU) loved to say and fond of saying.


“Alien and/or God the whole point of your OP is flawed. If something that "looks designed needs a designer", that designer needs a designer. Saying "He always existed. He always was" is doing nothing but waste time. Carl Sagan once said "If we say "God" was always here, why not say the universe was always here? – nophun"



“So if god doesnt need a creator and always existed, why couldnt the universe(or multiples) have always existed.
If god is infinite, why cant the universe(s) be infinite?“-- iamcamouflage


chkw/ya-later...

edit: quotation marks added

[edit on 22-8-2010 by edmc^2]



posted on Aug, 22 2010 @ 01:08 PM
link   
reply to post by edmc^2
 


I see your point but I think the error is in separately categorizing inanimate and life, since both can need or not need intelligent design. This basically means if something is created by intelligent design it needs it and everything else doesn’t and being inanimate or not is moot.

I also find it funny that you may question Atoms and not the Universe when the universe started out almost entirely of Hydrogen atoms.



posted on Aug, 22 2010 @ 01:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by iamcamouflage


If god is infinite, why cant the universe(s) be infinite?


If god created the universe then he started outside of it and the universe we live in has a beginning and end.



posted on Aug, 22 2010 @ 01:19 PM
link   
reply to post by edmc^2
 





A Robot: sure it's inanimate therefore it requires a designer/creator. A CPU: sure it's inanimate therefore it requires a designer/creator. A camera: sure it's inanimate therefore it requires a designer/creator. A house: sure it's inanimate therefore it requires a designer/creator. A simple pencil: sure it's inanimate therefore it requires a designer/creator. A flint arrow tip: sure it's inanimate therefore it requires a designer/creator.


Things created by man obviously require a creator. But things in nature do not require intelligent creator - both innanimate and living included. Prove me wrong, you cant..



posted on Aug, 22 2010 @ 01:33 PM
link   
reply to post by Xtrozero
 


but that extra demention outsde of our still needed to be created alogn wilth all the life that is there.

You cant escape the logic of your god needing a creator..... even if yoru god is some sort of ambeint pattern it still needs the foudation of its replication set by some initial unknown force.

Yet again Edmc falls back on the only logic he understands... deffering to his bible, a book so full of holes.



posted on Aug, 22 2010 @ 01:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by Wertdagf


You cant escape the logic of your god needing a creator..... even if yoru god is some sort of ambeint pattern it still needs the foudation of its replication set by some initial unknown force.

Yet again Edmc falls back on the only logic he understands... deffering to his bible, a book so full of holes.




We can only understand what physics our universe works by, and within our universe we see beginnings and endings, and so we cannot comprehend the concept of always been here and always will be here.

So where is the problem? I think the problem is in our inability to comprehend…

So explain to me why God would need a creator, why does there need a beginning or end? I agree if he was within our universe he would need one and would need to live by our universal laws of physics.

[edit on 22-8-2010 by Xtrozero]



posted on Aug, 22 2010 @ 07:21 PM
link   
Statement: Everything has a beginning and something that created it, stuff doesn't just evolve, someone has to create it...ergo, there's a creator.

I keep on hearing this argument, often together with a "god is all powerful and nothing is above him" statement.

If the statement were true, something had to create this god creature. If that's the case, he's not all powerful because obviously the thing that created him is more powerful than him. And there obviously has to be something that created the thing that created god. And then a thing that created the thing that created the thing that created god. And so on...

The whole "something HAD to create us, ergo there's a creator" is total hogwash!



new topics

top topics



 
26
<< 16  17  18    20  21  22 >>

log in

join