Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Debunk evolution once and for all

page: 4
13
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join

posted on Aug, 24 2010 @ 02:50 AM
link   
reply to post by NichirasuKenshin
 


Your argument is that if everything is created then GOD should be created. Right?

If GOD is created, then there is there is the other GOD.

That wouldn't be true if we believe in one eternal GOD, ofcurse most Atheist forget about that point.

Your other point that Technology doesn't reproduce therefore people won't come to the same conclusion as Biological evolutionary theory is also mute, because if you read the history of the Universe you will come across something called "the Evolution of the Universe".


"
The Big Bang Occurred

All interactions, gravity, strong nuclear, weak nuclear, and electromagnetism are unified. The radius of the Universe is less than 10-50 centimeters - A very small area.

10-43 seconds later
Gravity separated from the other forces. Inflation, the tremendous expansion of the early Universe. The observable Universe expands to approximately the size of a grapefruit.

10-35 seconds after the Big Bang
The strong nuclear force separates from electromagnetism and weak nuclear force. Inflation ends. The Universe consists of a hot electron-quark soup. (a quark is a the main type of subatomic particle which makes up protons).

1 second after the Big Bang
Electromagnetism and the weak nuclear force separate. Quarks combine to form protons, and protons and electrons combine to form neutrons. Helium and other light elements form through from these through nucleosynthesis .

1 million years after the Big Bang
The universe becomes transparent as it continues to expand. Matter releases radiation. Several spacecraft have detected these emissions, which are called the cosmic microwave background radiation.

1 billion years after the Big Bang
Protogalaxies begin to form.

3 billion years after the Big Bang
Quasars and some radio galaxies (galaxies that emit extremely high amounts of electromagnetic radiation) begin to form.

8 billion years after the Big Bang
Most galaxies, including the Milky Way have formed. The Sun and Solar System form.

13 billion years after the Big Bang
The present."

[edit on 24-8-2010 by oozyism]




posted on Aug, 24 2010 @ 03:00 AM
link   
reply to post by oozyism
 




Your other point that Technology doesn't reproduce therefore people won't come to the same conclusion as Biological evolutionary theory is also mute


I'm assuming you mean moot, not mute. If Technology could perpetuate itself, if the laws of nature allowed for such things to form without the intervention of an intelligent agent, than you would have a point. But you don't have one here.

We have no examples of computers occurring naturally.

Every example of life we have found occurs naturally (via reproduction).

The Universe that "evolved" did so naturally, stars, galaxies and planets coalesced according to natural processes. None of them require the action of any thinking being and none of them can reproduce in the biological sense of the word. A star, for instance, does not give birth to other stars or pass on any of its characteristics, usually they explode into a super-nova.

[edit on 24-8-2010 by Titen-Sxull]

[edit on 24-8-2010 by Titen-Sxull]



posted on Aug, 24 2010 @ 03:07 AM
link   
reply to post by oozyism
 





I'm sick of Atheist and any anti-Religious, or anti-God movement who revolve all their arguments around evolution.


Sorry to burst your bubble here dude but most of the arguments revolve around lack of evidence, not evolution.

Not only does the creationists need to prove creation but they would then need to prove it was their creator.

If creation was proven tomorrow how would that affect the views of me the atheist ?

Well it wouldn't, It would just open the doors for ufologist et al to start another religion as any claims they make would be no less valid than anyone elses.

The argument would obviously move back to who or what is the creator ?
Could it have been the bible gods ? the sumarian gods ? The egyptian gods?
aliens ? Not forgetting the Smurfs or the Flying Spaghetti Monster .

You've simply no idea of the way atheists look at the world my friend, unless the alleged creator showed up and popped in for tea it doesn't really make a blind bit of difference does it ?

What would really be a scream is if creation was somehow proven and two gods showed up claiming intellectual property on all that there is.

Imaginary men that live in the sky will remain imaginary unless they make an appearance and prove they are not.







[edit on 24-8-2010 by The Djin]



posted on Aug, 24 2010 @ 03:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by oozyism
reply to post by NichirasuKenshin
 


Your argument is that if everything is created then GOD should be created. Right?

If GOD is created, then there is there is the other GOD.

That wouldn't be true if we believe in one eternal GOD, ofcurse most Atheist forget about that point.



So by your own admission, this rule isn't universal, since it does not apply to everything - since god is an exception. If the rule is not universal then there is simply no evidence for the argument that it should be equally applicable to all things.

Do you see how you bite your own tail here? The rule is either universal - then it can be an argument for all - or it isn't - in which case it can't be an argument for all things since you yourself acknowledge an exception. Quite a predicament hm?

As I said, this whole scheme only works when the power of definition is on your side, meaning, that you can arbitrarily - without any logic reason - exempt god from this universal rule. That's the only way it works for you. And there is simply no good reason (meaning, a reason derived from a universal rule) that god would be exempt from such a rule if it were universal. Ouch.

This only works when you claim infallibility and special knowledge of god - it only works by arbitrarily exmepting him although you have no good reason to do so except dogmatic ones.




Your other point that Technology doesn't reproduce therefore people won't come to the same conclusion as Biological evolutionary theory is also mute, because if you read the history of the Universe you will come across something called "the Evolution of the Universe".



It may be "mute" to your ears, but it's not moot. The Evolution of the universe is not a biological issue - neither volition nor natural selection have any causal determining role in the abiological world.

Wow. Just Wow.




[edit on 24-8-2010 by NichirasuKenshin]

[edit on 24-8-2010 by NichirasuKenshin]



posted on Aug, 24 2010 @ 03:22 AM
link   
reply to post by Titen-Sxull
 




I'm assuming you mean moot, not mute. If Technology could perpetuate itself, if the laws of nature allowed for such things to form without the intervention of an intelligent agent, than you would have a point. But you don't have one here.

We have no examples of computers occurring naturally.


I did mean mute, I wouldn't let it get to my head, I will mute it


The laws of nature? The laws of nature is not much different than the codes of a designed computer. Think about it for couple of seconds.

If we in the future program a computer which will reproduce and transfer its code to its offspring, would we finally be on the same page?

You did say I'll have a point if it was to be true, but then changed your mind and claimed it had to be natural.



The Universe that "evolved" did so naturally, stars, galaxies and planets coalesced according to natural processes. None of them require the action of any thinking being and none of them can reproduce in the biological sense of the word. A star, for instance, does not give birth to other stars or pass on any of its characteristics, usually they explode into a super-nova.


Yeah, computers also have natural processes (defined by codes), in universal context we are talking about natural processes (define by codes also).

See the similarities?

And in regards to how a star explodes into a super-nove. zzzz. It still evolves..



posted on Aug, 24 2010 @ 03:23 AM
link   
reply to post by The Djin
 

What I wonder is how it could be possible that you Djin do not see it "pop in for tea" every day of your life?



posted on Aug, 24 2010 @ 03:30 AM
link   
reply to post by NichirasuKenshin
 


You talked about me and my tail then you went around and did the same to your own tail:


This only works when you claim infallibility and special knowledge of god - it only works by arbitrarily exmepting him although you have no good reason to do so except dogmatic ones.


Have you heard of the Quran?

Maybe your should try reading it sometimes, it defines somethings about GOD, which would help us define the scope of this discussion between me and you.

It defines GOD as one and eternal, also claims GOD lives in its own throne where One day equals a thousands days in earth.

The above point is: We all have that special knowledge you are talking about


[edit on 24-8-2010 by oozyism]



posted on Aug, 24 2010 @ 03:34 AM
link   
reply to post by oozyism
 


The Koran, as the Bible, as the Talmud is a book written by humans for humans. Since it is a book, by your own logic, it was created by a creator, a human. How can you derive a meta-border about the nature of God from a book written by men?

As I said - this only works when you arbitrarily (i.e., with no good reason except a general wish for coherence of your fairytale) prescribe the power of defintiion to whatever group pleases you. Exactly what you've just done. Thanks for proving my point.

[edit on 24-8-2010 by NichirasuKenshin]



posted on Aug, 24 2010 @ 03:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by NichirasuKenshin
reply to post by oozyism
 


The Koran, as the Bible, as the Talmud is a book written by humans for humans. Since it is a book, by your own logic, it was created by a creator, a human. How can you derive a meta-border about the nature of God from a book written by men?

As I said - this only works when you arbitrarily (i.e., with no good reason except a general wish for coherence of your fairytale) prescribe the power of defintiion to whatever group pleases you. Exactly what you've just done. Thanks for proving my point.

[edit on 24-8-2010 by NichirasuKenshin]


Try going through my threads, I have many definition in regards to the Universe, including the Universe is a Hologram, including the Phenomena of Past lives, including the claim that GOD's messengers are merely Scientists, including the oneness theory and even tried to prove it Mathematically lol, I think that one failed etc.

I have made many thread, and you can see even my thoughts are evolutionary, it changes, it has changed over and over again.

One thing that I'm still waiting for, is for someone to convince me the Quran is words of man, and nothing extraordinary.

I have also created a thread about GOD simply being TIME, that TIME = GOD, but that is in a banned account "Ownification". If you wanna go through the threads


[edit on 24-8-2010 by oozyism]



posted on Aug, 24 2010 @ 03:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by oozyism
reply to post by Firepac
 



Do you agree that in order for something to evolve, that thing has to be able to reproduce? This isn't exactly a hard concept to grasp.


I guess you never read about how the Universe evolved.

Evolution isn't isolated to biological being only, it also exists in Universal structures, and how the Universe evolved in to what it is today.




the whole matter of the universe was once concentrated in an extremely dense and hot (~10 12K) fireball. Then about 20 billion years ago a vast explosion (big bang) occurred. The matter was broken into pieces, which were thrown out with high speed in all directions forming stars and galaxies;


The universe doesn't evolve by natural selection. I can't believe you even brought up that strawman.

THE UNIVERSE HAS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH EVOLUTION. Now what part of that do you not understand?



posted on Aug, 24 2010 @ 03:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by seagrass
reply to post by The Djin
 

What I wonder is how it could be possible that you Djin do not see it "pop in for tea" every day of your life?


Suprise suprise ! Not long ago I was visited by a stranger he just kind of appeared in my living room, he sat on my sofa and we had long chat and some tea he said his name was jesus.

Whenever I related this event and what was said I was informed that I was delusional by the rational people and that I was possessed by demons according to the religious.

The last thing on this planet religious people need is proof of a creator my friend especially their own creator.





posted on Aug, 24 2010 @ 03:44 AM
link   
reply to post by Firepac
 




THE UNIVERSE HAS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH EVOLUTION. Now what part of that do you not understand?


Are you testing me, or did you just make a quick response lol..

Read your statement again and tell me if you stand by it the second time.

And the point I was making is simple, that the Universe did evolve. That response was to those who claimed you can't evolve without reproducing.

Everything evolves, including our thoughts, you don't need to reproduce in order to evolve, that is why I gave the example of technology etc.



posted on Aug, 24 2010 @ 03:45 AM
link   
reply to post by oozyism
 




Think about it for couple of seconds.


I did and I'm still not sure what your point is. Are you saying that because there are laws of nature that must mean we are in a computer simulation? Are you aware that such an idea is unfalsifiable and essentially worthless?

The laws of nature do not indicate that reality is designed.



If we in the future program a computer which will reproduce and transfer its code to its offspring, would we finally be on the same page?


No. However if we design androids or cyborgs that can actually physically reproduce themselves with a system similar to DNA than yes. We're going to have to be VERY advanced before we get around to something like this though. Even then there will be evidence that these androids did not evolve but were originally built, since there will be no transitional fossils or genetic evidence of their relation to other robotic life.

The point would be stronger if we seed synthetic life on another planet, let it evolve, and then it evolves into higher, possibly intelligent, techno-organisms. It might very well be indiscernible from naturally formed life. This would not prove that life on Earth was originally seeded here by aliens or a god but it would suggest it as a possibility. This, however, would also confirm evolution, just as our observations of life on Earth confirms it.



Yeah, computers also have natural processes (defined by codes)


Codes are programmed into a computer by an intelligent agent, humans, they are not naturally occurring. Computers and technology are not naturally occurring.



And in regards to how a star explodes into a super-nove. zzzz. It still evolves..


If by evolve you mean change, than yes, Stars do change - Everything changes. It is not the same as biological evolution however so there is no reason to make a comparison as the two are entirely different.



posted on Aug, 24 2010 @ 03:46 AM
link   
reply to post by oozyism
 


Obviously and arguably you do not understand how the word "evolution" is properly used.

Yes, in an analogous way you can speak of an "evolution" of the universe - that however, does not mean that the formation of the universe was driven by volition, natural selection and random mutations.



posted on Aug, 24 2010 @ 03:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by oozyism
reply to post by Firepac
 




yeah except a car is not a computer....


Cars also have computers in them these days, and they are all called technology. Even a car..


And yet cars are still not computers. Your "computer arm assembling a car" was a piss poor example of computers creating themselves.



posted on Aug, 24 2010 @ 03:47 AM
link   
reply to post by The Djin
 





The last thing on this planet religious people need is proof of a creator my friend especially their own creator.


Exactly, when considering everything around us is evidence of GOD. So why would we need anymore evidence? Do you think if GOD sends angels to your house, that will be enough to make you believe?

That is naive, you would call the angels aliens, or call that person crazy, like your story.



posted on Aug, 24 2010 @ 04:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by oozyism
reply to post by The Djin
 





The last thing on this planet religious people need is proof of a creator my friend especially their own creator.


Exactly, when considering everything around us is evidence of GOD.


When a person exhibits this type of behavior we call it schizophrenia.



posted on Aug, 24 2010 @ 04:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by oozyism
reply to post by Firepac
 




THE UNIVERSE HAS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH EVOLUTION. Now what part of that do you not understand?


Are you testing me, or did you just make a quick response lol..

Read your statement again and tell me if you stand by it the second time.

And the point I was making is simple, that the Universe did evolve. That response was to those who claimed you can't evolve without reproducing.

Everything evolves, including our thoughts, you don't need to reproduce in
order to evolve, that is why I gave the example of technology etc.


Okay you don't seem to understand. The Universe has NOTHING to do with biological evolution.

I'm seriously beginning to think that you're a troll.

[edit on 24-8-2010 by Firepac]



posted on Aug, 24 2010 @ 04:10 AM
link   
reply to post by Titen-Sxull
 


I'll just continue with computers producing babies argument for this post.

If computers can replicate itself in the future, how would we know it is built by humans without any human presence. You claim:



Even then there will be evidence that these androids did not evolve but were originally built, since there will be no transitional fossils or genetic evidence of their relation to other robotic life.


There would be genetic evidence, hence the coding, there will be immense similarities between the coding, but obviously knowing what language was used to create these robots.

The transitional fossils would be the dead robot species from the past also created, the thing you have to remember, this scenario would only be correct if there was thousands of different species of Robots created at one time.

After a long period of time, only some robot remains will survive, since there are thousands of species people would find specie (A), at time frame (1), specie (b), at time frame (2), and not in time frame (1). Does that mean that specie (b) didn't exist in time frame (1), therefore concluding that specie (b) must have evolved from (A)? There has to be extensive fossil record to prove this.

I would like for you to explain to me fossil records and how they are used as evidence in regards to evolution. Is time frame used similar to the above example ? etc etc.

It doesn't have to be a long explanation, just a short one. Thanks in advance.



posted on Aug, 24 2010 @ 04:10 AM
link   
reply to post by oozyism
 





Exactly, when considering everything around us is evidence of GOD.


Sorry dude, everything around you is only evidence of what you want it to be, nothing more

Today everything around me is blurry, evidence of a hangover. Alas I do not drink,. the evidence of tiredness and on and on.

Dude there is a world of difference between a "god" and a "creator" to the evolutionist/ atheist. May I suggest that when you engage an atheist in debate you use one or the other so he has an inkling of whee your coming from.

Everything around me is only evidence of what my swede is picking up from my eyes nothing more.

When Spielbergs name comes up on the credits you can judge by the work as to whether or not it is compatible with previous work. even then you only have someones word it was Spielberg, until you actually meet the guy and watch him at work.

Unfortunately your director has remained completely absent and indolent since the time man first threw a rock, which is not helping your case.





new topics

top topics



 
13
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join