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.

 

Creationists, I can easily prove you wrong (even though you don't even have a theory)

page: 2
8
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 12 2010 @ 10:10 PM
link   
reply to post by tothetenthpower
 



Even the best of science is still just a theory my friend.


Yeah, how's that "Quantum Theory" going for you today??? Is your computer's processor & keyboard behaving within the laws of nature to post your absuridity?!


As science is JUST a guess however, in the end they are the same thing.


Yep, sure is ... like the guesses that the Earth was flat!! or that the Earth was at the centre of the universe!! They sure got those guesses right didn't they!!


Funny how scientific facts can never be discovered by guessing!




edit on 12-9-2010 by john124 because: (no reason given)




posted on Sep, 12 2010 @ 10:19 PM
link   
reply to post by john124
 


What absurdity?

Obvoiusly the flat earth thing is irrelevant as we have ENOUGH technology to prove that correct. You know satellites.

Science is ALL guess work, based around the TOOLS and METHODS, we have available at any given moment.

Hardly any science is fact. Physics and Quantum Physics being prime examples.

As far as ID and Evolution, there is NO hard scientific fact that proves either theory as being the REASON we are here today.

ETA: Please refute my points instead of just providing witty remarks.

~Keeper


edit on 9/12/2010 by tothetenthpower because: I wanted to add stuff...



posted on Sep, 12 2010 @ 10:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by tothetenthpower
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
 


Even the best of science is still just a theory my friend. Remember we are only working things out with our BEST GUESS, based on the level of technology we are able to use to come up with these conclusions.

Big yawn at this old chestnut of the ID movement...

From the USNAS...

The formal scientific definition of theory is quite different from the everyday meaning of the word. It refers to a comprehensive explanation of some aspect of nature that is supported by a vast body of evidence. Many scientific theories are so well established that no new evidence is likely to alter them substantially. For example, no new evidence will demonstrate that the Earth does not orbit around the sun (heliocentric theory), or that living things are not made of cells (cell theory), that matter is not composed of atoms, or that the surface of the Earth is not divided into solid plates that have moved over geological timescales (the theory of plate tectonics). One of the most useful properties of scientific theories is that they can be used to make predictions about natural events or phenomena that have not yet been observed.

Get your nomenclature right and then talk about what's "just" a theory or how it's all a big guess.



posted on Sep, 12 2010 @ 10:30 PM
link   
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
 

Okay, I'll bite.

1. Your assumption is based on the idea that God is defined in terms of the natural world (natural causes). That's like letting ink on paper define the artist, and base that definition in terms of its own. The fact that ink is on paper (2D), would render it unable to define the artist (3D, 4D if you include time) in its own terms: thus, it is impossible for us (4D, I'll be generous) to define God (10D, 20D, we don't know) in natural terms. In a multi-dimensional reality that renders certain things obsolete – such as time and space; one must assume that God is defined in terms beyond natural understanding.

2. Refer to answer number one: We can't test what is impossible for us to understand.

3. Indirectly refer to answer number one. By admitting that science and evolutionary theory fail to address the question, "where did the universe come from", you dismiss the fact that science and evolutionary theory are attempting to discover the origins of life; the origins of the universe; and, as you put it, the "technical aspects of plastic manufacturing". How can one seek the origins of the universe, without seeking where the universe originated?

4. I am failing to understand the argument. Europeans and Australians are nationalities, not species. Even if you make the leap from nationality to race, you've still failed to prove anything; as we are all human. Unless you are trying to say Europeans evolved from Australians, or visa-versa. To do so would imply that Australians are inferior to Europeans, since the evolved product is usually superior. Again … I don't understand the logic.

For what it's worth … "A wise man fears and departs from evil, but a fool rages and is self-confident." Proverbs 14:16



posted on Sep, 12 2010 @ 10:44 PM
link   
reply to post by iterationzero
 


Just so you know, I'm not an ID, Creationist OR Evolutionist...so I'm not on anybody's team here.

I was simply pointing out that scientific theory and scientific fact are two different things.

You posted the examples above and I agree with them.

What I am saying is that NO theory can readily explain, fully at 100% what caused Human Beings to develop on this planet as we are now.


One of the most useful properties of scientific theories is that they can be used to make predictions about natural events or phenomena that have not yet been observed.


That's from your quote....see how it says PREDICTIONS, based on THEORY. Well established or not, MOST scientific theory is not fact, as new information comes to light. Obviously some things as the snipped states have no new information, therefore the theory is considered fact.


~Keeper


edit on 9/12/2010 by tothetenthpower because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 12 2010 @ 11:01 PM
link   
reply to post by tothetenthpower
 



Science is ALL guess work, based around the TOOLS and METHODS, we have available at any given moment.


That's a contradiction as a lot of science is based on previously discovered scientific facts for a start. Logic and reasoning will always be more successful than complete guesswork.


Hardly any science is fact.


That to be one of the most untrue comment I've ever heard anyone say.


Physics and Quantum Physics being prime examples.


And you don't seem to realise or understand that your computer nor any electronic device would operate if Quantum theories weren't proven facts.


there is NO hard scientific fact that proves either theory as being the REASON we are here today.


Plenty of scientific evidence of evolution. I agree that none exists for ID.


Please refute my points instead of just providing witty remarks.


Your comments have been refuted.

Now get real!


edit on 12-9-2010 by john124 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 12 2010 @ 11:03 PM
link   
reply to post by john124
 


Ooops.

I never stated that evolution did not exist. I know evolution exists based on the mountain of evidence to support the theory.

What I said was that Evolution was still not 100% capable of proving that WE came out of the process of evolution. We have yet to find that common ancestor as far as I know...

Were on the same side here John, and I admit perhaps I am not explaning myself to the best of my abilities.

What I am trying to convey is that it's at this point, silly to argue whose right over ID/Creationism or Evolution as the prime reason for our existance, we don't yet have the ability to do that, scientifically or spiritually IMO.

~Keeper


edit on 9/12/2010 by tothetenthpower because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 13 2010 @ 07:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mr Mask
Wow...

You think you just dropped proof that there is no creator?

Lol...

Wow...


I didn't say I proved that there is no creator. That's actually an untestable hypothesis, which means it's inherently unscientific. I just proved your arguments wrong.

Though my appeal to infinite regress is a point of contention. How can a being more complex than us be posited when it's only introduced because you say we're too complex to have evolved?

The creator must then have a creator and its creator must have a creator and so on ad infinitum.



All that with no controlled experiments, years of research or even a laboratory...

I guess the scientific process is dead...RIP.


Except here, here, here, and in many, many more places. There are controlled experiments, there are decades of research, and not all science needs a laboratory. You can't really practice zoology in a lab, same goes for macro-scale hydrodynamics.



Sorry, you proved nothing and your title is a direct lie...you can't prove anything...nor have you even made a good case.


I set out to attack your case, to put forth a negative position.



Originally posted by mattias
What a waste of a thread, ever scientist now takes all their facts with a grain of salt because every single day how many thousands of pieces of information and data get proves obsolete and are "proven: wrong, only for those facts to be "proven" wrong again, to say that anything in this world is for sure is laughable, the only difference is for us creationists we don't NEED proof because we know in our hearts. That is why I feel sorry for you.


Well, that was off topic and a direct personal attack. You did nothing to affirm your position at all. It's also not very often that a new piece of information proves an old scientific belief entirely wrong, all it does is slightly modify it. If we found out that the ribosome had an ancillary function we would still accept the rest of established cell biology. Your point is futile and wasted.

reply to post by Sinter Klaas
 


Well, that was my point. Atheists don't accept evolution because of atheism, they accept it because of science (if they accept it at all).



Originally posted by tothetenthpower
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
 


Even the best of science is still just a theory my friend.


Heliocentrism is only a theory, but it would be a bit ridiculous argue against it.
It's also only theoretical that disease is caused by germs, but much of modern medicine is based on this theory.
As stated before, theories are also underlying the use of the computers we are using and the servers and every tiny step of the process from physical motion to internet upload.



Remember we are only working things out with our BEST GUESS, based on the level of technology we are able to use to come up with these conclusions.


Yes, and those best guesses are testable and makes predictions which means we can apply them.



As for ID/Creationism vs Atheism, it's really pointless to attempt to prove one or another wrong, the fact that you THINK you can is evidence that you know nothing at all.


I'm going to bold and italics this so that people see it well.
This thread is not about Creationism/ID vs Atheism, it is about Creationism/ID vs Evolution

And the fact of the matter is that it is quite easy to prove the premises of creationism false and we've done quite a lot to prove the premises of evolution true.



Now that's not an insult. None of us know ANYTHING about what is "god" or the "afterlife" or what we are, how we got here etc.


Well, from what I understand the questions of 'god' or 'afterlife' have no bearing on science as they are untestable hypotheses.
And I know what we are: carbon based life forms with a certain number of chromosomal base pairs, etc etc. It's quite easy to come up with biological definitions of what we are.



We have opinions, some supported by faith, some by science. As science is JUST a guess however, in the end they are the same thing.


Again, you're using a computer. Science is far from just a guess as your computer is based entirely around it. So is the purified water you drink, the antibiotic that saved your life, the petrochemical that propels your car, the aerodynamics that keeps planes aloft etc. Science isn't just a guess, it's a rigorously tested guess supported by a lot of evidence.



So no, you haven't disproved anybody's faith or ability to state that we were created, or we came out of the premordial soup.


Um...I'm not trying to disprove faith, I did point out that evolution and religion can coexist. The issue is that creationism goes entirely against the established science of evolution.


Originally posted by milktoast
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
 

Okay, I'll bite.

1. Your assumption is based on the idea that God is defined in terms of the natural world (natural causes). That's like letting ink on paper define the artist, and base that definition in terms of its own. The fact that ink is on paper (2D), would render it unable to define the artist (3D, 4D if you include time) in its own terms: thus, it is impossible for us (4D, I'll be generous) to define God (10D, 20D, we don't know) in natural terms. In a multi-dimensional reality that renders certain things obsolete – such as time and space; one must assume that God is defined in terms beyond natural understanding.


That is entirely nonsensical for the most part, but that last bit is entirely pointless.
If there is a deity and that deity interacted with the natural world there would be direct evidence of it. If something enters the natural world it will leave a mark.



2. Refer to answer number one: We can't test what is impossible for us to understand.


The difference in scale between a star and an atom is impossible for us to understand, yet we still work with this knowledge. It's impossible for us to understand how a star



3. Indirectly refer to answer number one. By admitting that science and evolutionary theory fail to address the question, "where did the universe come from",


Refer to number 4: You're using a straw man. I didn't say that science fails to address the question of where the universe comes from, I'm saying that a different field of science deals with it. Just as botany doesn't address the soil, only the plants that grow in it and leaves the soil to geologists.



you dismiss the fact that science and evolutionary theory are attempting to discover the origins of life; the origins of the universe;


Look at the title of Darwin's book: On The Origin Of Species
It doesn't say anything about the origin of life. Evolution as a theory is there to uncover the ways in which species arise, not how the life got there. Evolutionary theory starts with the first living thing, anything prior to that is for a different field of biology or organic chemistry.
If you're going to look at something prior to that then it's a question for physics and cosmology.
So asking about where the universe came from does absolutely nothing to evolution. If the universe is the result of the bowel movement of a stellar whale it doesn't alter evolutionary theory in the slightest.



and, as you put it, the "technical aspects of plastic manufacturing". How can one seek the origins of the universe, without seeking where the universe originated?


Well, it's a different field. The origin of the universe is there for the physicists to uncover, not the biologists. And it's not even all of the physicists, it's the theoretical physicists and astrophysicists. It's like saying I have to know where the universe originated to have a theory of conductivity or of cellular biology. Evolution works well no matter where the universe came from.



4. I am failing to understand the argument.


It's a suggestion to stop using straw men, like the one you used above.

The proper point is that evolution doesn't say that we came from monkeys, it says we and monkeys share a common ancestor.



Europeans and Australians are nationalities, not species. Even if you make the leap from nationality to race, you've still failed to prove anything; as we are all human.


I made a gross oversimplification of the point of common descent and you're taking it literally.



Unless you are trying to say Europeans evolved from Australians, or visa-versa. To do so would imply that Australians are inferior to Europeans, since the evolved product is usually superior. Again … I don't understand the logic.


Ah, a point where I can establish something about evolution:
Just because something evolved doesn't mean it is better.
Evolved products are never superior or inferior, merely better suited for an environment.




For what it's worth … "A wise man fears and departs from evil, but a fool rages and is self-confident." Proverbs 14:16


I thoroughly disagree with the Bible in this point. A wise man would not fear evil, but seek to understand and overcome it and a fool would fear and depart 'evil' in ignorance, yet rage in the confidence of not understanding it.



posted on Sep, 13 2010 @ 10:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by tothetenthpower
reply to post by iterationzero
 



One of the most useful properties of scientific theories is that they can be used to make predictions about natural events or phenomena that have not yet been observed.


That's from your quote....see how it says PREDICTIONS, based on THEORY. Well established or not, MOST scientific theory is not fact, as new information comes to light. Obviously some things as the snipped states have no new information, therefore the theory is considered fact.


Yes, predictions based on theory, thus testing the theory. The evidence gathered during testing (i.e. facts) will either support the theory or demand it's modification. Facts are subordinate to the theory. I think what you're missing is the amount of evidence that needs to be gathered before something gets called a theory by the scientific community.



posted on Sep, 13 2010 @ 11:00 AM
link   
reply to post by Diderot
 


Reasonable ? Actually... Yes very.


reply to post by madnessinmysoul
 


I guess I misunderstood you. I'm on your side on this subject



posted on Sep, 13 2010 @ 11:23 AM
link   
You have proven no one wrong.

Science is based on tangible data. However, just because we interpret data a certain way, it does not mean that we actually understand the realities above any such thing. It just means that we can create for ourselves a picture and a set of numbers which can measure certain related ideas. Science is not actually "knowing" as the word implies - but it is, like others have pointed out, just a means by which we may predict and control certain aspects of reality. That doesn't mean we actually know what we're talking about.

Religion is based on WORKS. Not faith. People choose their religions because of what it does for themselves, and rarely, in order to affect others (whether it be for the better or for the worse). Religion in general manipulates the Word of God. People pick religions because they get rewarded in -this- life. That is not faith.

To anyone with a mind of reason, it is OBVIOUS that there is an All-Powerful Force Beyond Nature. From what did all things come if there is not?

You should be careful to claim that there is evidence to support the idea of Macro-evolution, because there isn't. This theory is NOT TESTABLE as macro-evolution supposedly occurs gradually with little apparent changes over hundreds of thousands of years. You got a couple of vampires to help with your research?

Micro-evolution is fact... just see how man manipulated the dog from the wolf, for an example.

If you want a scientifically testable theory which attempts to answer the question, "From whence have all things come?" then, good luck. If you want a scientifically testable theory which attempts to answer the question, "From whence have all living things come?" then, first, you should attempt to answer the first question.



posted on Sep, 13 2010 @ 11:58 AM
link   
Science says life comes from chemical interactions. Elements coming together,chiefly carbon, hydrogen and oxygen. If this is the case Why don;t they demonstrate it in their labs? Create some basic lifeforms with the aformentioned elements and back their theory up. Likewise, when somebody dies, they need to establish the required elements so that the body is alive again. You see, life comes from life, as can be witnessed everyday. Godhead is the original life energy, of which we are part. Conciousness animates matter, like electricity animates your p.c. Withdraw the power and your p.c is dead. Withdraw consciousness (God) and your body is dead. Simple.



posted on Sep, 13 2010 @ 11:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
Those of you out there that believe in creationism/ID/or whatever you're calling it since the Dover case ruled it to be pure religion, I will now put forth the biggest problem of your ideas.


The Barber
This is one of the best explanations of why God allows pain and suffering that I have seen. It's an explanation other people will understand.
A man went to a barbershop to have his hair cut and his beard trimmed. As the barber began to work, they began to have a good conversation. They talked about so many things and various subjects. When they eventually touched on the subject of God, the barber said:

"I don't believe that God exists."
"Why do you say that?" asked the customer. "Well, you just have to go out in the street to realize that God doesn't exist. Tell me, if God exists, would there be so many sick people? Would there be abandoned children? If God existed, there would be neither suffering nor pain. I can't imagine loving a God who would allow all of these things." The customer thought for a moment, but didn't respond because he didn't want to start an argument. The barber finished his job and the customer left the shop. Just after he left the barbershop, he saw a man in the street with long, stringy, dirty hair and an untrimmed beard. He looked dirty and un-kept. The customer turned back and entered the barber shop again and he said to the barber: "You know what? Barbers do not exist." "How can you say that?" asked the surprised barber. "I am here, and I am a barber. And I just worked on you!" "No!! " the customer exclaimed. "Barbers don't exist because if they did, there would be no people with dirty long hair and untrimmed beards, like that man outside." "Ah, but barbers DO exist! What happens is, people do not come to me." "Exactly!"- affirmed the customer. "That's the point! God, too, DOES exist! What happens, is, people don't go to Him and do not look for Him. That's why there's so much pain and suffering in the world."



posted on Sep, 13 2010 @ 12:02 PM
link   
reply to post by TarzanBeta
 


There is evidence of macro evolution. It is observed in multiple species which actually changed withing a human life time.



posted on Sep, 13 2010 @ 12:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sinter Klaas
reply to post by TarzanBeta
 


There is evidence of macro evolution. It is observed in multiple species which actually changed withing a human life time.


Show me.

Source, please.



posted on Sep, 13 2010 @ 12:48 PM
link   
reply to post by TarzanBeta
 


Here's some
Start here
Even more
Here's a lecture
Another one

Plenty of evidence in there. However, this is off topic and doesn't address what we're talking about.



posted on Sep, 13 2010 @ 12:52 PM
link   
reply to post by texastig
 


The issue we are discussing here is not the existence of god, why does everyone keep redirecting this to the existence of god?

This thread is neutral as to the existence of a deity, we're discussing evolution. If you would like to put forth a discussion of a deity, please go to this thread

Why is it that theists can come into O&C threads and start preaching?



posted on Sep, 13 2010 @ 01:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
reply to post by TarzanBeta
 


Here's some
Start here
Even more
Here's a lecture
Another one

Plenty of evidence in there. However, this is off topic and doesn't address what we're talking about.


Could you please provide us with a specific topic? It seems like you're not even sure what the topic is about.



posted on Sep, 13 2010 @ 01:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
reply to post by texastig
 


The issue we are discussing here is not the existence of god, why does everyone keep redirecting this to the existence of god?

This thread is neutral as to the existence of a deity, we're discussing evolution. If you would like to put forth a discussion of a deity, please go to this thread

Why is it that theists can come into O&C threads and start preaching?


You are truly mad if you don't expect THEISTS TO COME INTO A THREAD WHOSE TITLE IS, "Creationists, I can easily prove you wrong (even though you don't even have a theory)".

Or am I mad in seeing that you just told me that the topic of macro-evolution is OFF topic from the topic of evolution in general?



posted on Sep, 13 2010 @ 01:04 PM
link   
reply to post by TarzanBeta
 


Wow, thanks for the insult


You just asked for proofs of macroevolution. I'm not going to walk you through it step by step and I'm not going to provide a massive amount of citation. It's complex science, so please just at least look at the first of the links instead of insulting me.



new topics

top topics



 
8
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join