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: 3
8
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 13 2010 @ 01:11 PM
link   
All I know is that there's definitely more to our reality than meets the eye (or instruments.)

I think the fact that modern physics is running into a brick wall would indicate that our understanding is less complete than science would care to admit. Ask any cosmologist and they'll tell you that something is definitely up, and that they are deeply disturbed by it.

Anyone else notice Stephen Hawking seems to be #ting bricks lately?




posted on Sep, 13 2010 @ 01:24 PM
link   
How do you, with any hope of certainty, prove, or disprove in this case, the existence of a creator who is intangible to all scientific methods or proofs?

The existence of God, or a creator, or however you wish to call him/her is, when all is said and done, a matter of faith, not science.

Personally? I care not a whit whether you "prove" creationist theory wrong, or not. The world, and Universe, in which I live, and I allow you all to, will continue to exist regardless.

I can not, for the life of me, understand why people think this is such an important issue. Science has its place, as does faith/religion.



posted on Sep, 13 2010 @ 01:41 PM
link   
The title to this thread offered proof as to ID being wrong, yet the opening article only attempted to show the holes in ID arguments. The fact is, there are no identifiable animals in transition or obviously evolving today. Why? Have we all hit a brick wall? Have we all evolved to perfection? I came across a thread here once with some interesting info such as DNA losing info over time.(Suggesting we're devolving?) And also a comparison of ours and our closest ape ancestors DNA which shows we have two fewer pairs, but it looked like two pairs of ours were actually fused, suggesting we're genetically modified or Intelligently Designed.



posted on Sep, 13 2010 @ 02:16 PM
link   
reply to post by seagull
 


At risk of sounding like a butt-kisser: This is a perfect answer from a moderator. I see why you are one.



posted on Sep, 13 2010 @ 02:19 PM
link   
reply to post by TarzanBeta
 


Here is one with little fish.
1

Actually we are talking here about speciation , but it is the start. A wedge that causes this species to walk a different path.

Number 2

There are more, but I'm busy so maybe later.



posted on Sep, 13 2010 @ 02:24 PM
link   
okay get this (good):



The fact that i can easily scrub out the "A" in "Atheism" under the mountain in your avatar, making the logic just as applicable for my beleifs as it is for yours with the "a", surely shows you have not only misrepresented the creationist view, it also shows that you have too poorly understood your own view.

Get that? good, God.

ETA: this is probably the only time you will ever encounter me using the term God. I find it has too many ridiculous connotations, and has been hijacked throughout the ages by false prophets.

and btw, spiritualists understand that science has a place, post intention, whereas religion has its place as a cause of all universal intention. Because intention is the prime mover. You know, just before the energy enters our dimension conforming to the scientific laws governing our universe, before existance, dimensionless eternal energy, dissipated downwards into fractalised infinity we call the universe or multiverses whatever that means. Your right we can never truly know, but we all have a right to be mystified by the mere fact that we even exist at all, let alone in the beautiful way we do on this planet.


edit on 13/9/2010 by DizzyDayDream because: expandedexplanation



posted on Sep, 13 2010 @ 02:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sinter Klaas
reply to post by TarzanBeta
 


Here is one with little fish.
1

Actually we are talking here about speciation , but it is the start. A wedge that causes this species to walk a different path.

Number 2

There are more, but I'm busy so maybe later.


Bravo on providing us two examples of

MICROEVOLUTION

Now, show me a series of changes over the course of thousands of years that produces -----two separate Orders from the very same species---.

Everything you have posted so far is -not- evidence of true macroevolution. Everything you have posted so far is information in and of itself which proves microevolution -- but all of your "proof" does not constitute any ACTUAL certainty regarding the issue of how different Orders came to be, much less how Kingdoms were established. There aren't many.



posted on Sep, 13 2010 @ 03:22 PM
link   
reply to post by TarzanBeta
 


Although they do are not the answers you want to hear, that does not mean it is not evolution.

Before you start calling bravo, these are only new observations that happen to show that changes taking place can happen within our life time. This was not expected. You will never ever see a species change into another. There is no evidence that that is even a possibility. Gradual changes is what eventually separates a species into 2 or 3 or a 100 who knows...

Evolution explains the changes we have observed and have evidence for. Fossil records, and more important genetics offer massive evidence. All based on facts.
The speciation in my examples only proves that we are looking in the right direction.

Micro evolution is something else all together and is also proven fact. This alone also proves macro evolution.



edit on 9/13/2010 by Sinter Klaas because: to add



posted on Sep, 13 2010 @ 03:28 PM
link   
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
 


Wait can you prove otherwise?

If can't prove one thing, then you can't disprove the other. What do you WANT to see? Then that is probably the truth...



posted on Sep, 13 2010 @ 03:57 PM
link   
reply to post by TarzanBeta
 


If only to quote an two odd claims of yours...


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?


How is that reasonable? "From what did all things come from", I'd assume meaning the big bang theory or abiogenesis, in that case, that's the theory we go by until we find out more or other evidence is presented.

Assuming some undetectable power did this is not reasonable. Even if we knew nothing of the big bang or abiogenesis, filling the gap with god is not reasonable, as it's just randomly picking your favourite explanation despite having no evidence.


You should be careful to claim that there is evidence to support the idea of Macro-evolution, because there isn't...Micro-evolution is fact... just see how man manipulated the dog from the wolf, for an example.


Evolution is evolution, are you suggesting that there is some difference between short term evolution and long term evolution? What do you think will happen after the short term changes begin to accumulate?

If I create a theory that states that if people keep throwing tiny rocks in the same spot, they will form a tiny hill, do you think that if the rock throwing continues, that over time, the tiny hill will become a a rather large hill? Possibly change from "hill" to "mountain" maybe?

Edit to add, what prevents microevolution from becoming macroevolution over time?


edit on 13-9-2010 by Whyhi because: Add last question



posted on Sep, 13 2010 @ 03:57 PM
link   
How did existence come about? I am not saying there is a god, but weather accident or intentional, creation comes both ways. Something is created. Doesn't mean there is a creator, per say.



posted on Sep, 13 2010 @ 04:33 PM
link   
Since I believe there is a Creator, but also in evolution and catastrophism, I'd say I have all my bases covered.



posted on Sep, 13 2010 @ 04:35 PM
link   
For that matter, I also believe there are some very advanced aliens out there who are also engaged in the process of creation and have taken control over their own evolution.



posted on Sep, 13 2010 @ 04:35 PM
link   


"A speck of polonium in molten rock can be compared to an Alka-Seltzer dropped into a glass of water. The beginning of effervescence is equated to the moment that polonium atoms began to emit radiactive particles. In molten rock the traces of those radioactive particles would disappear as quickly as the Alka-Seltzer bubbles in water. But if the water were instantly frozen, the bubbles would be preserved. Likewise, polonium halos could have formed only if the rapidly "effervescing" specks of polonium had been instantly encased in solid rock."


Proof of creation



posted on Sep, 13 2010 @ 04:51 PM
link   
Looks like someone turned up the flames in here


reply to post by seagull
 


Gull, I expected better of a mod.

This
Thread
Is
Not
About
The
Existence
Of
God

It is about the truth of the biological process of evolution.

Look at what I said

reply to post by madnessinmysoul
 



Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
However, atheism and evolution are mutually exclusive, which will bring me to my next point (yep, I was expecting this)

5: Evolution isn't something for atheists, it's something for everyone.

A belief in the divine and a belief in evolution are not irreconcilable, a great examp'le of this would be Kenneth Miller, the witness for the evolution side in the Kitzmiller v Dover Board of Education case. He believes in a deity but is a biology professor who is also a Roman Catholic.

Here's a video from him.


As I said before, evolution is only concerned with what happened the second life arose. It doesn't matter how it arose or whether or not there is a spiritual being involved, it simply deals with how that life progressed into the myriad of forms now found in the world, and there is a lot of hard evidence to support it.


I explicitly stated that a belief in the divine and a belief in evolution are compatible.

However, as for the portion of your post that basically resigns itself to things being a matter of faith...well, the world isn't a matter of faith.
The thing I like least about religion is how it wants people to be satisfied with not knowing.

reply to post by jennybee35
 


At the risk of sounding like someone about to be banned, this is a horrible answer from a mod. It's not even on topic!

It is a deflection to a point that I explicitly posted in refutation of while claiming the position to my own. It's a straw man if I ever saw one!


Originally posted by type0civ
The title to this thread offered proof as to ID being wrong, yet the opening article only attempted to show the holes in ID arguments.


That's sort of how you address a scientific problem.



The fact is, there are no identifiable animals in transition or obviously evolving today.


Have you looked in the mirror? Every being is an evolving being. Evolution is a gradual process over geologic time spans. It's not like we're expected to see a duck, then a duck with an extra set of feet, then a duck with no feet in three separate generations.



Why? Have we all hit a brick wall? Have we all evolved to perfection?


No, we just can't witness what we're evolving into and we can't view things over a geologic scale very easily, so it's hard to realize that we're evolving.

Also check out the various links I've posted.



I came across a thread here once with some interesting info such as DNA losing info over time.(Suggesting we're devolving?)


The organism with the highest amount of genetic information is the amoeba, a single celled organism...fewer genes doesn't mean we have lower complexity.



And also a comparison of ours and our closest ape ancestors DNA which shows we have two fewer pairs, but it looked like two pairs of ours were actually fused, suggesting we're genetically modified or Intelligently Designed.


Actually, that was a prediction of evolution, observe the video earlier in this post.


Originally posted by DizzyDayDream

The fact that i can easily scrub out the "A" in "Atheism" under the mountain in your avatar, making the logic just as applicable for my beleifs as it is for yours with the "a", surely shows you have not only misrepresented the creationist view, it also shows that you have too poorly understood your own view.


Except that it doesn't. I haven't misrepresented the creationist view. Please demonstrate where I have. And I definitely do not understand my own view poorly. Again, please demonstrate where I have.

As for the rest of that, I'm ignoring it. This thread isn't about atheism vs theism.



Get that? good, God.

ETA: this is probably the only time you will ever encounter me using the term God. I find it has too many ridiculous connotations, and has been hijacked throughout the ages by false prophets.


Estimated time of arrival?

Anyway, irrelevant to the thread.



and btw, spiritualists understand that science has a place, post intention, whereas religion has its place as a cause of all universal intention. Because intention is the prime mover. You know, just before the energy enters our dimension conforming to the scientific laws governing our universe, before existance, dimensionless eternal energy, dissipated downwards into fractalised infinity we call the universe or multiverses whatever that means. Your right we can never truly know, but we all have a right to be mystified by the mere fact that we even exist at all, let alone in the beautiful way we do on this planet.


Um..this is the prime mover argument, it was used by Aquinas and it's no more valid today, but that's a question for a different thread because this is a thread about a biological science, not a thread about cosmology or philosophy.

Why are so many people off topic?


reply to post by General.Lee
 


Since I've done enough writing for one post:
Please read this refutation of polonium halos.



posted on Sep, 13 2010 @ 05:06 PM
link   
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
 




as that being is infinitely more complex than us and couldn't have possibly arisen from natural causes if we couldn't have.


An excellent point. Religious folks usually skirt around it by claiming that God simply always existed. That, of course, is almost more confusing. My question always was, If God doesn't believe he was created does that make him an atheist?




Evolutionary theory is simply concerned with what happens after life begins, not with anything before that.


It makes sense for IDers and Creationists to assault all branches of mainstream science that might cast doubt on whatever religious narrative they are attached to. In the case of the Bible anthropology, geology, cosmology and abiogenesis all present a problem and so they are forced to attempt to attack these. Many times, in order to do this, they resurrect old ideas like geocentrism and the Flood as an explanation for geology and for why certain dating methods don't work (according to them).

This is the main gist of ID and Creationism, attempt to strawman Evolution and make it look like a theory in crisis and then insert their religion as an alternative that suddenly seems like solid ground.

reply to post by Nventual
 




You seem to have a lot of FAITH and a strong BELIEF in athiesm


Atheism does not require or allow faith, it is merely a lack of belief. It requires no faith to not believe in fairies or Santa Claus - atheism is the same way, it takes no faith to lack belief in a god, all it takes is not being convinced a god exists.


Notice the connection


No. Atheism and Evolution have no connection. There are plenty of believers who accept Evolution.

Honestly I feel ashamed that people gave you stars for such an ignorant post.



posted on Sep, 13 2010 @ 05:54 PM
link   
You are wasting your time friend. The reason for the debate, creation vs evolution, in the first place is nothing to do with any Christian really caring about proving anything. It is, purely, a reaction to a perceived threat to "the Christian way of life". In particular, if the Bible is wrong in just one small part (Genesis) then the Christians can no longer claim that it is the "word of God". This is their greatest fear and it is that which they will always work to defend. So, don't expect logic to be effective in this battle. It has no bearing what so ever except when it may be twisted to agree with whatever the Bible says. Christians are dead certain that Satan is taking over the world and they feel that defending against this is their greatest imperative. They forget, however, or they don't care that most of us, Christian or otherwise, do not agree with the literal interpretation of Genesis nor do we care.

So, once again, a strong minority is able to define the debate while the thinking majority of Christians sit and do nothing. Pathetic... And guess what folks. Isn't this just like the radical violent Muslims in the world who wreak havoc while the moderates sit and wonder what to do? More pathetic.

Amen


edit on 13-9-2010 by trailertrash because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 13 2010 @ 06:23 PM
link   
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
 


Good thing we have you here to solve all these age old questions with your intelligent and unique logic. If only not everyone before had not thought of those very same anwsers lol...Keep it pushing nothing to see here!



posted on Sep, 13 2010 @ 06:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by seagull

I can not, for the life of me, understand why people think this is such an important issue. Science has its place, as does faith/religion.


Its important because my 10 year old comes home from school just the other day and tells me it rains because people in heaven are crying, thats why its important, now she doesnt go to a 'faith' school it just so happens that the head teacher is a christian, that is not education, its child abuse. I have a lot more to add to this thread but its well past midnight here in the u.k so it will have to wait untill tomorrow, but i have to congratulate the op for starting this thread as all this intelligent design/ young earth crap is fine when its rattling around in the heads of the ignorant but i'll be damned if i'll sit around quietly while they teach this rubbish as fact in mainstream education. nothing i will post in my next contributon to this thread will be my opinion it will all be well documented, peer reviewed scientfic evidence but for now this is all i have to say on the matter.


edit on 13-9-2010 by Neilc1972 because: spelling



posted on Sep, 13 2010 @ 06:53 PM
link   
Hello, while searching for something totaly unrelated, i stumbled upon that fits this thread quite well and could probably have a post of its own. Its concerning the smartest man in America[supposedly] Christopher Langan.

en.wikipedia.org...

His IQ is in the region of 200+

Now, if that is all above board, that is truly phenominal, however it seems to be he is relatively un heard of academic circles due too a rather unfortunate background of poverty and never really finishing university therfor lacking the credntials required to be published for peer review.

HOWEVER he happens to believe in intelligent design, which i will point out now, I believe in intelligent design, however I DO NOT BELIEVE THE GOD CHRISTIANS WORSHIP HAD ANYTHING TO DO WITH IT. I think christianity is a load of nonesene.

Regardless of my stance, this is his theory concerning intelligent design and someone with an IQ of 200 should probably be listend too.




"a true 'Theory of Everything', a cross between John Archibald Wheeler's 'Participatory Universe' and Stephen Hawking's 'Imaginary Time' theory of cosmology."[8] In conjunction with his ideas, Langan has claimed that "you can prove the existence of God, the soul and an afterlife, using mathematics."


I also apologise if this man is a mad fake, its been discusd before etc, etc I just found it while i was looking at this thread, anyway worth a read, maybe.



new topics

top topics



 
8
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join