Creationism/Intelligent Design: PROVE IT!, page 1


Pages: <<  1    2    3    4  >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 14 times


reply posted on 1-10-2010 @ 10:15 AM by Romantic_Rebel

John Lennon said it best for anyone believes in what religious figure. When it comes down to it. It's just us and only us.


reply posted on 1-10-2010 @ 10:49 AM by Myendica
reply to post by madnessinmysoul

what about the sacred ratio? fiburnacci ?? numbers... its found almost everywhere.. is that proof?



reply posted on 1-10-2010 @ 10:59 AM by madnessinmysoul
reply to post by Myendica


Originally posted by Myendica
reply to post by madnessinmysoul

what about the sacred ratio? fiburnacci ?? numbers... its found almost everywhere.. is that proof?


How are the Fibonacci numbers proof of a deity and creation? How are they 'sacred'?

Being prevalent doesn't mean that they're proof of creation.


reply posted on 1-10-2010 @ 11:01 AM by sykickvision
The universe is a vast complex place, full of wonders and mysteries that boggle the imagination. The more we know, the more questions arise – and we struggle to comprehend what we perceive.
Our level of perception, even with our most finely tuned instruments, at best, is only a slice of what exists in reality. Two hundred years ago, no one could believe radio waves, microwaves, gamma rays could exist. But they do, in abundance, way before WE existed. Unsubstantiated proof they exist cannot be demonstrated without having the proper equipment to receive these waves. Lack of proper detecting equipment renders it unprovable that they exist. Yet they still DO exist. Can you imagine explaining to someone from the 17th century how it is possible to send sound and even pictures hundreds of miles away on a beam of light? Explain to them cooking food in an oven that doesn’t require flame – and doesn’t get hot. Now explain the same things to someone of our century. It’s more of a surprise that you’re mentioning it than the actuality of what it really is. Common knowledge. Big deal. There’s nothing “magical” or “mystical” about it at all. It’s accepted because it has been proven, it's been proven because it has been discovered and 'measuring devices' have been invented.

Richard Feynman said “Scientific knowledge is a body of statements of varying degrees of certainty — some most unsure, some nearly sure, but none absolutely certain.” He is right, there is much that we don’t know. We’re not even sure how much we know is correct because all of our knowledge is based upon what we can perceive.

We are but a speck of dust in an ocean of dust, our time here is measured in milliseconds on the cosmic scale. How can we in so short a time even pretend to have beyond a vague understanding of what has happened billions of years before, trillions of miles away? True, we can examine and study - what we are studying and professing from these studies could be likened to describing what happens in a football game when you can only see it through a pinhole. Regardless of what people say, and what they profess to know, NONE OF US HAS ENOUGH INFORMATION to produce anything beyond a theory. Some things are definitely provable and that's fine. I can accept that. I have no problem adjusting my beliefs accordingly. As with the demonstration above regarding radio waves - just because something is not provable at the time doesn't mean it can't hold true, or that methods might develop later on that might reveal it as true. Think Flat Earth. The innate sense that a parent might have regarding a child, whether it's sick or hurt, without having any other information received than just a feeling is a sensation shared among many parents that has proven true. This would defy the laws of science as it is understood, but I venture that a large percentage of parents would attest to the reality of this. Is it provable? No. Understood? No. True? I believe, Yes.

Suppose we are just biological machines, driven by nothing greater than chemical responses, formed by nothing more than a series of freak accidents. So what? What does it matter? The great and the small all have one destination. Death. At which point our bodies will return to the basic compounds of which they are made. In less than a hundred years after your death, it is unlikely that any of your progeny will even remember your name, or know where your body lies. What does knowing this change? What does it matter whether you spend eternity in a roomful of virgins (I'd prefer a roomful of non-virgins), are re-incarnated, dissolve into a selfless ethereal bliss, or just experience the ultimate "game-over". The only moment you have to do anything constructive with is this moment right now, and now....and now. Arguing for proof of this and that does nothing at all constructive. Go help a kid ride a bike, do something beneficial.

So whether you believe in God, or Buddah, or Zen, or Santa Claus - that's your business. If it makes you a better person, and the world a better place to live and reside - then I'm all for it. The true nature of happiness is contentment with ones self, one's life, and one's place in the world. Do the best you can with everything you have to enrich your own life, as well as the lives of those around you. Everything else is just fluff. Abhor those who would make you believe otherwise.


reply posted on 1-10-2010 @ 01:24 PM by madnessinmysoul
reply to post by ChemBreather


Originally posted by ChemBreather
If I see some proof that the animals build the pyramids, we can talk.


They did. The species was Homo Sapiens Sapiens


The reason for my dumb remark is that the pyramids were build before 'we' crawled out of monkey vagina,


Um...they're not over 200,000 years old....hell, they aren't even the oldest stone structures in the world, I've been to the Skorba Temples which were built nearly 7000 years ago.


so our smart not-so-evolved monkeys must have built it to show us how smart they were before we inherited all their brains..


Humans aren't evolved from monkeys, though we do share a common ancestor. We are apes.


I dont doubt that species change over time, but that general Freemason Darwin(Inbreeder)'s theory isnt worth discussing.. IMO ..


Wow, ad hominem on a dead guy?

Darwin was aware of the problems of inbreeding that plagued his family. Source

From the source:

The analysis supports Darwin's fears that inbreeding was damaging his health and that of his children, following his ground-breaking studies demonstrating that cross-bred plants are far fitter and more vigorous than self-fertilised plants. "This caused him to reflect on his own condition," says Tim Berra of Ohio State University in Mansfield.


And what do his affiliations with the Freemasons have to do with anything? Science is science, no matter whose club you belong to...


And to cap it all off, you ignored the OP to spout of nonsense.

reply to post by sykickvision


Originally posted by sykickvision
Richard Feynman said “Scientific knowledge is a body of statements of varying degrees of certainty — some most unsure, some nearly sure, but none absolutely certain.” He is right, there is much that we don’t know. We’re not even sure how much we know is correct because all of our knowledge is based upon what we can perceive.


Feynman was someone who, despite his scientific brilliance, was a bit of a lightweight in philosophy (which is more my comfort zone).

Now, we may not have even scratched the surface on science, but we know that a certain amount of it is correct as we can demonstrate it. Circuit theory is either correct or so brilliant incorrect that they appear correct. Now, we have demonstrable proof of circuits, the computers we're working on.

Without our modern framework of physics being at least mostly correct a lot of the things that are going on for us to have this discussion wouldn't be happening.


We are but a speck of dust in an ocean of dust, our time here is measured in milliseconds on the cosmic scale. How can we in so short a time even pretend to have beyond a vague understanding of what has happened billions of years before, trillions of miles away?


With evidence through the scientific method....sort of an obvious understanding. Hell, we're specks of dust compared to the size of the Earth.

Let's say the average human is about 168 cm tall. The average speck of dust is about 0.5 micrometer wide.
168 cm is 1,680,000 micrometers.
So we are 3,360,000 times bigger than a speck of dust.

The Earth has a diameter of 1,275,620,000 centimeters
So it is 7,592,976.19 times bigger than us. Yet we understand a great deal of its complexity.

That's the great thing about the scientific method. Scale may matter on a 'common sense' level, but when the scientific method is applied we can understand a great deal more about it.


True, we can examine and study - what we are studying and professing from these studies could be likened to describing what happens in a football game when you can only see it through a pinhole.


Except that someone who has only viewed football through a pinhole wouldn't be able to make any useful descriptions, yet science makes plenty of useful descriptions of natural processes.


Regardless of what people say, and what they profess to know, NONE OF US HAS ENOUGH INFORMATION to produce anything beyond a theory.


I'm sorry, but this level of stupidity is going to require me to call upon several pantheons (some may be from avowed works of fiction):

Oh Thor, Athena, Thoth, Amaterasu, Khorne, Cthulu, FSM, Jesus, Allah, Kronos, Brother Raven, and Hathor!

A theory is something that can be applied and tested repeatedly with the same results. Theories underly what's used in my laptop, your computer, my mobile phone, a GPS satellite system (Einstein's theory of relativity means they have to be adjusted constantly), trains, planes, automobiles, medicine, earthquake detection, radar, speed detectors, etc etc etc nearly ad infinitum.

Being a 'theory' is a good thing.


Some things are definitely provable and that's fine. I can accept that. I have no problem adjusting my beliefs accordingly. As with the demonstration above regarding radio waves - just because something is not provable at the time doesn't mean it can't hold true, or that methods might develop later on that might reveal it as true.


Yes, but the science 200 years ago hadn't been able to progress to the point where you could determine anything about the electromagnetic spectrum. It wasn't even posited. But saying 'the absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence' doesn't lay any proof of creationism at the door.


Think Flat Earth.


Which was already thrown out by the time Pythagoras and his weird cult popped up...


The innate sense that a parent might have regarding a child, whether it's sick or hurt, without having any other information received than just a feeling is a sensation shared among many parents that has proven true.


Except that the care for a child's well being doesn't come from an innate sense, it comes from collected visual and communication cues. Parents are often wrong about their children being sick as well. I remember being at the pediatrician's office several times because my mother thought I was sick when I wasn't and I remember plenty of instances when other families would walk out with my doctor explaining that there's nothing wrong with their child...


This would defy the laws of science as it is understood, but I venture that a large percentage of parents would attest to the reality of this. Is it provable? No. Understood? No. True? I believe, Yes.


Except that it's actually testable. Get a group of parents with newborn children and observe their visits for a period of ten years.

Your belief is irrational and demonstrably so.


Suppose we are just biological machines, driven by nothing greater than chemical responses, formed by nothing more than a series of freak accidents. So what? What does it matter? The great and the small all have one destination. Death. At which point our bodies will return to the basic compounds of which they are made. In less than a hundred years after your death, it is unlikely that any of your progeny will even remember your name, or know where your body lies. What does knowing this change? What does it matter whether you spend eternity in a roomful of virgins (I'd prefer a roomful of non-virgins), are re-incarnated, dissolve into a selfless ethereal bliss, or just experience the ultimate "game-over". The only moment you have to do anything constructive with is this moment right now, and now....and now.


Um...this has nothing to do with evolutionary theory. Why are questions of metaphysics pertaining to the afterlife arising?


Arguing for proof of this and that does nothing at all constructive. Go help a kid ride a bike, do something beneficial.


That child is most likely alive today because of people asking for proof of this and that. The scientific method is the search for the proof you mock and it has lead to the wonders of medical science. I think the researchers at institutions around the world that are unlocking the secrets of the universe are benefiting the child far more than a person teaching that same child how to operate a bicycle.



So whether you believe in God, or Buddah, or Zen, or Santa Claus - that's your business.


When did I bring up any of those ideas? This is a thread about the (supposedly) scientific theory of creationism/intelligent design. I'm not speaking about any religion whatsoever, am I?

Oh wait, I'm an atheist so that means every single one of my posts on here has to do with religion.

Stuff those points and direct them to the appropriate thread in my sig.


If it makes you a better person, and the world a better place to live and reside - then I'm all for it. The true nature of happiness is contentment with ones self, one's life, and one's place in the world. Do the best you can with everything you have to enrich your own life, as well as the lives of those around you.


You mean like science? That thing that saves lives and allows us to marvel at the wonder of the universe? That thing that allows us to see images of places that we can then visit thanks to the knowledge we've gained from it?


Everything else is just fluff. Abhor those who would make you believe otherwise.



So...screw it science doesn't matter? I'm sorry, I can't agree with that. You, mean, and 99% of the people on this board wouldn't be alive without science.

Scientific questions matter.
If you want to ignore them, go join an Amish community.

If you abhor scientific questions, please give up:

All electronic devices (including the computer you're using right now)
All modes of transportation other than those that are self-powered and made only of natural products
All medicine you may be taking
The building you're living in unless it doesn't require any notions of architecture, structural engineering, or mathematics to construct.
Any food that involves the following: modern farming techniques, automotive distribution, refrigeration, modern fertilizers and pesticides, genetic manipulation, selective breeding, irrigation, etc etc
and the list goes on and on.

If you think you can give these things up, then you can go ahead and abhor the people that would suggest that questions beyond enriching your own happy place and the happy places of others matter.
But then we won't have to hear that nonsense.


reply posted on 1-10-2010 @ 02:12 PM by Blue Shift
Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
Lately, I've not seen a single person put forth an argument for the creationist perspective, I've only seen attacks on the evolutionary theory, as if disproving the evolutionary theory would immediately put the creationist/ID theory into the place of truthfulness.


1. Thought has a direct influence on the transmission of energy/matter. In your mind, you think of typing the letter "T." That thought becomes a cascade of chemical and electrical movements, ultimately resulting in your physical finger moving on the keyboard to touch the letter "T."

2. Quantum processes are not bound by linear time. Review some of the explorations of Feynman-Kac formulas for further clarification.

3. Some expressions of thought, via their direct influence of quantum and electromagnetic processes, manifest themselves in negative time, and can exhibit an effect-cause relationship.

4. Anti-temporal observation via thought (imagination or retro-cognition) may cause a collapse of quantum wave functions ( a la Schrödinger) in the past, essentially drawing reality from virtuality. Which could loosely be defined as "creation."

Of course, this doesn't require any supernatural entity, so it's not a tremendously popular idea among those hoping to promote a religious viewpoint. This doesn't require "God," but merely any consciousness capable of imagination. Like us, here.

This not only accounts for instant creation in the past, but also continual modification of morphic types as a result of a "reverse echo" of future types and forms into the past, communicated through sensitive molecules and energy matrices. For instance, human beings are the way we are now because we are this way in the future, which resonated and was imagined in our past. It's a little confusing, but it gets clearer once you get used to thinking about time as something other than a straight line.

Should this sound a bit on the fuzzy end of "psychic powers," then please reference the remote viewing studies to verify the statistical significance of their work in this area. Although, no fuzzy psychic stuff is really necessary here. Just a natural and ongoing reverberation and reflection of energy patterns forward and backward in time.


reply posted on 1-10-2010 @ 04:17 PM by The Matrix Traveller
reply to post by madnessinmysoul


The theory of Evolution has been "Created", otherwise no such theory would exist.

But by Who or "What" has Created this Theory ???

And is it "That" (NOT Who) which has Created Evolution, Evolving Itself?


reply posted on 1-10-2010 @ 05:28 PM by nophun
Originally posted by The Matrix Traveller
reply to post by madnessinmysoul


The theory of Evolution has been "Created", otherwise no such theory would exist.

But by Who or "What" has Created this Theory ???

And is it "That" (NOT Who) which has Created Evolution, Evolving Itself?

The Creator/God has been "Created", otherwise no such deity would exist.
But by Who or "What" has Created this deity ???
See I can use creationist logic too.

edit on 1-10-2010 by nophun because: (no reason given)




reply posted on 1-10-2010 @ 08:37 PM by The Matrix Traveller
Originally posted by nophun
Originally posted by The Matrix Traveller
reply to post by madnessinmysoul


The theory of Evolution has been "Created", otherwise no such theory would exist.

But by Who or "What" has Created this Theory ???

And is it "That" (NOT Who) which has Created Evolution, Evolving Itself?

The Creator/God has been "Created", otherwise no such deity would exist.
But by Who or "What" has Created this deity ???
See I can use creationist logic too.

edit on 1-10-2010 by nophun because: (no reason given)



nophun: One way of showing that you misunderstand my comment, or deliberately misquote what I am saying.

I made no mention of deity or a god...


Personally I accept "Evolution"...

I do however question the human "Primates" interpretation, what he/she believes themselves to be, that is regarding their complete make up.

Are we purely Bio-Robotics without a driver ???

Or are we, that is "Awareness", experiencing "Bio-Robotics" and its interactions with an Environment ???

And if the "We/You/Me" are in fact "Awareness" or Partitions of "Awareness", then perhaps it is this, which is evolving and our expression of this, is in the way of a so called "Material Story" i.e. The Species and The environment it interacts with.

But what actually is this so called "Materialism" if it is in fact material at all, rather than pure "Communication" between 2 ends of "Awareness", One End being Collective ("We/You/Me") and at the other End independently experiencing as either You, Me or another.

The reason for being or Not being able to prove this easily, is because "Awareness" is Non-Dimensional.

en.wikipedia.org...
Consciousness is variously defined as subjective experience, awareness, the ability to experience "feeling", wakefulness, or the executive control system of the mind.[1] It is an umbrella term that may refer to a variety of mental phenomena.[2] Although humans realize what everyday experiences are, consciousness refuses to be defined, philosophers note (e.g. John Searle in The Oxford Companion to Philosophy):


edit on 1-10-2010 by The Matrix Traveller because: (no reason given)



reply posted on 1-10-2010 @ 09:01 PM by The Matrix Traveller
reply to post by nophun


en.wikipedia.org...
As there is no clear definition of consciousness and no empirical measure exists to test for its presence, it has been argued that due to the nature of the problem of consciousness, empirical tests are intrinsically impossible. However, several tests have been developed that attempt an operational definition of consciousness and, try to determine whether computers and non-human animals can demonstrate through behavior, by passing these tests, that they are conscious.
In medicine, several neurological and brain imaging techniques, like EEG and fMRI, have proven useful for physical measures of brain activity associated with consciousness. This is particularly true for EEG measures during anesthesia that can provide an indication of anesthetic depth, although with still limited accuracies of ~ 70 % and a high degree of patient and drug variability seen.



reply posted on 1-10-2010 @ 10:37 PM by ImAnAlienOnMyOwnPlanet
reply to post by nophun


What part of Jesus don't you understand people? Jesus is more then a five letter name here. He was real and came back to existence. The Bible tells me so. Jesus man!


reply posted on 1-10-2010 @ 10:49 PM by ImAnAlienOnMyOwnPlanet
reply to post by nophun


I'm going to have to respect since Jesus said I was to love all. Jesus is great my friend give yourself upon him and he will love you forever. Ask me anything about Jesus.


reply posted on 1-10-2010 @ 10:55 PM by nophun
reply to post by ImAnAlienOnMyOwnPlanet


Why did Yahweh think the best way to "save us" was to incarnate himself as Jesus to be brutal murdered ?
Pages: <<  1    2    3    4  >>    ^^TOP^^



Bill Nye: Creationism is not appropriate for children.
  Posted 15 days ago with 20 member flags
Satan hid the fossils to trick everyone!
  Posted 18 days ago with 11 member flags
Just ONE question on evolution
  Posted 15 days ago with 5 member flags
M U T A T I O N - Friend or Foe of Evolution?
  Posted 8 days ago with 5 member flags
When a Child is Born...the Evolution begins
  Posted 5 days ago with 5 member flags
Denisovans
  Posted 15 days ago with 3 member flags
Are Humans the result of Hybridization?
  Posted 14 days ago with 3 member flags