Creationism/Intelligent Design: PROVE IT!

reply to post by michaelknives52

Originally posted by michaelknives52
I heard the Crick quotation on a Ancient Aliens History Channel special.

Okay...you could be more specific...hell, you could bother to do the legwork and look it up.

It's quite obvious that you are looking for a scientific study proving that God or a God Source so to speak created the universe and created life on the third rock from the sun.

No, I'm looking for at least a shred of evidence that such an idea is reasonable instead of speculative.

No human on this planet can provide evidence following your criteria.

Why? If all of what you mentioned happened then there should logically be an immense amount of evidence which shows that it did.

It really doesn't make your speculation correct.

I'm not speculating anything. The idea you're proposing is what is speculative as it lacks any discernible evidence to support it. I'm only following what the evidence points to.

You can speculate and say what probably happened but you will never know because you were not there during the start of creation.

Or we can use what the physical evidence tells us and derive an understanding of the events based on that, which is what scientists do. I'm listening to them because they're making claims they can back up. Unlike you, the person who is speculating.

You can choose to believe or not believe.

No, I really can't. I've tried to believe. I could't. I tried really hard to believe.

You're given free will. Nobody is forcing you to believe in god nor does anybody have to convince you. You really need to make the truth your own.

Here's the thing...I'm not actually talking about the existence of any deity in here. I'm talking about proving that life was created or intelligently designed in its present form.

You can speculate that the religious texts... which all originated from a single source... is bogus because different cultures put a different spin on events but the principles and lessons that are taught remain the same.

I'm sorry, what? The religious texts didn't originate from a single source. Hell, individual religious texts themselves originated from multiple sources.

And the reason I find them bogus are because of the claims they make and the inconsistencies found within. I'm not going to call a text that condones and advises slavery or rape anything but bogus or something a lot stronger.

Pretty much every defense that was created for evolution can be flipped and given reasoning from a religious sense.

Except no. Evolution is independent of religion. Millions of religious people accept it. You cannot use the physical evidence, the only thing which really defends evolution, in a religious sense. Evolution is proven by the physical evidence.

Just because some things are widely accepted as scientific fact doesn't necessarily mean that it is right... i.e. the theory about the world being flat.

Well, that's not actually an argument in favor of evolution. The arguments in favor of evolution are all derived from the physical evidence, not the scientific community's acceptance of the theory.

I'll have my thesis and proof for you soon.

I await it.

Be on ATS when Armageddon comes for a rasberry emoticon

I've lived through more than a few claims of impending Armageddon, so I'm not too worried.

Originally posted by michaelknives52
I agree that humans have changed and adapted physical traits depending on regions that they inhabit. However there is no solid evidence for the theory of evolution

Why would anyone even bother reading the rest of your addition to this thread when you contradict yourself in the very first line. This adaption you speak of IS EVOLUTION!!!

Originally posted by michaelknives52
in a sense that life just happened.

Life happened. We evolved. Why is this so hard to grasp. Is it not a simpler explanation than some mystical being creating something out of nothing, waving his hand and declairing "Let there be......" And there it was.

Originally posted by michaelknives52
Simply observing the complexities of the world we live in and our universe suggests intelligent design.

Weak. Could I not say that by observing the worlds complexities you can see all the evidence needed to prove evolution? And would you not say this was a weak argument?

There seems to be a misconception here. The argument is not about the existence of God.
There are many ways to approach Nature in order to understand things. One of them is the Scientific approach (greatly misunderstood by many) and another is the Religious approach. (often causing misunderstandings).
Those who don’t believe in any way in the existence of a higher being or God will probably disagree with my views because they want a proof of God that they can understand first. It is not my job to do so, therefore this post is to clarify things for the rest of us who range from skeptic scientists who reckon that there must be something at a higher level, to “believers” with blind faith.
If we take the existence of a Higher Being or God for granted (and even if we don’t) and we examine our Life and our Universe what do we find? Oh, we find many things for sure. Many interesting, bizarre, puzzling, strange, intriguing, difficult to explain and stimulating things all around us (and inside us) in this material universe.
Where does this leave us? It leaves as questioning.
We live in Nature, we interact with it, we even have problems with it. This Universe and Earth is Nature for us. We come up with questions. Lots of them. From simple ones to very complicated and abstract ones. It is in our human nature. God made us with some abilities and an inquiring mind that can use logic. We also have (at least) a physical body with two useful hands with opposable thumbs, and five or more senses to interact with this universe and experience it. And through experience we learn things. And then we build on what we have learned and so on.
Put all these together to work and what do you get? Correct, you get the Atomic Bomb. But is that all you see? Before and after the bomb we got so many useful, good, practical and even fun things along the way. (Now I’ll have to simplify and beautify a bit the story but that doesn’t affect the argument of my post.)
The invention of tools and toys, the Bronze Age with the use of fire, houses with stairs leading to the second floor (there were in ancient Santorini, Greece, three stories houses with bathtubs and a highly developed drainage system for the town back in 3.000-2.000 BC), boats, planes, trains and automobiles, elevators, refrigerators, radio, telephones, television, playstation, internet, telescopes, space shuttles and so many other things were all possible through the Scientific approach to Nature not the Religious one, trust me. A kid playing with a ball can start observing the physics involved, get interested due to personality and later become a scientist or he may not, but he started approaching Nature with his mind in the scientific way. No matter what the original experience and starting point is, at any age, for any human interacting or just observing Nature, from the moment he poses questions like How this thing works?, How can it be? or What it is?, and wants to find the answers, he is then developing and following the scientific approach to Nature. If his environment, his freedom, his means, his tools available are not proper then most probably he will stop advancing on that path. He will approach Nature in other ways or he will not approach Nature all that much really.
Granted, science addresses the “How” it works rather than “why” it works. It helps us understand a few things not Everything.
But those things that we can learn and understand are very useful and can have a very positive effect on us. We have to use our minds though.
In Ancient Greece people believed that God Zeus was casting lightings from up in the sky. People had probably asked questions about Zeus behaving like that. For centuries ancient Greek people had no satisfactory answers to these questions. (Well not everybody anyway). Not until many years later did scientists came up with a good understanding of the Natural Phenomenon of lightings that they were able to give an answer and explain to the rest of us about Zeus behavior. Well, they didn’t find Zeus and they didn’t catch him doing this but they found a set of Laws, conditions and parameters that when present simultaneously in nature, lightings occur as a Natural Phenomenon. They were able to replicate lightings at the lab later on as well.

--continued --

You see, when asking a question it means that you don’t know something, something is missing. In such cases we ask questions in order to advance. We want to have as much a bigger picture of the puzzle as possible; therefore we look for an answer. We look for the missing pieces. We admit that we lack information and we want more information to explain things. But we first admit it.
What does Religion do? They state they have the information (revelations written in books around 1.300 BC) and that they need no more information to understand Life, the Universe and Everything. They can preach us all about it at Church. (The Earth is flat. The Earth is the center of the universe etc.
Catholic Church: “Put this Galileo guy on trial for talking about a Heliocentric universe where the Earth is revolving around the Sun.”
Inquisition guy: “Geez, who does he think he is to go against the Holy Scriptures? What a madman.”
(And I am referring to a 1632 AD story here about one of the greatest scientists)
Much can be said about all the religions.
True, scientists have come up with some nasty things as well along the way but that is because man can be nasty if he wills it (and let us not forget who was paying for those things).
A knife is a man made tool, we all have knives in our kitchen yet we don’t go around murdering people with them. It is a matter of free will.
From the first human being mystified by the magnificent night sky with all those stars and the first Natural Philosophers to today’s Biologists, Nuclear and Astrophysics scientists I can assure you none of them was absolutely perfect. Regardless of their imperfection and our judgment on them, they used their minds and besides the limitations that they had they produced scientific work. From the first mathematician to Pythagoras, to Archimedes to Newton to Tesla to Stephen Hawking, it is their work that Science uses, and then we use Science to approach Nature in order to understand things. Sure they made mistakes in the process. Huge or small mistakes sometimes happened (or ordered by TBTB). It is a trial and error procedure mostly. To Science every bit of work and information has its value and place. But to Science it was irrelevant if the scientific work came from an atheist, a monotheist, a polytheist, a Hindu, a Buddhist, a Jew, a Christian, a Muslim, or whatever race he belonged to. It is the work that matters most.
Thus as humanity, we are now able to use Science to examine Nature in better ways than just by looking with our physical eyes. That is how we discovered many things. We may have not been able to “read” correctly all that Nature showed us, Newton’s Physics are not the absolute truth and there are many theories around needing adjustment or proof, but still, even like this you can board an airplane in L.A., fly over the Pacific Ocean and in 11 hours you will be in Tokyo. (If you do this by the way you will have fun and you will broaden your horizons, not kidding.)
Many of our past inventions are still working, current ones work and future ones will work despite the fact that scientists haven’t got a complete understanding of how this universe works. They are far from a Theory of Everything but they work towards it. It is a work in progress. And they admit it publicly.
This is much more than what can be said for religions. Religions based on Revelation and holy scriptures have things set in stone. Don’t judge by the last 200 years alone. Before 1800 AD religions were even more strict and inflexible then today. Much more. They were killing people with different views. Some still do. Only after Natural Sciences had advanced enough and strengthened their position inside the educational system it was possible for their findings to enjoy a wider circulation among educated people. Printed books played a role to that. After that step, ideas, clues and proofs slowly found somehow their way to the masses and influenced public opinion. The organized religions saw the problems arousing and only then adjusted themselves to the new situation. Don’t kid yourselves if change among the (educated) people didn’t occur first, Religions wouldn’t have changed an iota to their system.
The thing is, the Hebrew Bible and the Genesis book don’t give us the actual facts nor describe how this universe works and what it is. It touches the subject but it is not explaining nor telling enough. Same goes for the Human being.
Now, whenever a mistake or an inconsistency is discovered in the work of Science or Religion the other side is quick to point fingers and say “You see people? They have it wrong. They don’t know”.
The problem though is that Religion adds “I Know, because God Himself Told me so in the past” whereas Science says “I don’t know yet all the details but by using my God given abilities which I cultivate, I will study Nature some more because I am onto something here.”
Personally I prefer to have an answer from those who try and use their God given tools of reason and logic and go out into the World where they do research, experiments and examine Nature as much as they can, than to just take the word of the Church.
“Nullius in verba” - "On the words of no one"
“We have to use science to establish the truth of scientific matters through experiment rather than through citation of authority”.

Science => Here's the evidence, let's see what we can conclude.

Religion => Here's the conclusion.

I need objective evidence!!

reply to post by Kanenas

Originally posted by Kanenas
There seems to be a misconception here. The argument is not about the existence of God.

Thank you!

It is logically viable to believe in the existence of all sorts of deities while accepting verified scientific facts.

There are many ways to approach Nature in order to understand things.

...no, that I don't agree with. There is a singular way to understand the natural world, and that is science. Of course, if you're going to talk about the beauty of the natural world, that's a slightly different issue relating to aesthetics.

But, again, nature: science. Only way we've ever gained some understanding.

One of them is the Scientific approach (greatly misunderstood by many)

Yes, that's actually very true.

and another is the Religious approach. (often causing misunderstandings).

Because it has no domain over the natural world. Please, show me a place where religion has given us knowledge of the natural world.

Those who don’t believe in any way in the existence of a higher being or God will probably disagree with my views because they want a proof of God that they can understand first.

Yes, it's a little thing called critical thinking and logical rigor.

It is not my job to do so, therefore this post is to clarify things for the rest of us who range from skeptic scientists who reckon that there must be something at a higher level, to “believers” with blind faith.

Well, of course there's a higher level. Stellar objects are huge and pump out massive amounts of energy, don't they?

reply to post by madnessinmysoul


Look, I respect and admire your determination to work out everything in this Universe only with logic. This stance is much needed in our world. I understand where you are coming from.
Indeed when I talked about Approaching Nature (the Universe) with the Scientific approach I wasn’t talking only about labs and experiments. I was referring mainly to the use of the Human mind and the use of Logic as a great tool. That is why I respect Science so much.
But let me give you an example of one common problem to us all.
Let’s say there is a fellow who has never been to Australia and he doesn’t have a clue about Australia. One day he meets up with a friend who came back from a trip.
Guess what. The friend has just come back from Australia all tanned etc. So, they sit down and he starts talking about the trip and stuff. One of the main things that he focuses on is a strange animal called Kangaroo. He describes the animal and goes on to speak about its speed reaching 70 Km/h but most importantly that it is doing it by hopping not running and that it can jump high and far! Our fellow had difficulty believing this at first but at the end his friend convinced him of his honesty. Quite interesting they both said. After they parted ways he went back home and tried to share this new information that he had with his wife. It wasn’t easy for him to make her believe this story about the Kangaroo. He believed it but he had a hard time making her believe. Anyway, the thing is that he believed the Kangaroo thing. He believed it and one day he traveled all the way to Australia. He went out to the parks and saw some Kangaroos. Then he stopped believing in Kangaroos, he now Knew about them. (End of story)

Religion per se is not exactly a way to approach Nature and discover its Laws and understand the Universe. Religion in its various forms hasn’t really helped that many people to advance in that direction. But in some cases it passed down some guidelines and “practical” knowledge to some people who were practicing and it worked pretty well for them.
The question that arises now is if you know what I know about what a Human is and what are our capabilities?
When I spoke of the” many ways to approach Nature” I was referring to these capabilities that can give us access to parts and aspects of Nature that Science is incapable of doing.
Where tools and instruments are not sufficient and the tool is our self and the experience is rather direct. It is an experience not only an observation of Nature but it serves as an observation as well.
Science can be quite good with the use of tools and instruments for observing and analyzing this material universe and it is its job to do so.
But how can you analyze and apply your logic to data that you can not obtain?
You haven’t been to “Australia”. Yet “Australia” is a really Huge part of Nature.
But with material instruments only studying the material world and with the five human senses only you will discover that it limits you a lot. Nature (the whole of it) is more than just matter. This Universe is not only material. There is more to it than meets the (physical) eye. And even a level beyond that.
“What is essential is invisible to the eye” Antoine de Saint-Exupery.

Be well.

reply to post by Kanenas


I'm sorry, but that's unscientific reasoning there. Aside from the fact that I can verify the existence of Australia without experience (yay! satellite photography), I can also use those instruments and our (definitely more than) 5 senses (equilibrium already adds a 6th) to verify all sorts of things.

Anything that is beyond those senses can be verified using instruments that are insanely beyond our ranges of sensation. And we've learned exactly how small our perception of the universe is exactly through the study of science.

Bottom line, supernatural explanations for the events in the universe give us nothing, scientific ones give us so much.

reply to post by madnessinmysoul


There are many things one can do and become in his lifetime.
In order to reach higher levels of expertise one has to “focus” to something, which in turn means “excluding” something(s) else from your “focus”. It takes time and work to become an expert and therefore is admirable. Gain something, loose something, right?
As saddening as it may be, one can not become an expert on everything on this planet and this is a limitation that I can acknowledge. But, to self-impose a mental extension of this limitation to all the aspects of one’s life (existence) is not only sad it is most unfortunate.
School and education are a defining factor in becoming an expert and that applies not only to Sciences but to all fields of knowledge.
If they don’t teach you something at school you will have no knowledge of it. You can only find out about it from another source. And if you care about it, you will do your research. Schools and curriculum are controlled by humans. So, how can you study about something that is not being taught at schools? That is a problem, I admit.
But to believe blindly what you learn at school and let it define for you your limitations is a more serious problem.
Fortunately for us, Life has its ways to introduce us to many things that we don’t learn at school. How we respond to these stimuli and what we do about it is our own responsibility.
Again, I acknowledge that one can not become expert on everything but don’t let that limit your self on the things that you can actually and naturally do in your own lifetime.
You don’t need a Bachelor’s degree or a Master degree to live your life.
You are alive here and now. Inside this Space and Time bubble. In this Nature. In this Universe. On this Planet.
You can interact with Nature and you can learn things. You can experience many things.
I think we can all understand and appreciate the example with the flame (or the cooktop) that illustrates the importance of personal real life experience.
Just being told about the flame wasn’t enough; we had to burn ourselves to understand what a flame is. Direct Experience through the physical body.
Not by chance, we rely on our physical body to interact, go about and experience Life on planet Earth.
Our physical body is only a part of who we are and is a useful tool to experience life on this planet. For a good part it is adequate but as any other tool it has its limitations.
If we rely only on our physical body we will miss some things.
Our physical senses have limitations. To examine our material universe better we created some other tools and instruments. We rely on these then. Those too have limitations.
Do your ears hear or your eyes see?
“The mind sees and the mind hears.”
There are things we need to perceive with the mind but the senses are unable to access.
There are ideas and things that we can contemplate with our mind that don’t require the participation of the body and its senses. The mind is also a tool.
There are things in Nature that we don’t have instruments to measure.
Many times before the scientific community acknowledges a new discovery or theory there is a period of disbelief and even contempt? It has happened many times in the past. To the scientists that have worked with electricity and electromagnetic radiation these concepts are much more normal and understandable than to the average person. Yet they too had difficulty understanding other things in Nature. Even today there are things puzzling many scientists that care to be puzzled. The material universe is huge but it is only a small part of Nature. (I call Nature all the levels where a consciousness can be)
Now, what I am talking about here is not in the same category of electromagnetic radiation etc, it is a level beyond that.
You know what Science deals with, Energy, Matter, Forces and the Laws that govern all these.
It may help if you view it like this: there are forms of Energy, Forces, Fields and Laws in Nature that Science hasn’t found out yet. And they may never find out with their instruments. But that doesn’t stop you from experiencing the effects that they have in life and on you. Didn’t the force of gravity applied to humans before Newton spoke about it? Didn’t Earths magnetic field exist before we found out about it? Weren’t emotional states causing hormone secretion before we discover that?
It also can’t stop you from directly experiencing these things yourself.
You live in Nature. You live in it. You can interact with Nature. You just have been brought up to see things otherwise.
“Don’t use the floor as a ceiling”
The use of material tools and instruments causes the practical incapability to venture into this part of Nature. If you follow your path you may discover by yourself things that science never will. Why limit yourself.
There are many levels beyond the material level. All part of Nature. All perfectly natural.
Scientists can’t use satellite photography or any other type of photography to take pictures of “A(u)stral(ia)”. Don’t wait for this to happen though.
Don’t take their word for it; don’t take my word for it. If you care do your own research.
I am not claiming you will find all the answers but it will help you find out more about this universe and what you are.
Being a scientist should not be an obstacle to one’s personal advancement through research.
“The only thing that interferes with my learning is my education” A. Einstein
By the way Sir Isaac Newton wrote more about occult studies than science.
The Astral plane is not supernatural, is a huge part of Nature, larger than the whole material universe. And we all live in it.

Be well

reply to post by Kanenas


Please, paragraph or otherwise organize your posts better in the future. And please get back on the topic.

Originally posted by Kanenas
reply to post by madnessinmysoul

 

There are many things one can do and become in his lifetime.
In order to reach higher levels of expertise one has to “focus” to something, which in turn means “excluding” something(s) else from your “focus”. It takes time and work to become an expert and therefore is admirable. Gain something, loose something, right?

Not necessarily. You can learn many things whilst becoming an expert in only one.

As saddening as it may be, one can not become an expert on everything on this planet and this is a limitation that I can acknowledge. But, to self-impose a mental extension of this limitation to all the aspects of one’s life (existence) is not only sad it is most unfortunate.

I'm not placing a limitation on the universe based upon my own limitations. I don't disregard the works of geologists because I'm unfamiliar with all but the most basic geology.

School and education are a defining factor in becoming an expert and that applies not only to Sciences but to all fields of knowledge.

True, but you can become an expert without schooling. Darwin did his primary works in biology without full schooling.

If they don’t teach you something at school you will have no knowledge of it. You can only find out about it from another source. And if you care about it, you will do your research. Schools and curriculum are controlled by humans. So, how can you study about something that is not being taught at schools? That is a problem, I admit.

Easy, by taking the time to explore outside of school.

But to believe blindly what you learn at school and let it define for you your limitations is a more serious problem.

Are you accusing me of blindly following what was taught at school? I wish I had a record of all the times I was sent out of class for pointing out that a teacher was wrong.

There are things in Nature that we don’t have instruments to measure.

Such as...?

Many times before the scientific community acknowledges a new discovery or theory there is a period of disbelief and even contempt?

No, there's a period of skepticism due to a lack of evidence or greater evidence being present for the existing model.

It has happened many times in the past. To the scientists that have worked with electricity and electromagnetic radiation these concepts are much more normal and understandable than to the average person. Yet they too had difficulty understanding other things in Nature. Even today there are things puzzling many scientists that care to be puzzled. The material universe is huge but it is only a small part of Nature. (I call Nature all the levels where a consciousness can be)

...no, the material universe is the only known component of the universe. The only place consciousness has been verified as present is within brain meat.

Now, what I am talking about here is not in the same category of electromagnetic radiation etc, it is a level beyond that.

It is a level known as the "I'm just making this stuff up because it feels good to me" level.

You know what Science deals with, Energy, Matter, Forces and the Laws that govern all these.

AKA: Reality.

It may help if you view it like this: there are forms of Energy, Forces, Fields and Laws in Nature that Science hasn’t found out yet.

Such as? You're positing a huge array of unknowns without having proof that we don't know them. Scientists are aware that there are areas where there are unknowns. That is why we have theoretical and research scientists.

And they may never find out with their instruments. But that doesn’t stop you from experiencing the effects that they have in life and on you. Didn’t the force of gravity applied to humans before Newton spoke about it? Didn’t Earths magnetic field exist before we found out about it? Weren’t emotional states causing hormone secretion before we discover that?

Other way around on hormone secretions...

There are many levels beyond the material level. All part of Nature. All perfectly natural.

All unverified. All seemingly non-existent.

Scientists can’t use satellite photography or any other type of photography to take pictures of “A(u)stral(ia)”.

...wow. "Astral". Clever.

And yet you claim it exists...independent of verification. Where is the proof that this "Astral" exists?

Don’t wait for this to happen though.
Don’t take their word for it; don’t take my word for it. If you care do your own research.

And how would one go about research?

I am not claiming you will find all the answers but it will help you find out more about this universe and what you are.
Being a scientist should not be an obstacle to one’s personal advancement through research.

“The only thing that interferes with my learning is my education” A. Einstein

Yes, he was referring to a quite different educational system and to the systemization of knowledge rather than of exploration.

By the way Sir Isaac Newton wrote more about occult studies than science.

Yes, and his science revolutionized the world...yet his occult studies have done absolutely nothing for it.

The Astral plane is not supernatural, is a huge part of Nature, larger than the whole material universe. And we all live in it.

And yet there's absolutely no evidence for its existence.

Anyway, please get back on topic.

Both creationism and evolution are impossible.

Something needed to create God, but something needed to create matter. Until someone comes up with a theory to explain either of them, you can't prove them.

Originally posted by Techy
Both creationism and evolution are impossible.

How is evolution impossible? Please, direct the explanation of why evolution is impossible here. This is a link to a thread which deals with evolution rather than creationism.

reply to post by madnessinmysoul


What created the matter that formed planets and eventually formed living cells?

reply to post by Techy


Not evolution, not the topic of this thread, addressed in the thread where it is the topic.



Once more, creationists, please prove your proposition.

reply to post by madnessinmysoul

I admire you. (Really) You “walk” on your path and I have to respect your Freedom.
Maybe, I have already said too much.
I have to apologize for trying to interfere with your path in Life while I am not able to do so faultlessly. I am also a learner. I am not your Teacher. I can’t teach you these matters without making mistakes. I could point you to some starting points but again that is out of my “authority”. If you care to learn about it you will have to do your own research.
(Only one correction: Emotional states when caused by a thought of ours do cause hormonal secretions sometimes; it works both ways of course.)

I wish all the best to you
Be strong and well

Bump. We have creationists, they've yet to prove their point. They keep spewing and going on and on and on about it. Let's have it proven.

reply to post by madnessinmysoul


OK What sort of Proof are you looking for?

Ask some simple questions which are Not broad.

If I am able to answer your questions without getting into anything religious I will.

If I can't answer your questions I will simply say I don't know.

reply to post by The Matrix Traveller


It's a simple thing that needs to be proved: The hypothesis of creationism. The idea that the universe and all that is contained within it is the result of a creator.

reply to post by madnessinmysoul


What is your definition of a Creator ???

reply to post by The Matrix Traveller


I don't particularly have one as I'm not the one putting the point forward. There are several that I'm aware of, but I'm not going to put you into the position of defending a point that isn't yours.

So what's your definition of a creator?