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.

 

The Ignorance of Creationists

page: 14
35
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 13 2011 @ 04:15 PM
link   
reply to post by PieKeeper
 


Christian and Jewish theologists interpret the whole earth made instantaniously is a fallacy. The book of genesis doesn't say immediatley they just interpretted it that way, (just as they interpret everything else out of context) and the while god made earth in six days. Well when the earth was being made it damn well didn't rotate as fast as it does now. And 6 days to God would be an unfathomable amount of time to the sentient beings here in earth




posted on Jan, 13 2011 @ 05:45 PM
link   
reply to post by NonKonphormist
 



There is NO evidence that whales started as land mammals. There are evolutionists who would like you to believe that their interpretation of whales having small bones attached to their pelvis' mean that they had ancestors that once had legs, but it is just an interpretation of evidence, not actual evidence.

Hell, if you found a whale carcass or fossil that had legitimate legs, it would only be limited evidence in support of.

I'll start to buy into some of the modern paradigms when they can show me some legitimate evidence that the earth is billions of years old without using circular argument or extended "VERY" short term analyses...

Jaden



posted on Jan, 13 2011 @ 05:50 PM
link   
reply to post by ProfEmeritus
 


It is induced, not deduced, do NOT lend it more credibility than it deserves....

Jaden



posted on Jan, 13 2011 @ 05:51 PM
link   
reply to post by Masterjaden
 


Wait...are you contesting that the earth is billions of years old??



posted on Jan, 13 2011 @ 05:57 PM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 


No I'm stating that nothing more than conjecture and circular argument is there to support that it is.

Give me something to substantiate that it is that is not a circular argument or based on an extremely limited measurement extended out to the nth degree.

It appears that the only reason the modern paradigm indicates that it is, is that the theory of evolution requires it to be, in fact, the only reason it has stretched from tens of thousands to millions to billions of years over the last couple of centuries is to support the theory of evolution. I'm asking someone to provide some support for the faltering keystones to the house of cards that is evolution and the modern scientific paradigm.

And don't come back and say that multiple unrelated disciplines substantiate through their own endeavors. If they were truly unrelated, they COULDN'T substantiate each other and they have evolved along with the other unmitigated crap. In fact, the only thing that I could see HAS evolved, is the evidences that supposedly back it up AS they have become less and less likely to substantiate the theories in question, i.e. the ever expanding age of the earth to help substantiate the ability for macro evolution and abiogensis to have ever occurred.

Jaden



posted on Jan, 13 2011 @ 06:00 PM
link   
reply to post by elfulanozutan0
 


That doesn't prevent people from making the claim that I mentioned. It is this claim that I am attempting to explain how it has been refuted, and how it has to do with Evolutionary Theory.



posted on Jan, 13 2011 @ 06:03 PM
link   
reply to post by Masterjaden
 


What circular arguments are you talking about?? We know how old the earth is because we have multiple radiometric dating methods that all confirm that the earth is 4.54bil years old.

Source 1
Source 2

If you believe any of that is circular argumentation, I don't think you really know the meaning of the word


The oldest fossil we have is 2.74bil years old by the way...so even that alone proves that the earth is billions of years old.

I'm curious though...how old do you believe the earth is...and why?
edit on 13-1-2011 by MrXYZ because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 13 2011 @ 06:11 PM
link   
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
 





For a professor you sure don't know your fields of science, it's paleontology rather than archeology (archeology only deals with human artifacts) and we have observed evolution repeatedly.


First of all, I direct you to the thread just put up by SO, regarding your insult:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

The second point concerns your assumptions. You are using your assumption to PROVE your conclusion, namely that evolution is a fact, and therefore, by studying other forms of life, you can lead to humans.I do NOT accept evolution, and as such, archeology is what I am concerned with, regarding the development of humans. Since NO ONE has observed a monkey or any other living being "evolving into a human, your statement concerning observations of evolution are patently false.
Furthermore, labeling something, does not PROVE it or explain it. Gravity is only a theory, not a fact.I suggest that your read what Ellery Schempp, a famous physicist says about gravity:



Warning: Gravity is “Only a Theory”

by Ellery Schempp

All physics textbooks should include this warning label:

“This textbook contains material on Gravity. Universal Gravity is a theory, not a fact, regarding the natural law of attraction. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully, and critically considered.”

The Universal Theory of Gravity is often taught in schools as a “fact,” when in fact it is not even a good theory.

First of all, no one has measured gravity for every atom and every star. It is simply a religious belief that it is “universal.” Secondly, school textbooks routinely make false statements. For example, “the moon goes around the earth.” If the theory of gravity were true, it would show that the sun's gravitational force on the moon is much stronger than the earth's gravitational force on the moon, so the moon would go around the sun. Anybody can look up at night and see the obvious gaps in gravity theory.

The existence of tides is often taken as a proof of gravity, but this is logically flawed. Because if the moon's “gravity” were responsible for a bulge underneath it, then how can anyone explain a high tide on the opposite side of the earth at the same time? Anyone can observe that there are 2 -- not 1 -- high tides every day. It is far more likely that tides were given us by an Intelligent Creator long ago and they have been with us ever since. In any case, two high tides falsifies gravity.


www.bringyou.to...
Finally, since you cannot seem to observe the rules of ATS regarding courtesy, I will not respond to you further. In the future, if you truly wanted to have a civil discourse, you should try to be civil. Given your lack of that, I can only conclude that you believe that you can "bully" people into accepting your spurious theories, by insulting them.



posted on Jan, 13 2011 @ 06:16 PM
link   
reply to post by ProfEmeritus
 


Questioning your background given the blunder you just wrote isn't an insult, it's an observation!

If your main argument is that we've never witnessed a monkey turning into a human, you obviously have NO CLUE about the theory of evolution. We have a common ancestor with today's apes, and have a VERY detailed fossil record as well as DNA evidence to back that up. It's not something the scientific community doubts, in fact, we're actively using those findings in modern medicine and gene therapy. Since Darwin, we collected soooooo much evidence to support evolution, and in over 150 years, no one managed to debunk it. That's why it's labelled as a scientific theory...if there was any doubt, it would be labelled a hypothesis.

For crying out loud, if you agree with the stuff you quoted, you obviously have no clue about scientific method or the definition of scientific theory.

So yeah, I'm questioning your background too given your seemingly uneducated attacks on the theory of evolution.
edit on 13-1-2011 by MrXYZ because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 13 2011 @ 07:03 PM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 





So yeah, I'm questioning your background too given your seemingly uneducated attacks on the theory of evolution.

I suggest you also read the link I posted above, since your signature seems to take the theory of gravity as truth.
Furthermore, if your idea of "uneducated" translates to anyone that does not buy into evolution as a fact, then yes, I guess by your definition.

Of course, I do not believe that you understand that DNA similarities have NOTHING to do, with proving one species evolved from another.
Furthermore, I suggest you read Riken's study on the subject:


Researchers at the Institute of Physical and Chemical Research (Riken) recently announced they have found a much larger difference between human and chimpanzee genes than the conventionally accepted level.

They say the difference, based on a yet-to-be-completed genome study of the primate most closely related to humans, is about 15 percent.

Yoshiyuki Sakaki, director of the Riken genome project, said, "We believe there might be similar degrees of difference in other chromosomes."



I also suggest you read this, if you wish to understand why similarity of DNA has nothing to do with proving evolution:
www.apologeticspress.org...


Jonathan Marks, (department of anthropology, University of California, Berkeley) has pointed out the often-overlooked problem with this “similarity” line of thinking.

Because DNA is a linear array of those four bases—A,G,C, and T—only four possibilities exist at any specific point in a DNA sequence. The laws of chance tell us that two random sequences from species that have no ancestry in common will match at about one in every four sites. Thus even two unrelated DNA sequences will be 25 percent identical, not 0 percent identical (2000, p. B-7).

Therefore a human and any earthly DNA-based life form must be at least 25% identical. Would it be correct, then, to state that daffodils are “one-quarter human”? The idea that a flower is one-quarter human is neither profound nor enlightening; it is outlandishly ridiculous! There is hardly any biological comparison that could be conducted that would make daffodils human—except perhaps DNA. Marks went on to concede:

Moreover, the genetic comparison is misleading because it ignores qualitative differences among genomes.... Thus, even among such close relatives as human and chimpanzee, we find that the chimp’s genome is estimated to be about 10 percent larger than the human’s; that one human chromosome contains a fusion of two small chimpanzee chromosomes; and that the tips of each chimpanzee chromosome contain a DNA sequence that is not present in humans (B-7, emp. added).



Finally, consider this:


t would make sense that, if humans and chimpanzees were genetically identical, then the manner in which they store DNA also would be similar. Yet it is not. DNA, the fundamental blueprint of life, is tightly compacted into chromosomes. All cells that possess a nucleus contain a specific number of chromosomes. Common sense would seem to necessitate that organisms that share a common ancestry would possess the same number of chromosomes. However, chromosome numbers in living organisms vary from 308 in the black mulberry (Morus nigra) to six in animals such as the mosquito (Culex pipiens) or nematode worm (Caenorhabditis elegans) [see Sinnot, et al., 1958]. Additionally, complexity does not appear to affect the chromosomal number. The radiolaria (a simple protozoon) has over 800, while humans possess 46. Chimpanzees, on the other hand, have 48 chromosomes. A strict comparison of chromosome numbers would indicate that we are more closely related to the Chinese muntjac (a small deer found in Taiwan’s mountainous regions), which also has 46 chromosomes.


No, DNA does not prove evolution. In fact, by evolutionists' own arguments, the difference in chromosome pairs between chimps and humans do more to disprove it.

Of course, I don't expect you to accept my final argument, but others do. Those of us who believe in a Supreme Being, as a Creator of the universe, believe that this Supreme Being would create living beings to be similar enough, that the "construction" manual would consider similar parts, which you call DNA. Those similar "parts" allow us to live and interact with the physical universe.



posted on Jan, 13 2011 @ 07:13 PM
link   
reply to post by ProfEmeritus
 


You need to read your sources carefully. There's an extremely serious error that discredits the author you have cited as well as your ability to evaluate claims.


Originally posted by Ellery Schempp
For example, “the moon goes around the earth.” If the theory of gravity were true, it would show that the sun's gravitational force on the moon is much stronger than the earth's gravitational force on the moon, so the moon would go around the sun. Anybody can look up at night and see the obvious gaps in gravity theory.


The moon does go around the sun. It also maintains an orbit around the earth. It would be going around the sun regardless if the earth was here or not. however, since the earth is here and it has sufficient gravitational pull, the moon maintains both an orbit around the earth and around the sun at the same time.



posted on Jan, 13 2011 @ 10:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by ProfEmeritus
Furthermore, labeling something, does not PROVE it or explain it. Gravity is only a theory, not a fact.I suggest that your read what Ellery Schempp, a famous physicist says about gravity:

I feel kind of embarrassed for you right now. I'm not sure if you researched the article by Schempp that you're trying to use as evidence that gravity is "only a theory", but I'm guessing you didn't. Schempp wrote that as a particularly biting bit of satire and it was originally published in the "Secular Humorism" column of The Humanist, a secular humanist periodical published by the American Humanist Association.

Some other highlights from the article you place so much stock in as proving your points...


This is not a theory suitable for children. And even children can see how ridiculous it is to imagine that people in Australia are upside down with respect to us, as gravity theory would have it. If this is an example of the predictive power of the theory of gravity, we can see that at the core there is no foundation.


[Gravity] utterly fails to account for obesity.


It is safe to say that without the Theory of Gravity, there would be no talk about a “Big Bang,” and important limitations in such sports as basketball would be lifted. This would greatly benefit the games and enhance revenue as is proper in a faith-based, free-enterprise society.


The theory of gravity violates common sense in many ways. Adherents have a hard time explaining, for instance, why airplanes do not fall.


Finally, the mere name “Universal Theory of Gravity” or “Theory of Universal Gravity” (the secularists like to use confusing language) has a distinctly socialist ring to it. The core idea of “to each according to his weight, from each according to his mass” is communist. There is no reason that gravity should apply to the just and the unjust equally, and the saved should have relief from such “universalism.” If we have Universal Gravity now, then Universal health care will be sure to follow. It is this kind of Universalism that saps a nation's moral fiber.

Blind quoting without actually reading and understanding your source is bad... mmmkay?



posted on Jan, 13 2011 @ 10:23 PM
link   
And that's not the only blunder of those sources...



if humans and chimpanzees were genetically identical


No one has ever stated it is identical!! Also, the number of chromosomes isn't the only thing that makes us similar, rather the content of those chromosomes. Now, just looking at the fossil record alone should make it evident how similar we are, and that we have a common ancestor...but the DNA record is most certainly backing it up too



posted on Jan, 14 2011 @ 05:49 AM
link   
reply to post by ProfEmeritus
 



Originally posted by ProfEmeritus
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
 





For a professor you sure don't know your fields of science, it's paleontology rather than archeology (archeology only deals with human artifacts) and we have observed evolution repeatedly.


First of all, I direct you to the thread just put up by SO, regarding your insult:
www.abovetopsecret.com...


Hey look, logical fallacy: poisoning the well.

I didn't insult you, I just pointed out that you made a mistake you made that seemed silly for someone who goes by 'prof'. Of course, you could be in the arts, so that would explain things. Of course, you could also just be using it as a username.

Also, my post is 315 words long (not counting quoted text), and yet you responded to 31 words, just under 10% of it. I didn't insult you, and I'm sure the moderators would have alerted me if I had breached any of the board rules.



The second point concerns your assumptions. You are using your assumption to PROVE your conclusion,


No, I'm not assuming anything. And my conclusion is based upon evidence rather than used as a starting point. I wouldn't accept evolution if it didn't fall in line with all of the evidence.



namely that evolution is a fact, and therefore, by studying other forms of life, you can lead to humans.


That isn't an assumption, it's a conclusion based upon the available evidence. Can you please explain to me how humans wouldn't fall under the same genetic principles that underly all living things? Do they not mutate? Hint, they do. You and I each have about 180 mutations. Do they not pass on their DNA? Are they not subject to selective pressures?



I do NOT accept evolution, and as such, archeology is what I am concerned with, regarding the development of humans.


Archeology concerns human societal development, not human physiology. Physical anthropology is what you're looking for.



Since NO ONE has observed a monkey or any other living being "evolving into a human, your statement concerning observations of evolution are patently false.


You're parroting a claim that is patently false. I mean, it false apart on several levels, I'll take them in points:

-Evolution is a population phenomenon that occurs on the species level, not on the individual level. The speciation of an individual over its own lifetime wouldn't be evolution and would actually disprove the theory of evolution.
-Our evolutionary ancestors weren't modern monkeys or any other modern living thing.
-We can infer human evolution through genetic evidence and the evidence of transitional pre-human fossils.
-Evolution concerns itself not with humans, but with all living things.



Furthermore, labeling something, does not PROVE it or explain it. Gravity is only a theory, not a fact.I suggest that your read what Ellery Schempp, a famous physicist says about gravity:


I think you're a bit...off with what it states. It's a clearly satirical piece.



Finally, since you cannot seem to observe the rules of ATS regarding courtesy, I will not respond to you further. In the future, if you truly wanted to have a civil discourse, you should try to be civil. Given your lack of that, I can only conclude that you believe that you can "bully" people into accepting your spurious theories, by insulting them.


Wow, more poisoning the well! I'm not a bully, nor do I believe that browbeating should be used to shout down people I disagree with. I merely pointed out that you were highlighting the wrong field. Hell, you even got it wrong when you were more specific in applying it only to humans. I was merely pointing out that it was odd that someone who claims to be a professor can't get scientific fields straight.

And my theory isn't 'spurious', and it isn't my theory at all. You've yet to actually highlight a problem with evolution (and there's an entire thread devoted to that under the title "Evolution: FALSIFY IT!" which you can find in my signature).

I followed the rules. If you think I didn't, complain to the mods. If I did violate the rules, they'll take down my post.

Now, if you think I meant it as an insult, I apologize. I didn't mean it that way. I was merely pointing out that you're wrong and was starting to wonder if you really are a professor or if you just play one on the internet.



posted on Jan, 14 2011 @ 06:18 AM
link   
reply to post by ProfEmeritus
 



I searched Riken's database for the chimp info, but couldn't find it - could you post a link to your source?


EDIT: Never mind, found source, here, although if you read the whole article, (published 12.06.03(UK type date), so quite old), it states that they only compared chromosome 22(chimp):21(human analogue), and the difference in base pair sequence was 1.69. Perhaps they meant that it was 15% different from previous studies?

Don't forget that humans have a very large population compared to other apes, and .4 percent wouldn't, to my mind, be a particularly large number of mutations within a species, particularly if they are in non-coding DNA (which is not typically greatly conserved, as mutation does not lead to loss of functionality).

Without a proper paper available to read, I can't confidently state that the discrepancies between this and other studies was just due to sampling bias.
edit on 14/1/2011 by TheWill because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 15 2011 @ 08:59 AM
link   
Thank you.

Thank you for admitting that my first fact is indeed correct. It took you forever to admit it. But I'm glad to see you're man enough to admit it when you are wrong.

Refresher course, here's my first fact:

FACT#1 Scientists have never created life through abiogenesis or biopoesis.

You stated:

"It may not have been done in a lab,".

I do take offense to the word, "may", but I'll cut you a little slack, since we both know that it has not been done...ever...at all...period...by science.

Just so you don't go on and accuse me of partial quoting, let me finish your entire quote:

"but that doesn't mean it never happened in nature. You're twisting the argument to create an equivalence between the inability of scientists to do something and the possibility that it happened in nature."

I can't believe you just said this. You admit that God can do it, your code word for nature, but man can't...lol

Wow. That is shocking. How do you rationalize that in your mind? That nature - i.e.- God - can do something and man can't?

BTW - I never twisted anything. My fact states "scientists" have never created life. You, on the other hand, tried twisting my position to imply God couldn't do it. Of course He can. He can and has done everything.

Nevermind, your answer probably will be long and tedious and not make much sense anyways, so let's just move on to fact #2:

FACT #2: The theory of evolution does not try and explain how life began.

Do we agree that evolution does not try to explain how life began?

Yes?

or

No?



posted on Jan, 15 2011 @ 09:14 AM
link   
reply to post by mrvdreamknight
 



I can't believe you just said this. You admit that God can do it, your code word for nature, but man can't...lol

Wow. That is shocking. How do you rationalize that in your mind? That nature - i.e.- God - can do something and man can't?



Hang on a mo... so when we talk about natural selection, you think we mean God selection?

"In nature" is usually taken to mean "without human interference", not "With God's interference". We don't think that because puddles form naturally, God has to make puddles, do we?

And I don't think that anybody is saying that God could not have done abiogenesis, just that, seeing as there is no definitive evidence of his existence which does not spring from a circular argument, they're saying that it's possible that it happened God-free.


edit on 15/1/2011 by TheWill because: (no reason given)


as to fact 2, nobody is disputing that evolution does not explain the origin of life, but they ARE disputing the claim that the origin of life cannot be explained atheistically.
edit on 15/1/2011 by TheWill because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 15 2011 @ 06:14 PM
link   
reply to post by mrvdreamknight
 



Originally posted by mrvdreamknight
Thank you.

Thank you for admitting that my first fact is indeed correct. It took you forever to admit it. But I'm glad to see you're man enough to admit it when you are wrong.


Thank you, for outright lying. I never said that scientists had created life in any fashion in the lab. I simply stated that it was irrelevant, though I do admit that it's on topic, seeing as it shows the ignorance of a creationist.



Refresher course, here's my first fact:

FACT#1 Scientists have never created life through abiogenesis or biopoesis.


FACT#1: The relevance of a scientific concept isn't predicated on its ability to be replicated in a lab.



You stated:

"It may not have been done in a lab,".

I do take offense to the word, "may", but I'll cut you a little slack, since we both know that it has not been done...ever...at all...period...by science.


Which wasn't the point, which is why you go on:



Just so you don't go on and accuse me of partial quoting, let me finish your entire quote:

"but that doesn't mean it never happened in nature. You're twisting the argument to create an equivalence between the inability of scientists to do something and the possibility that it happened in nature."

I can't believe you just said this. You admit that God can do it, your code word for nature, but man can't...lol


I never refer to nature as a deity. And yes, nature can do all sorts of things we can't. We cannot create hurricanes, earthquakes, thunderstorms, sustained fusion reactions, planets, etc. We also don't have the amount of time or the amount of area necessary to properly run the experiment. The period of time in which life developed is measured in millions of years in the world's oceans.

And 'nature' in the way I refer to it represents a system, not a thing. Nature is the system of our solar system.



Wow. That is shocking. How do you rationalize that in your mind? That nature - i.e.- God - can do something and man can't?


Your intellectual dishonesty is quite staggering. First you accuse me of somehow being intellectually dishonest because nature can do something that humans can't. Newsflash, nature can do all sorts of things that we can't, it's why we haven't cured world hunger, stopped all natural disasters, cured every disease, and built a solar system which is less averse to life. Then you continue the idiotic insertion of a deity into the argument.

It's obvious, I never stated that humanity can do everything that nature can. Humans can do some things that nature can't (like make cars and electronics), nature can do things that humans can't do (yet).



BTW - I never twisted anything. My fact states "scientists" have never created life.


You're twisting that to mean that it would be impossible for it to happen in nature. You're twisting the argument. You have no logical causation between the statement that scientists have never created life and life not having arisen naturally.



You, on the other hand, tried twisting my position to imply God couldn't do it.


No, I didn't. You'd be able to demonstrate how I did, which you cannot.



Of course He can. He can and has done everything.


Except provide definitive proof of 'his' existence, authored a consistent holy book, or give humanity anything of value through the religions claiming to represent 'him'. Odd side point: why are you using masculine pronouns for a being that simply could not be masculine by definition?



Nevermind, your answer probably will be long and tedious and not make much sense anyways, so let's just move on to fact #2:


Of course my answers are long, I have to address all of the stuff you said and explain my own position. By providing long answers I can actually make sure I address everything and I can have ample time to show exactly why other people's posts are either wrong, right, or somewhere in between.



FACT #2: The theory of evolution does not try and explain how life began.

Do we agree that evolution does not try to explain how life began?


Of course it doesn't explain how life began. Nobody (except creationists) has ever claimed that it does. As I told you before, it's irrelevant to the discussion. Circuit theory also doesn't try to explain how life began, so what?



posted on Jan, 15 2011 @ 07:03 PM
link   
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
 


Great.

I thought the second fact would be much easier for you to accept.





So let's move on to fact #3:

FACT# 3: No science at all has ever created life.

Since you have already admitted this to be true - I just want to clarify that you still feel this way and have not changed your mind.

So, do agree with this statement - a simple yes or no would be nice.








posted on Jan, 15 2011 @ 07:14 PM
link   
reply to post by mrvdreamknight
 


I'll agree that it's true, and yet I'll still contend that all of the facts mentioned are entirely irrelevant when it comes to a discussion of abiogenesis. We've built a car, but does that prove a car can arise naturally? Hell no.



new topics

top topics



 
35
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join