Should "Creationism" be considered a sign of insanity?

page: 32
44
<< 29  30  31    33  34 >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 13 2010 @ 07:56 PM
link   
reply to post by Cosmic.Artifact
 


I know these links have been posted at least once in this thread, but since you somehow have missed them in this and every other topic on Evolution on ATS I will post them again.

Observed Instances of Speciation
Some More Observed Speciation Events




posted on Dec, 13 2010 @ 08:13 PM
link   
reply to post by Xcalibur254
 


I found this to be a very interesting site too.
www.godandscience.org...



posted on Dec, 13 2010 @ 10:55 PM
link   
reply to post by Cosmic.Artifact
 


As others have pointed out, You are wrong we have observed speciation.
Just out of curiosity though...

What barrier would actually stop speciation ?
Why can't macro-evolution happen, What is stopping it ? There has to be some force or barrier preventing speciation if your post bares truth. So please explain the biological barrier that stops speciation.

To OP :
Creationism would be considered more then just a sign of insanity if it took place on any other background then religion.



posted on Dec, 13 2010 @ 11:27 PM
link   



posted on Dec, 14 2010 @ 05:50 AM
link   
When I was a young adult, I thoroughly enjoyed watching Carl Sagan's Cosmos specials on PBS. Sagan had a way to make cosmology interesting even to biologists. I waited all week to watch his program. Later, in his Gifford lectures, Carl Sagan talked about how to test religious truth claims:


Now, what happened before that [Big-Bang]? There are two views. One is 'Don’t ask that question,' which is very close to saying that God did it. And the other is that we live in an oscillating universe in which there is an infinite number of expansions and contractions. The former of these views happens, by chance, to be close to the Judeo-Christian-Islamic view, the latter, close to the standard Hindu views. And so, if you like, you can think of the varying contentions of these two major religious views being fought out in the field of contemporary satellite astronomy. Because that’s where the answer to this question will very likely be decided. This is an experimental question. And it is very likely that in our lifetime we will have the answer to it. And I stress that this is very different from the usual theological approach, where there is never an experiment that can be performed to test out any contentious issue. Here there is one. So we don’t have to make judgments now. All we have to do is maintain some tolerance for ambiguity until the data are in, which may happen in a decade or less." (Carl Sagan, 1985 Gifford Lectures).


Guess what? Sagan was right (although it took a little more than a decade). Sagan's second alternative, the oscillating universe model has been discredited by a lack of sufficient matter to cause a contraction.1 It was further discredited by the discovery of dark energy, which shows that the universe is actually expanding at an ever increasing rate.2 So, Sagan's first alternative is the one that turned out to be true. My guess is that he was betting on the second. Of course, the atheists haven't lined up to become Christians, but instead have invented their own form of metaphysics (i.e., religion). Atheists have invented the multiverse, a kind of super-universe that randomly spews out other universes (with differing physical laws) at will. The multiverse sounds scientific, but it is really philosophical wishful thinking, since there is no evidence supporting the idea. If one really thinks about it, the multiverse is impossible over the entire period of eternity (which is what atheists would propose for the age of the "invisible" part of our universe - if such a thing exists at all). The problem is that our part of the multiverse has managed to make itself completely inaccessible to contraction and future expansion. If it were possible for one part of the multiverse to become thermodynamically dead, it would be expected to be possible for others. Even if entry into such a state is extremely unlikely, eternity is a very, very long time. Certainly by now (over all eternity), the entire multiverse would have entered into one of these thermodynamically dead zones. So, one would expect the entire multiverse to have suffered thermodynamic death by now. Therefore, it makes absolutely no sense that the universe is eternal with the characteristics that we observe. We are left with Sagan's first alternative - God did it. Atheists like to say that there is no evidence for God's existence and pretend such evidence doesn't exist. However, Sagan realized that science could judge between religious claims.

Creation is unfalsifiable, evolution on the other hand is not.



posted on Dec, 14 2010 @ 06:24 AM
link   
reply to post by Cosmic.Artifact
 


Rejection of one hypothesis only equates acceptance of another if the other is a suitable null hypothesis. Escaping from bias driven by pre-existing paradigms, the only universally acceptable null hypothesis is "I dunno", and dismissal of a hypothesis is only appropriate where there is incontroversible evidence that it is false.

Just because the universe doesn't bang/crunch/bang again doesn't mean that "God did it." I'm not supporting the "multiverse" hypothesis - I often feel that Hawking's ideas are groundless, but I don't think that he expects people to believe that it IS so just because he says that it might be - but neither "God did it" nor "oscillating universe" was an acceptable null, and so rejecting either is not acceptance of the other, just an admission of "I dunno" on a cosmic scale.

The only way we can get to acceptance of one hypothesis entirely through rejection of others is to exhaustively reject EVERY SINGLE ALTERNATIVE. Which we have enough trouble with in the relatively simple courts of law, hence the extraordinarily vague term of "reasonable doubt". One man's reason is not the same as another's, and so one man's reasonable doubt is not the same as anothers, on top of which, viable and even valid hypotheses may exist far beyond reasonable doubt, and so never even be considered.



edit on 14/12/2010 by TheWill because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 14 2010 @ 07:43 AM
link   
reply to post by Xcalibur254
 



I think I've already personally linked those two sources multiple times in this thread. I know of linked them dozens of times in various other threads. Creationists don't bother reading them.



posted on Dec, 14 2010 @ 07:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by Xcalibur254
reply to post by dialecticchaos77
 


If they're both the same please provide me with the mountains of empirical data that has been published in peer-reviewed journals that supports Creationism.


How does the new testament not count as empirical data? Many people saw what they saw and wrote things down. There was both written and spoken language at that time so recording information was easy.

You and the other SHILLS keep saying "peer reviewed journals" and anything that is not peer-reviewed by the same shills does not count. The world does not operate exactly as you think it does. Many things cannot be explained by conventional science because we have not reached higher levels of existance and we may never reach those higher levels.

I gave countless examples of things science CANNOT EXPLAIN or DOES NOT WANT TO EXPLAIN because IT WOULD AFFECT THE STATUS QUO in a way those in power cannot afford it. I hate repeating myself again and again because its pointless.



posted on Dec, 14 2010 @ 08:13 AM
link   
reply to post by EarthCitizen07
 


Please explain how the New testament (read: the Jesus bit, where he talks at length about being nice, kind, etc., and then we kill him and somehow this saves us) is evidence for creationism?



posted on Dec, 14 2010 @ 08:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
reply to post by EarthCitizen07
 



Originally posted by EarthCitizen07
The negative is the opinion/fact that humans did not evolve from monkeys.


...I think I may have already explained this to you, but I'll just say it again. Evolutionary theory doesn't say that humanity evolved from monkeys. We share a common ancestor with them.


Ok fine humans evolved from apes? Or better yet neanderthals, cro-magnon, etc?

And how do YOU KNOW reptilian aliens didn't land from alpha draconis and decided they wanted a good slave species because the cro-magnon idiots were to stupid to serve them? How do YOU KNOW grey aliens from the orion constellation didn't land on earth and decided to replenish their dna so they can survive by stealing some of our genes for themselves?

How can YOU be sure what is true and what is not?


Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
The other part is that human evolution isn't the main focus of evolutionary theory. We're just one out of a plethora of species.


Sorry I don't think ANYTHING evolves by itself. It can't evolve unless its dna is changed!


Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
Now, in this case you are arguing science rather than philosophy, so it gets interesting. There is plenty of evidence and argumentation in favor of evolutionary theory. In this case you'd have to attempt to falsify the work of evolutionary biology, as the scientific community has already done their part to prove the theory.


Sorry there is no proof at all. Its all made-up bs!!!

You see it takes someone TO AGREE with your evidence and theory for proof to exist. Since I DO NOT ACCEPT your evidence there is NO PROOF! One shill agreeing with another shill does not make anything true unless EVERYONE agrees so.

Case in point: 1+1=2 2*5=10 That is provable and everyone agrees hence we have proof!


Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
...um...so a sarcastic implication that scientists do cherry pick data proves your various serious accusation?


My beef is not with science as a field of study, but the liers and cheats who hide behind the science curtain and make up fanciful claims, many times without logical proof. If something is counter-intuitive than that normally means its wrong......plain and simple!


Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
Here's the thing, scientists cannot cherry pick data. Other scientists would catch it. It would actually be incredibly harmful for your career.

Now, can you provide evidence that scientists regularly cherry pick data?


I would have to be IN THE SCAM to know exactly everything. But since you asked for one example AND ITS RECENT sure.........The "church of gore" global warming conspiracy that nearily defrauded billions of people worldwide with CHERRY PICKED DATA and it WAS PROVEN by the leaked emails from east anglia university.
edit on 14-12-2010 by EarthCitizen07 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 14 2010 @ 08:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
reply to post by Xcalibur254
 



I think I've already personally linked those two sources multiple times in this thread. I know of linked them dozens of times in various other threads. Creationists don't bother reading them.


because it's so small it is almost insignificant... we all grow up sometime



posted on Dec, 14 2010 @ 08:29 AM
link   
reply to post by EarthCitizen07
 



It can't evolve unless its dna is changed!


Which can be observed readily. take a two clonal(read: DNA identical) cultures of E. coli. add broad spectrum antibiotics to one culture, wait until the other dish is nicely fuzzed-over with E. coli colonies before adding the same broad-spectrum antibiotic.

Quite often, in the second case, you'll have new colonies forming (note that they will occasionally form in the first case, but much more rarely, as the mutations necessary to become indifferent to the antibiotics are less likely to arise in smaller populations that have undergone less DNA replications). Sequence the DNA of these new colonies.

Looky-loo, it's changed.


edit on 14/12/2010 by TheWill because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 14 2010 @ 08:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by TheWill
reply to post by EarthCitizen07
 



It can't evolve unless its dna is changed!


Which can be observed readily. take a two clonal(read: DNA identical) cultures of E. coli. add broad spectrum antibiotics to one culture, wait until the other dish is nicely fuzzed-over with E. coli colonies before adding the same broad-spectrum antibiotic.

Quite often, in the second case, you'll have new colonies forming. Sequence the DNA of these new colonies.

Looky-loo, it's changed.




WOW ! now that is interesting, so what does it mean, really ?



posted on Dec, 14 2010 @ 08:35 AM
link   
reply to post by TheWill
 


Yes but the evolutionists claim everything happens randomily and with no intelligent guidance.

That is where I disagree with them!



posted on Dec, 14 2010 @ 08:39 AM
link   
reply to post by Cosmic.Artifact
 


It means that variation is not only lost (through natural selection and genetic drift, etc) but also generated, providing a mechanism for evolution to carry on long term.

It was mostly a response to EarthCitizen's ill advised comment and a personal response to the word "shill".



posted on Dec, 14 2010 @ 08:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07
reply to post by TheWill
 


Yes but the evolutionists claim everything happens randomily and with no intelligent guidance.

That is where I disagree with them!


agreed, evolution has it's place... but it does not replace. There are tons of more interesting scientific aspects that are way bigger than evolution.

Besides it being just a theory of observation without even enough time to prove the philosophy of evolution.

who cares really



posted on Dec, 14 2010 @ 08:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by TheWill
reply to post by Cosmic.Artifact
 


It means that variation is not only lost (through natural selection and genetic drift, etc) but also generated, providing a mechanism for evolution to carry on long term.

It was mostly a response to EarthCitizen's ill advised comment and a personal response to the word "shill".


Evolution does not bring us any closer to the "Why" therefore not even as interesting as the LHC, it explains nothing except what I call Loopy-Loop logic.

take it to the ends... what does it mean ?



posted on Dec, 14 2010 @ 08:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by TheWill
reply to post by Cosmic.Artifact
 


It means that variation is not only lost (through natural selection and genetic drift, etc) but also generated, providing a mechanism for evolution to carry on long term.

It was mostly a response to EarthCitizen's ill advised comment and a personal response to the word "shill".


My comments are not "ill advised" when someone starts a thread calling creationism "a sign of insanity" and does not care to listen about anthing, further ridicules the bible, has no answers for mysteries and just keeps pounding the same theories with at best subjective evidence.

They have an agenda and I don't like it one bit. I must ask, why do you take offense to something that was not directed at you? I feel a bit puzzled!



posted on Dec, 14 2010 @ 08:53 AM
link   
reply to post by EarthCitizen07
 


No.

If you were to sequence the genomes of all the individual bacteria in the second dish, you would find that most if not all genes had received mutations somewhere in the population. You select for a specific one to see if it has occurred.

It is, so far as we can tell, random, but I for one do not rule out divine intervention. However, attaching God to a process just because you can't understand it without trying to is the best way to kill your God. A God of the gaps is doomed to lose his place as the gaps get filled in.

"Evolution" says nothing against a creator. "Evolutionists", likewise, are not opposed to the concept of a creator (I speak only for those that I have heard the opinion of). However, they recognise that divine intervention is not necessary within the evolutionary process, and so (ones with integrity) do not attempt to explain that which they cannot understand by saying "God did it".

Evolution did nothing to harm the idea of a God. It was the religious who confined him to the gaps in their own knowledge that killed their own versions of him (or her, it, them, or my personal favourite, The.) by forcing him to exist as a temporary filler sign for science.

It CAN happen randomly. That does not mean that it MUST be random chance, but I for one would say that a god who created a self-regulating universe with self-maintaining processes is far more admirable than one who has to step in at every single DNA replication event to chuck in a couple of mistakes.

Do you understand me?

EDIT: I take offence at such words as "Paki" and "Chink", but my own recent ancestry is not significantly derived from either of the groups derided thus. I was not calling for you to take back what you had said, merely explaining why I had responded thusly to CosmicArtifact.

And, to CosmicArtifact, Why is effectively an unanswerable question, which confines it to philosophy. How, on the other hand, is much easier to get at, and that is what science is really for. It doesn't comment on why.
edit on 14/12/2010 by TheWill because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 14 2010 @ 08:57 AM
link   
reply to post by EarthCitizen07
 


actually I didn't, I was agreeing with you and adding more commentary...

their agenda is weak period because all science really is just trying to understand creation.

Creation is as natural as religion in we humans it's can not be erased no matter how hard they try, we humans are free-thinkers and the loop always comes back around to the "why"

the Bible does a really good job of addressing the "Why"

Edit:-> sorry I thought you were addressing me...
edit on 12/14/2010 by Cosmic.Artifact because: (no reason given)





 
44
<< 29  30  31    33  34 >>

log in

join