It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Evolution/Creation Answer with Mathematical Proof.

page: 1
<<   2 >>

log in


posted on Jan, 6 2011 @ 11:18 PM
First let me say I am of two minds on this.
This may be the real answer to the why of the question.

Let me explain for you right brain logic-centered thinkers. I need a mathematical proof thats shows how much you love your mother. (show your work)

Now one for the left brain people out there. Channel/pray me the plans to an intergalactic space drive. (it must work)

This is why each side of the debate will attack the other.

The real issue is how we think and how we see ourselves.

That debate is not the same question.

Answers have been sought from very different schools of thought.


I have faith that my friends and family will keep some of my most embarrassing moments secret. This is faith without proof of anything real or tangible. Yet I live my life everyday with faith and take it for granted most of the time.


I know the formula for area of a circle and understand the cold mathematical proof, but again I take this knowledge for granted most of the time.


Two people walk into a room with only a television. They are told to look around and be prepared to describe what they see. The first says “There was room with nothing in but an electronic device that displayed an image on a LCD screen.” The second says “I saw Angels dancing on the head of a pin.” Now who is right?

Those who seek god with science will find ridicule (peer review).

Those who try to quantify and measure the love in another's heart will find madness (jealousy).

If we were cold logical biological computers there would be no debate. Just the facts.

If we lived by instinct and intuition alone we would be mindless animals.
But it would appear, we are a little of both or maybe something else.

So I will not debate ridicule with madness. Neither should anybody else.
Understand just because a question seems like it should have a simple answer doesn't mean that it does.

Who am I? (Ubeen)
What am I? (human)
Why am I here? (to learn and teach)

Just because a question has a simple answer. Does not mean, it is correct and the only correct answer.

Until the answers agree from all sides, let each side continue the search in reverence to all points of views.

Don't call a plumber to fix a broken toe.

Mathematical proof

Creation = Evolution, as Science = Ridicule, as Religion = Madness, as Divine Laws = Laws of nature, as Russian = English (See all the equations are balanced. But could someone check my signs?)

Could we ever all agree, if the question was ever answered from one school of thought alone?
Learn to think for yourself
Learn others think for themselves too
The only mind you can change is you own.

posted on Jan, 6 2011 @ 11:27 PM
The whole post sounds sorta kinda interesting if I could understand what the thread is really about, and what you desire comments on. I could pick out different sentences, but I'd rather comment on your whole premise.

Expound? Elaborate? Crux?
edit on 6-1-2011 by Klassified because: (no reason given)

posted on Jan, 6 2011 @ 11:51 PM
to me, the thread seems to be about showing both sides of the so called "where did we come from" theory just how stupid they really are.

"Creationists" ridicule.
"Scientists" ridicule.

Neither one of them have a damned clue what they're talking about.

It's like watching a bunch of kids argue with each other at the playground...all you can do is setback and laugh as they bicker about petty and unimportant garbage...and if they'd just take their own egos out of the equation for 2 seconds, they'd realize that the person they're arguing with is explaining things exactly the same way they are, just from a different point of view.

posted on Jan, 7 2011 @ 08:56 AM
Thank you and very well put.
If you are still confused.
There are too many rights and too few absolute truths out there.
There is little to gain from always disagreeing when you are talking about completely different things.

posted on Jan, 7 2011 @ 10:58 AM
Re Ubeen

Maybe I'm also 'biased' by sharing your basic attitude (about the whole subject of epistemology), but in any case I agree with you. The 'absolutes' of self-defined 'ultimate truth/reality' presented on ATS are often based on parameters/assumptions, which by themselves could do with some scrutiny before they are presented as a safe fundament, from where everything can be evaluated, build or debated.

I have regularly suggested something similar to this OP, and practically always been ignored. I'm not bitter or paranoid about it, because this kind of deep digging (as examplified by Cartesian philosophy: "I drink, therefore I am") simply doesn't inspire much interest, and by many is considered ivory-tower speculations; ..... even amongst those with a good educational background, interest in theology or science, or by those seeking big answers in existence.

My own basic bid for a way around this problem is, what I call a common communication platform. Expressed through proper semantics and about what is 'co-sensus' (e.g. gravity seems to be universally functioning in the visible part of existence except for a few alleged cases of people walking on water, contemporary paranormal and/or ET observations and very speculative conceptualized abstractions on beyond-event-horizon 'reality').

If such a common communication platform could be established, it would be posssible to include more relative values as a further addition. E.g. such as the common biological drive for survival, lessening of pain or social ethics (utilitarian philosophy), but already here we have our first group of dissenters. For some extremist ideologuers such biological considerations are of secondary importance. For them a continued (preferable pleasant) existence in the invisible part of existence, allegiance to some higher power, special ethics or just plain madness count more, and eventually they will turn into ideological suicidal storm-troops for whom supremacy or violence are the only options. It would be naive to disregard this group, as they can topple every 'compromise' system around them.

Disregarding this depressing social aspect, there are academic options as an answer to the OP. In US probably best known through the writings of R.A.Wilson, who presented Jain philosophy. Shortly put as the idea of 'relative realities' inside which a kind of 'truth' exists from the perspective of parts relating to other parts of the same 'reality'.

This can be rather functional for everyone, but ofcourse ideologuers with 'ultimate' answers outside any given 'relative reality' will hear nothing of it; especially when their 'ultimate reality' model is based on rigid, doctrinal assumptions in a closed system.

Going full circle, the 'ultimate reality' systems aren't based on anything else than individual mindsets, i.d. they are 'subjective' interpretations based on personal preferences (disliking ideas of 'relative reality'), which practically never change. IF a change happens, individuals of this type will usually stay with the original rigid mindset and just find a new ideology to express it through.

So Ubeen, in a way we're back to square one, just upgraded. We've still not solved the problem of 'power' being a part of conflicts, whether these conflicts are played on a battlefield, debate-forums or in academisia.

Did you find your way through my thoughts? Think about those completely disinterested in the subject, who consider these ideas as un-necessary (opposed to those answering this thread).
edit on 7-1-2011 by bogomil because: spelling

posted on Jan, 7 2011 @ 11:05 AM
Wrong forum, but I'll address this in short: No

No to what? To all of it. For one thing, there wasn't a mathematical proof, there wasn't even a demonstration of formal or informal logic. Just random ramblings. You're equating a narrow superstitious philosophy with scientific inquiry.

And I can tell you one instance where all the answers came from one side: science

Heliocentrism vs religious geocentrism? Clear winner
Germ theory vs 'evil spirits' and 'humors'? Clear winner
Evolution vs goddidit? Clear winner

On issues it addresses, science is always the answer.

Now you know, and knowing is half the battle.

posted on Jan, 7 2011 @ 11:17 AM
Hi Madness

this can be interesting. Usually I would follow your direction almost to the end, but in this case I have a few reservations on the ultimacy of ultimates. Though ofcourse not as a defense of doctrinal religion, which rates very low on my scale of reality maps.
edit on 7-1-2011 by bogomil because: spelling

posted on Jan, 7 2011 @ 11:26 AM
reply to post by bogomil
Well I must say it always is a pleasure to meet someone with right-centered brain (or so it would seem) who doesn't keep his sprint in a test-tube. Your command of the language of science I find a little intimidating. But you do get it and it hard to see it if you don't.

posted on Jan, 7 2011 @ 11:59 AM
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
I see you are struggling with the message. But as it applies to your current confusion in my OP. Do not teach science from the pulpit. Do not be surprised that religion defies logic. Faith is not logic. Make sure when you are talking to someone you are speaking the same language. Be very critical of the content and tone of your post. Everybody is wrong and right some of the time. Seek knowledge where ever you can find it. But if you are out to change minds and hearts open yours. I hold your views at the highest respect and regard because frankly they used to be mine. If you take science to church expect a lesson in spirit. Thank you for your voice it is most appreciated.

edit on 7-1-2011 by Ubeen because: (no reason given)

posted on Jan, 7 2011 @ 05:01 PM
Re Ubeen

thanks for your answer to which I have a few comments on my own background and stance.

First of all I'm not by education a full-fledged 'hard' scientist at university level; only college 'hard' science and later lay-person following-up. I did have 4-5 years at university with studies of the 'soft' social sciences, which for obvious reasons differ somewhat in methodology from the 'hard' versions.

But amongst the various options for making 'maps of the territory' science is my big favourite, though not to the degree that it's completely exclusive. In my opinion science's claim of 'authority' as a 'map' depends on how science chooses to define itself. But if Madness decides to join this thread further, there'll most likely be some efforts of clarification on this.

Returning to your answering post and OP: For practical purposes, and with some justification in theory, I do consider your left/right-brain scenario as valid, and I use it to solve problems, answer questions or being generally 'creative'. It'll be too off-topic from this thread to go into mind-technical details here, so I'll only say, that I let my left-brain 'linear logic' work tandem with my right brain 'patterning of structures'. Maybe the left brain is more often holding the steering handle pointing a direction, but it's the right brain, which does a major part of the work by searching for the proper contexts/connections/structures/whatever. Stretching semantic correctness somewhat, the left/right brain scenario could be said to be similar to that of deductive/inductive reasoning.

But I will academically not go so far as you've done in creating a dichotomy between the two options left/right-brain, linear/structured or deductive/inductive. There are gray zones, and there's also even a potential for a simultaneous symbiotic functioning between linear/structured etc.

Furthermore I will not in any way academically support anything purely 'doctrinal' (whereas social liberal rights are evident for doctrinalists also), where such doctrines haven't been exposed to a careful basic examination. An examination based on the gray areas between linear-logic/structure, and if this is not wished for or possible, at least intrinsically. Apart from a few very extremist positions (such as denying practically all opposing views in favour of a self-proving circle-argument) even doctrines relate to something inside or outside itself, from where 'reasoning' can be formed.

ATS has innumerable examples of debates on 'doctrine' and the dichotomy faith/logic, which you present. In my opinion most threads usually only scratch the surface, stay at the surface and repeat the same arguments over and over. And admittedly a deep-going debate on doctrine/science, faith/logic could be very taxing, possibly sometimes impossible, for those joining, but sooner or later it has to be done if the subject isn't to become totally stagnant and meaningless.

I'm far from sitting on the fence, it's just that I (like you) have another fence to side on. If this thread survives for long (questionable, as the subject doesn't interest many), it would eventually be apparent where your fence is as compared to mine. I have the small uneasy impression, that your OP (and answer to Madness) implies an opening for sneaking religion in through the backdoor, making it acceptable on its own terms just by being 'undefinable' by science and then later slowly enlarge this 'acceptance' to a scientific housebroken-ness. It's been done before.

In your OP you actually have guarded yourself against this 'through the backdoor', but I want to make it as clear as I can, that my own position ONLY includes an epistemological option for approaching the 'invisible' world. Not any specific religionist or doctrinal claims for authenticity apart from and outside of being a subjective 'faith', so no later debate can change my stated intention into new directions.

posted on Jan, 7 2011 @ 05:39 PM
I add one more post separately from the former one, so as to avoid confusion.

Madnessinmysoul wrote:

"On issues it addresses, science is always the answer."

This is a statement I support a long, long way. But in the context of this thread I would like some additional definitions of the key-words "addresses" and "science".

E.g. 'scientism' 'addressed' the issue of the invisible world by arranging its own (scientism's) parameters to define away said invisible world. Hardly appropriate these days, where contemporary science itself operates with rather esoteric concepts. (Not esoteric as in religion).

posted on Jan, 7 2011 @ 06:29 PM
reply to post by Ubeen

I apologize for taking apart the paragraph, but it's not easy to reply to the big chunk as a whole.

Originally posted by Ubeen
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
I see you are struggling with the message. But as it applies to your current confusion in my OP.

No, I'm quite sure that I'm not confused.

Do not teach science from the pulpit.

I disagree. We should definitely teach science from the pulpit, the state of science education in most nations is quite dismal and we need every extra bit of education that we can get. And teaching science would be the one time that a religion actually taught something objectively true.

Do not be surprised that religion defies logic. Faith is not logic.

Yes, which is why I think it's silly and useless.

Make sure when you are talking to someone you are speaking the same language.

English. Oh, you mean we're on the same wavelength? So I shouldn't bother to challenge the people who are trying to teach religion in science classrooms?

Be very critical of the content and tone of your post.

Um...I've been a user on this forum for several years, I don't think I need anyone telling me that.

Everybody is wrong and right some of the time.

No and yes...sort of. You see, if I make a statement about evolution being true and a creationist disagrees, the creationist is wrong. In no way am I wrong or are they right.

Seek knowledge where ever you can find it.

As long as it's a reasonable place. There is no knowledge to be found in religion, thus it cannot be found there.

But if you are out to change minds and hearts open yours.

My mind is open, the problem is that I have such ridiculously high expectations that I expect people to provide 'evidence' and 'reason' and 'logic' when they make a reality claim.

I hold your views at the highest respect and regard because frankly they used to be mine.

Well, I'm happy for the respect, but that last bit is disgustingly patronizing.

If you take science to church expect a lesson in spirit. Thank you for your voice it is most appreciated.

I'm happy you're being cordial, but I just don't see eye to eye on you with this one. The problem with 'a lesson in spirit' is that it is, at the end of the day, pure conjecture, whereas science is evidence based. It's something you can test repeatedly and verify with others, thus you cannot put it in the same light as religion.

posted on Jan, 7 2011 @ 06:33 PM
reply to post by PrimePorkchop

I'm sorry, but that's just a bald-faced lie. Creationists sure as hell don't know what they're talking about (or they do and are perpetuating lies, as has been demonstrated with several of them), but I find it highly offensive in the greatest degree to state that scientists don't know what they're talking about.

Now, if you're going to hold that view, please chuck your science-based computer out the window. Chuck your mobile telephone as well. TV too. Video games as well. And the electric lights. Oh, and don't forget to toss out anything that's made of plastic. I mean, I would just suggest you burn down the structure you live in and hand build a stone structure for yourself if that's the attitude you're going to take.

Oh, if you reply that it only applies to evolution, please stop receiving any sort of medical care for infectious disease, as it's based on evolutionary biology.

To be frank, this is just a disgusting idea. If scientists don't know what they're talking about, how the hell is it that they can actually back all of their claims up with evidence?

posted on Jan, 7 2011 @ 07:41 PM
reply to post by Ubeen

So I will not debate ridicule with madness. Neither should anybody else.

I agree

Good to see I am not the only one that has come to this conclusion.

posted on Jan, 8 2011 @ 12:36 AM
Lets try this again from another view.

In the Niels Bohr model the electrons rotate in fixed orbits around the nucleus. This model led to the some of the greatest discoveries in medicine and helped spur the industrial age. Neil's Bohr model contribution to science can not even be measured. But as we all know now his model was wrong. The discovery of DNA proved part of Origin of Species wrong in the same way. Yes the scientific method says the data is the data the only problem is the interruption. Science also teaches us that to get good data you must remove the human from the experiment with double blind studies or the data will be corrupted. Science by its very nature will slay sacred cows. Science has no need for I told you so because it will prove it wrong eventually.

posted on Jan, 8 2011 @ 02:07 AM
reply to post by madnessinmysoul

you make me laugh.

the whole purpose of science is to explore and explain

if you pretend to already know, then you've done science a great disservice. you can be "upset" all you want to be... it is people who think like you that put science to great shame.

posted on Jan, 8 2011 @ 02:29 AM
reply to post by PrimePorkchop

And you make me laugh

There, what purpose did that statement serve, it made me feel better and most likely yourself feel better when you made it. But really, what purpose did it to strengthen your position?

Science isn't about conviction in theories, it never has been. However, these aren't just hypothesis dreamed up with the help of a book, these are testable, repeatable, and evidence based ideas on our reality. When they are proven wrong, they are then wrong, until that point you can not just claim that you shouldn't "believe" in science because it could be wrong.

So somethings may turn out to be wrong, great, we learn something new. But saying we don't know anything is flat out wrong and would never get us anywhere.

You don't really make me laugh, i wouldn't give you that much credit.
edit on 8-1-2011 by Stuffed because: (no reason given)

posted on Jan, 8 2011 @ 05:23 AM
reply to post by Stuffed
That is one off the points I tried to address in the OP. Science is what is and very wonderful tool. But I tried to point out it is not the only tool in our toolbox. As the old saying goes. "If the only tool in your toolbox is a hammer everything begins to look like a nail.

posted on Jan, 8 2011 @ 09:54 AM
reply to post by PrimePorkchop

Wow, so your entire answer was "No you!".

The whole point of science is that we gain a concrete basis for our understanding of the world, thus we do actually know a few things using science. Unless you claim that scientists don't know that the Earth revolves around the Sun, that the Earth is round, etc.

On the other hand, creationists have nothing but an old, contradictory book of fairy tales to back up their ideas.

posted on Jan, 8 2011 @ 10:22 AM
reply to post by Blue_Jay33

You know, the passage you quoted wasn't in relation to me. And the only reason you won't discuss anything with me is that you can never actually point out exactly why I'm wrong. You keep saying that you're right and that I'm wrong...but you never back it up.

And why is this still in RFT? Isn't it an O&C topic?

top topics

<<   2 >>

log in