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.

 

Are Creationists hypocrites on evolution?

page: 2
1
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 9 2011 @ 11:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by DutchCroat
reply to post by Kailassa
 

You are a very talented science fiction author....

You're too kind.
I got the "fiction" part down pat, but I'm afraid there's not much science in that.




posted on Feb, 9 2011 @ 11:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by PieKeeper

Originally posted by catwhoknowsplusone
It makes more sense to believe in a Creator because nothing can come from nothing, so where did the scientists come from?

Something actually does come from nothing:
scienceblogs.com...


Great article.


So the problem with the "nothing can come from nothing" truism is that there is no such thing as nothing to begin with. On a quantum scale the generation of forces and, consequently, matter, is an inevitable function of anything resembling a vacuum.

Is that how you understand it?



posted on Feb, 10 2011 @ 02:07 AM
link   
reply to post by Casandra
 


You are so right, Cas,

The ultimate question is "Where did the creator come from?" and the best brains in the world cannot answer that.

But I look at this way - some sort of creator came before humans.

You can go nuts if you try and work it out - it is the chicken and the egg argument.



posted on Feb, 10 2011 @ 12:33 PM
link   
reply to post by Kailassa
 


lol, that's true...didn't think in that way when i posted it



posted on Feb, 10 2011 @ 12:47 PM
link   
reply to post by catwhoknowsplusone
 


Well, I see this position a lot. The accomodationist position of "Yeah well, maybe god invented evolution!" In fact I used to buy into it myself.

Trouble is, though, is that this makes god superfluous. When evolution is a reality, it is just as likely to have started simply by life processes, without any need for divine jumper cables. So we then apply Occam's razor; which is simpler? Evolution being a by-product of how life works, or being the creation and carefully-tended product of an unexplained and invisible all-powerful being?

Basically, deity becomes an unnecessary complication in this scenario, and serves as little more than a woobie blanket.



posted on Feb, 10 2011 @ 12:50 PM
link   
reply to post by catwhoknowsplusone
 


Evolution makes Chicken vs. Egg a lot more fun. It's not so much "which came first" as "at what point do we start counting it as a 'chicken,' anyway?"



posted on Feb, 11 2011 @ 03:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by uva3021
Nothing did come from nothing. That's the way it happened. Light isn't matter, light is nothing.

Photons do have a mass. Otherwise they wouldn't be affected by celestial objects.



posted on Feb, 11 2011 @ 06:50 AM
link   
reply to post by Thain Esh Kelch
 

So, theoretically a light globe should gradually lose mass as it gives off light?

I've got this notion that behaving as though it has mass is insufficient proof that light actually has mass.



posted on Feb, 11 2011 @ 09:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by catwhoknowsplusone
reply to post by Casandra
 


You are so right, Cas,

The ultimate question is "Where did the creator come from?" and the best brains in the world cannot answer that.

But I look at this way - some sort of creator came before humans.

You can go nuts if you try and work it out - it is the chicken and the egg argument.



If we say the Creator of heavens and the earth (Gen 1:1) was created by someone, then the next question is who created this 'someone', then followed by who created the "someone" that created the "someone" that created the God who created heavens and the earth, so and so forth. In other word's the question will not end.

Unless, you come to a logical conclusion that there's NO other alternative but to believe that: He Always Was. Always Existing (in fact this is what the Scriptures exactly say - No Beginning and No End, No creator of Him 1 Tim 1:17, Isa 43:10). Then the question stops.

Question though is: is these even logical or as some asked even scientific?

Fact is is there are things on earth let alone the universe that we can't fathom or understand because of our limited minds and thinking ability. Yet, it does NOT prevent us from believing them and in fact we plan our lives around them.

Think for example - time and space. Is there any limit to them?

Or what about the distance of the Milky Way Galaxy from end to end? Can we fathom the distance?

Or what about forces in nature and the universe - we assigned words to them to give them meaning, but in reality they are just words. To explain how gravity works or how it relates to the planetary movements - we assign descriptions to them in order to for us to have some point of reference. But witout these descriptions - can we realy explain how they came to be and from what source? Yet we accept as them as real and plan our lives accordingly.

What about God then? Why is it hard to believe that he exist and that He Always Exist?

So to believe that he does not exist - then the alternative is to believe that nothing created ALL things.

Which one is more plausible and logical and scientific to believe then?

“For with you is the source of life; By light from you we can see light.” (Psalm 36:9)


ciao,
edmc2



posted on Feb, 11 2011 @ 10:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by edmc^2
Which one is more plausible and logical and scientific to believe then?


The one that's supported by evidence.

As I pointed out earlier, something can come from nothing. So we know that things can appear into existence. On the other hand, no one has been able to demonstrate that an intelligent being created the universe, probably because most of the claims are unfalsifiable. We know that it's possible for matter to appear into existence, but we haven't seen evidence of a universe created by an intelligent being. We have evidence for one being possible, and none for the other.

As the evidence currently stands, to me the choice is clear.



posted on Feb, 12 2011 @ 01:26 AM
link   
reply to post by PieKeeper
 


Actually the statement “something can come from nothing” is not accurately scientific. For in reality what really happened is explained clearly in the famous Einstein formula:

E = mc2

That is, a little mass, or matter, contains unbelievable energy. Case in point – the atom bomb.

On the other hand – energy can also be turned into matter.

It's this energy – locked in the infinitesimally small particles of an element called atoms that gets transformed into “something” – i.e. matter.

Thus the “nothing” that you're referring to is in actuality “something”. It's just too small for the naked to see that we think it's “nothing” but in reality is “something”.

To quote your science source, here's what is says:


One of the consequences of Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle -- that you can't know a quantum state's energy exactly for a finite duration of time -- means that when you're talking about very short time intervals, there are large uncertainties in the energy of a system. Over short enough timescales, the energies are large enough that particle-antiparticle pairs wink in-and-out of existence all the time!


These so infinitesimally small “particle-antiparticles” are moving incredibly so fast that they appear to be nothing – invisible to the naked eye. Only by using a very powerful scanning electron microscope can we see/measure these “nothing” this “uncertainty” - this energy into view (albeit inaccurately to the nth degree).

Question is: where did these energy come from? Is it eternal always existing or someone created it? Someone did the transformation. What does the evidence show if you examine the nature of an atom? All I can say is, it's like the Universe – simply amazingly, highly organized, wonderfully put together and display the great wisdom and intelligence of it's maker.

Interestingly these transformations of matter and energy was explained thousands of years ago, way before the inventions of modern instruments. Here's what was said about God:


“Due to the abundance of dynamic energy, he also being vigorous in power, not one of them [the heavenly bodies] is missing.” (Isaiah 40:26)

Notice:


“Energy changes into matter when subatomic particles collide at high speeds and create new, heavier particles,” – from The World Book Encyclopedia.


Any similarity with these statements?

“By faith we perceive that the systems of things were put in order by God’s word, so that what is beheld has come to be out of things that do not appear.” (Hebrews 11:3)

For evidence notice:


“We’re repeating one of the miracles of the universe—transforming energy into matter,” -- Nobel laureate physicist Dr. Carlo Rubbia.


So even scientists are able to somewhat accomplish this “miracle” but on a very limited scale with huge funding using huge machines called particle accelerators (CERN), in which subatomic particles collide at fantastic speeds, creating matter.


But whatever means God used to create the universe, he clearly has the energy and the power needed to do so.


Of course since your view of the evidence is based on nothing – absolutely nothing as in empty, then the intelligence and beauty and magnificence present in them are nonsense – nothing. Am I right?

But to me the evidence I see in the universe down to the atoms points to order and intelligence. A work of a very powerful intelligent Entity – God.

Even Sir Fred Hoyle, agree:


I do not believe that any scientist who examined the evidence would fail to draw the inference that the laws of nuclear physics have been deliberately designed.”


But if the evidence your asking for is to literally and physically


“demonstrate that an intelligent being created the universe”


as in create it in laboratory then your request is similar to this:


show me God on a petri dish


Both impossible to achieve let alone propose how to do it.

Yet there's a way to confirm these things and in fact it was known and revealed thousands of years ago:

Here's what was said:

““For his invisible [qualities] are clearly seen from the world’s creation onward, because they are perceived by the things made, even his eternal power and Godship, so that they are inexcusable;” (Romans 1:20)

So what say you Piemaker – still believe that “something can come from nothing”? What does the evidence show?

Glass is half full or half empty? The evidence is there, it's the way we look at it that determines our point of view.


Ciao,
edmc2

P.S.
I'm sure that you know that ATOMS are the building blocks of the Universe. So do I.

Three Basic Particles
protons
neutrons
electrons

then there are the exotic particles, now those are simply mind boggling!

Later...



posted on Feb, 12 2011 @ 03:42 AM
link   
"God does not play dice with the universe" - this is the quote supposedly made by Einstein.

The way I interpret this is not him saying that there's no randomness, but instead he's saying don't ever rely on randomness as an explanation. It's lazy and dispassionate to explain a phenomenon as simple unpredictable randomness. Einstein, at least in spirit (if this quote is to be believed), was telling us never to blithely assign to randomness what could instead be assigned to simple mediocre human stupidity. Yes, there're random things, but never stop trying to understand them!
edit on 12-2-2011 by jonnywhite because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 12 2011 @ 04:04 AM
link   
reply to post by rhinoceros
 


So - no creator - where did you come from?

I repeat, where did you come from?



posted on Feb, 12 2011 @ 10:22 AM
link   
reply to post by catwhoknowsplusone
 


Well, when a man and a woman love each other very much....they do something special and 9 months later, there's a baby!

This process is what resulted in my parents' births and their parents before them as well. Sort of a silly question to ask, isn't it?



posted on Feb, 12 2011 @ 01:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by catwhoknowsplusone
Here is a thought:

The Creator created everything including evolution and including science.

I don't get why people can't see the broader picture.

You don't have to be one or the other. Being both makes more sense.

It makes more sense to believe in a Creator because nothing can come from nothing, so where did the scientists come from?


That's the way I feel, I hate it when Evolutionists try to use evolution to debunk the concept of god entirely. Yes, it proves that the Creationist story is nonsensical (or perhaps metaphorical, whatever) but it does not prove that there isn't a god - this is something that you cannot prove. Both sides (religion and science) build up little brick walls and try shooting down anything each other say. It could be that all the fantastical tales in the holy books are artificial fabricated stories (whether or not they were used to conceal and corrupt true ancient knowledge is another issue), but that does not make the concepts evolution and god mutually exclusive and certainly does not prove that there isn't a god - maybe that's the only thing creationists got right. Challenge a creationist 'how do you explain evolution then?' and they can't reply or they'll tell you it's there to test our faith, but if you ask an evolutionist 'so what came before the singularity? using your laws of physics, and common sense, how can a plain of non-existence suddenly become one of existence?' and they'll tell you 'it doesn't matter, it's irrelevant because we'll never be able to scientifically clarify it' - it most certainly IS relevant.. theres never any middle ground! Both sides are condescending and closed minded.

That's one thing I don't like about specific atheists who base their lack of faith on an extremely elementary understanding of evolution (both biological and cosmic) rather than a true critical and individual analysis - I'm not saying there's an intelligent god in some sort of coherent body for sure, I don't know whether there is or isn't, but it makes more sense for there to be something above the laws of physics that has always existed or COULD spring from nothing - something with a certain level of intention, whether its karma or universal consciousness or whatever. Even if you argue that we were created by aliens, that our universe was created in the multiverse - everything originated from a singularity in some dimension of existence.. That experiment (which I did not entirely understand, or read diligently enough), even if it can universalised, it shows how something can spring out of nothing within this universe and the plain of existence - what I refer to is imagine all things in existence as a balloon in a vacuum of literally nothingness (no dark mass, nothing), how can this balloon just pop out of nowhere? How and why could existence stem from total non-existence? Or is there no such thing as non-existence? How? These are the eternal questions I suppose..



posted on Feb, 12 2011 @ 02:34 PM
link   
reply to post by arollingstone
 



Originally posted by arollingstone
That's the way I feel, I hate it when Evolutionists try to use evolution to debunk the concept of god entirely.


Well, there's no such thing as an 'Evolutionist' and nobody tries to use the theory of evolution to debunk deities...so you must not feel this hate ever.



Yes, it proves that the Creationist story is nonsensical (or perhaps metaphorical, whatever) but it does not prove that there isn't a god - this is something that you cannot prove.


Of course you can't prove a negative. Of course, nobody is using evolution to attempt that. And those who believe in deities carry the burden of proof.



Both sides (religion and science) build up little brick walls and try shooting down anything each other say.


Nope, science is apathetic to the claims of religion.



It could be that all the fantastical tales in the holy books are artificial fabricated stories (whether or not they were used to conceal and corrupt true ancient knowledge is another issue), but that does not make the concepts evolution and god mutually exclusive and certainly does not prove that there isn't a god - maybe that's the only thing creationists got right.


Well, nobody is saying that evolution means there isn't any deity. In fact, the idea of a deity and evolution are entirely compatible.



Challenge a creationist 'how do you explain evolution then?' and they can't reply or they'll tell you it's there to test our faith, but if you ask an evolutionist 'so what came before the singularity? using your laws of physics, and common sense, how can a plain of non-existence suddenly become one of existence?' and they'll tell you 'it doesn't matter, it's irrelevant because we'll never be able to scientifically clarify it' - it most certainly IS relevant.. theres never any middle ground! Both sides are condescending and closed minded.


What does cosmology have to do with evolution? Evolution explains, and I'm probably saying this for at least the thousandth time: the diversity of life.

Now, the question itself might very well be irrelevant. And you're mischaracterizing things. Nobody is claiming non-existence gave rise to existence. The concept of 'before' simply might not apply prior to the Big Bang.

But again, why venture to make a claim prior to any understanding? What happened before the Big Bang? We don't know yet. If saying you don't know something is condescending and closed-minded...well, it simply isn't.

And again, the Big Bang has nothing to do with the diversity of life as explained via evolution.



That's one thing I don't like about specific atheists who base their lack of faith on an extremely elementary understanding of evolution (both biological and cosmic) rather than a true critical and individual analysis -


There is no such thing as cosmic evolution. Any use of the word 'evolution' to describe anything beyond living things is merely metaphorical. And my understanding of evolution is far from elementary...



I'm not saying there's an intelligent god in some sort of coherent body for sure, I don't know whether there is or isn't, but it makes more sense for there to be something above the laws of physics that has always existed or COULD spring from nothing - something with a certain level of intention, whether its karma or universal consciousness or whatever.


Well, "it makes more sense" isn't a philosophical argument, it's a statement of personal credulity that holds no weight in discussion. How does it make more sense? Why does it make more sense?



Even if you argue that we were created by aliens, that our universe was created in the multiverse - everything originated from a singularity in some dimension of existence..


...I'm sorry, but what? Multiverse concepts don't necessarily rely on everything started out as a singularity... and the aliens thing is just conjecture.




That experiment (which I did not entirely understand, or read diligently enough), even if it can universalised, it shows how something can spring out of nothing within this universe and the plain of existence - what I refer to is imagine all things in existence as a balloon in a vacuum of literally nothingness (no dark mass, nothing), how can this balloon just pop out of nowhere?


Via the laws of physics.




How and why could existence stem from total non-existence? Or is there no such thing as non-existence? How?


Easy...matter always exists.



These are the eternal questions I suppose..


Only for those who refuse to seek the answers.



posted on Feb, 12 2011 @ 02:42 PM
link   
Evolutionism cannot answer the main point of Creationism. Evolutionism mainly deals with how life evolved after it was created, not how it started in the beginning. Yes, I know there have been hypothesis that I know some are going to say are solid proof, but they are not.



posted on Feb, 12 2011 @ 03:13 PM
link   
reply to post by Ferris.Bueller.II
 



Originally posted by Ferris.Bueller.II
Evolutionism cannot answer the main point of Creationism. Evolutionism mainly deals with how life evolved after it was created, not how it started in the beginning. Yes, I know there have been hypothesis that I know some are going to say are solid proof, but they are not.


Actually, creationism cannot answer anything...at all. It's just a conjecture based on a lack of understanding of the natural world.

And of course evolution only deals with the diversity of life. Just like cell theory on deals with the composition of life.



posted on Feb, 13 2011 @ 04:18 AM
link   
reply to post by Nogard2012
 


in the bible it says that on the 5th day bird an sea creatures where created, on the 6th day all land animals and humans where created but it is scientific fact that dinosaures where roaming the earth millions of years before humans ever exsisted there was no humans around, is this an inconsistancey of information or have i got this fact wrong? if this is true then surely the creationism is pretty much flawed in my eyes.



posted on Feb, 13 2011 @ 04:26 AM
link   
reply to post by Ferris.Bueller.II
 


isn't creationism the idea of the start of life in its complete form so animals and hmans are placed on earth as u see them today where as evolution derived from a single cell organism and has evolved to the point of what we see today and is still on going. so no evolution theory hasnt beenn able to explain the creation of life but it is still directly in conflict with the creationism theory.



new topics

top topics



 
1
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join