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.

 

Creation vs. Intelligent Design vs. Aliens vs. Evolution vs. Atheism

page: 3
2
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 7 2011 @ 12:23 PM
link   
reply to post by bozzchem
 



Originally posted by bozzchem
I'm having a difficult time with those who cling to one and disparage another.


Well "creation" isn't a scientific theory, Intelligent design is a rebranding of 'creation', aliens isn't a scientific theory either, evolution is a scientific theory that has substantial backing, and atheism...has absolutely nothing to do with this.



Keep in mind that these are only my thoughts based on what I've read and are nothing more. I have my thoughts but find it interesting that all of the theories I've mentioned are just that: theories.


As has already been pointed out to you, a theory doesn't mean what you think it means. A theory in science is the explanation of a fact. It is an evidence based explanation. The theory of evolution explains the fact of evolution. It happens, get over it.



While some may wish to throw out what they consider scientific relevance to their theory, there really aren't any scientifically irrefutable facts to make any of them set in stone.


Except that there are. There's the observed change in allele frequency within a gene pool to support evolution. There's the fossil record, the entire field of genetics, phylogeny, etc and all of that supports evolution.

Creation, ID, and "aliens" have nothing of this sort.



Creationists seem to believe that the world we inhabit was created as specified in the bible. Seven days and it was done. Then there is the fall and then we all come from Adam and Eve even though incest is supposed to be a sin.


Well, Christian creationists...actually, young Earth Christian creationists are what you are describing. Creationism comes in many forms. There's ancient Greek creationism, Hindu creationism, Norse creationism, Islamic creationism...there are as many forms of creationism as there are religious beliefs.



ID folks may or may not believe in the bible yet believe an entity of some sort was responsible for our current status here. The text of Genesis can be presented to Creationists and they tend to clam up once a viable topic is presented. (Who was Cain afraid of??? Who did he marry and procreate with? No mention of either in the bible)


Yep, which is why it's not science, it's mythology.



Alien folks seem to believe that a previous life form was here and responsible for what we have become...reminds me of the ID folks. It seems a lot of their basis is upon drawings etc. that depict entities not of this earth. I've always wondered how the pyramids were built since the technology for comprising such wasn't readily available at that time...(my thoughts!)


In the words of Archimedes: "Give me a lever long enough, and a place on which to rest it, and I will move the world."

The aliens idea has no basis.



Evolutionists seem to believe that we all came from a blob of goo after a big bang and yet somehow have evolved to become what we have. I personally find this the least plausible but again that is only my 2 cents.


This has already been mentioned, but I'm just going to say it again because it must be repeated ad nauseum as people don't seem to understand this:

Evolution means the diversification of life. It does not have anything to do with the origin of life or the origin of the universe.



Atheists...this one I haven't fully understood.


...atheists are people who don't believe in any deity. This is an irrelevant topic for this conversation.



I'm guessing many fall in some of the previously mentioned categories? Granted the addition of atheists could be seen as mixing science with religion but as a scientist, I've had many a conversation with many of the above and some get far more heated than should be required by those who merely wish to discuss rather than argue.


As a scientist? I'm sorry, but I find it odd that a scientist doesn't know that the theory of evolution has nothing to do with abiogenesis or the big bang.

Atheists are people who don't believe in any deity. They don't necessarily have anything else attached to it.



Forgive me for thinking out loud here but it is a topic that I find interesting and would like to hear responses to. I'll admit that I'm in the ID category based upon my research as a biochemist but certainly wouldn't speak harshly nor would expect to be spoken to harshly for my belief.


You're a biochemist that doesn't understand what evolution is or isn't? I'm sorry, but this doesn't make any sense. Or are you a student in the field? Or an interested amateur?

I just have to apologize again for my incredulity, but a biochemist should understand evolution.




posted on Feb, 7 2011 @ 12:57 PM
link   
reply to post by bozzchem
 



Evolutionist isn't really the word that should be used in this context. The origin of life on earth is known as abiogenesis, what follows on from that is evolution. We do have a lot of evidence to back up the claims of evolution, but we are still in the early stages of understanding abiogenesis. Something that I think will come to light in the near future. Dr. Jack Szostak is one of the leading researchers into this theory, and has proven in laboratory conditions that life could have arisen by this process

Here's a video if anyone's interested




As you've probably guessed from my answer, I believe life naturally arose on this earth of billions of years



posted on Feb, 7 2011 @ 12:59 PM
link   
OK I don't have much time so this will be quick.

Here is what I believe:

God creates and this is the primal force which turns spirit substance into physical matter through the big bang. Then God institutes what we call evolution so that this newly created matter can grow and change and provide the setting for life. When the earth is developed to the proper point live begins in the simple forms first. When primitive man has developed to the point where he is capable of housing a true human being then God sends down the first human souls. This is related to us in the story of Adam and Eve. Cain needs a wife? He "goes down into the land of Nod" and finds one. Doesn't the Bible mention this?

There is much much more to this sequence of events but the whole of is what we know as God's "intelligent design". We could see it except that humans tend to think in separative ways. We tend to tabulate a list of options from which we must choose. Herein is the great difficulty that we find ourselves immersed in. Try, for a change, to put all these together to find the beauty and simplicity of what really happened.

The Bible, and how it has been influenced by the hand of man, is the culprit. Seven days? Seven periods of time? The creative events as listed? It is the stubborn refusal of some Christians to think which is behind all the fuss. Step around these fools and see the big picture. Ask yourself honestly. Does the scenario which I give above sound plausible? It is what I happen to believe. I deduced it myself. God yes. Creation yes. ID yes. Evolution yes. Dogma NO.

Last note about evolution. Science doesn't maintain that life comes from nothing. Science tells us a story in reverse. At some point science fails. This is where faith takes over and fills in the blanks. Science and Faith fit together like a hand in a glove. Just as God intended.

All the arguments we endure are the results of empty minds running around in circles insisting that this or that is correct and everything else is wrong. Throw away all this and think for yourselves.

TT

edit on 7-2-2011 by trailertrash because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 7 2011 @ 01:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by trailertrash
God creates and this is the primal force which turns spirit substance into physical matter through the big bang. Then God institutes what we call evolution so that this newly created matter can grow and change and provide the setting for life. When the earth is developed to the proper point live begins in the simple forms first. When primitive man has developed to the point where he is capable of housing a true human being then God sends down the first human souls.


When you answer mysteries with other mysteries such as god(s) and souls, you're not really solving the mystery. You're actually making the mystery a lot more complicated.



posted on Feb, 7 2011 @ 01:17 PM
link   
reply to post by trailertrash
 





This is where faith takes over and fills in the blanks. Science and Faith fit together like a hand in a glove. Just as God intended.


Which is the very definition of god of the gaps as you fill a lack of knowledge with "god"



posted on Feb, 7 2011 @ 02:16 PM
link   
Why can't creation and evolution both be right? It's obvious that the planet has been here for billions of years(imo the biblical 6 days of creation don't represent literal days). Has anyone else found it odd that the earliest civilization was recorded around the time of the creation of man? Yes there are fossils that date back almost 200,000 years, were these people as we think of people today or were they indeed part of the evolutionary process? Was mankind inserted(created) when we see the rise of civilization? As we watch new discoveries everyday we're learning that not everything we believed to be true is accurate. I think that evolution and creation are both correct, maybe what we think we know is a little off. Just my 2 cents.



posted on Feb, 7 2011 @ 02:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by willie9696
Why can't creation and evolution both be right?


They could be, though creationism is not an alternative to evolution. It would more aptly be an alternative to abiogenesis. Evolution IS right and is supported by mounds of evidence. Creationism has no evidence supporting it, nor anything other than religious texts that even hint towards such an explanation.



posted on Feb, 7 2011 @ 03:11 PM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 


Please provide pictures and translations of Mayan texts that say clearly that they believed the earth was flat. And no, a statement from a super-reliable archeologist won't cut it. I've seen that statement so many times, yet no evidence. Pics or it didn't happen. I'll be glad to be proven wrong.

These people mapped the stars. They were better astrologists than we are today. How could they do that if they didn't even know the shape of earth? Like someone said here before, very little to none Mayan texts have survived. Most of the "information" we know about them is just guessing by these so called researchers. It's a common belief they sacrified people. What proof they have? Apparently they had altars that look like they could've been used to sacrifice! Great job Watson!



posted on Feb, 7 2011 @ 03:49 PM
link   
reply to post by mamelukkikala
 





They were better astrologists than we are today.


Well, astrology is hogwash and has to do with horoscopes...so yeah, might be the case, I dunno. If you meant astronomy, you are so so so incredibly wrong if you believe their astronomical knowledge rivalled that of modern science


Start at 3:50




They got the beginning of the world wrong by 4.5bil years!!! And you seriously claim they somehow knew more than we do now?? Are you serious?


They also believed the sun was dragged around in a cart by humans: LINK

And they believed the universe is only 90 million years old: LINK

And an official university study highlighting the flaws in Mayan astronomy: LINK

To claim they knew more about astronomy than us is laughable...but I'll give you the benefit of doubt and assume you were talking about astrology. They might very well have known more about astrology than us, but given that astrology isn't a science, but rather based on superstition, it doesn't really matter if they "knew" more about it


And it's not only the Mayans. Some people believed Columbus would fall of the earth by taking the route he had planned. A native American tribe believed the earth is flat and resting on the back of a giant turtle floating through space. The Chinese long believed the same turtle holds up the sky...and in India they believed it's either a turtle, elephants (4 of them) or a snake that holds up the flat earth.

And then of course there's the bible




Isaiah 11:12
12 And he shall set up an ensign for the nations, and shall assemble the outcasts of Israel, and gather together the dispersed of Judah from the FOUR CORNERS OF THE EARTH. (KJV)

Revelation 7:1
1 And after these things I saw four angels standing on FOUR CORNERS OF THE EARTH, holding the four winds of the earth, that the wind should not blow on the earth, nor on the sea, nor on any tree. (KJV)




Obviously if they believed the earth to be round, it wouldn't have corners.



"He set the earth on its foundations; it can never be moved."


Also complete hogwash, we know there's no foundation holding the earth...and furthermore, it's constantly moving at incredible speed.



"The sun rises and the sun sets, and hurries back to where it rises."


Sun turning around the earth...riiiight




"He shakes the earth from its place and makes its pillars tremble."


Again with those pillars...complete hogwash




"He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth, and its people are like grasshoppers. He stretches out the heavens like a canopy, and spreads them out like a tent to live in."


The only way to spread the heavens like a tent is if the earth is flat. Again, complete hogwash


Yet people still believe in that silly creation myth


edit on 7-2-2011 by MrXYZ because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 7 2011 @ 03:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by randyvs
reply to post by MrXYZ
 


Evolution makes no claim to how life began. How convienient.

Atheists don't even have a clue.


Convenient? Really? I don't think so at all. What IS convenient is creating a deity when you don't understand what's going on. Saying that you do not know what is going on and leaving it blank is not convenience, it's common sense.

I would love to be able to say how life began, but inconveniently I do not know. Nor do you. Nor does your pastor, your rabbi or your imam.

Atheists don't have a clue? I agree. Nor do you.

The downfall of the religion is that it deals in absolutes. Science is and always will be theory. If religion declared that all it is, is an ever evolving and ever adapting theory, I would respect it more. But no, religious people and leaders claim, with absolute certainty, that what they say is true and there is no way around it. Absolutes make no sense to me when you have nothing but your opinion to back it up with.

Khar
edit on 7-2-2011 by Kharron because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 7 2011 @ 04:19 PM
link   
reply to post by Kharron
 


Religion can't be a scientific theory as it lacks a crucial part...objective evidence. At best you could call it a hypothesis



posted on Feb, 7 2011 @ 06:52 PM
link   
reply to post by bozzchem
 


Okay . . . I've been following this thread all day. Unfortunately, I've been doing so at work, through mobile and unable to respond/post until now, so my head is about to pop.

I'm calling bs/bullocks/whathaveyou on this thread and the OP. Nevermind the usual derailment, simply for the sake of being argumentative, by Randyvs, or the Alien theorists who claim they don't believe in evolution . . . but, think ET's manipulated our DNA (anyone else laugh out loud when they hear this? . . . I guess the ET's just fiddled with DNA willy-nilly without knowing what they were manipulating . . . lucky lot!).

However, the kicker, is the OP . . . A biochemist who doesn't believe in evolutionary theory because "when he looks at the double helix, he sees design" and is somewhat ignorant of scientific classification (theory/law/hypothesis). A biochemist, who should know how the double helix came about/evolved, only disagrees with evolution because he "sees" design? He should know transfer of structure between ribosyme and deoxyribosyme is pretty straightforward, no? Simple stacking and matching of enzyme and amino acids? The OP's argument claiming something . . . IDK, scientific regarding the evolution of DNA, like "catalytic function transferrence between ribosyme and deoxyribosyme is impossible and here is the latest data I've collected to support" . . . no . . . the OP "sees" design. Nothing about his disagreement with the standard view that viral RNA began to latch to other RNA . . . first as host then as partner where my hypothetical OP argument about catalytic transfer could be inserted . . . thus engaging other objective minded posters in a real debate.

No . . . the only analysis we get from a self-prescribed biochemist is . . . he "sees" design. Well, I'm no biochemist . . . or scientist of any sort, but I can spot bs and agenda when I see it . . . and it rests in the OP.

How many times do you have to tell creationists/ID'ers that trying to "weaken" evolutionary theory doesn't make their case for creationism/ID any stronger? Why do they use the same arguments over and over (nevermind, forgot my Goebbels!!). Why do they think the pretending to be a "scientist against evolution" makes their weak hypothesis' any more credible . . . like this "biochemist" or that respected "doctor" Kent Hovind or the other forked-tongued "biochemist" that keeps getting b-slapped every time he rolls out his thoroughly debunked "irreducible complexity" argument? At least Behe tries to find something academic to associate with ID, this "biochemist" simply "sees" design . . . no doubt, through irreducible complexity!

Thanks . . . I needed that!
Cheers!
edit on 2/7/11 by solomons path because: incomplete sentence



posted on Feb, 7 2011 @ 06:57 PM
link   
reply to post by solomons path
 


Having had a chemistry set at the age of 6 clearly doesn't make you a biochemist


You're not the only one who has a hard time believing the OP's credentials...after all, he didn't even know evolution makes no statement regarding how life started

edit on 7-2-2011 by MrXYZ because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 7 2011 @ 10:58 PM
link   
Aliens lol, took chromosome 21 and 22 of a progenitor primate and fused it together, then replaced the gametes from a chosen lot of males/females with the altered genetic material thereby creating the new "human" DNA that was free to spread throughout the gene pool

Apparently, this "theory" has not yet been dis-proven, and millions believe in it.

We live in a sad, sad world



posted on Feb, 8 2011 @ 02:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by bozzchem
I'm having a difficult time with those who cling to one and disparage another. Keep in mind that these are only my thoughts based on what I've read and are nothing more. I have my thoughts but find it interesting that all of the theories I've mentioned are just that: theories. While some may wish to throw out what they consider scientific relevance to their theory, there really aren't any scientifically irrefutable facts to make any of them set in stone.

Creationists seem to believe that the world we inhabit was created as specified in the bible. Seven days and it was done. Then there is the fall and then we all come from Adam and Eve even though incest is supposed to be a sin.

ID folks may or may not believe in the bible yet believe an entity of some sort was responsible for our current status here. The text of Genesis can be presented to Creationists and they tend to clam up once a viable topic is presented. (Who was Cain afraid of??? Who did he marry and procreate with? No mention of either in the bible)

Alien folks seem to believe that a previous life form was here and responsible for what we have become...reminds me of the ID folks. It seems a lot of their basis is upon drawings etc. that depict entities not of this earth. I've always wondered how the pyramids were built since the technology for comprising such wasn't readily available at that time...(my thoughts!)

Evolutionists seem to believe that we all came from a blob of goo after a big bang and yet somehow have evolved to become what we have. I personally find this the least plausible but again that is only my 2 cents.

Atheists...this one I haven't fully understood. I'm guessing many fall in some of the previously mentioned categories? Granted the addition of atheists could be seen as mixing science with religion but as a scientist, I've had many a conversation with many of the above and some get far more heated than should be required by those who merely wish to discuss rather than argue.

Forgive me for thinking out loud here but it is a topic that I find interesting and would like to hear responses to. I'll admit that I'm in the ID category based upon my research as a biochemist but certainly wouldn't speak harshly nor would expect to be spoken to harshly for my belief.

What do you believe...and why?
edit on 6-2-2011 by bozzchem because: (no reason given)


If you want a serious discussion the first thing you should have done is not lie about being a scientist.



posted on Feb, 8 2011 @ 03:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by bozzchem
Creationists seem to believe that the world we inhabit was created as specified in the bible. Seven days and it was done. Then there is the fall and then we all come from Adam and Eve even though incest is supposed to be a sin.


ARRRGH!!!!


No if the bible you refer to is the one talking about Jesus, that would be Christians


CREATIONISTS BELIEVE IN A CREATOR

IT's THAT SIMPLE!!!!


I am amazed how many people dismiss creationists using the bible, when the bible has nothing to do with being a creationist it has to do with a religion.


edit on 8-2-2011 by byteshertz because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 8 2011 @ 09:00 AM
link   
reply to post by byteshertz
 


The creationists we refer to are typically biblical creationists in the US. Creationism can refer to many different religions and differing viewpoints within the various religions, but because biblical creationists are the loudest group (especially when it comes to public education), this is usually who we address.
edit on 8-2-2011 by PieKeeper because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 8 2011 @ 10:47 AM
link   
reply to post by byteshertz
 


Also . . . Who are you claiming created us, if you're not using Judeo-Christian mythology? If you are claiming any other supernatural entity, through use of another religion, creationism still gets dismissed . . . still a god of the gaps argument without evidence to support.

If you are claiming that aliens "created" us . . . you are inserting aliens into evolutionary theory without evidence to support it. It will still be dismissed without evidence. Aliens would have to know evolutionary theory and it would have to be inline with our biological makeup. Aliens, if any evidence is broughtforth, would support evolution, not creationism . . . sorry creationists.



posted on Feb, 8 2011 @ 01:00 PM
link   
If someone tells me he's a creationist, my first question (after laughing inside) is "based on what?".

So far, no one came up with a rational, objective answer...it's all based on subjective nonsense and the WISH that there is something more. Some people can't live without having the feeling they "know"...but of course it's nothing but self-delusion, no matter which version of creationism they follow.



posted on Feb, 8 2011 @ 01:33 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


The Bible is loaded with B.S.and fairytales according to ingrate academics, who don't appreciate anything an eyewitness has to say. Let alone their labors involved. You pay no credit to your own ancestors. This makes you purely a materialist. I suggest a large difference between you and any sense of compassion and heritage.
All you have to offer are some scientific guidelines. Guess what ? They don't rate in society as high as judicial process.
Again you people have no right to ridicule, or label anything B.S. under your simplified parameters. You fail if you do so. You fall short of any intellectual standard set for a fifth grader.

Penn n Teller PHEFFF! joke!
edit on 8-2-2011 by randyvs because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
2
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join