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.

 

Contributions of Creationism/Intelligent Design to Science

page: 5
17
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 25 2011 @ 06:24 PM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 


This last post of yours only supports my contention that you didn't even bother to read what I posted earlier in regards to the research on Lemaitre and his Primeval Atom Hypothesis. In fact, you have obviously either missed, didn't read, or are ignoring this:


"He realized quite fully the tentative and hypothetical character of scientific theories..


From what I posted earlier. So, when you state:




He didn't say "the big bang theory is correct because of creationsim".


It becomes increasingly clear you know little about science, theories, and certainly very little about religion. I am not clear what you do know, but here is what I know; Lemaitre would never declare that a theory is "correct", for any reason.




posted on Mar, 25 2011 @ 06:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
All of which doesn't change the fact that it took a Creationist to contribute to science a hypothesis that radically changed scientific paradigm and by using science convince secular science that the universe was most likely created.


I'm fairly certain that "secular science" has not been convinced that "the universe was most likely created".
...



posted on Mar, 25 2011 @ 07:01 PM
link   
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 


I'm really having a hard time to decide wether or not you're just trolling. Show me a quote where he claims his theory is backed up in creationism. Fact is, he's used SCIENTIFIC METHOD to back up the theory...and whether or not he was a creationist or not isn't part of his theory. Hell, creationism is NOT mentioned in the theory or part of it, but you're welcome to prove me wrong and show me where his theory makes any claims regarding creationism. It's not as if creationism serves as evidence for any part of the theory, so you claiming it is responsible for his theory is beyond ridiculous


No where in the theory does it state "and the universe was therefore created", ergo, it has nothing to do with creationism.

edit on 25-3-2011 by MrXYZ because: (no reason given)

edit on 25-3-2011 by MrXYZ because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 25 2011 @ 10:39 PM
link   
By Above, I don't mean up. By saying that nothing rises above its source, I am referring to the fact that all substance in nature flows away from where it starts. Consciousness is the exception. Apart from consciousness, you cannot demonstrate any substance flowing beyond its source or above its source in complexity or purpose. As for purpose, nothing can have an intention without consciousness. Sorry, but water spouts, geysers, springs, clouds and flames are all results of a flow from a source. Now, if all water on earth suddenly takes flight in space, lands on the moon and then returns on its own, you have a valid argument to refute what I am saying. NOTHING rises above its source apart from consciousness. This literally means that you need to prove that life rose from substance on its own, contrary to anything we can observe in nature that says it is not possible.

Then there is the problem of our bio-mechanical suit that allows consciousness to thrive in a material world. Since consciousness is nothing more than an abstract, it cannot be measured like a substance that flows. In other words, what Hebrews 11:3 says is accurate:

3 By faith we understand that the universe was created by(A) the word of God, so that what is seen was not made out of(B) things that are visible.

Speaking of faith, nothing that science claims to be fact has ever been observed twice. "Has the Earth ever existed in the same form or location in space twice? If you realize the correct answer, then you realize that ALL scientific observation has been made from this dynamic and ever-changing frame of reference. It is not possible to observe substance twice, as all substance is in a constant state of flowing movement to a future changed state. Discoveries are merely wishful thinking applied on the faith of a dream we can only vaguely remember."

This quote form my blogs says it all when it comes to science and "theory," which can NEVER be fact. We are locked into movement from one thing to another. At best, your observations only show trends. What science claims to discover was already there to begin with. Apart from explaining how consciousness tricked nature, you have no argument against a Creator with a capital C.



Originally posted by Astyanax
reply to post by SuperiorEd
 

Oh, and...


We humans are the top of all creation in complexity, function and ability. Science says our source is the Earth. This is not possible since nothing rises above its source anywhere in nature...

Waterspouts

Geysers

Springs

Clouds

Flames

Am I being dully literal? How about complex biological organisms developing from relatively simple gametes? How about complex civilizations arising from relatively simple human motives? Complex information-processing capabilities arising from relatively simple arrays of switches? How about the whole complex Universe arising from a handful of relatively simple physical laws?

Here’s what one of your broader-minded co-religionists had to say about that last example:


God has chosen the most perfect world, that is, the one that is at the same time the simplest in hypotheses and the richest in phenomena, as might be a line in geometry whose construction is easy and whose properties and effects are extremely remarkable and widespread.

Thus Gottfried Liebniz, Protestant theologian, philosopher, mathematician and scientist, in his Discourse on Metaphysics. As the co-inventor of the calculus, he was comfortably familiar with the concept of natural things ‘rising above their sources’.

edit on 25-3-2011 by SuperiorEd because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 25 2011 @ 10:57 PM
link   
reply to post by SuperiorEd
 





Speaking of faith, nothing that science claims to be fact has ever been observed twice.


That's actually incorrect. Scientific method requires things to be testable and objective. If you couldn't observe things more than once, they'd be SUBJECTIVE evidence (unless you record it)...which isn't evidence at all in science.

In short, your above quote is nonsense



posted on Mar, 25 2011 @ 11:29 PM
link   
Your 'if then' statement is somewhat correct, because nothing has ever been observed twice. The earth moves in space, as does the solar system, as does the galaxy. If I pick up a highlighter, the electromagnetic energy in my had changes the temperature of the highlighter. It changes. I can never be put it back in the same spot twice. The highlighter is affected by entropy and is never the same marker twice. Given enough time and a frame by frame recording, the highlighter will resolve back to its elements and flow away. No object (substance) is identical and is ever-changing into something else. No observations have been made on two of the same objects. The only thing that has ever been observed by science are laws from a governor. Explain the governor. This is the source of all that flows from it. The law is the objective part of the universe that can be demonstrated.

In the opening of the Bible we see Fiat Lux, Let There be Light. In John 1 we see that the word created everything.

Hebrews 1:2
"but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom also he made the universe."

Christ is the word of John 1.

Light and word are essentially the building blocks of the universe. According to science, its the duality of light, both particle and wave. ILLUSION of energy. God says to the Egyptian Hermes, "I am the light, the mind of God, which existed before the chaotic dark waters of potentiality. My calming word is the Son of God, the idea of calming order; the harmony of all things with all things. Primal mind is parent of the Word."

Again, the word is Christ form John ch. 1.

Hebrews 11:3
By faith we understand that the universe was formed at God’s command, so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible.

1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was with God in the beginning. 3 Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. 4 In him was life, and that life was the light of all mankind. 5 The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome[a] it.

Also, according to Hermes:

"Yet, the things that the eye can see are mere phantoms and illusions. Only those things invisible to the eye are real."

Buddha from the Dhammapada

We are what we think.
All that we are arises with our thoughts.
With our thoughts we make the world.
Speak or act with an impure mind
And trouble will follow you
As the wheel follows the ox that draws the cart.
We are what we think.
All that we are arises with our thoughts.
With our thoughts we make the world.
Speak or act with a pure mind
And happiness will follow you
As your shadow, unshakable.
"Look how he abused me and hurt me,
How he threw me down and robbed me."
Live with such thoughts and you live in hate.
"Look how he abused me and hurt me,
How he threw me down and robbed me."
Abandon such thoughts, and live in love.
In this world
Hate never yet dispelled hate.
Only love dispels hate.
This is the law,
Ancient and inexhaustible.

Look anywhere you want, the same story comes forward. Science proclaims the Glory of the Lord, as does religion.


Originally posted by MrXYZ
reply to post by SuperiorEd
 





Speaking of faith, nothing that science claims to be fact has ever been observed twice.


That's actually incorrect. Scientific method requires things to be testable and objective. If you couldn't observe things more than once, they'd be SUBJECTIVE evidence (unless you record it)...which isn't evidence at all in science.

In short, your above quote is nonsense

edit on 25-3-2011 by SuperiorEd because: (no reason given)

edit on 25-3-2011 by SuperiorEd because: (no reason given)

edit on 25-3-2011 by SuperiorEd because: (no reason given)

edit on 25-3-2011 by SuperiorEd because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 26 2011 @ 12:11 AM
link   
@ all the atheists whining after Jean Paul Zodeaux completely owned them.

Good work, sir. Lemaitre was the first thing I thought of as well.



posted on Mar, 26 2011 @ 12:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
All of which doesn't change the fact that it took a Creationist to contribute to science a hypothesis that radically changed scientific paradigm and by using science convince secular science that the universe was most likely created.


I'm fairly certain that "secular science" has not been convinced that "the universe was most likely created".
...



The most widely accepted scientific theory for the creation of the universe is the "Big Bang" theory. This theory arose from observational evidence that virtually all galaxies are moving away from us, and the farther away they are the faster they are moving. Then, if we imagine going back in time, all galaxies get closer and closer together.


www.pa.msu.edu...


"Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist," Hawking writes.


www.reuters.com...


This theorem provided a set of sufficient conditions for the existence of a singularity in space-time, and also implied that space and time would indeed have had a beginning in a Big Bang event, and would end in black holes. In effect, he had reversed Penrose's idea that the creation of a black hole would necessarily lead to a singularity, proving that it was a singularity that led to the creation of the universe itself.


www.physicsoftheuniverse.com...

Sigh.



posted on Mar, 26 2011 @ 01:20 AM
link   
post removed because the user has no concept of manners

Click here for more information.



posted on Mar, 26 2011 @ 01:58 AM
link   
reply to post by SuperiorEd
 


By Above, I don't mean up.

Really? Then what do you mean?

Higher in order of complexity? I addressed that.

Higher in some other sense – mental, moral?

Tell us what you mean, man or woman. If you continue to insist on ambiguity, it can only be because you are afraid of making a clear, unequivocal statement of your meaning for fear you will be immediately proved wrong. Either that or you have so confused yourself you no longer know what you’re talking about.

What is it to be? Will you be going for the big credibility prize here? Or sticking with the waffle option for deniability’s sake?


edit on 26/3/11 by Astyanax because: this is getting bloody ridiculous.



posted on Mar, 26 2011 @ 02:07 AM
link   
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 

You have now taken your argument in a complete circle; your first premises are dependent on your latest ones. Beckett would have been proud.

But his work was called Absurdist for a reason.

I trust I do not have to make myself clearer.



posted on Mar, 26 2011 @ 02:11 AM
link   
reply to post by SuperiorEd
 


All substance in nature flows away from where it starts. Consciousness is the exception.

Does consciousness flow towards its source, then? What does that even mean?

Please reassure us that you are producing something more than mere babble.



posted on Mar, 26 2011 @ 04:50 AM
link   
reply to post by Astyanax
 





You have now taken your argument in a complete circle; your first premises are dependent on your latest ones. Beckett would have been proud.


Sheesh, what is this? The clown calling the playwright a whitefaced rednosed rainbow wig wearing absurdist?

What precisely is the argument I have made in the post you replied to? Do you need it explained to you that I replied to someone claiming science has not been convinced that the universe was created?

I know you like to present yourself as a "scientist", but here you are in this thread, which apparently has nothing at all to do with science, and is just simply a religious bashing thread, and you have aligned yourself with some pretty foolish ignoramuses. You can get a glimpse of the character of a man by the company they keep.

Where Lemaitre has clearly made a contribution to science, here you spend your time making contributions to what? It sure as hell ain't science. I realize you probably have a closet full of really, really big shoes, but it is doubtful you could ever fill Lemaitre's.



posted on Mar, 26 2011 @ 07:17 AM
link   
Great reply. What about this problem?

Science tells us the universe started with extremely high order and extremely low entropy. How can this be? Current evidence points to a holographic 2D universe with a cosmological horizon that is more like an expanding skin which is projected into 3 dimensions. This is the leading edge of theory in science. Dark matter (Higgs/Boson - particle/wave) would then be seen as streaming data from another dimension causing matter to gain mass and form. Science is close to unraveling this puzzle and it points one place--a Creator with a capital C. The work at CERN, when it was first announced, included a web page saying this very thing. It has since been taken down. The God particle and wave will be found, and in my opinion, this will be the "Sign" that will come to mankind in the last days. Faith will start to shift to fact, but only when we are ready.


Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
All of which doesn't change the fact that it took a Creationist to contribute to science a hypothesis that radically changed scientific paradigm and by using science convince secular science that the universe was most likely created.


I'm fairly certain that "secular science" has not been convinced that "the universe was most likely created".
...



The most widely accepted scientific theory for the creation of the universe is the "Big Bang" theory. This theory arose from observational evidence that virtually all galaxies are moving away from us, and the farther away they are the faster they are moving. Then, if we imagine going back in time, all galaxies get closer and closer together.


www.pa.msu.edu...


"Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist," Hawking writes.


www.reuters.com...


This theorem provided a set of sufficient conditions for the existence of a singularity in space-time, and also implied that space and time would indeed have had a beginning in a Big Bang event, and would end in black holes. In effect, he had reversed Penrose's idea that the creation of a black hole would necessarily lead to a singularity, proving that it was a singularity that led to the creation of the universe itself.


www.physicsoftheuniverse.com...

Sigh.



posted on Mar, 26 2011 @ 07:22 AM
link   
Entropy is the key. Nothing has ever gone against entropy apart from consciousness. Provide me with one example please. Don't say evolution because this would be the single singularity of entropy that has ever been theorized. All matter flows away from the source. High order and low entropy is where the universe started and all inanimate substance moves in that flow one direction. Consciousness reverses entropy and is the only thing that can animate to potential by choice. We are greater than our source (Earth), which proves a Creator greater than Earth. We are not of this Earth, only visitors.



Originally posted by Astyanax
reply to post by SuperiorEd
 


By Above, I don't mean up.

Really? Then what do you mean?

Higher in order of complexity? I addressed that.

Higher in some other sense – mental, moral?

Tell us what you mean, man or woman. If you continue to insist on ambiguity, it can only be because you are afraid of making a clear, unequivocal statement of your meaning for fear you will be immediately proved wrong. Either that or you have so confused yourself you no longer know what you’re talking about.

What is it to be? Will you be going for the big credibility prize here? Or sticking with the waffle option for deniability’s sake?


edit on 26/3/11 by Astyanax because: this is getting bloody ridiculous.

edit on 26-3-2011 by SuperiorEd because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 26 2011 @ 09:02 AM
link   
reply to post by SuperiorEd
 





Science proclaims the Glory of the Lord, as does religion.




Now you're just joking


Also love how you completely fail at presenting any objective evidence for god's existence...you make a nice parody of the average creationist


All your posts have one underlying message, namely that humans are somehow special. Which is something a lot creationists claim, almost as if they NEED to feel superior. It's kinda funny...
edit on 26-3-2011 by MrXYZ because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 26 2011 @ 09:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by SuperiorEd
Nothing has ever gone against entropy apart from consciousness. Provide me with one example please.

Surfactant molecules self-aggregate above a certain concentration, referred to as the critical micelle concentration, thus reducing the entropy of the system. Last time I checked, surfactant molecules aren't conscious.



posted on Mar, 26 2011 @ 09:07 AM
link   
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 


I love how you post 3 quotes to prove science says god did it...but none of those 3 quotes make that claim


Here's a clue: The big bang theory does NOT state a creator did it...but who cares about facts, right?



posted on Mar, 26 2011 @ 09:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by cLOUDDEAD
@ all the atheists whining after Jean Paul Zodeaux completely owned them.

Good work, sir. Lemaitre was the first thing I thought of as well.


He somehow tries to link the big bang theory to a creator, when said theory makes ZERO claims regarding a creator. I think you should look up the definition of "owned"



posted on Mar, 26 2011 @ 10:09 AM
link   
Reality does not back up the claim of the Big Bang.

Missing monopoles?

Missing population III stars?

Anti-matter? When energy produces matter, the reaction creates anti-matter. This is the "baryon number problem." There is a problem here with expansion and the creation of hydrogen and helium.

Flatness problem? Inflation does not solve this problem. High order and low entropy cancel this little conjecture.

Again, missing monopoles suggest the universe was never hot.

It's all theory from a blind observer trying to describe fire. The Bible says, Fiat Lux, Let there be light. Light was carried by wave (Word - John 1). Physics only points this out as duality and cannot explain how matter gains mass. The bible says it is light and wave in emanation from another reality of spirit. Spirit cannot be observed, yet we are conscious of our own duality of material and spirit. The Bible is so much more accurate than science. See it for what it is. Keep watching CERN. When they prove the Higgs Boson particle and associated wave, they will have demonstrated Dark Matter as streaming information from another dimension. GOD!

Hebrews 11:3

3 By faith we understand that the universe was created by the word of God, so that what is seen was not made out of things that are visible.




Originally posted by MrXYZ

Originally posted by cLOUDDEAD
@ all the atheists whining after Jean Paul Zodeaux completely owned them.

Good work, sir. Lemaitre was the first thing I thought of as well.


He somehow tries to link the big bang theory to a creator, when said theory makes ZERO claims regarding a creator. I think you should look up the definition of "owned"

edit on 26-3-2011 by SuperiorEd because: (no reason given)

edit on 26-3-2011 by SuperiorEd because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
17
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join