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.

 

The big scientific problem with the idea of Creationism

page: 10
37
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 13 2011 @ 02:21 PM
link   
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
 


Tell me ONE way in which macro evolution is applied today???? You say if it isn't applicable then you should discard it....

Macro evolution does absolutely nothing except attempt to bolster the egos of those who attempt to use it. There is no evidence for macro evolution, only conjecture in conjunction with evidence for microevolution.

This thread does absolutely nothing but attempt to belittle those who believe in a higher consciousness than that of humanity, which elitists such as yourself can't stand the idea of....The nerve of God to think he is smarter than you!!!! The nerve of all of these other pions that surround you and can't possibly think at such a high level as you to not just accept what you say even though you can provide nothing beyond the pontification of you and your colleagues who were indoctrinated with the same crap in the years you spent separated from living in the real world with your books filled with mostly pontification by other like minded individuals...

I will compete in a logic contest with any of the atheists. ANYONE!!! You think you have the market on rationality yet you spew some of the most irrational b.s. I've ever seen...

Jaden
edit on 13-4-2011 by Masterjaden because: (no reason given)

edit on 13-4-2011 by Masterjaden because: (no reason given)




posted on Apr, 13 2011 @ 02:21 PM
link   
Until man can prove all forms of evolution i dont belive it. if i am right there are five forms. everytime man says he proved it there is just more evidence that comes along to disprove it. EVOLUTION is FAITH not FACT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!



posted on Apr, 13 2011 @ 02:36 PM
link   
reply to post by Aggie Man
 


With this thought process you would then have to use science to explain where the energy came from to cause the universe to begin with. It couldn't just come to be..it also had to be created...so..what created it? obviously there has to be a beginning somewhere....thats your line of thinking..that God can't just be...something had to make God...well, then something had to make the original energy that created the big bang, that created the universe....



posted on Apr, 13 2011 @ 02:39 PM
link   
reply to post by phishyblankwaters
 


The whole problem with this that people miss is that If there is a God, a "creator" then he obviously created the science which you are speaking of. So therefore...that creationism by that God created science as well. Science is a tool we use to understand the universe and the world around us, creationism is not a "tool" its what it is, I'm not even sure of the point of this post because your looking at this as if they are 2 seperate things and thoughts. Obviously the world and universe were created...whether by means of a supernatural God or by means of who knows what, it was still "created" it still came to be. Science explains how...that does not mean however that there is not a "who"



posted on Apr, 13 2011 @ 02:42 PM
link   
reply to post by Aggie Man
 


Great! you can prove the universe exists...but can you prove it exists from no beginning?



posted on Apr, 13 2011 @ 02:49 PM
link   
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
 


But isn't it called "The Theory of Evolution"? The key word there is obviously "Theory", because that is what much of science is. It is called a theory because it can't be completely proven. Besides, how can an imperfect and flawed human being explain something perfectly? It isn't possible. Believing in a scientific theory requires a certain amount of faith in the scientist(s) that produce the theory, just as creationism requires faith in order to believe. The difference is that it is easier for some to have faith in a person (scientist) than it is to have faith in God, because there is no proof that God exists, well at least to some. My definition of proof is slightly different than those that reject creationism.



posted on Apr, 13 2011 @ 02:53 PM
link   
reply to post by Nkinga
 


It isn't that God created the science. He created man and gave man the ability to understand the world and universe around him and God granted man the mental ability to theorize and hypothesize about things. I certainly believe in evolution because if there was no evolution then we would all still be living in caves, but I think it is ridiculous to say that man came from monkeys. If that is true then why are their still monkeys?



posted on Apr, 13 2011 @ 03:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Masterjaden
Macro evolution does absolutely nothing except attempt to bolster the egos of those who attempt to use it.


Tell that to an embryologist or geneticist


There is no evidence for macro evolution, only conjecture in conjunction with evidence for microevolution.


[citation needed]



posted on Apr, 13 2011 @ 03:02 PM
link   
reply to post by OptimusSubprime
 

Yeah I know right? I mean if evolution were true wouldn't yeast turn into a fruit fly? Or a mouse turn into a duck?

I just don't understand evolutionists. GOD IS LIFE!!!!



posted on Apr, 13 2011 @ 03:08 PM
link   
I'm always baffled at how confrontational anti-spiritualists are when it comes to debating something they don't even believe in. Creationism has much on its side in regards to science. Quantum physics and most proposed unification theories (and conjectures) support the notion of creation. This does not mean that science proves there is a tooth fairy in the sky handing down souls; it just means the universe could be a creation of something/somebody.

To say, with absolute authority and totality, that there is no possibility of a creation scenario is completely ignorant.

To put it bluntly: Evolution and creationism are two mutually exclusive schools of thought. They do not have to contradict each other. I believe in both. I believe we were created and then we evolved. Neither can be proven and, if they ever are, it will not disprove the other.



posted on Apr, 13 2011 @ 03:33 PM
link   
reply to post by OptimusSubprime
 



But isn't it called "The Theory of Evolution"? The key word there is obviously "Theory", because that is what much of science is. It is called a theory because it can't be completely proven.


You're probably trolling, but just to make sure:

Definition of the word theory:

Scientifically - observable and testable principles based on fact

Colloquially - conjecture

Theory =/= Hypothesis



posted on Apr, 13 2011 @ 03:33 PM
link   
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
 

Hmmmm.. I think you are using some faulty logic here. By somehow inferring Science and Creationism are interchangeable. When in reality they are separate and can coexist quite happily.

We use Science to analyze and explain reality as we can best understand it. One way is to come up with a Theory and then try to prove it through evidence until general consensus will say it's a fact. The trouble is some theories do not have enough proof one way or another in my eyes and will become fact without much resistance. This is not true Science imho.

Creationism is more down to a belief and faith in something greater than ourselves that created the world we live in. It's not indisputably provable or disprovable at this point. Which is why it is separated out from Science.

Now both Science and Creationism have the potential to be correct/incorrect. But if you close your mind to either then you aren't looking for truth, you are just existing to perpetuate your own belief;- whether it be Science or Creationism.

There are Scientists who believe in God and look for evidence to prove this. They look for recurring patterns in nature to prove their theory of intelligent design.

I think Science is a great tool when used honestly to test what reality really is. But Science does not have the answer to everything.

Take the big bang for example, Science gives this theory as to how the universe started. It doesn't explain why the big bang happened or where the elements came from to start the big bang. This is where theology and philosophy has its place and as long as neither Science or Theology is corrupted or abused, each has its place and should be respected.

ON another note, I'm all up for debate. But all too often we find closed minded people attacking other's for not accepting what *they* believe. If we took the same time to open our minds to the possibilities and accept we may not be right about everything we believe or trust in. This world would be a much more tolerable place to live in.

Less EGO more humility in all things =)



posted on Apr, 13 2011 @ 03:34 PM
link   
reply to post by meeneecat
 


I'm going off from what conventional way evolution is used based off from what I've read, from people whom I spoke too and what was taught in school. So tell me how has biologist use evolution theory to cure dieses? What tenchonologies has been derived from evolution theory? None? It's useless..

DNA structure is very complex that NO ONE fully understands it, sure scientist understand certain operations and functions that DNA does but it's been said the more we try to understand DNA the more complexties arise simlar to what is said about the universe.

You are kidding about the links you provided to an evolutionist site? Which references an article of science daily wrote about a software program called Avida which is a simulation of how mutations COULD occur if we IMAGINE that's how life functions, oh please video games simulate physics and gravity but that doesn't mean thats how physics actually look like or function. Simulations are nowhere near to say that's evidence, because there are many problems with simulations for instance

Constant variables are used in simulations , their values are given base from THEORY not scientific fact because in reality if we knew those real life values from which those variables are, then we would solve every diseases known. So what happens? They program those variables with values from what they THINK not from what they know and that makes the simulation flawed from the start.

There are far more variables in biology then science community knows of. So not all factors are calculated in which again could alter the outcome. Again that makes the simulation flawed.

They have the computer RANDOMLY generate mathematical numbers to fill in the gaps, whose say that Life randomly selects mutations? Which is far from what actually happens in real life. There are constant variables in the Laws of Physics, those numbers are used to generate everything that you and I see today, therefore life follows a certain mathematical algorithm, a structure so to say, thus you cannot randomly generate numbers and calculate them and say that's how evolution works and that's how the Avida simulation works. Sorry but it's flawed.

My point is... WHO or WHAT assign those values in everyday life to follow a structure as to say it was programmed. Thus it's far more logical to think it was GIVEN those values as to say it had randomly selected those number bases from unguided coincidental events and if that is the case then evolution will never be solved and you'll never find your answer.

For many not understanding that is ok, they are ok to go off speculation from others and build a foundation on that which quickly falls flat. I highly suggest you rethink from where you get your information.

edit on 13-4-2011 by samaka because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 13 2011 @ 03:44 PM
link   
Lets look at the most basic facts of Physics 101.

Energy cannot be created nor destroyed.

Ok,

God cannot be created nor destroyed.

Pick a side. Its pretty easy for me to believe that a Divine Power has exsisted since before time, than to believe that atomic evolution (from wherever it came, the whole "couple atoms suddenly started colliding in nothingness" seems kinda odd to me) which occurs to me to require just as much faith.



posted on Apr, 13 2011 @ 04:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aggie Man
If a creator created the universe, then who created the creator? If the creator spontaneously came to be, then why is it not possible that the universe spontaneously came to be? If both options are equally as probable, then I will go with the universe spontaneously coming to be, as there is absolute evidence of the universe, but zero evidence of a creator.

my 2-cents

I guess the universe magically spontaneuosly came to be without any real science behind it.Or could it be that the universe always was,Wait a minute that is the same argument God always was.Which is the same thing your agaisnt.This also goes agaisnt science..For it is impossible for something to come from nothing and always have existed.



posted on Apr, 13 2011 @ 04:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by samaka
I'm going off from what conventional way evolution is used based off from what I've read, from people whom I spoke too and what was taught in school. So tell me how has biologist use evolution theory to cure dieses? What tenchonologies has been derived from evolution theory? None? It's useless…

So, in other words, you’re basing your opinions of evolution on what people who don’t understand evolution say about evolution? Excellent! And "useless"? Look! A whole review article about how useful it is.

I really wish people would do some basic research about what the theory of evolution actually says before trying to slag it.


DNA structure is very complex that NO ONE fully understands it, sure scientist understand certain operations and functions that DNA does but it's been said the more we try to understand DNA the more complexties arise simlar to what is said about the universe.

“It’s been said”? By who exactly?


You are kidding about the links you provided to an evolutionist site? Which references an article of science daily wrote about a software program called Avida which is a simulation of how mutations COULD occur if we IMAGINE that's how life functions, oh please video games simulate physics and gravity but that doesn't mean thats how physics actually look like or function. Simulations are nowhere near to say that's evidence, because there are many problems with simulations for instance.

You didn’t even bother to look at the rest of the links from peer-reviewed scientific articles did you?


Constant variables are used in simulations , their values are given base from THEORY not scientific fact because in reality if we knew those real life values from which those variables are, then we would solve every diseases known. So what happens? They program those variables with values from what they THINK not from what they know and that makes the simulation flawed from the start.

No, those values are based on empirical observation. We just don’t know all of the variables, but this applies to all simulations of the natural world, not just ones for evolution.


There are far more variables in biology then science community knows of. So not all factors are calculated in which again could alter the outcome. Again that makes the simulation flawed.

Are you saying that when the simulation mimics the observed process that it’s invalid?


They have the computer RANDOMLY generate mathematical numbers to fill in the gaps, whose say that Life randomly selects mutations? Which is far from what actually happens in real life. There are constant variables in the Laws of Physics, those numbers are used to generate everything that you and I see today, therefore life follows a certain mathematical algorithm, a structure so to say, thus you cannot randomly generate numbers and calculate them and say that's how evolution works and that's how the Avida simulation works. Sorry but it's flawed.

Mutations occur randomly, the environment selects for them non-randomly. In science, laws aren’t the same thing as theories – there’s a law of gravity, which is different from the theory of gravity. Even though we can define gravity via a precise mathematical relationship, look up the difficulties observed when trying to model a system that has more than two or three bodies.


My point is... WHO or WHAT assign those values in everyday life to follow a structure as to say it was programmed. Thus it's far more logical to think it was GIVEN those values as to say it had randomly selected those number bases from unguided coincidental events and if that is the case then evolution will never be solved and you'll never find your answer.

Given that determination of those values are built on empirical observation, there’s an equal likelihood that they’ll be found in a given amount of time regardless of where they came from.


For many not understanding that is ok, they are ok to go off speculation from others and build a foundation on that which quickly falls flat. I highly suggest you rethink from where you get your information.

Acknowledging that you don’t understand or don’t know something yet leads down the path of trying to understand or trying to find the answers. Your path of “you can never know the answer” leads to nothing. So which is a more useful perspective, then: the one we continue to try to learn or the one where we simply accept the universe as we see it and never question?



posted on Apr, 13 2011 @ 04:15 PM
link   
Cosmic Evolution Time Space Matter ie Big Bang
Chemical Evolution Hydrogen Helium from Big bang. Were does Uranium come from? Cant fuse past Iron.
Stellar Evolution Never seen stars born just die.
Organic Evolution Life from non-living material
Macro Evolution Animals produce fudamentally different species
Micro Evolution Animals produce variety of offsprings



posted on Apr, 13 2011 @ 04:36 PM
link   
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
 


Science is a process, not in and of itself an answer. That is up to the person who employs the scientific method to better understand themselves, ourselves, and the universe in general. To many people want pat answers, want to be led by the nose and thats frankly, pathetic. The common scream of the religious fanatics is often "Prove its wrong"! Well, I can't "prove" Santa Claus doesn't exist. At best I can prove something is true to hold up to rigorous scrutiny, but not much more. Those of the anti-science crowd will often say with disdain; "you keep changing your mind, what you said yesterday is now different from today". Its called learning. Better instruments and greater insight built on what we learned before is the basis of science. I must say those who are the most strident against science, I would suggest they look deep into their Sol, and ask just how much of their vaunted faith they really believe.

Just as those who spew the most foul crap against gay people, seem to have the greater "issues" with their own sexual identity. But what concerns me the most is the serious danger my country, and the world faces from both fanatics who claim to be Christian, or Muslim, or Jewish. The perversion and highjacking of any religion for an agenda of violence or bigotry disgusts me. But I am seriously worried about people running for high office, for example, who think "Creationism" is just another theory and should be given "equal time" Oh? Then lets give "equal time" to those who still hold to the view the world is flat, or is 6,000 years old, or women should be burned or stoned to death (as they are from time to time in Iran, or Sudan) because they were not "modest" enough.

But a lack of scientific literacy, of critical thinking, is a threat to our national security, big time. Because it erodes our research and industrial base when freshman at university can name all the winners on "American Idol", but not the eight planets of our solar system. Or "when was WW-1"? Let alone why there was WW-1. Faith can be a powerful tool for good. And I have not always followed the highest aspirations of my spiritual views. But I will hopefully always do my best at any moment. And I know that, like all of you, I am still a work in progress.



posted on Apr, 13 2011 @ 04:39 PM
link   
One should assume it is not yet possible to provide conclusive evidence for either postulations.

Either way it is more likely that humanity can rely on science as a means to achieve knowledge than on god to enlighten us.

It is possible for a person through dedication, hard work and a bit of luck to add something more to what we know and to observe the things we read on scientific research.
It is not possible to research and understand creationism, as it was not meant to educate and provide a scientific challenge, it's a recipe for ignorance and ignorance is bliss.



posted on Apr, 13 2011 @ 04:46 PM
link   




This is the most unintelligent response as is so general that if I replace the word "God" with "Pink Unicorn" it still applies.
edit on 13-4-2011 by Arsenis because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
37
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join