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: 11
37
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 13 2011 @ 04:47 PM
link   
reply to post by Masterjaden
 



Originally posted by Masterjaden
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....


...agriculture....and this isn't a thread about evolution, it's a thread about creationism.



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.


Except that it does. And there isn't a distinction between the two until someone can provide an actual line of demarcation.



This thread does absolutely nothing but attempt to belittle those who believe in a higher consciousness than that of humanity,


This thread has nothing to do with the existence of any supernatural forces, merely with the specific idea of creationism. I'm not belittling anyone here.



which elitists such as yourself can't stand the idea of....The nerve of God to think he is smarter than you!!!!


Elitists? Um...I'm not the smartest person in the world. Far from it. And there are people who are definitely more knowledgeable than me in a whole host of topics. I know relatively little about geology, I don't know crap about paint in any of its stages except for when you apply it to a wall, I'm not going to be able to tell you a thing about publishing other than it involving making and selling books...etc.

And...why are you attacking individuals instead of the issue. Please provide the explanatory power of creationism. What are the predictive properties?

Oh, and that's not what I think. So it's a straw man and an ad hominem.



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...


Wow, more personal attacks that are completely dishonest. Sure, I do happen to read books...I try to read a lot of them, it's healthy. Granted, that doesn't mean I'm sequestered in an ivory tower. I try to leave the house every day, even if I don't have anything particular to do and I try to interact with a diverse group of people. Hell, I even read and view material from people who disagree with me (even creationists...though content tends to be lacking there as they keep repeating the same eviscerated arguments verbatim)...and I don't think people who disagree with me are peons...they're just wrong.

Oh, and I do have evidence, I've provided. Look at the 'Observed Instances of Speciation' thread I started in just the past month. It's scientifically backed data that supports evolution.




I will compete in a logic contest with any of the atheists.


Logic contest? Formal? Linguistic? ....or do you mean a debate? I'll debate you.




ANYONE!!!


Challenge accepted.



You think you have the market on rationality yet you spew some of the most irrational b.s. I've ever seen...


Yet you've not pointed out what is irrational and why it is irrational.




posted on Apr, 13 2011 @ 04:50 PM
link   
reply to post by OptimusSubprime
 


I'm going to save the following somewhere on my computer to reuse it:

A theory is not something which is unproven in science, it is the highest level which a scientific explanation can attain. No, a fact is not an explanation, a fact is an observation. 'The sky is blue' is a fact, the explanation of how light refracts in the atmosphere is a theory. A good example of a 'theory' which we are using right now that is almost certainly right is circuit theory.



posted on Apr, 13 2011 @ 04:55 PM
link   
reply to post by LeJimster
 


You make a long post and you're quite level headed and well-spoken in your response, but I still disagree with you. Creationism makes a definitive claim about the natural world, thus it is within the realm of science. Now, the general idea of a deity is something different and I make no argument that science can prove or disprove that general idea (though the issue goes to a case-to-case basis with specific ones by matters of degrees), but creationism is definitively within the realm of science to answer.

You can have a universe that both has a deity and arose naturally...in fact, there are a plethora of options. I'm not talking about that. There is definitively no scientific evidence supporting creationism...but there is most certainly a whole host of facts supporting any of the sciences.



posted on Apr, 13 2011 @ 04:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
Class, who can tell me what the point of science is?

...nobody? Oh, I'm typing out a thread, not talking to anyone. Ok, the point of science is to explain the universe around us in a manner which we can then put to use. Scientific theories are supposed to have explanatory power. Creationism has no explanatory power...it merely has a single answer that helps us with nothing.

Evolution helps us understand the way life works. It helps us provide more appropriate and varied doses of antibiotics to prevent antibiotic resistance evolving in bacteria, it provides us with all sorts of helpful insights into agriculture and husbandry, and it just generally helps us understand biological systems. I mean, this is really why I find the people arguing against evolution more and more ridiculous the more I learn about how evolution is actually applied daily. If people are actually doing useful things with a scientific theory, it's a pretty good indication that it works.

Creationism...doesn't do jack. If a 'creator' 'created' life, what are the uses of it? What are the predictions of such a theory? Does a 'created' world have certain properties? Can we gain anything from exploiting them? No? Alright then, scrap the idea. It's useless.


Pray tell me, why do you keep making these threads? You have your opinion, you know many will agree with you, you know many won't. You never actually say anything new so is there a point? Your arguements on this are reaching a point some would say is based on your faith....... just let it drop, if you want to be a missionary, just say so and do it.



posted on Apr, 13 2011 @ 05:00 PM
link   
reply to post by OG_SWAGGA_KING
 


Hey look, someone transcribed some Kent Hovind slides!


Originally posted by OG_SWAGGA_KING
Cosmic Evolution Time Space Matter ie Big Bang


...no...that's not evolution. Evolution is a change in allele frequency over successive generations...doesn't apply to any of that.



Chemical Evolution Hydrogen Helium from Big bang. Were does Uranium come from? Cant fuse past Iron.


Again, not evolution, no change in allele frequency over successive generations. And it's called a nova or a supernova. If you have these events occurring close enough to each other you can get all sorts of insane things.



Stellar Evolution Never seen stars born just die.


Stars also don't have alleles
And...yes we have, many many times. We've only been able to observe it in our galaxy (sort of gets a lot harder to see things the further out you go), but we've seen it happen.



Organic Evolution Life from non-living material


Again, not evolution. No change in alleles over successive generations. This would be abiogenesis.



Macro Evolution Animals produce fudamentally different species


It happens all the time, I even started a thread last month about this.

Granted, I'm sure you don't know what the difference between two species is...hint, it's reproductive incompatibility.



Micro Evolution Animals produce variety of offsprings


...there is no distinction between 'micro' and 'macro' evolution in actual science, the distinction is made by those who don't actually understand the science they reject.



posted on Apr, 13 2011 @ 05:04 PM
link   
reply to post by something wicked
 


Well, at least he bothers backing up his claims with objective evidence...creationists have zero objective evidence in their favor.

I'm not sure why Madness posts here, but in my case, I do it in order to stop ignorance (ATS mantra) because I believe creationism is holding us back. If you look at the "god did it" track record, you realize that it wasn't right once.

Comets a sign of god? Nope. Plagues a sign of god? Nope. Snails melting as the bible claims...nope, also not true. The genesis account, also wrong as has been proven over and over again. And the list goes on


Having said that, I have no issue with people believing in fairy tales...as long as they don't try to pass them off as ultimate truths. Because clearly they're the opposite of truth



posted on Apr, 13 2011 @ 05:05 PM
link   
reply to post by something wicked
 


Hey look the old "Stop preaching" personal attack!


Originally posted by something wicked
Pray tell me, why do you keep making these threads?


Because people read them, some people find them interesting, others find them useful, some may even change their minds based upon what they read in these discussions.



You have your opinion,


...it's not my opinion, it's an acceptance of scientific fact.



you know many will agree with you, you know many won't. You never actually say anything new so is there a point?


I'm sorry, but I say quite a bit that's new...now, when I'm responding to people I do tend to have to repeat the same things over and over again...but that's because I keep having to respond to the exact same ignorant lines over and over again. "It's a theory, key word theory" is something I read if not weekly then monthly.



Your arguements on this are reaching a point some would say is based on your faith.......


...I'm sorry, but I don't have a faith. There is no faith here, there is merely an acceptance of scientific fact. Just like I don't take the principles of physics that explain how computers work on faith, I don't biology on faith.



just let it drop, if you want to be a missionary, just say so and do it.


No preaching here, merely trying to explain science.



posted on Apr, 13 2011 @ 05:08 PM
link   
reply to post by Equinox99
 


Ugh...someone spewing the sort of thing that Einstein would have rejected himself. What Einstein was saying was that we shouldn't let paradigms restrict exploration, not that we should treat unproven ideas well or that we should discard science or treat it any differently. We shouldn't let biases prevent us from exploring new ideas, but Einstein never would have dreamed of discarding science or using anything else to explore those new ideas (at least about the natural world).

Science is a tool, it's a process. It can never be discarded because it is the singular way that we have learned anything useful about the physical world. Now, if you can come up with another method that achieves greater results, go ahead and show that it does.



posted on Apr, 13 2011 @ 05:12 PM
link   
reply to post by Schkeptick
 


The Biblical stories directly contradict scientific facts....hell, the book is rife with errors in how the world works. I'm not saying that a 'true Bible' would have to be a text book, but its claims about the natural world should, at the very least, be consistent with how the natural world works. Maybe a few pieces of helpful medical advice...or maybe an advanced farming technique or two to spice things up.

And I don't have a belief system...I'm an atheist, I have a single disbelief. Can't really make a system out of one lack of a part.



posted on Apr, 13 2011 @ 05:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by MrXYZ
reply to post by something wicked
 


*snip*

Having said that, I have no issue with people believing in fairy tales...as long as they don't try to pass them off as ultimate truths. Because clearly they're the opposite of truth


The problem is that many people echo what you just said yet turn around and attack others for their beliefs. I see it on here often. Granted, most arguments for the side of god (g or G) are quite frivolous and are made without an objective or unaffiliated audience in mind.

Often it's the "Of course Bob exists. If he didn't, how do I have this awesome unicorn?!"

But the other argument is "Bob can't exist because, if he did, that unicorn would have never evolved from this ferret!"

And there's people like me who are like "Wow, this Bob guy is so rad that he made this ferret turn into this awesome unicorn!"

Neither argument can be proven and often each party finds little room in their ignorance to accept the possibility of the other.



posted on Apr, 13 2011 @ 05:14 PM
link   
Creationists seem to take the stance that if evolution is somehow proven wrong, that creationism automatically becomes proven correct. It does not work that way! Attacking evolution in no way shape or forms reinforces the argument that creationism wins by default.

Evolution is the best model that we have to arrange our clues into a sensible theory.
Creationism completely ignores the clues. Sure Evolution might not be the best way to arrange the clues but until someone comes along and arranges them better Evolution will be considered the best way to arrange the clues by nearly ALL of the world's most prominent Scientists.

Creationism has no desire to arrange the clues. They are only concerned with the concept that God did it. Starting off with the premise GOD DID IT and then trying to arrange the clues to back this up. THAT is why it does not work! Creationism does not desire to find out the best possible arrangement of clues, it is only concerned with getting them to fit into "God did it".



posted on Apr, 13 2011 @ 05:20 PM
link   
reply to post by Cuervo
 





Neither argument can be proven and often each party finds little room in their ignorance to accept the possibility of the other.


Well, you mentioned evolution...which has been proven with objective evidence as backup. So saying "neither argument can be proven" is wrong.

Of course we don't know whether or not the universe was created...but we know for a FACT that men hasn't just popped up on earth in his current form like the bible and most other religious scriptures claim. We also know that men has been on earth for longer than 7k years...so the bible is wrong once again.

That's why I call the contents of the bible a fairy tale. There's soooooo much that's been disproven...yet people still continue to ignore facts (like evolution) in favor of blindly believing in something that has zero objective evidence.

Like I said, nothing wrong with believing in fairy tales, I love scifi books for example...but I refuse to let them dumb down the people by attacking proven scientific principles.



posted on Apr, 13 2011 @ 05:24 PM
link   
reply to post by TrailGator
 



Originally posted by TrailGator
Here is my basic understanding of both sides (evolutionary teachings, and creation teachings).

1) Both work on faith, with virtually no real imperical evidence to support either one. Thus they are both believed by faith of their followers.


There is plenty of 'imperical' (sic) evidence to support evolution. Genetics, fossils, and phylogeny all prove evolution. Genetics on its own would be enough proof. Furthermore, it's been observed happening. There's even a thread on the first page of this sub-forum that I started that has examples of it being observed.



2) Both are determined to be "correct" by its proponents, almost solely based upon their starting prepositions: Evolution starts with "there is no 'God' ".


...Evolution is a theory of biology and makes no claim about the existence of any deity. You're wrong. Ken Miller is a major proponent of evolution and opponent of creationism...and is devoutly Catholic. Robert T Bakker has no problem with evolution, is a paleontologist, and is also a Pentecostal preacher.



Creation starts with "there is a 'God' ".


That, on the other hand, is true.




And those starting points cause each side to begin their search for answers at that point.


...except that this statement is based on the lie that evolution starts with any sort of claim about the existence of any deity. It starts with an observation of biological systems, nothing more.



3) Creation teaches that God - as creator - created everything we can possibly name as being "understandable" within our limited and finite minds. It teaches that God originally created us to be in fellowship with Him, and that man was perfect. But man broke the covenant and has basically de-volved since then, until God comes again to correct things once and for all.


Well, Biblical creationism. And there's never been evidence of 'devolution' of anything.



Human history taught by science basically teaches that man "came to be" after millenia of planets, stars and space gases coagulated into something living and primitive, and then higher levels of evolution produced humans, and that man has no need for a higher being/deity, as he is quite capable of taking care of himself.


...if you want to be incredibly reductionist...and it's not thousands of years, it's billions of years. About 13.7 billion



4) so that leaves us with this topic....

Just so you all know, as for me personally, I am absolutely of the creation camp. I totally believe the teaching of God's Word that He created the heavens and the earth in 6 literal 24 hour days.


Even though there are two versions of the story that contradict each other, the events in both stories contradict everything we know about the universe, and the story itself describes a flat Earth with a solid dome above it which contains tiny lights known as stars (described later in the Bible as being small enough to stomp on if they fall out)...and that the sun moves through the sky...then descends over the horizon with the Earth staying still the whole time.

Now, I doubt you're a flat-Earther or a geocentrist...so why do you reject that part of 'God's word'?



I cannot "PROVE" God to you that dont believe.


And yet you claim that your deity created everything in 144 hours...there should be all sorts of evidence to support that.



Thats not my 'job'. God doesnt task me with proving Him. He takes care of that. My task is to tell you of Him, and what He has done in my life, and how He saved me. Nor can you prove that God DOESN'T exist.


Well, that's because you can't prove a negative, you can only disprove a positive. I can provide a refutation of supposed evidence, a contradiction of supposed proofs, etc.



So one is free to believe as you choose. But remember all choices - made by your own free will - have consequences, sometimes fatal consequences.

If what I believe and teach is NOT correct, then I am a pitiful fool and wasted this - then - temporal life when I could have been doing many things different. And if scientific/evolutionary teachings of the origin of man and the cosmos is correct, then when we all die and there is some kind of afterlife/reincarnation/exostential conscienous...then feel free to laugh at me and tell me I was wrong.



But then....what about if the creation/God teachings are correct?



...so this all came down to Pascal's wager? Seriously? Aside from the fact that you're narrowing things even further than he did, it's already been banished. What if there's a deity and creationism is false? What if there's a deity that isn't the deity you believe in? What if there's a deity that hates the worship of the deity you believe in? What if there's a deity humanity has never heard of?

Hell, what if your deity just doesn't care about people accepting legitimate scientific facts?



posted on Apr, 13 2011 @ 05:25 PM
link   
The whole reason science has it's problems is because mankinds attemts at it completely s--k without God.
Just think if we still had a relationship with the source, of all the mechanics science spends so much time unraveling, trying to prove what cant be proven? That he dosn't exist. It's so pathetic to think how much better off mankind would be. We'd quite likely be populating what we we're meant to populate. The whole damn universe
was made for us. That's why no one is out there yet. God is waiting for us to grow up.Think of what that means. Open your mind and let your brain fall out if you have too. You might do better with things jumbled around a bit.

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



posted on Apr, 13 2011 @ 05:27 PM
link   
reply to post by iterationzero
 


Come on guy, empirical observation is a fancy word for THINK. Sure empirical observation we can solve certain problems base from the outcome but it's not to say that exactly what it is. Empirical observation works great in 10th grade science but when it comes down mathematical algorithms the pure root from which life thrives on it holds no ground as to say I randomly select a number from .0000000000000001 - 1000000000000000000 which reminds me of the simulation I made of billiard ball physics when I was 16

Yeah NO ONE fully understand the complexities of DNA. Look around you pal, are we curing more diseases than they are being discovered? That just silly.

It's invalid because it was PROGRMAMMED to work that way with MADE UP NUMBERS. I rather peer review their software and see how they factor all this in with a "super computer"


No mutations do not work randomly that's so silly to think that, they occur because of the environmental variables are given to the micro-organism thrive on and act accordingly. Helllooooooo natural selection?
If this was even remotely true; Math has proven it would take evolution FAR more than a measly 4 billion years ( if that's even accurate ) to get to the point were we are at, which is another conflicting statement in evolution.
On top of that if mutations are randomly generated then how do mutations create the same species? We would find millions of ancient selection of fossils of different mutations, but that is not the case at all (few hundred fossils species is not huge at all) or better know as transitional fossils. Now then there are genetic mutations if you even want to consider inheritance a mutation which is conflicting in itself.

Example A; Father has brown hair, mother has red hair, offspring has brown hair, now did offspring DNA mutated or inherent?

Example B; Father has brown hair, mother has brown hair, offspring has blonde hair, did the offspring DNA mutated to alter the color of hair? No because if you looked at the offsprings DNA the property value the code that handles hair color has been altered (which is NOT mutation) but clearly you can see in the DNA that he has inherited from both parents.

Again if it was true, the very medicine you feed your children would be lethal why? Because EVERYTHING follows the LAW and thats FACT. In-fact we are in the beginning stages of understanding this law so much so that we can safely create medicines we can rely on it will indeed work as it was intended to work

Whether you call it GOD or the universe, it has created the laws so that guided events could occur.
edit on 13-4-2011 by samaka because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 13 2011 @ 05:31 PM
link   
Well... /salute to the handful of you in this thread that have tried to bridge the gap between the two camps that have yet to realize they aren't as far apart as they have been lead to believe by their respective leaders.

The awareness is growing though and in time understanding will be achieved.

Joy to each of you on your respective rides!



posted on Apr, 13 2011 @ 05:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by MrXYZ
reply to post by Cuervo
 





Neither argument can be proven and often each party finds little room in their ignorance to accept the possibility of the other.


Well, you mentioned evolution...which has been proven with objective evidence as backup. So saying "neither argument can be proven" is wrong.

Of course we don't know whether or not the universe was created...but we know for a FACT that men hasn't just popped up on earth in his current form like the bible and most other religious scriptures claim. We also know that men has been on earth for longer than 7k years...so the bible is wrong once again.

That's why I call the contents of the bible a fairy tale. There's soooooo much that's been disproven...yet people still continue to ignore facts (like evolution) in favor of blindly believing in something that has zero objective evidence.

Like I said, nothing wrong with believing in fairy tales, I love scifi books for example...but I refuse to let them dumb down the people by attacking proven scientific principles.


Ah... see that's your problem; you equate the western Christian bible as being the only authority on the subject matter of creationism. I hate to use the overused term "strawman" but that's exactly what it is. The Christians are made to look silly ("look, they believe the world was made a few years ago, har har") therefore all people who believe in the possibility of creationism is silly. The concept of creation has nothing to do with the bible just like evolution has nothing to do with atheism. Heck, even Darwin was agnostic.



posted on Apr, 13 2011 @ 05:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by randyvs
The whole damn universe was made for us.


That's a ridiculous statement given that the large majority of the universe is deadly for us


And no, I don't believe blind faith would make us better. If it did, we'd still believe snails can melt, or that women were created from the rib of a man



posted on Apr, 13 2011 @ 05:32 PM
link   
reply to post by DaGremlin
 



Originally posted by DaGremlin
This post seems trollish to me quite honestly. Believe it or not...theories of creation can be scientific.


Name one.



Also, "science" can exist with "creationism." One does not at all preclude the other.


...only if you take creationism as a philosophical 'first cause' argument.




It takes a leap of faith to believe in evolution.


Just like it takes a leap of faith for you to think that the floor won't become intangible while you're walking...it's a leap about a fermometer in length.

Seriously, there's no leap of faith. We've seen it happen, we have the genetic evidence that it's happened before.



To some not a huge leap...but still a leap.


No, it isn't. There's evidence, it's tested, it's open to examination and testing.



It also takes faith to believe in creation. There are also people that believe in both. To believe in the big bang theory is a different thing than to believe in evolution.


...um...of course it is. One is cosmology and the other is biology. And you don't 'believe in' science, you accept it or reject it.



What next...a thread about if abortion is wrong or right?


...that would be a topic for another forum. This whole forum is devoted to the discussion of the sort of issues in this thread.



No one has ever (okay...I'm assuming here) changed their stance on something as entrenched as this type of thing based on a thread on a website.


I actually know of at least one user who I first encountered on this website that did and I've heard of quite a few others and even know people in my daily life who have.



People do however get angry and fight or be rude over this kind of stuff all the time...which is why I am calling this a troll thread.


So it's trolling to point out something legitimately wrong with creationism, good to know.

Hell, by your logic this is a troll subforum, I guess I should get the admins to change the little Darwin portrait to a picture of a troll.



posted on Apr, 13 2011 @ 05:34 PM
link   
reply to post by Cuervo
 


If it makes you feel any better, I believe all religions got it wrong. Some (like Buddhism) are more flexible, and don't blatantly go against proven scientific facts...but then again, many of them, including Buddhism, don't believe in a creator god



new topics

top topics



 
37
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join