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: 13
37
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 13 2011 @ 07:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by randyvs

Originally posted by MrXYZ
reply to post by randyvs
 


How is me using the words "blind faith" wrong in the complete absence of objective evidence supporting the creationist's claims???


Oh now you want answers from me? A creationist ? Who's ever heard of such a thing ?


Judging from you answering a question with a question I doubt I'll get one


Not surprised though, it's hard to argument if you have zero objective evidence on your side.




posted on Apr, 13 2011 @ 07:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by guitarplayer
reply to post by infojunkie2
 


I have yet to find an answer to the question of why does evolution need two to make one? Meaning that if evolution truly was the survival of the fittest and evolving into the highest form for survival why does it take two to make one off spring? This seems to be a very weak way to maintain a species. Everything from fish to birds to humans needs to have an egg fertilized by the opposite sex to produce an offspring.


Because sexual reproduction has a ton of advantages over asexual reproduction



posted on Apr, 13 2011 @ 07:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by guitarplayer
reply to post by infojunkie2
 


I have yet to find an answer to the question of why does evolution need two to make one? Meaning that if evolution truly was the survival of the fittest and evolving into the highest form for survival why does it take two to make one off spring? This seems to be a very weak way to maintain a species. Everything from fish to birds to humans needs to have an egg fertilized by the opposite sex to produce an offspring.


The only answers you will get? Are along the lines of something explaining the mechanics that God uses to bring physical life to the universe. Explained as if science is the founder of those mechanics. Talk about blind faith ?



posted on Apr, 13 2011 @ 07:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by MrXYZ

Originally posted by guitarplayer
reply to post by infojunkie2
 


I have yet to find an answer to the question of why does evolution need two to make one? Meaning that if evolution truly was the survival of the fittest and evolving into the highest form for survival why does it take two to make one off spring? This seems to be a very weak way to maintain a species. Everything from fish to birds to humans needs to have an egg fertilized by the opposite sex to produce an offspring.


Because sexual reproduction has a ton of advantages over asexual reproduction


Just to add that there are also cases of asexual reproduction.



posted on Apr, 13 2011 @ 07:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by InfoIsPower

Originally posted by MrXYZ

Originally posted by guitarplayer
reply to post by infojunkie2
 


I have yet to find an answer to the question of why does evolution need two to make one? Meaning that if evolution truly was the survival of the fittest and evolving into the highest form for survival why does it take two to make one off spring? This seems to be a very weak way to maintain a species. Everything from fish to birds to humans needs to have an egg fertilized by the opposite sex to produce an offspring.


Because sexual reproduction has a ton of advantages over asexual reproduction


Just to add that there are also cases of asexual reproduction.


Just to ad there was absolutly nothing that made this choice, that has a ton of advantages. Also just to add that
asexual organisms are commomn knowledge.

Also just to add, it looks like I won't be getting my most favorite question. Where did it's Daddy come from Pa Pa ?
edit on 13-4-2011 by randyvs because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 13 2011 @ 07:33 PM
link   
reply to post by randyvs
 

So who evolved first the male or the female?
And how could there be one with out the other?



posted on Apr, 13 2011 @ 07:36 PM
link   
Why engage in a debate in which the truth of the outcome eludes all of us.

Doesn't that reality alone make the debate invalid.

Evolutionist or Creationist? - Definitions created on the basis that we are certain of truths or of knowledge.

If i may, I would like to quote Rene Descartes by stating that "I think, therefore I am"

It's simple Binary logic. 0 or 1. You either are or you are not.

As a result of our diluted, self centered, and rather asphyxiated perspective, we sit and debate the investigation of the road in which we discover the origins of our existence and its meaning. All eccentric and vigorous self serving explanations and assumptions aside, we have no clear nor conclusive evidence to support either argument in regards to the origin or meaning of our existence. The only thing we know for certain, is that we do indeed exist. 0 or 1.

We grasp at both science and religious BELIEF in order to quell the uncertainty and anxiety of the unknown that we live with each day. This is the reason for our conflicting perspectives, and also accounts for the reason all of us have a vastly or marginally different point of view on all topics, not only our origin.

Belief is not a religious term to be used only be religious communities or individuals. Belief is not anyones to claim as their own. Scientific, religious, or otherwise.

Belief is what drives human emotion.

Belief is what is immaterial.

Belief is and has been, the variable factor related to the founding doctrines of all our civilizations, from present, to all the way back to the establishment of recorded history.

Belief has been the foundations of our ability to co-exist with one another.

Belief is our greatest strength, and is also our greatest weakness.

So if you really wish to debate something, debate the solidarity and control, belief has over ourselves and our nations. Once we remove ourselves from the relative perspective to that of an objective perspective. We can begin to admit our faults, celebrate our achievements, and ultimately work together to search for these answers.

Cause at the end of the day...we all believe something. By both creationist and evolutionist standards.


edit on 13-4-2011 by arcanewings because: Fixed Line

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



posted on Apr, 13 2011 @ 07:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by guitarplayer
reply to post by randyvs
 

So who evolved first the male or the female?
And how could there be one with out the other?


Woe! now settle down there partner. I'm no one to be asking hypotheticals like that. Why hope it's not that easy to be come confused. I may be in big troubluski's if it is? Shees.,



posted on Apr, 13 2011 @ 07:44 PM
link   
reply to post by OptimusSubprime
 


That is the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard...."God did not create science." Science exists..we can put whatever name to it we want....but it exists...and the belief in God means the belief that he Created every single thing there is...which would mean...Science. You can call it whatever you want..but here on Earth, the term is science. So, yes, he did create it.



posted on Apr, 13 2011 @ 07:48 PM
link   
Is science the way man measures the majesty God?



posted on Apr, 13 2011 @ 07:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by guitarplayer
Is science the way man measures the majesty God?


Now that's what I'm say'in. Although I have never heard nor seen nor put it so beautifuly myself. I think I just might cry.

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



posted on Apr, 13 2011 @ 07:57 PM
link   
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
 


the way i see it science's views on creation and religion have alot in common neither have so called proof there both received on faith

ive never heard of anybody witnessing evolution take place and so how does it prove it and people say the same thing about god so how do we prove it
we cant its all faith so i wont scrap my idea of faith and i hope you dont either



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


Ok maybe I don't know much about it! I'm just a dumb jarhead so put into laymans terms where we evolved from. Neanderthals? (spelling???) If that's the case, I thought they went extinct? What I'm saying is there should be present humanoid evolution happening right now (to ME it makes sense). You may have answered my questioni before but with all that high and mighty fancy talk I didn't understand so next time put it in dummy terms. Thank you so much for your answer!



posted on Apr, 13 2011 @ 08:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by randyvs

Originally posted by guitarplayer
Is science the way man measures the majesty God?


Now that's what I'm say'in. Although I have never heard nor seen nor put it so beautifuly myself. I think I just might cry.

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


Seems as though my work here is done. I've truly had a grandiose time of it all. Good luck with theory and bouncing off walls.



posted on Apr, 13 2011 @ 08:16 PM
link   
In my opinion these types of discussions are futile, for the simple fact that science does NOT address the issue of creationism, because it is currently impossible. Maybe with further scientific breakthroughs in the future this will change, but as of now science does not address anything prior to the big-bang.

My view is that if God wanted to create everything, he would do it according to certain laws and properties. But then again I believe that if God did create the universe, He would have done so in a way as to make it self-sufficient. I don't believe God intervenes in anything, but if He does, He would have made provisions for it during the initial creation. In my view, the advances in quantum physics makes it even more likely that there is a Creator. My views are probably not accepted by many, but to each his own I say. Oh, and one more thing...Not really relevant but, I dislike our (US) government...lulz



posted on Apr, 13 2011 @ 08:18 PM
link   
Turned out to be a faith/no faith discussion.

The OP pointed out that there's no practical advantage in modern era for creationism, no one seems to contradict that.
One might argue we only have online forums because of scientific reasoning, have it not been this way we could probably be stuck in the middle ages for a while.



posted on Apr, 13 2011 @ 08:26 PM
link   
What I am wondering though if "evolution and the big bang" is the explanation for all life then how did the point of singularity get there? also look around you the shirt you are wearing was made by an intelligent designer your house was made by an intelligent designer everything around was made by something else but yet the fabric of life was by accident? Evolution also doesn't allow room for morals because it is survival of the fittest this will sound bad but stealing should be okay and murder and rape should all be acceptable you need to do what you need to do to produce offspring and pass on your DNA. (I DO NOT THINK ANY OF THAT WAS OKAY IT WAS TO MAKE A POINT) and also have we ever seen any genetic jumps the answer is no. Micro-evolution is correct however which is small changes in the gene population like the peppered moths for instance but no animal has ever gone from one species to the next it is impossible. and one final thought according to the cell theory it states LIFE CAN NOT ARISE FROM NON LIFE. and all scientist believe in the cell theory



posted on Apr, 13 2011 @ 08:26 PM
link   
reply to post by infojunkie2
 



If science can absolutely tell us how humans were created,then it seems that a scientist
with that knowledge should be able to create a human too,if one knows how something is made then they can remake it, right? This looks like that there is a scientific problem with science.


You missed the point, science is saying that Humans were not created.

Science isn't saying that it knows how God turned dirt into Adam, it is saying that it didn't happen that way. If you are asking for proof of how we were evolved from lower species, then the fossil record is where you will find that.



posted on Apr, 13 2011 @ 08:44 PM
link   
reply to post by Byteman
 


There are no transitional fossils of man or any other animal evolving from fish to bird to rat to man or whatever order you wish to place them in.



posted on Apr, 13 2011 @ 08:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by InfoIsPower
Turned out to be a faith/no faith discussion.

The OP pointed out that there's no practical advantage in modern era for creationism, no one seems to contradict that.
One might argue we only have online forums because of scientific reasoning, have it not been this way we could probably be stuck in the middle ages for a while.


You are right; we all ignored the OP's question which was: What has creationism given to the world. His argument was the evolution has given the world all sorts of break-through moments. That is not true, however. The study of evolution has brought us many boons just as the study of creationism has. In fact, without first studying and questioning creationism, evolution would have never sprouted as a focus (not when it did, anyway).

It is the atheists who want to bring religion into it just as much as the zealot. I can't say this enough: "evolution" is not "atheism" and "creationism" is not "religion". They are both sciences. You cannot study quantum physics without running into the "design" question. That question comes up anytime there is doubt in our understanding of our universe. Right now, there is doubt. Our current physics model does not account for many things in our universe... which means it is wrong.

But, if you want to twist "creation" into "religion" and then again pose the question as "what has religion done for us?" the answer would be "science". The church has historically been the safe haven for radical thinkers and scientists to study. It has not been until the last few generations that people haven't been allowed to ask questions about their own church doctrine and faith. So... science. Science is one big side-effect of religion. Ironic, eh?



new topics

top topics



 
37
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join