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: 14
37
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 13 2011 @ 08:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by ErgoTheConfusion

Because... as many people from Bill Hicks to Einstein have so eloquently tried to get everyone to hear... "It's just a ride".

It's absurd to call what we do "defying" nature. We are nature... we are of it, from it, and nothing we do is outside of nature. And should "nature" opt to knock us off, we'll have nothing meaningful we can do in response but smile as it does so.

Enjoy the ride!
edit on 13-4-2011 by ErgoTheConfusion because: Added link to video.


The reason we cannot do anything meaningful in response ?

Because so much energy is wasting arguing how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.

We have the capacity to remove all of our eggs from one basket...now. Sadly we are to busy fighting over whether the Big-Endians or Little-Endians are correct.
Politics, religion,race,creed and not least wealth.We let way to many unimportant differences trip us up.




posted on Apr, 13 2011 @ 09:00 PM
link   
reply to post by guitarplayer
 


First of all, ALL fossils are transitional. There is no species that can be pointed to and said of...look it is finalized. How would you even decide a species was "finalized"? By what measure?

Second, there are no fish-cats or bird-elephant fossils. Transitional does not mean transitioning from one entire species to another, it means subtle changes over time in a particular species. When the changes become great enough, the species has evolved into a different species, but still fundamentally similar.

Small brains give way to large brains, bulky muscular bodies give way to bodies optimized to feed the brain. Short stature gives way to larger bodies.

Anyways....it was fun, but blatantly obvious that you know next to nothing about the matter. I suggest reading up on Charles Darwin and Richard Dawkins, and less religious prattle like Ray Comfort's junk.



posted on Apr, 13 2011 @ 09:17 PM
link   
While you are natural to question things, the focus of your questions is off a bit. You are trying to ask for proof of creation using science. But ask yourself, the methods you are using where did they come from? Who authored science? Are these just natural laws? In your mind and heart you know that it cant be. Science loved to try and disprove creation, but the funny thing is you are using science, a law that was created by an architect, to disprove his work. The very thing you think is not true, your only means to disprove it with is another thing that was created.

Look at it this way. Lets take a 747, put all the broken pieces into a warehouse and let them sit. Lets let them sit for oh...about eternity. At the end of time, lets have a look at what we are left with. And what would we see? We would see the pieces, still in boxes waiting to be put together. Without a builder, the plane would not build itself.

Anyone who thinks we just popped out of thin air needs to rethink that idea.



posted on Apr, 13 2011 @ 09:26 PM
link   
reply to post by cheftim59
 


You miss the whole point of the thread, also that issue has been addressed.



posted on Apr, 13 2011 @ 09:59 PM
link   
reply to post by cheftim59
 

Genomes don't just sit there, so your analogy is pathetic



posted on Apr, 13 2011 @ 10:01 PM
link   
Time is a Human invention. Time explains why things have a begging and why they have an end.

It is thought that the universe started from absolutely nothing where not even time existed. (Big Bang Theory)

So if everything has a begging and an end as science has proven, then how was time created?

Since time must of had some origin like everything else in the known universe it is logical to say that time was created by a natural phenomenon or some form of God. This would in turn mean that whatever created time was obviously there before time and is unaffected by time itself making it "immortal" or timeless.

As stated before the "Big Bang Theory" tries to explain how this happened. As most of us know scientists believe EVERYTHING was created from a particle as small or smaller than an atom. It is still unexplained how this particle came to be.

This single particle could be described as God or a creation by some supreme being since it was there before time and created everything we know of.



posted on Apr, 13 2011 @ 10:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Noncompatible

Originally posted by ErgoTheConfusion

Because... as many people from Bill Hicks to Einstein have so eloquently tried to get everyone to hear... "It's just a ride".

It's absurd to call what we do "defying" nature. We are nature... we are of it, from it, and nothing we do is outside of nature. And should "nature" opt to knock us off, we'll have nothing meaningful we can do in response but smile as it does so.

Enjoy the ride!
edit on 13-4-2011 by ErgoTheConfusion because: Added link to video.


The reason we cannot do anything meaningful in response ?

Because so much energy is wasting arguing how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.

We have the capacity to remove all of our eggs from one basket...now. Sadly we are to busy fighting over whether the Big-Endians or Little-Endians are correct.
Politics, religion,race,creed and not least wealth.We let way to many unimportant differences trip us up.


I suggest you think a little deeper on the meaning and implications of what I said. I can't present it any more succinctly, but it went right over your head. I agree with what you are wanting to say more than you realize. But since I hold a world view that you perceive as running counter to yours (it includes yours, but is not limited by yours)... this is difficult for you to see right now.

Also if you actually read my posts, I have been trying to get the Big-Endians and Little-Endians in this conversation/question to shake hands.

Thank you.



posted on Apr, 13 2011 @ 10:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by PieKeeper

Originally posted by freedish
reply to post by Aggie Man
 


God is outside of time, no one created God. God just is.



How do you know? Can you test for this? How is this verified?

Please, do tell.



Are you genuinely asking or are you mocking my faith?

I believe the the bible is the word of God when understood correctly. And when things are understood through the holy spirit that is given to all who accept Jesus as savior.

'Lift your eyes and look to the heavens: Who created all these? He who brings out the starry host one by one, and calls them each by name. Because of his great power and mighty strength, not one of them is missing.' (Isaiah 40:22-26).

God created the heavens, including the sun. The sun and light is how we measure time. Therefor God created time.



posted on Apr, 13 2011 @ 10:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by walkerjus
Time is a Human invention. Time explains why things have a begging and why they have an end.

It is thought that the universe started from absolutely nothing where not even time existed. (Big Bang Theory)

So if everything has a begging and an end as science has proven, then how was time created?

Since time must of had some origin like everything else in the known universe it is logical to say that time was created by a natural phenomenon or some form of God. This would in turn mean that whatever created time was obviously there before time and is unaffected by time itself making it "immortal" or timeless.

As stated before the "Big Bang Theory" tries to explain how this happened. As most of us know scientists believe EVERYTHING was created from a particle as small or smaller than an atom. It is still unexplained how this particle came to be.

This single particle could be described as God or a creation by some supreme being since it was there before time and created everything we know of.



While I believe there are valid arguments for creationism, "time" is not one of them. Before there was space, there was no time. That helps both creationists and evolutionists.

It helps evolutionists not have to answer the "origin of time" question and it helps creationists explain some of their time-limited beliefs.

For example: (only because I'm familiar with it and not because I'm pushing it), Christians say God made everything in a matter of days. Bear with me on this one as it's my own driving home meanderings. The following is taking the hypothetical word of God as truth: If God created our understanding of existence (space), that means time/space wasn't quite following the same ratio we see today. One day could have been 2 billion years (which it would have had to have been to follow the big bang theory) and that time could have stretched out so that the first day could have been four billion years but, by the time you reached the seventh, one day might have only been four thousand years.

I'm just saying... time didn't exist before space. It sort of helps both sides of the fence.



posted on Apr, 13 2011 @ 10:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by freedish
I believe the the bible is the word of God when understood correctly. And when things are understood through the holy spirit that is given to all who accept Jesus as savior.


Seems you are quite fortunate to have been born in a western society where you had access to the teachings of Jesus, eh? Imagine how much it would have sucked if you had been born into a Muslim or Hindu or Buddhist family or an Aboriginal tribe?

Have you fully thought through this as it relates to others?

I wish to suggest some readings from the Nag Hammadi... especially the Gospel of Thomas. Just as a starting point. And comparing them to teachings from other cultures around the world. Jesus as written about in those texts doesn't want your undying devotion... he wants you to discover and be your own true self. He was trying to tell you how to look within yourself by leading by example. Later revisions by people with political motivations made it look like you had to look to an external authority to reach understanding.

Namaste
edit on 13-4-2011 by ErgoTheConfusion because: Added the Nag Hammadi section and changed it to be more polite.



posted on Apr, 13 2011 @ 10:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by samaka
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

If you really believe that objective data that allows us to populate the variables in equations is synonymous with conjecture, then any reply to you is going to be a thorough waste of time. Can you show me the equation that you're citing which will give essentially the same results regardless of the range of inputs over 35 order of magnitude?


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.

Again, you can cite something or you can just admit that you're pulling hyperbole out of your nether regions.


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"

So you can't actually prove that it was programmed. Keep in mind that your assertions that this is a programmed reality leads to questions regarding whether or not the reality of the programmer was programmed ad infinitum. Infinite regression loops don't lead anywhere.


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?

Your poor understanding of the relation between mutation and selection is evident with this statement. Mutations are random. Natural selection is the environment acting on those mutations in a non-random way. If you can't understand the difference between mutation and natural selection, you have no business arguing against evolution.


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/

Show your math, then. Every statistical argument against evolution that I've seen so far is based on poor logic, at best, or outright falsehoods, at worst.


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.

Sadly poor understanding of genetics is sad.


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.

An amazing oversimplification of a genetic trait that amounts to a strawman. The "property" hasn't been altered, as the "property" can be found in the genetic code of both parents. Mutation is a difference in genetics found in neither parent.


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/

And we've gained our understanding in that field because of? C'mon... you can say it... that's right... it won't hurt too much... the theory of evolution.

[quote[Whether you call it GOD or the universe, it has created the laws so that guided events could occur.
It has laws. Until you can provide positive evidence that those laws were created, and you need to do much much better than what you posted above to do so, there's no reason to think they were.



posted on Apr, 14 2011 @ 12:38 AM
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


Since we live in a universe of cause and effect, we naturally assume that this is the only way in which any kind of existence can function. However, the premise is false. Without the dimension of time, there is no cause and effect, and all things that could exist in such a realm would have no need of being caused, but would have always existed. Therefore, God has no need of being created, but, in fact, created the time dimension of our universe specifically for a reason - so that cause and effect would exist for us. However, since God created time, cause and effect would never apply to His existence.



Originally posted by phishyblankwaters
If we're back to "where did the universe come from if there is no creator?" I'd suggest people go read "The Grand Design" a nice light Stephen Hawking book explaining just this.

The universe sprang from nothing. The big bag is NOT religion disguised as science like some know-it-alls claim. The big bang doesn't rule out the possibility of a 'god' but it also doesn't rely on a creator for the universe to be here. Quantum physics pretty much sums it up when talking about particles.

A particle, lets say a photon, doesn't take a path from point A to B as we'd be accustomed to in the larger world. It takes ALL possible paths, including some that interfere with itself.

Why this universe? Because every and all possible universes also existed, this just happens to be the one we're in. Why the apparent miracles of science that, if changed minutely, would remove the ability for life? Because every possible combination exists, or existed at a time.

Science, quantum physics, and the big bang, are merely steps in our growing understanding. Hell, we could be completely wrong about the big bang. This doesn't change the fact that with current models, predictions can be made and tested, and so far, pass the test. Religion and creationism holds none of these options. You can't test them. You can't evolve or upgrade them. It's dogma.

I really suggest you guys read that book, it's fascinating for one, and simplified so even I feel like i understand it.



So, Stephen Hawking wants us to believe that a nebulous set of theories, which cannot be confirmed through observational data, absolutely establishes that an infinite number of diverse universes exist, having been created from laws of physics that just happen to allow this. John Horgan, a fellow atheist, says that the popularity of M-theory is the result of "stubborn refusal of enthusiasts to abandon their faith."3 Is it not more likely that a super-intelligent, powerful Being invented the laws of physics that produced the universe? Skeptics always ask, "Who created God?" Maybe they already have the answer to that question - Nothing! After all, they seem to think that nothing is a powerful force for creating things!

Stephen Hawking has garnered a lot of admiration and respect as a brilliant physicist and cosmologist. His book, A Brief History of Time, is a bestseller for its ability to translate physics and cosmology into terms that a layman can understand. So, when he came out recently promoting his new book claiming, "There is a sound scientific explanation for the making of our world—no Gods required" a lot of people took notice. Is our understanding of physics really sufficient to conclude that we know everything necessary to explain the existence of everything?

What new theory?

In his new book, Hawking claims that the reason the universe needs no creator is due to a "new theory" called M-theory (where "M" stands for "membrane," or just "m," or "murky" or "missing"1 depending upon one's particular version of the theory). Originally promoted as "superstring" theory 20 years ago, it has evolved from "strings" to "membranes," although all forms of the theory propose extra dimensions (11, in fact). However, M-theory is no single theory, but, rather, a number of theories through which one may obtain just about anything one wants. How one can test such a nebulous set of theories, which "predict" just about anything and everything, seems to be a problem.

M-theory: science or faith?

The nature of the universe requires that membranes from M-theory, if they exist at all, must be on the order of Planck length (10–33 cm). Such a size is way less than microscopic or even well below subatomic particle sizes. In order to confirm such objects, one would need an accelerator on the order of 6,000,000,000,000,000 miles in circumference.2 It would seem likely, therefore, that confirmation of M-theory, based upon observable data, is impossible. Do such a set of theories that predict everything and anything and are not testable through observational data really fall within the realm of science?

Whence the laws of physics?

Stephen Hawking says that the laws of physics guarantee that the universe can be created from nothing. The question he never answered was why those laws of physics exist? Although it is possible for things such as particles to pop into existence from "nothing," it has never been shown that non-quantum-sized objects can perform such feats. Even if it were possible, why would it be expected that laws of physics that allow such events to occur would actually exist. Why wouldn't a true nothing consist of no laws of physics and no possibility of anything popping into existence.
edit on 14-4-2011 by RevelationGeneration because: (no reason given)

edit on 14-4-2011 by RevelationGeneration because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 14 2011 @ 02:13 AM
link   
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
 


Proof does not exist, anywhere, not even in science.

Science is a belief system too, you just been mislead. So long as you cannot prove whether you are awake or asleep everything you think you know to be true may just be a dream. So as you see, science is also based on a belief system, belief that you are awake, but you can never prove it.



posted on Apr, 14 2011 @ 08:26 AM
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


in my simple human mind, it is just a logical to believe in a Being or Force or Entity that created the universe, as it is to believe that all of creation, including all of the laws of physics, just sort of happened accidentally (ie "spontaneously"). also, many of us who do believe in a Creator don't believe that Creator "spontaneously came to be"; rather this Creator has existed from the beginning of time (in fact, personally i believe this Creator IS time). it all springs from the assumption that my human intelligence is limited by my perception, and some aspects of Creation can never be understood using human logic....



posted on Apr, 14 2011 @ 09:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by ravenflt
Proof does not exist, anywhere, not even in science.

Science is a belief system too, you just been mislead. So long as you cannot prove whether you are awake or asleep everything you think you know to be true may just be a dream. So as you see, science is also based on a belief system, belief that you are awake, but you can never prove it.


Most science is empirically based, the remaining is a work in progress thus being called theory.

You're using misleading philosophical premises. That question is different and just a good pretext for a movie plot and for early existential questioning.



posted on Apr, 14 2011 @ 10:00 AM
link   
reply to post by guitarplayer
 


Every fossil is a transitional fossil. Also:

List of Transitional Fossils

Transitional Fossils



posted on Apr, 14 2011 @ 11:04 AM
link   
reply to post by InfoIsPower
 


Science is not proof of anything. The fact that there are scientists still around actually proves that they don't know yet, they are still looking. Go to the natural history museum and see how much they change there minds about how dinosaurs looked. The old paradigms of science don't change until the old scientists die, egos are so big in that field. They used to put to death those that knew more than the reigning belief, if it didn't go along with the 'normal world view'.
Nature is a system that provides for all, but because there are greedy people who want more they exploit the earth and use and abuse it. Science is so great that we can now build nuclear reactors on The Ring of Fire, spend money on space race and war and let the hungry starve.
Science has a new paradigm, i like this one;
youtu.be...



edit on 14-4-2011 by Itisnowagain because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 14 2011 @ 11:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by InfoIsPower

Originally posted by ravenflt
Proof does not exist, anywhere, not even in science.

Science is a belief system too, you just been mislead. So long as you cannot prove whether you are awake or asleep everything you think you know to be true may just be a dream. So as you see, science is also based on a belief system, belief that you are awake, but you can never prove it.


Most science is empirically based, the remaining is a work in progress thus being called theory.

You're using misleading philosophical premises. That question is different and just a good pretext for a movie plot and for early existential questioning.


Science as it is commonly understood and taught is a belief system that says all truth can be found independent of the observer.

There is no *reason* to assume this is fundamentally true. However because of the way the scientific method is defined it is unable to operate on the subjective (or the qualia of experience). This is perfectly ok... it is a reasonable limitation to the intention behind science. The problem arises when it is assumed that that process of understanding is *all there is* to understand.

The scientific method is *a* tool. But it must be recognized as a tool. The role of consciousness in the reality we experience has been left out for most of the history of it. Rightfully so, because our tools weren't good enough to make any sense of it. Just like how early scientific theories we would laugh at now, were reasonable at the time because the tools they were using then weren't good enough to work with what we work with now.

I've offered it a couple of times, but Biocentrism is one of the *science based* inquiries that is trying to open the field back up to taking into account the consciousness aspect of understanding reality. Please don't think you can understand the idea just from a wikipedia article. If you aren't going to read the book, oh well. Find others... this is not the only one.

The science as fundamental mindset draws a line in the sand and says "We know for a fact that there is nothing subjective... there is ONLY the objective", despite each and every one of us having constant subjective experiences which can not be correlated. So we just throw them out as irrelevant. No data is irrelevant. It just might be beyond the tools available at the current time.

This is the faith aspect... that at no time will we discover that consciousness precedes reality as opposed to reality preceding consciousness. There is nothing to lend credence to this. We already know that time is an illusion (see Einstein's "stubbornly persistent illusion" quote), space is maleable and not fundamental (were you to reach the speed of light all of space compresses into a singularity), matter is just in a probabilistic state until an observation/interaction is made and is fundamentally just light, etc.

It is *not* as simple and clear cut as pure objective empiricism.

But until you are ready to open your world view to the bigger picture you will stay trapped like school kids sitting on the floor waiting for the teacher to tell you what is true. This problem in the way science has approached everything is constantly being discussed behind the scenes in physics... having a friend who spent plenty of time doing research at CERN and TRIUMF... among others who know it's not politically correct to speak up yet.

The next big deals in science are always on the edges... and yes... generally start out in philosophy/imagination/existentialism. It takes people who understand what is commonly understood now, pulling threads from areas that have YET to be connected, and finding ways to see if they can connect. It's ok to wait for everyone else to verify it for you... but at that point you're just watching TV science, you aren't engaged in it yourself. There is nothing wrong with it, but it means there needs to be a certain degree of humility because all you're really doing is regurgitating what the news says. I don't necessarily mean you specifically... but to anyone of the mindset that if they can't find evidence RIGHT NOW then they will consider the idea completely worth rejecting.

Thank you for your time.

Namaste.
edit on 14-4-2011 by ErgoTheConfusion because: Added the word "all" to the first sentence to clarify the intended message.



posted on Apr, 14 2011 @ 11:41 AM
link   
Atomic theory was simply a philosophical concept in Ancient Greece.

It took nearly two thousand years before we had empirical evidence to believe it to be true.

Then a bit later we found out it doesn't even stop there.

Then we eventually got to the point where we realized when it comes to matter... in reality there is nothing there, despite what our every day experience tells us... and only "forces" (for which we have no actual explanation for their fundamental origin at all) interact with other forces. We don't know where they come from, what perpetuates them, or anything really other than the effects they have. So science just turns a blind eye for now and just accepts them "as is".

This is NOT a denigration of science... it is a recognition of what it actually is and is for.

Philosophy is just as important to scientific progress as testing and verification. For it's the exploration of the implications and contemplating "bigger possibilities beyond current testing" that allows any progress to be made at all beyond blind random luck.
edit on 14-4-2011 by ErgoTheConfusion because: Less *'s




posted on Apr, 14 2011 @ 12:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by Griffo
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


I have better things to do than to "troll", whatever that means. You basically have proven my point for me considering that "conjecture" means "an unproved assumption". Your scientific definition is fine and dandy, but it lacks the word "proven". A theory is nothing more than an educated guess based on facts that have been collected and related to one another, but that doesn't mean that all of the facts have been collected. When more facts are collected a theory will change as they often do. There is an entire scientific discipline dedicated to theory known as theoretical physics, as I am sure you are well aware, because nothing within the realm of said scientific discipline can be proven.



new topics

top topics



 
37
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join