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: 18
37
<< 15  16  17    19  20  21 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 17 2011 @ 04:49 PM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 


He who is of God hear's Gods words. John 8:47

There is a reason God has left us, no objective evidence of his existence. You see Gods word must come to pass. Gods word tells us at the end times, so shall it be as in the days of Noah. That the world would be full of Godless people such as yourself. People who apparently are amoung generations of lost people who have no faith. People just like you, who are constantly attacking Jesus Christ and his church. You fit perfectly into prophecy. You can believe that, if nothing else. If God left you your objective evidence? Everyone would believe.
There would be no non believers. Then what would happen to his word? I can't help you see, what God has said you will not see.



Creationists see everything in the world, that is around them.
Because everthing that is around them, was created.
Atheist must close their eyes to everything that was created.
And believe everything was created around them.

Randyvious
edit on 17-4-2011 by randyvs because: (no reason given)

edit on 17-4-2011 by randyvs because: (no reason given)




posted on Apr, 17 2011 @ 04:57 PM
link   
reply to post by randyvs
 





He who is of God hear's Gods words. John 8:47


The very definition of blind belief


And repost the same nonsense you posted before? Like I said, people have claimed the end is near, or similar nonsense for hundreds of years...yet we are still waiting



Creationists see everything in the world, that is around them.


...unless they are blind...sure.


Because everything that is around them, was created.


And for all we know, by natural forces and physics...at least there's no evidence pointing at a creator.


Atheist must close their eyes to everything that was created.


Actually, you can't look for objective evidence with your eyes closed...and contrary to religion, you have to keep your eyes open to all objective evidence, and not remain ignorant of facts if they go against your belief.


And believe everything was created around them.


...by natural forces, because that's what the evidence tells us.


edit on 17-4-2011 by MrXYZ because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 17 2011 @ 05:20 PM
link   
Here's the big problem with this entire thread. (Apples and Oranges; Religion and Science; Belief and Theory)

The creation-science "model" is not an example of science at all: it involves a supra-natural cause, transcendent to the system of finite causes; it explains in terms of purposes and intentions; and it cites a transcendent, unique, and unrepeatable - even in principle, uncontrollable - action.

In order for there to be a "scientific problem" with creationism, the model would have to actually be classified as scientific, which most respectable creationists and scientists alike would concur that it is NOT, simply because supra-natural causes cannot be included in anything that is "scientific".

Maintaining that the creation-science "model" is not an example of science, how can one say there is a "scientific problem" with the model?

A2D
edit on 17-4-2011 by Agree2Disagree because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 17 2011 @ 05:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by MrXYZ
reply to post by randyvs


Because everything that is around them, was created.


And for all we know, by natural forces and physics...at least there's no evidence pointing at a creator.


You fail to conclude that there is no evidence pointing to natural forces creating everything either.

Unfortunately, there is no satisfactory answer. Both answers(natural forces or supra-natural forces) are just as plausible seeing as how we simply have no evidence for either. Both explanations include conjecture.

Natural forces have failed to create anything new in the last millenia, as have supra-natural forces. We have observed nothing(as it pertains to "creation" whether naturally or supra-naturally), therefore we cannot come to any respectable answer.

A2D



posted on Apr, 17 2011 @ 10:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Agree2Disagree

Originally posted by MrXYZ
reply to post by randyvs


Because everything that is around them, was created.


And for all we know, by natural forces and physics...at least there's no evidence pointing at a creator.


You fail to conclude that there is no evidence pointing to natural forces creating everything either.

Unfortunately, there is no satisfactory answer. Both answers(natural forces or supra-natural forces) are just as plausible seeing as how we simply have no evidence for either. Both explanations include conjecture.

Natural forces have failed to create anything new in the last millenia, as have supra-natural forces. We have observed nothing(as it pertains to "creation" whether naturally or supra-naturally), therefore we cannot come to any respectable answer.

A2D


Personally i think you and many others have failed to see that there is no natural forces that created everything.

This is the problem you and many others don't see:

If i ask you: How many changes would it take for -4 to become +4 (-4, -3, -2, -1, 0, 1 , 2, 3, 4)

Your answer would be 8. Because this is what you are thought in school.

What if i told you the answer was 10?

Wouldn't -4 first have to change?

It would right, because there is a large distance between -4 and -3. So a natural force must be present to make -4 change and become -3.

If i ask you: what natural force would make the infinite change?

There is no natural force present to make the infinite change. So what created our finite existence?

The only possibility is that the infinite has the ability to change it self.

Does -4 have the ability to change it self? NO, not without a external force present to make the changes.

So what made the infinite change if there are no external forces present to make it change?

Because to have a finite existence the infinite must have changed. Because the infinite is infinite greater than finite. This means that the infinite existed before finite.
edit on 27.06.08 by spy66 because: (no reason given)

edit on 27.06.08 by spy66 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 18 2011 @ 02:04 AM
link   
reply to post by spy66
 


-4, -3, -2, -1, 0, 1 , 2, 3, 4

What if i just went -4 and removed the - and gave you 4?


-4 - the - = 4

I just folded space and did a wormhole past -3, -2, -1, 0, 1, 2 and 3 You are now aware that I just bypassed infinity and created a paradox



posted on Apr, 18 2011 @ 04:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by idonotcollectstamps
reply to post by spy66
 


-4, -3, -2, -1, 0, 1 , 2, 3, 4

What if i just went -4 and removed the - and gave you 4?


-4 - the - = 4

I just folded space and did a wormhole past -3, -2, -1, 0, 1, 2 and 3 You are now aware that I just bypassed infinity and created a paradox







If you want to know -3, -2, -1, 0, 1, 2, 3, 4 don't even exist. Only the external force and -4.

I have to smile at what you did:


What if i just went -4 and removed the - and gave you 4?

You cant bend space if there is no space between -4 and 4.

4 doesn't exist yet because it is -4,

So there is no space between -4 and 4. That is why you can't bend space and do what you think.

Let me ask you another question: How much and how far do you think you would have to bend space to reach 4?




edit on 27.06.08 by spy66 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 18 2011 @ 04:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by Agree2Disagree
You fail to conclude that there is no evidence pointing to natural forces creating everything either.

Unfortunately, there is no satisfactory answer. Both answers(natural forces or supra-natural forces) are just as plausible seeing as how we simply have no evidence for either. Both explanations include conjecture.

Natural forces have failed to create anything new in the last millenia, as have supra-natural forces. We have observed nothing(as it pertains to "creation" whether naturally or supra-naturally), therefore we cannot come to any respectable answer.

A2D

Many times throughout the history of human understanding there have been no satisfctory answers to important questions. Each time god has been allowed to creep in trhough the gaps, he evaporates as soon as a satisfactory answer is found. Allowing god equal status amongst scientific hypothesese is misdirection, his track record has been useless for explaining anything, and I do not doubt that he will evaporate from your example in good time.



posted on Apr, 18 2011 @ 05:05 AM
link   
Evolution to Creation, Part 1: Evolution to Creation - Answers in Genesis
www.answersingenesis.org...

This is a four part video series which makes an excellent viewing.



posted on Apr, 18 2011 @ 05:23 AM
link   
reply to post by Griffo
 


This advice is wrong. Be so open minded that your brains DO fall out.
Brains is not god. Brains is what we believe to be god.
Brains appear within god.
God is prior to the brain.
Leave the brain to one side and god will be known.



posted on Apr, 18 2011 @ 09:50 AM
link   
reply to post by Itisnowagain
 


So you're basically saying people with no brains believe in god? Sounds about right to me



posted on Apr, 18 2011 @ 10:41 AM
link   
reply to post by Griffo
 


I did not say people with no brains believe in god.
I did say that people believe their brains to be god. They believe that they know more than god.
To believe in anything is a huge mistake.



posted on Apr, 18 2011 @ 12:19 PM
link   
reply to post by Itisnowagain
 



I did say that people believe their brains to be god.


Who?


They believe that they know more than god.


Wouldn't be hard. According to the bible god thinks that all the stars are created after planets and that genocide is perfectly acceptable


To believe in anything is a huge mistake.


I don't believe in things unless they have substantial proof. At which point it stops being belief and becomes truth



posted on Apr, 18 2011 @ 01:29 PM
link   
reply to post by Griffo
 


I am not talking about the bible god, i have not taken my writings from a book, i have not taken anyone's word for it. I see that the bible and a man called Jesus have been misunderstood and misrepresented. However there is some pointing toward truth. Buddhism and the East are easier to understand.
I see you are very angry toward the organized religions, the ones who like god and Jesus, you see god as evil and punishing. They have indeed portrayed it that way, but that is and was the writers of history, the ones in charge of us slaves. Religion has been used to control people, i totally agree.
Try to see past that to the message.
It tries so hard to tell people not to listen to any authority. The message is really total anarchy.
Knowledge that is passed down to us, it is not to be trusted.



posted on Apr, 18 2011 @ 01:44 PM
link   
i]reply to post by madnessinmysoul
 


Does this article render your entire line of thought invalid?

Scientist Create First Self-Replicating Synthetic Life[



posted on Apr, 18 2011 @ 02:27 PM
link   
reply to post by type0civ
 


Um...how is the idea of making self-replicating synthetic life predicated on the supernatural creation of the universe? Last time I checked...they used materialistic science to do this.



posted on Apr, 18 2011 @ 02:30 PM
link   
reply to post by Itisnowagain
 


We have a problem with any claim that seeks to establish itself without evidence. We only have a specific emphasis on the monotheistic cult that arose from near eastern traditions (seriously, I needed a new way to say "Abrahamic") due to our cultural exposure. I've involved myself in Buddhism (Theravada) and found that its traditions, though containing some good points, are based in certain unfounded supernatural claims.

The biggest problem is claim without evidence, the further problem is lack of explanatory power.



posted on Apr, 18 2011 @ 02:33 PM
link   
reply to post by Agree2Disagree
 


*facepalm*

The model provided refers to the natural world. Now, the full extent of the supernatural creative force proposed would not be necessarily in the realm of science, but the act of it creating this universe would be within the realm of science. We would be able to derive that a supernatural force created everything, not necessarily anything further. Unfortunately, none of the evidence points in this direction and there has yet to be a prediction based on the supernatural origin model that has been fruitful.

This is a claim about the natural world. All claims about the natural world fall into the realm of science.



posted on Apr, 18 2011 @ 02:37 PM
link   
reply to post by Agree2Disagree
 





You fail to conclude that there is no evidence pointing to natural forces creating everything either.


Which doesn't mean "god did it" is automatically correct...that would be a god of the gaps argumentation. Also, many religious creation accounts are demonstrably wrong, like the Christian genesis account for example.



posted on Apr, 18 2011 @ 02:40 PM
link   
reply to post by dusty1
 



Originally posted by dusty1
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
 





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.



The more you learn about evolution the worse your threads get.


Wow, I love your insightful commentary about my threads.



Artists and Art.


Both directly observed. We only know that art is derived from artists because we have observed artists creating art. So the classic false analogy fallacy. Of course, paint buckets falling off of a ledge onto a street could also create something that might be mistaken for 'art', couldn't they?



Architects and Architecture.


Again, the same issue. We know that architects (for the most part) are behind architecture. Why? Because we have observed architects designing buildings. We have a direct link to the architect. Have we observed a deity creating a universe? If not, then where is the logical bridge between 'universe' and 'deity'?

And plenty of geologic formations can give the impression of human engineering...



Inventors and Inventions.


Exact same issue...



Poets and Poems.


Exact same issue...



Creators and their creations.


And the only instance in which we refer to 'creator' and 'creation' is when we can independently derive a logical link. Artificial items are separated from natural ones because we can actually independently verify that something was made artificially...as in it doesn't come from natural forces. Now, you're claiming all of nature is a creation...where's your independent verification?



Cause and effect.


Recourse to regress. You are trying to solve infinite regress by creating a being that is not subject to cause and effect...which is a logical contradiction if I ever saw one. Why not merely state the existence of matter itself is uncaused?

Furthermore...the issue of the Newtonian 'clockwork universe' was knocked out of the park by Heisenberg.



Intelligent minds produce, design, create.


Not all of them.



When they have the advantage of learning from others who came before, they often come up with some extraordinary ideas and creations.

Knowledge is built on prior intelligences or Intelligence.

Observation and Creation.



So on what foundation is the intelligence of your deity built?

You do realize that this whole argument is an attempt to posit an absolute rule...and the create a being that violates this absolute rule as an explanation of something, right? And you do see the logical issue there, right?



new topics

top topics



 
37
<< 15  16  17    19  20  21 >>

log in

join