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: 6
37
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 12 2011 @ 11:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by Rockstrongo37
You tell me what's more crazy, to believe that everything that is just "happened" or that some where somehow, an intelligence beyond our understanding (remember the human brain is limited in its ability to grasp the big picture),that something or someone started all this and did so intentionally.


Ok, challenge accepted. If the universe was designed by a creator, who then went on to create us (his chosen children) in his image, why is the majority of said creation downright hostile ?
The majority of this planetary enviroment is none to friendly towards non technological societies and it gets worse once you leave our fragile little nest.

These simple facts alone show a lack of design, intelligent or otherwise. In our natural state we filled our niche in the food chain. Language, opposable thumbs, science and technology have allowed us to defy nature.




posted on Apr, 13 2011 @ 12:07 AM
link   
People need to pause and realize that science and creationism can co-exist side-by-side. The smallest things can be created and from there evolution takes place. Creationism doesn't mean someone waved a magic wand and presto, a human is created. You are too stuck in a box that you think that the religious explanations are the only way to explain creationism.



posted on Apr, 13 2011 @ 12:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by Noncompatible
Ok, challenge accepted. If the universe was designed by a creator, who then went on to create us (his chosen children) in his image, why is the majority of said creation downright hostile ?
The majority of this planetary enviroment is none to friendly towards non technological societies and it gets worse once you leave our fragile little nest.

These simple facts alone show a lack of design, intelligent or otherwise. In our natural state we filled our niche in the food chain. Language, opposable thumbs, science and technology have allowed us to defy nature.


Why?

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.



posted on Apr, 13 2011 @ 12:49 AM
link   
To respond directly to the subject of the thread:

The scientific problem with creationism is it is stuck in a Gödelian Incompleteness Theorem trap and refuses to admit as such. The couch potato scientists rarely even bother to contemplate the implications of the very discoveries they get so excited about and help to perpetuate it in the same way religionists perpetuate their belief systems without admitting the limits of the logic they use to justify them.

Love for science from me! But also love for that which Gödel eloquently proved was beyond the formal logic systems we use.


Namaste



posted on Apr, 13 2011 @ 12:51 AM
link   
reply to post by uva3021
 


I believe this oughta cover it:

The theory of Evolution violates two laws of science. The Second Law of Thermodynamics (law of increasing entropy) says that things which start out concentrated together spread out over time. If you heat one room in a house, then open the door to that room, eventually the temperature in the whole house evens out (reaches equilibrium). Knowing how far this evening-out has progressed at any point in time tells you the entropy. Entropy can measure the loss of a system's ability to do work. Entropy is also a measure of disorder, and that is where evolution theory hits an impenetrable wall. Natural processes proceed in only one direction, toward equilibrium and disorder. Things fall apart over time, they do not get more organized. We can overcome this by making a machine and adding energy, but the Second Law prevents such a machine from assembling spontaneously from raw materials. The Law of Biogenesis was established by Louis Pasteur three years after Darwin's book was published, and simply says that life only comes from life. Living cells divide to make new cells, and fertilized eggs and seeds develop into animals and plants, but chemicals never fall together and life appears. Evolutionists often call certain chemicals "the building blocks of life", giving people the false impression that you just stack the building blocks together and you get life. No one has ever done that, including the famous 1953 Miller/Urey experiment where all they got were clumps of amino acids. Many people mistakenly think scientists have made life from chemicals in the lab, but they have not (though many have tried very hard). If one were to succeed, you would know about it. He would get every science award there is, be all over the news, and have movies, books, buildings, statues, and schools dedicated to him, so desperate are evolutionists on this matter. For something to be a law of science, it can never be found to have been violated, even once, over thousands of trials. No exceptions. A theory that violates two laws of science is in big trouble.

www.newgeology.us...

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



posted on Apr, 13 2011 @ 01:10 AM
link   
ONCE AGAIN the confusion arises.

Big Bang
Abiogenesis
Evolution

All three completely different things. Arguing against faith is impossible. They start with the Bible and find things to verify what they already know to be true in the Bible. You can't argue against faith. You can't try and teach someone the Scientific method when they already have the answer, they are just looking for evidence to back the bible up with.

Instead of saying "I wonder how life came to be?" they say "I KNOW how life came to be, God made it now I just have to find evidence to back this up with". It is corrupt and it is embarrassing to know that human beings think like that. When you start with your answer and simply look for evidence to back it up with that is not called Science. That is called bias and is the exact opposite of what Science is.



posted on Apr, 13 2011 @ 01:18 AM
link   
reply to post by idonotcollectstamps
 


3 theories. the·o·ry/ˈTHēərē/Noun
1. A supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something, esp. one based on general principles independent of the thing to be explained

Many scientists disagree with these theories. I am no religious nut. I just believe that humans don't have the answer yet.



posted on Apr, 13 2011 @ 01:26 AM
link   
Scientific Method

1) Define the question
2) Gather information and resources (observe)
3) Form hypothesis
4) Perform experiment and collect data
5) Analyze data
6) Interpret data and draw conclusions that serve as a starting point for new hypothesis
7) Publish results
8) Retest (frequently done by other scientists)

It might not be perfect but it SURE as dook nuggets beats saying "The bible tells us that God created life on Earth, now lets try and find evidence to back that up with". Seriously which are you going to go with? The Scientific method or God did it? Seriously? I will give you a hint, one of these methods is searching for the truth and for answers, one is only concerned with validating the Bible and God and will never deviate from this course.



posted on Apr, 13 2011 @ 01:29 AM
link   
reply to post by idonotcollectstamps
 


What about scientific method that leads to the possibility of a higher being? Intelligent design for example. Many credible and intelligent scientists are finding evidence that the universe was designed. Many "scientists" reject these theories automatically because it goes against what they believe. As I said earlier, it's all blind faith. Wheter it be faith in science or God. We as humans will never know the truth.



posted on Apr, 13 2011 @ 01:38 AM
link   
reply to post by DocWicked
 

Yawn. The second law of thermodynamics is relevant had organisms not developed methods of metabolizing. Organisms have a strange habit of absorbing nutrients, which counters any loss of energy that would otherwise have occurred naturally. We are not in an isolated system. I know sometimes its hard to imagine people actually eat food, it often happens when engaged in a sterile debate on creationism. I can't unscramble an egg but I can feed it to a chicken.

Leave entropy to the astrophysicists, it applies to the expansion of the universe, and is the heat differences, essentially, between galaxies, possibly clusters of galaxies, since the first radiation of light. It scarcely applies to our solar system, much less earth, much less organisms living on earth.

The fact that we haven't created incipient self-replicators in the lab as a complete system is completely understandable, and also trivial. Each part of the current whole can be either re-produced in a laboratory environment or occurs naturally, yet can not be aggregated into form because we don't know yet the exact conditions surrounding the first monad, the first whole organism. We don't know what that is. There are a few dozen hypothesis, many having to do with clay or crystal-like structures that could act as the agent for initiating the biological replicator system. We'll find out soon enough.

Still waiting on citation that "Evolution has not been proven true" that is NOT from a Creationist website.
edit on 13-4-2011 by uva3021 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 13 2011 @ 01:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by idonotcollectstamps
It might not be perfect but it SURE as dook nuggets beats saying "The bible tells us that God created life on Earth, now lets try and find evidence to back that up with". Seriously which are you going to go with? The Scientific method or God did it? Seriously? I will give you a hint, one of these methods is searching for the truth and for answers, one is only concerned with validating the Bible and God and will never deviate from this course.


It's like you've chosen to selectively ignore the posts in here that have had nothing to do with the bible or "Hur hur Gurd Did It". There are people in here who reject biblical creationism as strongly as you. In fact more so because it continues to distract otherwise well intentioned people such as yourself from looking deeper into a subject that *deserves* a deeper look.

Also, careful... you are a little behind on where science is going. I've offered a few points of purely scientific data for people to look into, as well as the Incompleteness Theorems to help open the perspectives to a broader view.

Biocentrism is just *one* of the views that is emerging that is flipping all this linear time materialism absurdity on its head.



posted on Apr, 13 2011 @ 01:49 AM
link   
reply to post by uva3021
 


The odds that the conditions were perfect to create life are so astronomical. Many scientists believe that it is extremely unlikely that life was essentially accidentally created by a serendipitous mix of the right temp, elements etc. There are several holes in the theory of evolution. To quote the band Corporate Avenger: "If man evolved from apes, there would be no more apes." Also, if you look at humanity lately, it seems people are definitely taking a big step backwards lol. In all seriousness though, I see people here who are religious nuts who have no scientific argument. Just faith. I see people here who are extremely intelligent who argue the scientific side who believe evolution is fact. (Even though it is still defined as the THEORY of evolution, a theory is nothing more than a guess with evidence to back it up. Still not proven fact.) and there are people here like myself. Who see a little science and a little more. The bottom line is... no one knows for sure. No matter how many people theorize, and present plausible evidence, this argument has no resolution. Until scientists get the formula right to create life from scratch or God himself comes down from the sky.



posted on Apr, 13 2011 @ 02:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by ErgoTheConfusion

Originally posted by idonotcollectstamps
It might not be perfect but it SURE as dook nuggets beats saying "The bible tells us that God created life on Earth, now lets try and find evidence to back that up with". Seriously which are you going to go with? The Scientific method or God did it? Seriously? I will give you a hint, one of these methods is searching for the truth and for answers, one is only concerned with validating the Bible and God and will never deviate from this course.


It's like you've chosen to selectively ignore the posts in here that have had nothing to do with the bible or "Hur hur Gurd Did It". There are people in here who reject biblical creationism as strongly as you. In fact more so because it continues to distract otherwise well intentioned people such as yourself from looking deeper into a subject that *deserves* a deeper look.

Also, careful... you are a little behind on where science is going. I've offered a few points of purely scientific data for people to look into, as well as the Incompleteness Theorems to help open the perspectives to a broader view.

Biocentrism is just *one* of the views that is emerging that is flipping all this linear time materialism absurdity on its head.


I am not sure what you are trying to pretend to know. You keep using words like "infinity" and "consciousness" to try and hold some kind of authority over the Scientific method. You seem to have wandered WAY WAY too far into the realm of Philosophy instead of repeatable testable scientific experimental evidence. Sure I can come up with a Philosophy that the universe is growing because human methane is interfering with the gravitation of the universe.

HURP DERP the Universe exists because of consciousness DERP HURP!

How could I even BEGIN to check to determine if either of these is accurate? AGH I know! AN EXPERIMENT! Hmmm. Experiment. Interesting. It separates Philosophy from Science! Learn it live it love it!



posted on Apr, 13 2011 @ 02:11 AM
link   
reply to post by idonotcollectstamps
 


I offered you a theory and a link, which contains other links (and which I know you didn't read them all because you replied too soon with sarcasm and mockery)... from a scientist... supported by other scientists... that is in the process of being discussed and explored. I offered a view of infinity... a subject worth serious contemplation in relation to how we typically think of it vs how it necessarily *must* be considered when taking consciousness into account. I offered a quote from Einstein that elaborates on infinity as it relates to time and the implications to him personally upon the death of a friend.

This is science and the exploration of the unknown portions of it. It's how it works. Don't take my word for it that there is a big sea change coming in terms of what science will be telling you about the world. More for you to read...

You prefer couch potato science, where you will sit back and wait for other people who are actually thinking outside the bounds of what is known today to come back and tell you "It's ok... you are allowed to believe this now".

I wish you the best of luck on your journey.

Namaste
edit on 13-4-2011 by ErgoTheConfusion because: Typos



posted on Apr, 13 2011 @ 02:15 AM
link   
reply to post by ErgoTheConfusion
 


Here I will even help you out a little bit!

en.wikipedia.org...

"The structure of the universe is explainable only through biocentrism. The universe is fine-tuned for life, which makes perfect sense as life creates the universe, not the other way around. The "universe" is simply the complete spatio-temporal logic of the self."

How can we check to see if the universe is "Fine-tuned" for life? Well we can run experiments to see in what ways the universe tries to kill off life. We have performed experiments to determine what percentage of the universe is a frozen void vacuum completely inhospitable to life. 99.999999999999% kills you instantly if you go into it without protection I would say that is a PRETTY good piece of experimental evidence to destroy the theory that the Universe is FINE TUNED for life. Perhaps the fact that stars explode and wipe out their host solar systems? Maybe the fact that meteorites constantly bombard planets inside a solar system. Just a COUPLE I can throw out there to start you off.

And PRO TIP more than 99% of all life that has ever existed on the Planet Earth has gone extinct. Fine tuned my butt.



posted on Apr, 13 2011 @ 02:26 AM
link   
reply to post by idonotcollectstamps
 


I appreciate your offer of help.


As I mentioned to another poster... one of us has been on both sides of this debate.

I wish you the best of luck and joy on your journey through life and growth in understanding. Enjoy the ride!

Namaste



posted on Apr, 13 2011 @ 02:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by ErgoTheConfusion

I did. However in the rest of your response you made it very clear you don't understand the evidence yet... and aren't willing to do the legwork.


Evidence? what evidence? I didn't see you provide any links to studies, experiments, research, primary sources. Nothing. Just your own conjecture. And again, why is it that other people have to do this "legwork" when it is YOU who are making the assertions. So "prove it"...or not. Thank you very much.




Typical couch potato scientist asking everyone else to think for them.


I hate repeating myself...especially when I made myself perfectly clear. But I will...for the last time...YOU are the one making these assertions. Not ME or the other guy you replied to...so don't go pushing this off onto other people. Take responsibility. If you are going to assert something is true, don't go calling people names, accusing us of "not understanding" the "evidence" which you never provided. Just. Prove. It. Or. Not.


Originally posted by ErgoTheConfusionI didn't in any way shape or form ask you or anyone else to take anything blindly.


When you make an assertion about something and then don't provide any evidence to back it up, than you are expecting people to accept what you are saying on face value. With some people that might be good enough to just trust what they are told...but not me, I want evidence. If someone tells me there's a pink unicorn that rules a country in the middle of the Atlantic, then I want evidence. If someone tells me that eating potatoes will turn my eyes blue, then I want evidence. If someone tells me that the governor of my state is secretly a woman, then I want evidence...Until then, I will assume all these things to be unfounded and unproven until further notice.


Originally posted by ErgoTheConfusionI offered some items for personal research further. I might suggest you hold the mirror up to yourself to consider whether you've put the approach to understanding you purport to use under the same scrutiny and what you might be taking blindly from what you've been taught without *truly* knowing it for a fact.


You are deflecting. What does this have to do with anything? This is not about what I believe or what I've been taught or what I know to be fact...this is about you saying something and me asking for evidence to back up what you said. Furthermore, I find it "interesting" how you can make statements about what I "take blindly from what I've been taught" because I refuse to accept your delusions as fact. Do you even know what these words mean? "fact"? "evidence"? "verifiable"?

Fact:
The word fact can refer to verified information about past or present circumstances or events which are presented as objective reality. In science, it means a provable concept. Source

It would be nice for you to provide some, as was originally asked of you by "Piekeeper".


Originally posted by ErgoTheConfusionI offered three significant points of information that give a good foundation for a *scientific* mind to use to understand how the claim the other person made can be understood. I'm sorry you don't understand yet, and that's ok. We all find our path in our own way. To give a metaphor... you are currently looking at Davinci's drawings (time, matter, infinity, consciousness) and saying "Pfffft! Those flying machines don't make no sense!"


Yawn. More of the same. Deflection. Accusations of not "understanding" someone else's delusions. "Pfffft! that pink unicorn in your head don't make no sense!"


Originally posted by ErgoTheConfusionAs for your partial attack upon imagination

It's an attack on you presenting something from your imagination as if it were "fact". Imagination. Fact. The two are completely different things.


Originally posted by ErgoTheConfusion... please spend more time reading what the highest minds in scientific history have had to say about imagination and/or faith (not blind religious dogmatic faith, though I fear you may have a hard time reading that word and understanding it in any other context).


I understand imagination perfectly well. I am a ceramic artist and I used to be a 3rd grade teacher. But as you keep trying to make this about everyone else but you. This is only about YOU making an assertion about something and STILL failing to provide any objective evidence as to why this is true verifiable fact, as opposed to just something you believe in your head. Stop trying to make this about everyone else and just respond to what user "Piekeeper" asked of you in the first place.


Originally posted by PieKeeper
How do you know? Can you test for this? How is this verified?

Please, do tell.


Again, I assume because you keep deflecting and to this point have failed to back up your assertions with any verifyable facts, that these are just your own "beliefs" "dogma" "delusions" "religion" "imagination". whatever word you want to choose if fine with me. What it is NOT is "fact", "true", "verifiable", etc. And in a scientific conversation about "creationism" "ID" and "evolution" it's important that these terms are delineated, otherwise the conversation can devolve quite quickly into a fantasy about "infinity being aware", "magical men in the sky", "talking purple dinosaurs" and the like.

You understand? Well, I tried.



posted on Apr, 13 2011 @ 02:30 AM
link   
reply to post by ErgoTheConfusion
 


I hope that someday you will be more than a "Couch potato Scientist". So far all you have presented is Creationism with the word "Infinity" instead of God. Saying that infinity is aware of itself is not any different. Learn some science and how the scientific method works. You will be amazed at the results you achieve rather than using speculation and philosophy.



posted on Apr, 13 2011 @ 02:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by meeneecat
You understand? Well, I tried.


Did you? Thank you.


Appreciation for your time and energy.


Originally posted by idonotcollectstamps
I hope that someday you will be more than a "Couch potato Scientist". So far all you have presented is Creationism with the word "Infinity" instead of God. Saying that infinity is aware of itself is not any different. Learn some science and how the scientific method works. You will be amazed at the results you achieve rather than using speculation and philosophy.


I offered you a PDF from a physicist, a wikipedia page full of references to further investigate, a quote from Einstein verifying his very own agreement with the basic premise of the theory I offered to expand your understanding of the possibilities.

You complained about people just using the bible. I gave you scientists.

However what you seem to seek is not to learn, but to confirm your existing world view. This is understandable.

Both your post and the one from meeneecat could have been written by myself a couple of years ago. In fact I did... exactly the same thing... to others who were saying "Hey... so... have you *actually* researched this or are you just regurgitating what others have taught you?" I wrote virtually identical posts.

So I understand... and thank you for your time and effort. If physicists and biologists aren't enough for you though, then I respectfully must wish you both very very well and and a offer a huge happy smile for your passion.


Namaste
edit on 13-4-2011 by ErgoTheConfusion because: Typos.



posted on Apr, 13 2011 @ 02:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by DocWicked
The theory of Evolution violates two laws of science. The Second Law of Thermodynamics ...The Law of Biogenesis


Here we go again. Typical creationist lies and misrepresentation/misunderstanding of what the theory of Evolution (and biogenesis, and thermodynamics) actually says.


The second law of thermodynamics says no such thing. It says that heat will not spontaneously flow from a colder body to a warmer one or, equivalently, that total entropy (a measure of useful energy) in a closed system will not decrease. This does not prevent increasing order because

* the earth is not a closed system; sunlight (with low entropy) shines on it and heat (with higher entropy) radiates off. This flow of energy, and the change in entropy that accompanies it, can and will power local decreases in entropy on earth.
* entropy is not the same as disorder. Sometimes the two correspond, but sometimes order increases as entropy increases. (Aranda-Espinoza et al. 1999; Kestenbaum 1998) Entropy can even be used to produce order, such as in the sorting of molecules by size (Han and Craighead 2000).
* even in a closed system, pockets of lower entropy can form if they are offset by increased entropy elsewhere in the system.

In short, order from disorder happens on earth all the time.

The only processes necessary for evolution to occur are reproduction, heritable variation, and selection. All of these are seen to happen all the time, so, obviously, no physical laws are preventing them. In fact, connections between evolution and entropy have been studied in depth, and never to the detriment of evolution (Demetrius 2000).

Several scientists have proposed that evolution and the origin of life is driven by entropy (McShea 1998). Some see the information content of organisms subject to diversification according to the second law (Brooks and Wiley 1988), so organisms diversify to fill empty niches much as a gas expands to fill an empty container. Others propose that highly ordered complex systems emerge and evolve to dissipate energy (and increase overall entropy) more efficiently (Schneider and Kay 1994).
See Source Below

and this:


The spontaneous generation that Pasteur and others disproved was the idea that life forms such as mice, maggots, and bacteria can appear fully formed. They disproved a form of creationism. There is no law of biogenesis saying that very primitive life cannot form from increasingly complex molecules.
See Source Below

Please read the following:

The Second Law of Thermodynamics, Evolution, and Probability (Source)

Four bad arguments against evolution(Source)

Entropy and Evolution (Source)

On Biogenesis (Source)

Probability of biogenesis (Source, Source)

A list of "Creationist Claims" and explanation of what the science actually says:
www.talkorigins.org...
edit on 13-4-2011 by meeneecat because: formatting



new topics

top topics



 
37
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join