Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Intelligent design, The Big Bang Theory, and how the argument doesn't matter anyway.

page: 2
6
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on May, 26 2011 @ 09:38 AM
link   
Hey, thanks for posting this and I like your thoughts on this topic. I've had similar questions myself regarding the Big Bang theory after unravelling many doubts about Darwin's theory of evolution. Now before this debate sparks off, I am saying I am unsure because there is a middle ground which is not given exposure, and when it is exposed, it is frowned upon by mainstream academia. That's how it's supposed to be. I think it is foolish to ignore information which predates and contains the complete origins of the Old Testament's Genesis. That is, the Sumerian clay pictographs. It is an easy conclusion to make, the debate is whether or not these tablets can be taken literally for their less glamorous take on human origins; Homo sapiens were genetically created with the hominid / hominoid species in South Africa - the A.DAM.U - as a slave to mine gold.

Even if that is true, it doesn't rule out the natural process of Darwinian evolution. However, there are Russian scientists who have demonstrated that energy shined through the embryo of a frog can spawn a salamander. A frog birthing a salamander! Also, depending on how 'open-minded' you are, you also have the UFO phenomenon to contend with. Does that comply neatly with Darwin's theory of evolution? Assuming you consider it to be true or plausible of course. I personally think the mysterious appearance and disappearance of life has something to do with our position in the galaxy and the energy emanating from those various positions. The energy emanating can spawn new life and extinguish old forms of life instantaneously.

www.rexresearch.com...

Studies have shown there is a mass extinction of life every 62 million years.

physics.berkeley.edu...

I think the middle ground should be explored before drawing conclusions. I don’t think it’s an accident at all that the middle ground is not spoon fed to us through mainstream academia and the media. If you told me that Darwin’s theory of evolution could be wrong two years ago I would’ve ridiculed and challenged such a statement.
edit on 26-5-2011 by IrnBruFiend because: Links added




posted on May, 26 2011 @ 09:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by IrnBruFiend
However, there are Russian scientists who have demonstrated that energy shined through the embryo of a salamandar can spawn a frog.

This is not true. It sure would be nice, if people bothered to do even a little bit of research (even just google stuff and apply a little common sense) before making such ridiculous claims.
edit on 26-5-2011 by rhinoceros because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 26 2011 @ 10:06 AM
link   
My friends, my friends. As long as humanity has exisited, there has always been someone that thinks they have the answers to everything that exists in this awe magical world.

Science can use it's tools, but a mans soul is a more powerful tool, and if scientists and people who choose we just popped up out of the cold dark voids with a bang from nothing with a huge fireball to warm our waters, and give us souls to feel and build and love and understand the righteous way of life then those tools they use makes them fools.

I can't tell you I haven't had my doubts on God, but I've read the book, I know he's there but I dont look, near as often as I could, yea, I know I should. The fingerprints are everywhere, just take a look and stop and stare, open your eyes an gaze i swear, YOU'LL SEE GOD TODAY!
edit on 26-5-2011 by JAGx1981 because: spelling on a word
edit on 26-5-2011 by JAGx1981 because: (no reason given)
edit on 26-5-2011 by JAGx1981 because: can't spell today



posted on May, 26 2011 @ 10:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by rhinoceros

Originally posted by IrnBruFiend
However, there are Russian scientists who have demonstrated that energy shined through the embryo of a salamandar can spawn a frog.

This is not true. It sure would be nice, if people bothered to do even a little bit of research (even just google stuff and apply a little common sense) before making such ridiculous claims.
edit on 26-5-2011 by rhinoceros because: (no reason given)


www.rexresearch.com...


Wrong. Enjoy.



posted on May, 26 2011 @ 10:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by IrnBruFiend

Originally posted by rhinoceros

Originally posted by IrnBruFiend
However, there are Russian scientists who have demonstrated that energy shined through the embryo of a salamandar can spawn a frog.

This is not true. It sure would be nice, if people bothered to do even a little bit of research (even just google stuff and apply a little common sense) before making such ridiculous claims.
edit on 26-5-2011 by rhinoceros because: (no reason given)


www.rexresearch.com...


Wrong. Enjoy.

Oh wow. It's in the Internet, it must be true! It's not like every person in this planet can register a domain and post whatever they want there (this is the common sense part). Find an article in a peer-reviewed scientific journal and report back (I'm not holding my breath).



posted on May, 26 2011 @ 10:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by JAGx1981
Science can use it's tools, but a mans soul is a more powerful tool, and if scientists and people who choose we just popped up out of the cold dark voids with a bang from nothing with a huge fireball to warm our waters, and give us souls to feel and build and love and understand the righteous way of life then those tools they use makes them fools.

What is a soul? How are you so sure that such things exist? As far as I can tell your environment has convinced your neural network that souls exist, but why do you believe so? It's not like any research ever conducted points to such things existing, so what to do you base this belief on? Also on what basis is the Bible the correct book? Why not some hindu scriptures? They're much older than the Bible. Why not Koran? Why not any other of the holy books? What makes the Bible more reliable than these other books, which I assume you take as fairy tales?
edit on 26-5-2011 by rhinoceros because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 26 2011 @ 12:59 PM
link   


The big bang theory itself is based on equations and measurements we take through looking at space. We can't test it...


Sure we can...it's not as if there aren't remnants of the event





Even the big bang theory doesn't account for what existed before it


And that's because the theory doesn't make any statements what was before the big bang...just like the theory of evolution doesn't make any statements regarding how life started in the first place. Doesn't mean not knowing what was before it invalidates the theory.




So it can't fully be said to be the beginning of everything.


You should read up on the theory...it doesn't state it was the beginning full stop. It says it was the beginning of the universe as we know it, which is true.




One theory I have is that space itself is probably infinite. Even by standard expansion theories, the universe has to be expanding into somewhere.


That's assuming the physical forces were the same back then...but we know that wasn't the case





Scientists have faith in numbers that the Big Bang was the beginning of all that "is" and nothing came before it.


And another blatant misrepresentation...scientists aren't saying that. They are saying it was the beginning of the universe as we know it, they admit to not knowing what was before the big bang. They also never claimed there was "nothing" before the big bang





But if we ask a Evolutionist "How did the Big Bang start or what exploded"?


Assuming evolutionists are people who accept the theory of evolution for the sound theory it is...what on earth does evolution have to do with the big bang? They are entirely different, non-connected theories.

I'm surprised that so many people in here talking about the big bang theory clearly haven't read up on the theory...

If you really care where science currently stands on the big bang theory, watch this video with Michio Kaku explaining it...






They are both religious beliefs.


WRONG!
edit on 26-5-2011 by MrXYZ because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 26 2011 @ 05:04 PM
link   
reply to post by rhinoceros
 


Thanks for making my arguement for me. Your right science is too busy doubting anything that has to do with a soul or God so in essence all you can do is go by your heart so If im wrong that I believe in souls even though its not proven either way than let me climb Everest and shout to Heavens I AM WRONG!

Just because some people think they know it all from learning and science means they only know what they haven't learned yet, so don't sound to cocky now, enjoy your star and move on.

I just don't buy your view, sorry. Thanks, God Bless too.



posted on May, 26 2011 @ 09:00 PM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 


you forget though, we are discussing a theory. The theory is tested to the extent that we can possibly test it, but we can't declare it a fact because we can't test it enough to declare it a fact like we declare other things as fact. You forget that an atom was thought to be solid until we cracked it open and found it to be mostly hollow. Therefore we can't definitively say that "Yes there was nothing before the big bang and it was the beginning of everything" because we will never truly find out. We cannot turn back time and look to see if anything existed before the big bang.

We live in a day and age where old knowledge is being pushed aside by new knowledge. But we cannot just simply go about the big bang theory as fact like most people like to do (say, when most people try to "debunk" creationism). We think we know so much but only have theories to most things. I'm not saying they are not good theories, i'm just saying that if you try to debunk God creating everything with an explosion creating everything, it doesn't really work because all there is to back you up is evidence of an explosion having taken place. For all we know, life and the universe could have existed for quadrillions of years only to have a black hole periodically grow so huge that it swallows everything up and explodes after a certain amount of time. Not saying that is what happens but its a hypothesis my brother had one day. After all, there is a reason things are called Hypotheses, Theories, and facts.

I'm not ardently defending creationism, but some people go off the deep end with acting like the Big Bang Theory is a fact when we still don't know 100% for sure.

Like you're video with Kaku, there has to have been something before, the big bang couldn't have been the beginning of everything, something had to spawn the Bang. Just like if a God created our universe, it wouldn't be the beginning of everything, just the beginning of us. Some people just take the debate too far and the whole "i'm right" "no I'm right" argument always starts, when neither are right because we don't know what is right.

I'm sorry i talk metaphorically too much lol.
edit on 26-5-2011 by Lynexon because: added one last bit



posted on May, 26 2011 @ 09:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
reply to post by Lynexon
 


...so...a bit of a speculation based in absolutely no grounding in cosmology or astrophysics? I'm sorry, but your uninformed speculations don't compel me to agree.


Yes, you are sorry. LOL. If you can fling a soft insult, i can fling one back. It is like you didn't even read what I posted at all.

I don't know how you can say that what i said has no grounding but there are differences between a theory and a fact. As long as something is a theory, there is room for speculation to the contrary. However when you start acting like a theory is a fact, then you start being just as speculative as the "religious nut" you are trying to debunk because we still don't fully know.

So to finalize my reply, i'm sorry but your unintelligent debating methods don't really ever compel me to agree with you either.



posted on May, 26 2011 @ 10:04 PM
link   
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
 


Sorry madness, the only proof there is always has to do with viruses that are resistant to antibiotics or bacteria that was doing one thing is now acting different and doing something else, etc.

I want to see solid proof of any one thing turning into something completely different and unrecognizable to the original.

And the same way you don't like to hear the word 'God', because that involves faith, I don't want to hear the word 'time' because that involves alot of faith that time can do incredible things.

And besides, you always go around the forums with your cocky attitude as if you just have everything figured out.This thread is not about you correcting and pointing out flaws in people's ideas. Your first flaw is thinking you know so much.
Stick to the topic.



posted on May, 26 2011 @ 10:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by creatednotEvolved
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
 

I want to see solid proof of any one thing turning into something completely different and unrecognizable to the original.
We have duplicated speciation a few thousand times in laboratory experiments, but of course because they are fruit flies, bacteria, vegetation, and mice, you will just say adaptation. You have to realize that generation time is a factor here when speciation events occur. And even when they occur in nature, its ludicrous to think we can pinpoint one single moment in time where one organism changed into another, when each generation is virtually identical to the previous.

So you will have to be sitting and waiting for maybe 100,000 generations per organism to notice an artificial difference that can only be identified retrospectively by analyzing generation 100,000 to generation 1, unless the entire process is sped up in the laboratory. How many times do we have to say this in this forum?

We are detectives that have just arrived at the scene of the crime. We have DNA, motive, relationship, and the perpetrator is holding the gun that matches the bullet in the deceased, and is standing at a distance proportional to the entry wound and the damage thus imparted. And just now the supposed shooter proclaimed himself the shooter. Is eyewitness testimony still a necessity in this case?



posted on May, 26 2011 @ 10:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lynexon
you forget though, we are discussing a theory. The theory is tested to the extent that we can possibly test it, but we can't declare it a fact because we can't test it enough to declare it a fact like we declare other things as fact.


You're referring to a hypothesis. The Bing Bang is actually a Scientific Theory, a set of facts that explain observations we've made about the universe.

If you have compelling evidence that something else happened, please share. Otherwise, there isn't a legitimate alternative.
edit on 26-5-2011 by PieKeeper because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 26 2011 @ 10:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by uva3021

Originally posted by creatednotEvolved
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
 

I want to see solid proof of any one thing turning into something completely different and unrecognizable to the original.


We are detectives that have just arrived at the scene of the crime. We have DNA, motive, relationship, and the perpetrator is holding the gun that matches the bullet in the deceased, and is standing at a distance proportional to the entry wound and the damage thus imparted. And just now the supposed shooter proclaimed himself the shooter. Is eyewitness testimony still a necessity in this case?


Precisely. There are theories, but then people have to 'believe' that it happened over 'time'.
Just like others can't see 'God' they also have to believe He is everywhere. The above example can be used in both beliefs so it is not a good analogy for either. imho



posted on May, 26 2011 @ 11:02 PM
link   
reply to post by creatednotEvolved
 
Imagine I am a detective. I am investigating the existence of God. What evidence will I find? "Things are so pretty" isn't a valid argument for obvious reasons.



posted on May, 27 2011 @ 03:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by uva3021
reply to post by creatednotEvolved
 
Imagine I am a detective. I am investigating the existence of God. What evidence will I find? "Things are so pretty" isn't a valid argument for obvious reasons.



You will find things that seem to be designed.
Link

[align=center]Ways Designers Act When Designing

(1) Take many parts and arrange them in highly specified and complex patterns which perform a specific function.9, 31
(2) Rapidly infuse any amounts of genetic information into the biosphere, including large amounts, such that at times rapid morphological or genetic changes could occur in populations.10
(3) 'Re-use parts' over-and-over in different types of organisms (design upon a common blueprint).
(4) Be said to typically NOT create completely functionless objects or parts (although we may sometimes think something is functionless, but not realize its true function).[/align]


I look at an eye and see MAJOR complexity, that performs a specific function. I look at a camera and see MAJOR complexity, that performs a specific function. I know the camera was created by an intelligent consciousness. Why would I then not infer the eye to be created by an intelligent consciousness?

If we find complex tools under the ground, we wouldn't say they grew there. We would say they were created, even if we didn't know their function or who created them. It would be crazy to assume they grew there by chance.

When people say science is fact they are saying the whole scientific arena is fact. A fact is a truth known by actual experience or observation; something known to be true. That doesn't describe the whole scientific arena.
For instance, people state, the Theory of Evolution is a fact. That is easily refuted by the word theory. A theory is an idea supported by your interpretation of facts. So the Theory of Evolution disproves the notion that all of science is fact.
When you start stringing facts together to form a theory, then that theory will be forever mutating. Facts aren't mutating, but science is. When science becomes fact, then we will know everything through natural processes. It's the religion of scientism(what we can know with our earthly minds). Science is ideological in nature because it makes the act of doing science, the only act for which one can attain knowledge.

You look at the world and infer things by what your world view is. I do the same thing. We just come to opposite conclusions.



posted on May, 27 2011 @ 05:16 AM
link   
reply to post by addygrace
 

You seem to have left out, intentionally or unintentionally, the very next part of your cited link… the part where predictions are made based on the "ways designers act while designing".


Table 2. Predictions of Intelligent Design
(1) High information content machine-like irreducibly complex structures will be found.9
(2) Forms will be found in the fossil record that appear suddenly and without any precursors.10
(3) Genes and functional parts will be re-used in different unrelated organisms.29
(4) The genetic code will NOT contain much discarded genetic baggage code or functionless "junk DNA".30

1. Irreducible complexity has been thoroughly debunked. It's even been debunked in a court of law at this point.
2. Except we find transitional forms. Based on the reasoning presented here, we shouldn't ever find them, especially given how difficult it is to achieve the conditions under which fossils will actually form.
3. Common ancestry explains this equally well and without the unnecessary complication of adding a designer to the mix, for which there is no objective evidence.
4. We seem to have plenty of non-coding DNA.

So three out of the four predictions made by intelligent design are wrong and it shares the fourth with evolution. But somehow intelligent design is still the right answer. Amazing.

The rest of your post is the usual "it's too pretty to not have been created" and "it's just a theory" arguments. All you get for that is a yawn.



posted on May, 27 2011 @ 10:25 AM
link   
reply to post by creatednotEvolved
 



Originally posted by creatednotEvolved
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
 


Sorry madness, the only proof there is always has to do with viruses that are resistant to antibiotics or bacteria that was doing one thing is now acting different and doing something else, etc.


What about ring species? What about the fossil record? What about genetics? What about macro-speciation?



I want to see solid proof of any one thing turning into something completely different and unrecognizable to the original.


That wouldn't be evolution.



And the same way you don't like to hear the word 'God', because that involves faith, I don't want to hear the word 'time' because that involves alot of faith that time can do incredible things.


No, it really doesn't. If I say "every day 1 ml of water will drop into a pool in a sealed environment" it isn't all that incredible for me to tell you that, in several centuries the pool will be more than full.



And besides, you always go around the forums with your cocky attitude as if you just have everything figured out.


Wow, a personal attack! Listen, I don't have everything figured out, and I have been corrected before and I'm the first person to admit when I'm actually wrong. I just know one thing, I'm familiar with the evidence. If the evidence points one way and I am on the side of the evidence, I'm not being cocky.



This thread is not about you correcting and pointing out flaws in people's ideas.


Of course it isn't, but I still have every right to point out when people are wrong.



Your first flaw is thinking you know so much.


...I know what I know. I know that I don't know everything. I'm very poorly read on geology, for instance.



Stick to the topic.


I'm on topic, you just would like to go on a personal attack because you can't really address the points I'm making.



posted on May, 27 2011 @ 05:27 PM
link   
reply to post by creatednotEvolved
 




I want to see solid proof of any one thing turning into something completely different and unrecognizable to the original.





That single request shows that you really don't know what the theory of evolution is


edit on 27-5-2011 by MrXYZ because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 28 2011 @ 02:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by iterationzero
reply to post by addygrace
 

You seem to have left out, intentionally or unintentionally, the very next part of your cited link… the part where predictions are made based on the "ways designers act while designing".

I left it out because I supplied a link, and it's against the rules to quote too much off-site content. Intentionally? This always happens from dogmatic atheists. They just attack the person.

Table 2. Predictions of Intelligent Design
(1) High information content machine-like irreducibly complex structures will be found.9
(2) Forms will be found in the fossil record that appear suddenly and without any precursors.10
(3) Genes and functional parts will be re-used in different unrelated organisms.29
(4) The genetic code will NOT contain much discarded genetic baggage code or functionless "junk DNA".30


1. Irreducible complexity has been thoroughly debunked. It's even been debunked in a court of law at this point.
In a court of law? Wow. Is this serious? If it is, I have to ask, Is the judge the Peer Review we should be looking for in this matter.

Yet evolutionists do not admit that their theory is falsified by the presence of these unevolvable structures. Instead they turn to explanations of gene duplication and co-optation to build these complex structures.3 While these sorts of explanations still leave the details to the dice and lack strong explanatory power, it should be noted that evolutionists have not allowed their theory to be falsified. As long as there is some protein with some homology to some part in the irreducibly complex structure, evolutionists believe it could have been put their through some combination of gene duplication, co-optation, and micromutation. Thus, evolution makes essentially untestable claims of high improbability to explain the origin of irreducibly complex systems.



2. Except we find transitional forms. Based on the reasoning presented here, we shouldn't ever find them, especially given how difficult it is to achieve the conditions under which fossils will actually form.
There are many evolutionary scientists who disagree. They even came up with a revised theory based on this observation.

"The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages between major transitions in organic design, indeed our inability, even in our imagination, to construct functional intermediates in many cases, has been a persistent and nagging problem for gradualistic accounts of evolution."
Stephen Jay Gould (Professor of Geology and Paleontology, Harvard University), 'Is a new and general theory of evolution emerging?' Paleobiology, vol.6(1), January 1980,p. 127.

"All paleontologists know that the fossil record contains precious little in the way of intermediate forms; transitions between the major groups are characteristically abrupt."
Stephen Jay Gould 'The return of hopeful monsters'. Natural History, vol. LXXXVI(6), June-July 1977, p. 24.

Paleontologists have paid an exorbitant price for Darwin's argument. We fancy ourselves as the only true students of life's history, yet to preserve our favored account of evolution by natural selection we view our data as so bad that we never see the very process we profess to study."

Stephen Jay Gould 'Evolution's erratic pace'. Natural History, vol. LXXXVI95), May 1977, p.14


3. Common ancestry explains this equally well and without the unnecessary complication of adding a designer to the mix, for which there is no objective evidence.
Are you serious? Common Ancestry explains, genes and fuctional parts will be re-used in different unrelated organisms? How so? I was under the impression that common ancestry says genes and functional parts will reflect those inherited through ancestry, and are only shared by related organisms.

4. We seem to have plenty of non-coding DNA.
It says functionless "junk" DNA. Many types of non-coding DNA sequences do have known biological functions.


So three out of the four predictions made by intelligent design are wrong and it shares the fourth with evolution. But somehow intelligent design is still the right answer. Amazing.

You do realize you just quoted the rest of the evidence, right?


The rest of your post is the usual "it's too pretty to not have been created"

Where did I say or infer, "it's too pretty to not have been created"? This is such a copout. "MAJOR complexity, that performs a specific function", isn't inferring something to be pretty or , "look this is so cool God made it". It's simply stating; A random chance complexity performing a specific function acted upon by a specific condition, is not a logical explanation. Specific functioning complexity has never been observed to be random, so why would I conclude that it was random, unless I'm just trying to deny it was designed for dogmatic reasons.?

and "it's just a theory" arguments. All you get for that is a yawn.

A common tactic for people who believe the Theory of Evolutiont to be a fact, is to claim it's so set in stone it can't be refuted. It's the ultimate truth. Yet they don't realize is, they are putting it on the same level as a Dogma.

The National Academy of Science (U.S.)
Scientists most often use the word "fact" to describe an observation. But scientists can also use fact to mean something that has been tested or observed so many times that there is no longer a compelling reason to keep testing or looking for examples. The occurrence of evolution in this sense is fact. Scientists no longer question whether descent with modification occurred because the evidence is so strong.
This is a very odd statement for the National Academy of Science to make, because there are many scientists who question whether descent with modification occurred.

In all reality, why would anybody, especially a scientist, stop questioning any theory unless we've learned all we can learn/ Stating it as fact, discourages testing.





new topics

top topics



 
6
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join