Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Richard Dawkins Celebrates a Victory over Creationists

page: 8
25
<< 5  6  7    9  10 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 23 2012 @ 03:00 AM
link   
reply to post by Confusion42
 


Why would you want a religious statement from one religion which some students may not follow made? I would rather evidence based teachings. What are the "flaws", or "holes" in evolution? What is an alternate explanation for those flaws and holes?




posted on Jan, 23 2012 @ 03:02 AM
link   
It has to be pointed out that the Big Bang is creationist theory. Hannes Alfvén is quoted as saying (at this page)




I was there when Abbe Georges Lemaître first proposed this [Big Bang] theory. ... There is no rational reason to doubt that the universe has existed indefinitely, for an infinite time. .... It is only myth that attempts to say how the universe came to be, either four thousand or twenty billion years ago.
[Expressing his belief that the Big Bang is a myth devised to explain creation. He said he heard Lemaître (who was, at the time both a member of the Catholic hierarchy and an accomplished scientist) say in private that this theory was a way to reconcile science with St. Thomas Aquinas' theological dictum of creatio ex nihilo—creation out of nothing.]



posted on Jan, 23 2012 @ 03:04 AM
link   
reply to post by Rren
 


Clearly the best post in this thread. Someone with a working brain who goes beyond the banter and "gets it".



posted on Jan, 23 2012 @ 03:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by veubiah
It has to be pointed out that the Big Bang is creationist theory. Hannes Alfvén is quoted as saying (at this page)




I was there when Abbe Georges Lemaître first proposed this [Big Bang] theory. ... There is no rational reason to doubt that the universe has existed indefinitely, for an infinite time. .... It is only myth that attempts to say how the universe came to be, either four thousand or twenty billion years ago.
[Expressing his belief that the Big Bang is a myth devised to explain creation. He said he heard Lemaître (who was, at the time both a member of the Catholic hierarchy and an accomplished scientist) say in private that this theory was a way to reconcile science with St. Thomas Aquinas' theological dictum of creatio ex nihilo—creation out of nothing.]



Well, ..., no that is not the case. The Universe has not always existed. Even the initial singularity (that began our universe) did not always exist.

Consider any event that happens is our universe. No event in our universe just happens. Rather every event has a cause. Every cause has an effect, and each effect may itself may become a cause or multiple causes in a causal event chain. Such that, if the if the universe is at size (x) it will be of size (x+1) in a few moments, and a few moments later size (x+2) and so on. Conversely, one can walk the causal chain backwards such that we see the universe at size (x-1), and size (x-2) all the way back to ... size(1) a singularity. Step back once more and you come to 'i' an undefined point before anything including the singularity existed.

Some people erroneously maintain that the universe has existed forever. Most of these people faded away when Hoyle's Steady State model was discredited, however, despite advances in scientific observations there are few today who cling to that failed supposition. Yet, we know from our observations that the universe is finite in mass and energy, as well as, a finite age. Since it had a definite beginning (and will have a definite end) then there was a point where it did not exist.

Now here's the rub ...

Logic dictates that someone or something had to have "caused", "created", or "made" the initial singularity that caused all things to come into being. At the point before the singularity existed we enter a realm where there is no chain of cause and effect (at least as this universe knows it). The universe does not exist yet someone or something does exist that is capable of creating the initial singularity but has not yet done so. Whatever that initial agent is, it exists outside of chain of cause and effect, outside of this universe. In other words nothing caused it to come into being. It is eternal, unending, and not in need of a casual event (as we are) to justify it's existence. Essentially, this entity is the "Uncaused Cause".

The question now becomes, is this "Uncaused Cause", progenitor of the singularity, conscious or unconscious? Does it have personality or was it impersonal? If it is unconscious and impersonal then you have to ask yourself how consciousness and personality could arise from the mechanical, unconscious, and impersonal. In fact it could not as that would be a violation of entropy and that is an impossibility. However, if it does have consciousness and personality then both the impersonal and personal, conscious and unconscious can arise from it. Thus, the "Uncaused Cause" must have personality and consciousness and ergo we arrive at God.

Only those things that had a beginning had a cause. Since God does not have a beginning, He did not need a cause. He then is the only one who can be the ultimate beginner – that first uncaused cause. This uncaused cause of all things is who we call God. This makes God and only God necessary since He was needed to begin it all. The universe and everything in it is not necessary outside of serving God’s purpose, plan, and causal objective.

answers.yahoo.com...



posted on Jan, 23 2012 @ 03:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by elfie

Originally posted by borntowatch

The periodic table of elements cant exist. No explanation


CNO Cycle

Proton-proton chain reaction

Stellar nucleosynthesis

Supernova nucleosynthesis

Explanations.



Yes yes yes
But
Where did the elements come from to react???



posted on Jan, 23 2012 @ 08:42 AM
link   
reply to post by borntowatch
 





Where did the elements come from to react??


To figure this out, you'd have to know what happened before the big bang...which we simply don't know (yet). Either way, it has nothing to do with the theory of evolution, and just because we don't know how those elements came to be doesn't mean you can just fill that gap in knowledge with magic (aka god or aliens).



posted on Jan, 23 2012 @ 08:44 AM
link   
reply to post by borntowatch
 


The entire "computer has a designer, ergo we do too" argument is silly. We KNOW computers have a designer because we have EVIDENCE that this is the case. When it comes to humans and all life forms, there's ZERO evidence suggesting a designer exists.

So not sure what your point is, because if you try to imply just because a computer has a designer we do too, that would be an incredibly silly analogy



posted on Jan, 23 2012 @ 08:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by randyvs
Do we need evolution to be taught ? Do we need creation to be taughT ? How are either one essential to history,
math, science, reading ? Both were merely glossed over when I went to school enough to make me aware of the two world views. If I didn't have the brains to figure out there was a creator for myself I'd be SOL. Those who know him will hear him.
edit on 23-1-2012 by randyvs because: (no reason given)


The theory of evolution is so crucial because without it, we wouldn't have vaccinations...and that's just one example!



posted on Jan, 23 2012 @ 10:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by MrXYZ
reply to post by borntowatch
 





Where did the elements come from to react??


To figure this out, you'd have to know what happened before the big bang...which we simply don't know (yet). Either way, it has nothing to do with the theory of evolution, and just because we don't know how those elements came to be doesn't mean you can just fill that gap in knowledge with magic (aka god or aliens).


So you have faith, akin to religious belief.
I dont know, we dont know but we believe because a scientist who we believe in told us.
Wow
On the upside at least you are hounest, I applaud that considering the cowardice shown by so many.
Now the big bang
How, why and evidence. Or is that faith based as well



posted on Jan, 23 2012 @ 10:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by MrXYZ
reply to post by borntowatch
 


The entire "computer has a designer, ergo we do too" argument is silly. We KNOW computers have a designer because we have EVIDENCE that this is the case. When it comes to humans and all life forms, there's ZERO evidence suggesting a designer exists.

So not sure what your point is, because if you try to imply just because a computer has a designer we do too, that would be an incredibly silly analogy


Yeah but nah, nah nah
Programmer is the key word here. I dont think you will understand it though



posted on Jan, 23 2012 @ 10:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by borntowatch

Originally posted by MrXYZ
reply to post by borntowatch
 





Where did the elements come from to react??


To figure this out, you'd have to know what happened before the big bang...which we simply don't know (yet). Either way, it has nothing to do with the theory of evolution, and just because we don't know how those elements came to be doesn't mean you can just fill that gap in knowledge with magic (aka god or aliens).


So you have faith, akin to religious belief.
I dont know, we dont know but we believe because a scientist who we believe in told us.
Wow
On the upside at least you are hounest, I applaud that considering the cowardice shown by so many.
Now the big bang
How, why and evidence. Or is that faith based as well


Why would I need faith to admit WE DON'T KNOW??? It's the only truth


As for the big bang, we know it happened because of background radiation, but we don't know what happened during the first few milliseconds or before the big bang.

And I believe scientists because due to scientific method (google it), they need to back up their stuff with OBJECTIVE EVIDENCE that's testable and reproducable. And they need to allow peer reviews.

Creationism on the other hand has ZERO objective evidence in support, and won't allow any peer reviews. You're essentially condemned to be a blind sheep.




Yeah but nah, nah nah


What kind of answer is that? Your programmer example is demonstrably flawed and nonsense...so I really don't get your answer.
edit on 23-1-2012 by MrXYZ because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 23 2012 @ 10:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by MrXYZ

Originally posted by randyvs
Do we need evolution to be taught ? Do we need creation to be taughT ? How are either one essential to history,
math, science, reading ? Both were merely glossed over when I went to school enough to make me aware of the two world views. If I didn't have the brains to figure out there was a creator for myself I'd be SOL. Those who know him will hear him.
edit on 23-1-2012 by randyvs because: (no reason given)


The theory of evolution is so crucial because without it, we wouldn't have vaccinations...and that's just one example!


I am embarrassed for you
www.answersingenesis.org...
Louis Pasteur, a Creationist and Christian and sometime scientist.
Guess what he is most famous for



posted on Jan, 23 2012 @ 10:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by MrXYZ

As for the big bang, we know it happened because of background radiation, but we don't know what happened during the first few milliseconds or before the big bang.

And I believe scientists because due to scientific method (google it), they need to back up their stuff with OBJECTIVE EVIDENCE that's testable and reproducable. And they need to allow peer reviews.

Creationism on the other hand has ZERO objective evidence in support, and won't allow any peer reviews. You're essentially condemned to be a blind sheep.








How does background radiation prove the big bang.
Hell we cant even establish elements to justify a big bang yet
Is that what you call science? Talk about blind sheep.Your evidence cant be supported.
edit on 23-1-2012 by borntowatch because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 23 2012 @ 10:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by borntowatch

Originally posted by MrXYZ

Originally posted by randyvs
Do we need evolution to be taught ? Do we need creation to be taughT ? How are either one essential to history,
math, science, reading ? Both were merely glossed over when I went to school enough to make me aware of the two world views. If I didn't have the brains to figure out there was a creator for myself I'd be SOL. Those who know him will hear him.
edit on 23-1-2012 by randyvs because: (no reason given)


The theory of evolution is so crucial because without it, we wouldn't have vaccinations...and that's just one example!


I am embarrassed for you
www.answersingenesis.org...
Louis Pasteur, a Creationist and Christian and sometime scientist.
Guess what he is most famous for


Yes, and Pasteur was the only one who's ever developed vaccinations


Don't feel embarrassed for me, you should be embarrassed about yourself given that you haven't done proper research and instead went with a pseudo-scientific source that also claims the global flood happened



posted on Jan, 23 2012 @ 10:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by MrXYZ

Originally posted by borntowatch

Originally posted by MrXYZ

Originally posted by randyvs
Do we need evolution to be taught ? Do we need creation to be taughT ? How are either one essential to history,
math, science, reading ? Both were merely glossed over when I went to school enough to make me aware of the two world views. If I didn't have the brains to figure out there was a creator for myself I'd be SOL. Those who know him will hear him.
edit on 23-1-2012 by randyvs because: (no reason given)


The theory of evolution is so crucial because without it, we wouldn't have vaccinations...and that's just one example!


I am embarrassed for you
www.answersingenesis.org...
Louis Pasteur, a Creationist and Christian and sometime scientist.
Guess what he is most famous for


Yes, and Pasteur was the only one who's ever developed vaccinations


Don't feel embarrassed for me, you should be embarrassed about yourself given that you haven't done proper research and instead went with a pseudo-scientific source that also claims the global flood happened


I am still embarrassed for you
Pasteur was at the forefront of vaccinations, are you implying he wasnt.
Dont you believe in a global catastrophe, doesnt science teach that a global catastrophe wiped out the dinosaurs or something, yes I believe in the global flood.
My question still remains unanswered, scientifically or otherwise.
Abiogenesis and Big Bang. I want evidence based on science and I want it to be more than an assumption. Well of you go.



posted on Jan, 23 2012 @ 10:48 AM
link   
reply to post by borntowatch
 


You should really read up on what happened since Pasteur, because your knowledge is stuck in the 18th century


There's a ton of vaccinations we wouldn't have if the theory of evolution were wrong. Hell, we wouldn't be able to decipher genomes!!

It's a key field in medicine fyi. But just keep on ignoring that FACT...

Oh, and abiogenesis isn't a theory, it's a field of science and there's several hypotheses...not a unifying theory like the theory of evolution. Read up on the difference between a scientific theory and a hypothesis. Also, google about the big bang and you realized we know it happened, we simply don't know why/how.

And that isn't an issue at all. If you see a dog turd on the sidewalk, you know a dog relieved itself even if you don't see that dog. It's the same with the big bang. We know it happened, we simply don't know how or what caused it.
edit on 23-1-2012 by MrXYZ because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 23 2012 @ 10:49 AM
link   
I believe [ no pun] that RD will sooner or later be the next Anthony Flew.



posted on Jan, 23 2012 @ 10:52 AM
link   
Yeah I can see you are a little to challenged here
Type in Edward Jenner, Christian who was the father of vaccinations. But of course that means nothing because he was from the olden days.
Evolution doesnt teach vaccinations, thats silly.
Your argument is infantile
Bye



posted on Jan, 23 2012 @ 10:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by borntowatch
Yeah I can see you are a little to challenged here
Type in Edward Jenner, Christian who was the father of vaccinations. But of course that means nothing because he was from the olden days.
Evolution doesnt teach vaccinations, thats silly.
Your argument is infantile
Bye


Keep on naming more scientists from 100-300 years ago


Seriously, it's a FACT that a ton of the modern medicine and vaccinations rely on the theory of evolution. If you had bothered to click the link I posted, you'd realize this instead of making yourself look foolish



posted on Jan, 23 2012 @ 10:59 AM
link   
quote]Originally posted by borntowatch

Originally posted by Barcs
Hmmmm
I didnt suggest those questions were relating to evolution........did I??

Yes, you did.

My questions stand
As I stated ever so clearly in English, capische?? My belief in God like yours in evolution is a faith. I will prove that beyond a shadow.
Now onwards we plough.

cut the crap and prove your faith a science....or cantya do that

This was your response to the 4 separate evidence for evolution links I posted. You have not proven anything. I proved YOU wrong in your assertion that evolution is a faith based belief system, and you ignored it and changed the subject.


You want rational formed conclusive scientific answers then I demand answers to my questions above.

I don't understand what you are asking for. Have you tried searching google for basic info on abiogensis as well as the formation of elements and the likes? I'm not a science teacher, if you have a specific question, then ask it. Don't say "explain abiogenesis, if you can't it means god is true". It doesn't work like that. Make your questions specific, I'm not going to break down three separate scientific theories completely and waste my time so you can throw a semantics trap out there.

There is no scientific evidence of creation. It is not up to ME to provide evidence to suggest it doesn't exist. It's on YOU to show the evidence that suggests it does. I already know where you're going with this argument, so I'll save us both the trouble. You cannot prove god exists by showing gaps in scientific knowledge, or your opinion of complexity of nature or the cell. You need to actually show evidence of creation or a creator. Those are the ground rules, not a semantics argument of philosophy, or finding gaps in scientific knowledge. Insulting others that disagree with you doesn't prove your point. Even if science really did have absolutely no evidence of abiogenesis, the elements forming and the big bang (as you claim, it's not true, however), it doesn't prove creation. This is where the problem lies. Evolution is backed by tons of evidence, so it big bang. Neither is faith based. If you don't believe me do a very simple google search on evidence of evolution or evidence of big bang and you'll get a gargantuan amount of resources so you can get your mind out of the dark ages and into the modern era of science.
edit on 23-1-2012 by Barcs because: (no reason given)






top topics



 
25
<< 5  6  7    9  10 >>

log in

join


Help ATS Recover with your Donation.
read more: Help ATS Recover With Your Contribution