Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

DEBATE Evolution vs Creation. Come on in!

page: 1
5
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on May, 19 2013 @ 09:39 PM
link   
This is a facebook argument I had recently on evolution vs creation. I take the side of creation. I would love for you to read the whole thing and then comment below with aguments for or against a certain statement made. Hopefully this will make some people think a little bit. Enjoy!

Me Radio metric dating. Okay.. What evidence proved that the "millions" and "billions" calculations were correct? 230 million. Where'd the extra 30 million come from? You could just as easily say 100 million and everyone would believe it because there is NO proof otherwise. You know it's over 'so many thousands' of years old so it must be in the millions, right? Just throw out a number and let's go with that.
www.answersingenesis.org...

Evolutionist 1 The evidence of radio carbon dating comes from the fact that we can empirically prove the rate of decay of radioactive carbon (C14). By comparing the amount of radioactive carbon with the amount of carbon that it decays to, we can estimate with an extremely high degree of accuracy how long the carbon matter has had to decay, because we can prove that every period of time, referred to as a half-life, exactly half the C14 has decayed.

Just because you don't understand it and seek a refuge of ignorance in a piece of parchment written thousands of years ago doesn't mean there isn't proven, known science at work. Good day.

Me When solar radiation strikes the earth's atmospher, it converts the stable carbon-12 (found in CO2) into radioactive Carbon-14. Now, Carbon-14 accumulates on all living organisms . So, when an animal dies, the Carbon-14 loses two subatomic particles and is released back into the atmosphere as normal, regular Carbon-12. The half-life of Carbon-14 is 5730 years, which means that, every 5730 years, half the remaining C-14 in the animal body is left. So, every 5730 years the amount of C-14 reduces from 1/2 to 1/4 to 1/8 etc. So, the scientists carbon-date a dead animal carcas by measuring how much C-14 is still in the animal and, therefore, how long it's been dead.
The problem is, the magnetic field is decaying around the earth. The earth is covered in a magnetic field, which is STEADILY losing its strength by 1/2 every 1400 years. There are no magnetic reversals--there are only areas of stronger and weaker magnetism. So, if there are no reversals, then we know that the magnetic field has been shrinking at a measurably-stable rate. So, by the half-life of the magnetic field, the magnetic field would have been 320% stronger around 4500 years ago. But the thing is, the magnetic field filters out a lot of radiation (radiation is needed to make C-14). So, if the magnetic field was 320% stronger 4500 years ago, then it would've reflected most of the radiation, and therefore there would have been less C-14 in the atmosphere in ancient times--thus the C-14 in the atmosphere was at an un-measurable increase. Therefore, we cannot accurately Carbon-date ANYTHING because that would be assuming that the magnetic field was ALWAYS at the same strength it is today. For an example of wacky carbon dating rates:
The vollosovich mammoth was carbon-dated at 29000 years old, and the the SAME mammoth was carbon-dated at 44000 years old! Living Seals were carbon-dated as having died 1400 years ago! The shell of a living clam was carbon-dated as having died thousands of years ago! Trust me, if somebody comes up to you and says, "carbon dating proves the earth is millions of years old" they DO NOT know what they're talking about.

As the magnetic field shrinks, the amount of C-14 in the atmosphere increases, so C-14 dating doesnt work like scientists think...
I'd say your the ignorant one

Evolutionist 1 Fluctuations of C14 concentrations as a result of solar flux are known periods and accounted for in all carbon dating calculations.

Me Ha they don't know the fluctuations as they weren't there.. They guess. That's why 10 years ago the world was millions almost billions of years younger. Because they don't have a clue.
They make it older and older as they find new stuff out because it doesn't fit their previous made up time line. So they add a couple hundred million years here and there.

Evolutionist 1 Ah, but you see, that is the beauty of science. If something appears to contradict known science it is tested until it is disproven as inaccurate measurement or accepted as the new reality.

If they just sat there stamping their feet going "NYO, WE WANT TO THINK THIS!" it wouldn't be called science, it'd be called religion.

Me But they do say THINK THIS! They teach 4.6 billion year old earth as a fact in schools. It's not a fact.. You'll see it change in a few years. There's wayyyyy too many holes in the evolution theory I'd be willing to debate you on. Fb message would be better so we don't annoy rob.
www.youtube.com...
www.squidoo.com...

Evolutionist 1 I'd rather teach a fallacy that is thought to be truth after the most rigorous tests we could possibly give it with our resources than teach a "fact" that relies on nothing but so-called "faith".

The Bible was written to explain using the supernatural what we are now able to prove with the empirical.

Me You have faith scientists got it right..

Evolutionist 2 Scientists won't just say "hey, this is something" they have usually one or a bunch of pieces of paper backing up their claim.

Me Yes they do and I believe science is an incredible tool. I just disagree when they make assumptions and guess. Yes they do guess. Not everything they put out is as empirical as they want you to believe. But since its your religion you eat it up without looking into the flaws which are ample.

Evolutionist 1 Um, yes, all science is based on empirical evidence. If something cannot be directly observed to do something, evidence is gathered until there is certainty that the model behaves according to the hypothesis given the current knowledge. If I have my doubts about something I can go look at hard evidence and models and see the data myself.

Me You have no hard evidence for the Big Bang. The religion of science says gravity is a theory the same way the Big Bang is. Oh really? I can demonstrate gravity 100000 times in front of you. Please demonstrate the Big Bang. And if you gonna say science has recreated it, look into the flaws. First off they say Big Bang is nothing to something, but science is starting off with a collider that's been created from something. And they are shooting electrons at each other which are already there. You can't use stuff to recreate us coming from nothing. No matter where u look there is something.

Evolutionist 1 You don't know what a "theory" is in science parlance, obviously. And the Big Bang is not "something from nothing", it's the forceful expansion of what was once an infinitely dense singularity, which is why they're testing it by trying to create singularities.

Evolutionist 2 the way the word theory is used in "theory of gravity" and "Theory of the big bang" is different. Also using the gravitational constant, all mass in the universe is connected to eachother gravitationally. You know when you throw a ball into the air and it eventually slows down and stops on the way up, then comes back down? Think of that for the universe. Eventually it'll stop expanding and "come back down", now if you calculate that happens, or just hit rewind everything comes from one point

Me Ok I got you guys right where I want you. Your the first evolutionists Ive argued to take this stance. So you say there was infinitely dense singular spec. You call it spec I call it god. No matter what way you slice it you come back to a thing that has no reason for being there except that it is. Why would that thing be able to start all this an now where using our minds to debate it?
Go roll some dice and tell me when they turn into a banana that's basically your belief system
No scientific logical explanation to weasel yourself out of that statement?

Evolutionist 2 dice don't turn into bananas.

Me Epitome of an evolutionist right there
How do u live like that

Evolutionist 2 Every time I roll the dice, they remain dice. This isn't a mystery. But I'm not gonna GIVE it a mystery.


Evolutionist 1 Who knows where the singularity came from? Nobody does yet. Let's find out.
That's the key difference between what we advocate and what you advocate.
"Why does this happen? I don't know. Let's find out."
"Why does this happen? God did it. Let's go beat rocks together for the rest of eternity."

Me But listen. Science can't figure that out because its supernatural. They are stuck in there mind set of empirical evidence but the start to this universe is not empirical.. It's supernatural
You'll be waiting all your life and wasting your faith in your science buddies to answer that one for you

Evolutionist 2 it's not supernatual. you're giving it something before you know what it is.
the point is of TRYING to figure it out

Me Haha the point is "I want to live my life the way I want without thinking about what happens after I die" it's the easy way out.
Why is there good and evil? Why do we dream? Why is the world fine tuned to life? Just by CHANCE!? And you think I'm crazy..

Evolutionist 2 well i want to be buried in the ground so the flora and fauna can enjoy nature the way i have

Me These questions and more are all answered by the belief in god. Science runs as far away from those questions.

Evolutionist 2 there's a minimum of 400 "neighbouring" planets in our galaxy alone that we know have that are in the habitable zone capable of sustaining life. The mere discovery of this water in ontario can help research this stuff so, so much.

Me The bible doesn't say there isn't other life.. It Actually says there is.

Evolutionist 2 you're the first person of faith to ever say that. like in my life

Me Because Christians aren't educated. Neither are evolutionists

Evolutionist 2 i can think of many high profile evolutionists that are educated

Me Haha same with cristians man. 2 out of 5 scientists believe in god. Heck Darwin even did. Darwin said that something gave the breath of life in the very beginning. Read genisis 2:7. The scientific explanation of the origin of life lines up with the biblical account of genisis. All they try and do is remove god.
Evolutionist 2 why is it a ratio of 2:7?

Evolutionist 1 So we should just give up and settle on the easy answer of "God" instead of striving towards actual knowledge, then. That's a depressingly bleak outlook on things.

This entire discussion you've demonstrated a fundamental ignorance of the scientific method, how it operates and what it strives to achieve yet you claim it's flawed with nothing behind your claim except more ignorance. Maybe eventually you'll realise why you're an extreme minority even among Christians.

Me Ha I can show you many examples of there flaws. I'm at work, just wait til I get to my comp. Also god isn't the easy answer. It's harder. You got people like you guys to try and set straight. It's the hardest side to take. Doesn't mean it's not the truth.

Evolutionist 1 I stopped reading the squidoo link at "Evolution: A theory without evidence" because we have literally volumes and volumes and libraries of evidence of evolution. We have an entire industry based on evolution: Agriculture. 99.999999% of agriculture is selective evolution.

Evolutionist 2 yeah kind of scoffed at that one

Me See there's the problem with you people. "We have lots of books and charts so its right"
Read closer to the bottom that's where it gets good. Also I read all the evolution stuff so I have a good basis of both sides. You seem to ignorant to your one mind set. Not gonna get anywhere with that.

Evolutionist 1 I grew up as a creationist and attended a Catholic school where evolution was deliberately cut out of our biology class. I know firsthand the creationist mindset and it's wrong.

Me The catholic mind set is wrong. It's not even christian as far as I'm concerned. That could be your problem?
Here's a really really well done debate in which science "wins" but listening to the arguments I would disagree. I urge you to watch. My make you think a bit. m.fora.tv...

Evolutionist 1 Alright, now I'M on my computer. engage hard mode.

"Why is there good and evil? Why do we dream? Why is the world fine tuned to life? Just by CHANCE!? And you think I'm crazy.."

Yes, by chance. I can say this because our universe's breadth and span are so incomprehensibly vast that anything with a non-zero probability is essentially a certainty. It's calculated that we had about a 1 in 13 billion chance of everything on Earth turning out the way they have for us, which seems like an impossibly far shot until you consider that the universe has 10^30 chances to get that right. That's 1000000000000000000000000000000. And possibly many, many more beyond the scope of what we can observe with current technology.

So no, science doesn't run away from these questions. As a matter of fact, those are some of the essential fundamentals to some disciplines of science.

"See there's the problem with you people. "We have lots of books and charts so its right""

Yes. See, that's how it works. If it's in books and charts that means it's been tested and tested and tested and tested and tested again until it's been decided that as of this very moment there is no better theory than the tested hypothesis, at which point it becomes the accepted explanation. Should there be a massive breakthrough in the science, the hypothesis will be tested again and if it doesn't hold up in light of the new development, it is discarded and we formulate a new hypothesis taking the new knowledge into account, and it is tested and tested and tested and tested and tested and tested again until it's been decided that as of this very moment there is no better theory than the tested hypothesis, at which point it becomes the new accepted explanation.

Seems like a much better vetting process than just writing it off to God.

Me Lololol where do you get the 10^30??? How do you calculate that? The probability of an enzyme coming together by chance is 10^40000.. That's just a building block of human life. When you walk past a McDonald's wrapper with writing on it you don't think it came by chance. You think there was a mind behind it. DNA is a computer program. How the # would that just appear. There is no way in hell you can calculate the probability because its zero.
Science and their theories are trying to force everything they see into their mind set. That's why we get books and books of assumptions. It doesn't mean it's all fact.Science and their theories are trying to force everything they see into their mind set. That's why we get books and books of assumptions. It doesn't mean it's all fact. And you didn't answer good and evil. Also what happens after life? If nothing why are we alive
Here's a couple questions. Why if the world is billions of years we don't have a single tree to disprove the bibles timeline? Why not one 10000 year old tree? Also why do we have fish fossils on mountains? Science says it was because after millions of years the mountains formed. But science also says the tops of mountains wipe away a couple metres each year. Which would destroy the fossil record after not even a million years.
Also the moon is slowly moving away from earth. Even a couple million years ago it would be touch earth...
Why don't we have any fossils showing transition Between species. All we have is species fully developed. I have many many more just start with those\
According to the fossil record flowers came before bees.. Explain that

Evolutionist 1 The chance of an enzyme coming together by chance is not 10^4000. We have already conducted experiments where we've created proto-life using nothing but chemical reactions from conditions akin to those on Earth around the time we theorise life to have come about. So the answer there is clear, that, given the conditions of early Earth, that yes, essentially random chemical reactions can cause life to come into being. Really, all we are is incredibly complex chemical reactions. Your very thoughts are chemical reactions between your brain cells.

And the answer to the question of good and evil is similarly simple: We're animals. We have animalistic urges. But we also have an advanced capacity for empathy due to the societal structure we've created for ourselves. So we view animalistic acts that go against our empathy and society as "evil". That's more a philosophical question anyway, that's not for science.

"Why if the world is billions of years we don't have a single tree to disprove the bibles timeline?"

Because trees are organisms. They're living things. They degrade with age just like us and die when they cannot keep up their living processes. Obviously there were no trees born 10,000 years ago that had the ability to live for 10,000 years. We're getting close, though, there have been trees measured up to 5000 years old.

"Also why do we have fish fossils on mountains? Science says it was because after millions of years the mountains formed. But science also says the tops of mountains wipe away a couple metres each year. Which would destroy the fossil record after not even a million years."

I asked a friend of mine who is a geologist if mountains "get shorter" by a couple of meters each year. Here is his answer in full:
"Nope, that rate of erosion is almost unheard of. Some mountains decrease in size, depends on what sort of situation you're looking at. In areas of active orogenesis (Andes and Himalayans), they're growing relative to sea level. In older mountain belts, some erosion occurs but then you also have isostatic rebound when you remove the mass off of the top. There are a ton of depositional basins where there are huge sedimentary packages, like the Williston basin in North Dakota. Every major period of time is found there."

So your question is fallicious right off the bat because science DOESN'T say that mountains get shorter at that rate.

"Also the moon is slowly moving away from earth. Even a couple million years ago it would be touch earth..."

The Moon is currently an average of 375,000 kilometers from earth. I say an average because it's 350,000 km away at its closest point and 410,000 km away at its furthest point. It's receding from the Earth at a rate of 4 cm a year. The current understanding is that this rate is much higher than it has been in the past and it is believed to be a result of the Moon moving slightly out of sync with the Earth's tidal motions and experiencing increased "drag" in its orbit as a result.

"Why don't we have any fossils showing transition Between species. All we have is species fully developed."

That's because there's no such thing as "transition" in evolution. Everything is already fully developed, it's just advancing more and more.

"According to the fossil record flowers came before bees.. Explain that"

Nope, as a matter of fact current science thinks the exact opposite.
www.nytimes.com...

Me I can't wait to reply to this one when I get home. Give me an hr. your doing good tho ill give you that. I know for a fact some of the above statements are false tho. Starting with the calculations we apparently did with chemicals to find out the probability. To conduct those experiments your starting with chemicals. To accurately do this you can't start with chemicals you would need to recreate them.
They can't come from nothing. And as you say they didn't. They came from this infinite spec(god)

Evolutionist 1 The chemicals weren't created on earth. They were already present in the stellar nebula from which the Sun and the solar system formed. Recreating the chemicals from scratch is wholly unnecessary.

Me Your missing the point. The stellar nebula can't just be. If it is then that's your god right there. Something had to be infinite. Either something was infinite with a mind to create this place as fine tuned as it is with DNA ect. Or it was something that doesn't have a mind and just is(which doesn't seem empirical to me). Then you look at the beauty of this place. Why would it be beautiful.
Then you look at things such as morals. What are morals? Just chemical reactions? Why? Why do we have a conscience?
Putting this stuff to chance is silly and then thinking you can put a number on the probability is even sillier

Evolutionist 1 "Your missing the point. The stellar nebula can't just be. If it is then that's your god right there."

You're applying God to the gaps again. Just because we can't currently deduce where the singularity behind the Big Bang came from doesn't mean we just give up and write it off to God.

"Something had to be infinite. Either something was infinite with a mind to create this place as fine tuned as it is with DNA ect. Or it was something that doesn't have a mind and just is(which doesn't seem empirical to me). Then you look at the beauty of this place. Why would it be beautiful."

What if you're applying the reasoning the wrong way? What if everything is the way it is simply because that's the way it works? Obviously, if our circumstances weren't viable, we wouldn't be here. You can't say "the circumstances are perfect for it, it must have specifically been created this way", no we're the way we are because we work perfectly in these circumstances. Carbon isn't one of the most plentiful yet chemically reactive of the heavy substances because we're made out of it, we're made out of it because it's one of the most plentiful yet chemically reactive substances.

"Then you look at things such as morals. What are morals? Just chemical reactions? Why? Why do we have a conscience?"

Again, philosophy, not science. We evolved to have thoughts. Why we form certain chains of thoughts is an entirely different branch of thinking altogether.

"Putting this stuff to chance is silly and then thinking you can put a number on the probability is even sillier"

Says the guy who put a number of the probability with 10^4000, which, by the way, is actually a known fallacy in evolutionary science and is disproven, as seen here: en.wikipedia.org...'s_fallacy

Me "You're applying God to the gaps again. Just because we can't currently deduce where the singularity behind the Big Bang came from doesn't mean we just give up and write it off to God."

Yes I can, by definition God is "the Supreme Being, understood as Life, Truth, love, Mind, Soul, Spirit, Principle." So if science cant explain the very most important question of this argument which is where did life start. Does it not make logical sense to say its God by definition. "understood as life". The starting point is the most important of it all because past that we get all these different theories. Science has no answer and will never have that answer until they die. If science has gaps as you say, could it not be possible that what fits perfectly in that gap is God? just a thought

Me Evolution Is Not Happening Now

First of all, the lack of a case for evolution is clear from the fact that no one has ever seen it happen. If it were a real process, evolution should still be occurring, and there should be many "transitional" forms that we could observe. What we see instead, of course, is an array of distinct "kinds" of plants and animals with many varieties within each kind, but with very clear and -- apparently -- unbridgeable gaps between the kinds. That is, for example, there are many varieties of dogs and many varieties of cats, but no "dats" or "cogs." Such variation is often called microevolution, and these minor horizontal (or downward) changes occur fairly often, but such changes are not true "vertical" evolution.

Evolution Never Happened in the Past
Evolutionists commonly answer the above criticism by claiming that evolution goes too slowly for us to see it happening today. They used to claim that the real evidence for evolution was in the fossil record of the past, but the fact is that the billions of known fossils do not include a single unequivocal transitional form with transitional structures in the process of evolving.

Given that evolution, according to Darwin, was in a continual state of motion . . . it followed logically that the fossil record should be rife with examples of transitional forms leading from the less to the more evolved.

Evolution Could Never Happen at All
The main scientific reason why there is no evidence for evolution in either the present or the past (except in the creative imagination of evolutionary scientists) is because one of the most fundamental laws of nature precludes it. The law of increasing entropy -- also known as the second law of thermodynamics -- stipulates that all systems in the real world tend to go "downhill," as it were, toward disorganization and decreased complexity.

This law of entropy is, by any measure, one of the most universal, bestproved laws of nature. It applies not only in physical and chemical systems, but also in biological and geological systems -- in fact, in all systems, without exception.


Evolution is Religion -- Not Science
In no way does the idea of particles-to-people evolution meet the long-accepted criteria of a scientific theory. There are no such evolutionary transitions that have ever been observed in the fossil record of the past; and the universal law of entropy seems to make it impossible on any significant scale.

Evolutionists claim that evolution is a scientific fact, but they almost always lose scientific debates with creationist scientists. Accordingly, most evolutionists now decline opportunities for scientific debates, preferring instead to make unilateral attacks on creationists.
Since both naturalism and humanism exclude God from science or any other active function in the creation or maintenance of life and the universe in general, it is very obvious that their position is nothing but atheism. And atheism, no less than theism, is a religion! Even doctrinaire-atheistic evolutionist Richard Dawkins admits that atheism cannot be proved to be true.
Therefore, they must believe it, and that makes it a religion.

also everywhere i look for the probability of the big bang there are different numbers. How do you honestly think there is a number on that??? its not something you put to chance. Either its gonna happen or it isn't. Cause and effect. Primordial soup doesn't just decide to create a human with the ability to love, rationalize, feel etc. That comes from intelligence. The only way evolutionists can come over this hurdle is by putting a ridiculous amount of time on it. The amount of time makes no difference. Its either gonna happen or not.

"Yes. See, that's how it works. If it's in books and charts that means it's been tested and tested and tested and tested and tested again until it's been decided that as of this very moment there is no better theory than the tested hypothesis, at which point it becomes the accepted explanation. Should there be a massive breakthrough in the science, the hypothesis will be tested again and if it doesn't hold up in light of the new development, it is discarded and we formulate a new hypothesis taking the new knowledge into account, and it is tested and tested and tested and tested and tested and tested again until it's been decided that as of this very moment there is no better theory than the tested hypothesis, at which point it becomes the new accepted explanation."

www.loveinfographics.com...

There is a scientific chart. Do you really believe thats been tested and tested again. If so we got some more debating to do


"That's because there's no such thing as "transition" in evolution. Everything is already fully developed, it's just advancing more and more."
Most evolutionists dont take this stance, please elaborate. How could they be fully developed if we came from apes?


"Nope, as a matter of fact current science thinks the exact opposite.
www.nytimes.com..."

You see what i mean they change their answer. They realized oh # Darwin was wrong about that, lets just tidy this up and hope no one notices. If they were wrong about that, how can you take anything they say to be fact? the facts are constantly changing. Then you come to the most important question of all(What is the infinitly dense particle that started this all) and they cant answer it! maybe there is something worth looking into about this god, spec, big bang, gap(as youve so described). Whatever name you wanna put on it go for it, but dont act like its not the elephant in the room.


if you believe theres good, (which by your above response im assuming you do) then you believe in evil because you cant have one without the other as evil is the absence of good and good is the absence of evil. If you believe in good/evil you must believe in moral law which is being able to differentiate good from evil. If you believe theres a moral law then there must be a moral law giver, no? Unless you can make yourself believe that this came from a primordial soup and chance, how can you rationalize this? because good and evil is what runs our society. You dont go a day without experiencing this phenomena.

Without God there is no moral framework, there is no ultimate meaning, there is no hope. If you reject God and turn out to be wrong, that was a huge gamble in life. If you believe in him and are wrong, nothing doesn't want to be something. Meaning if nothing happens it wont matter because nothing happens.

Pascal made this wager to his non believing friends, saying what is your measure of happiness? He said "I'm happy! If i die i die" but he said "If you boys are wrong, youve got a king size headache coming for rejecting the one who created you."

If the idea of a god is still a probability like weve established(the gap) why would you choose the side that says nothing happens. Statistically people that believe in a God live longer. Because they have hope. Even if it turns out to just be your mind that allows this to happen so what. Your on the right side if everyone else is wrong(which looking into it leads me to believe they are)

Evolutionist 2 Without god good people will do good things. Without god bad people will do bad things. With god good people will do bad things.


Me what people do with religion cant be used as an argument against religion. The Roman Catholic church has murdered more people than any other organization ever period. This doesn't mean religion it self is incorrect. It means man has taken it and used it as a control of the masses. This is caused by sin.
With the knowledge of good and evil came the fall of man. This very thing is what fuels everything in our society. We were given free will as we still have today to make choices. We can use that free will for good or for evil, do you not see that?




posted on May, 19 2013 @ 10:04 PM
link   
reply to post by ICanHearTheTrumpets
 



It is really like asking , . "Which Came First, the Chicken Or The Egg?".

I think in this case you can't have one without the other.

There is Scientific PROOF that Genes Mutate which are basically Mutating to Adapt and Overcome their Environment.

And, .. Until we Actually Learn that we were CREATED by Aliens in Their Image we have NO REAL PROOF of Creationism.



posted on May, 19 2013 @ 10:09 PM
link   
You said that the Roman Catholic Church has murdered more people than any other organization.

The Holocaust that the Nazi's perpetrated and the Purges of Stalin both killed MANY times more than ALL previous religious wars and oppressions.

Although the Roman Catholic Church does have blood on its hands, it is less culpable than many other groups.

(eg: when primitive cultures are overrun by superior weapons, drugs and alcohol, sexually transmitted diseases and slavery, why do anthropologists blame the priests and not the drug runners, slavers, weapons dealers and rapists? Perhaps the anthropologists themselves have a vested interest in denigrating religion.)

The majority of wars and killings through history have been perpetrated by secular groups and for secular reasons.

Please study a little history.

Please don't think that by this I am supporting Evolution as the primary source of biological diversity. There are significant logical problems that would indicate that Modern Evolutionary Theory is inadequate to explain speciation and genetic diversity in light of what we know of genetics, mutation rates, statistics and the overall stability of the environmental conditions of the Earth.

edit on 19/5/2013 by chr0naut because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 19 2013 @ 10:17 PM
link   
Basically your argument is that a sun god did it.

Me: He/She/It/3.14 didn't.

No need for a debate.

You bring any concrete proof to the table without invoking the supernatural.
Oh, it just got all hard, didn't it?

Perhaps you want to sow a seed of doubt. Fair enough. We'll re-analyse the data.
Will you re-analyse the Bible?

Or are you trying to correlate Biblical stories to actual history?
Bless.



posted on May, 19 2013 @ 10:17 PM
link   
reply to post by ICanHearTheTrumpets


The earth is covered in a magnetic field, which is STEADILY losing its strength by 1/2 every 1400 years. There are no magnetic reversals--there are only areas of stronger and weaker magnetism. So, if there are no reversals, then we know that the magnetic field has been shrinking at a measurably-stable rate. So, by the half-life of the magnetic field, the magnetic field would have been 320% stronger around 4500 years ago. But the thing is, the magnetic field filters out a lot of radiation (radiation is needed to make C-14). So, if the magnetic field was 320% stronger 4500 years ago, then it would've reflected most of the radiation, and therefore there would have been less C-14 in the atmosphere in ancient times--thus the C-14 in the atmosphere was at an un-measurable increase.

 


When making scientific claims like this, it's proper, and customary, to provide sources.




But they do say THINK THIS! They teach 4.6 billion year old earth as a fact in schools. It's not a fact..


It's a fact based on the related data from the measures or means of acquiring the data. Scientific theory sometimes changes in minor ways, a small change to data is only making something more accurate, it is not throwing out the idea in its entirety. Not only that, but you don't have to go around "believing" in everything.

Science is about understanding. The more accurate our science, the more accurate our understanding. It's not a belief system though. You can simply interpret data and say, "Oh okay, this is the most logical conclusion here."




You have faith scientists got it right..


Science is not about faith. You are misrepresenting the argument here. And you are taking great luxuries by saying Science is "wrong". If you calculate that a planet orbits a star at 1004.345 times the speed our planet orbits are sun, (as a comparative study) but then, through better data interpretation, 50 years later find out its actually 1004.773344444444.... times, and there was a margin of error, that does not mean the first calculation was "wrong" in a black and white sense.





You have no hard evidence for the Big Bang. The religion of science says gravity is a theory the same way the Big Bang is. Oh really? I can demonstrate gravity 100000 times in front of you. Please demonstrate the Big Bang. And if you gonna say science has recreated it, look into the flaws. First off they say Big Bang is nothing to something, but science is starting off with a collider that's been created from something. And they are shooting electrons at each other which are already there. You can't use stuff to recreate us coming from nothing. No matter where u look there is something.





This one could take a long time to explain to you, because it seems you are really lost with astrophysics in general. There is empirical evidence but I am assuming now you do not know what the word means.


Empirical evidence (also empirical data, sense experience, empirical knowledge, or the a posteriori) is a source of knowledge acquired by means of observation or experimentation.[1]


You will see below, the only assumption being made is that physics is fluid throughout the universe. Because we can't travel light-speeds, or cross to another galaxy or the universe itself, we rely on data coming in from those places and that's it. We assume physics is the same in other galaxies as it is here. That does not seem like such a crazy "assumption" to me.



There are two assumptions required to construct the Big Bang. There is empirical evidence for both of these assumptions, and are considered to be reasonable, defensible statements rather than postulates.
The laws of physics are the same everywhere in the universe, and are the same throughout the history of the universe.
On a sufficiently large scale, the universe is homogeneous and isotropic.
The first assumption is straightforward, because a.) There is no evidence to the contrary and b.) Without it you might as well give up on doing any astronomy, astrophysics, or cosmology at all, since if physical laws in the Andromeda galaxy are somehow different from where we live, but the differences are so subtle that we can't detect any from where we are -- well, it's pretty hard to go there and measure them. This assumption is necessary because when talking about how things interact on galactic, much less universal, scales, we need to use general relativity. It's much better if general relativity applies to other galaxies in the same way that it applies to ours.
The second assumption is known as the cosmological principle and has strong empirical support.[6] It's essentially a stronger version of the Copernican principle, which says that the Earth has no special place in the cosmos.



posted on May, 19 2013 @ 10:18 PM
link   
reply to post by boncho
 


To source my first post. en.wikipedia.org...

Big bang: rationalwiki.org...

I wanted to finish another thought there was well. The observable evidence we see in the sky comes in the form of radiation. Scientists base the age of our observable universe based on the rate the radiation travels and that it shows certain things, like expanding and contracting.

In fact, all the radiation whizzing by tells us a multitude of things, and lets us see into other parts of the universe, see other galaxies, celestial bodies, etc.

But according to you, this is what, all made up?
edit on 19-5-2013 by boncho because: (no reason given)





If it is then that's your god right there. Something had to be infinite. Either something was infinite with a mind to create this place as fine tuned as it is with DNA ect. Or it was something that doesn't have a mind and just is(which doesn't seem empirical to me).


Well, good thing I defined earlier what "empirical" means because it seems you don't know the meaning of the word. Empirical means tested through experimentation or observation.

So if there is a god it's empirical, but if not it isn't. Is essentially what you said in this part I quoted you here on? That's what I'm getting from it.
In which case, I believe you have gotten it backwards.




Then you look at the beauty of this place. Why would it be beautiful.
Then you look at things such as morals. What are morals? Just chemical reactions? Why? Why do we have a conscience?


Well, animals, mammals, the whole lot, have instincts that yes, are from chemicals, developed to help them survive. There are plants that release chemicals which are abrasive to their natural predators. There are animals that release/spray chemicals to entice other members of their species to mate with them. Obviously the opposite sex, because the same sex wont reproduce anything!

That's not to say they don't have homosexual relationships to activate the "fun" centre in their brain, but the evolutionary centre, that signals them to do things that will carry on their lives, that's from the genetic makeup, chemicals and all that, which encourages them to breed.

You claim people have a conscience?
That's laughable, at the actual definition of the word. Or if you actually apply it to the actions of the people wielding the very noble notion of such a thing.

*Humans have shown over the course of their evolution they have very little, actual moral centre or conscience that carries over to their actions. This is demonstrated by the actions and histories of our species. We like to think we are so far advanced compared to animals, yet we act in abhorrent ways since the dawn of our time.

Note: The last paragraph which I marked with a star, is a personal opinion, and I'm not sure if it's supported by scientific data.

In any case, I will continue my opinion about the matter. Yes, we have chemicals in our brain, which you call a moral centre or conscience. This guarantees the likelihood of our species not killing itself off. It makes total sense being part of an evolutionary anomaly which came about to protect the species.

Think about it, imagine a world full of people like Hitler. Or the embodiment of him in our common history or popular culture. Personally, I never knew the man so I can't say I know exactly what he was thinking, or how much was entirely by his direction, or if much was done by people in his inner circle.

In any point, imagine, a world full of Alpha males simply seeking to kill off all the competition.

That's why you have a moral centre and "conscience". Clearly, history shows are actual "conscience" is not nearly as strong as we claim it to be. See this when you see priests diddling kids, family members killing their own off from competition... War, the double standard of locking people up for victimless crimes at home while waging mass murder over seas, or the very act of using god and a supposed religion to claim moral indignation or supremacy over another individual... etc
edit on 19-5-2013 by boncho because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 19 2013 @ 10:18 PM
link   

The Holocaust that the Nazi's perpetrated and the Purges of Stalin both killed MANY times more than ALL previous religious wars and oppressions.




"killed MANY times more" - what?!?! sooo how many more is MANY more? Please bring real information.



posted on May, 19 2013 @ 10:22 PM
link   
reply to post by ICanHearTheTrumpets
 

Not taking sides, but IMO science is proven, religion is possibly real to an extent, such as the people and god were probably real, but they aren't still alive and watching us. religion came before government, and it has stuck. Regardless, can't say evolution isn't real.

I honestly do not care, I'm not religious, or atheist, it doesn't effect my daily life.



posted on May, 19 2013 @ 10:22 PM
link   
reply to post by chr0naut
 


"There's more time between Gobekli Tepe and the Sumerian clay tablets [etched in 3300 B.C.] than from Sumer to today,"

Read more: www.smithsonianmag.com...
Follow us: @SmithsonianMag on Twitter

- so 6,000 yrs of unrecorded human history - do you presume to know the reasons for their wars???



posted on May, 19 2013 @ 10:25 PM
link   
What's to debate?
We are experiencing both creation and evolution.



posted on May, 19 2013 @ 10:26 PM
link   
I like your argument but I dont agree on all points. Still, S&F for your having me interested in reading the whole post.

Where you messed up with me is... You contridicted yourself when you started bashing another religion because you were doing exactly what you claimed scientist/athiest were doing.

Still, I'll agree on most points as I ask the same questions when refering to evolution/science vs creationism/religion.



posted on May, 19 2013 @ 10:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by mazeofSiriusC

The Holocaust that the Nazi's perpetrated and the Purges of Stalin both killed MANY times more than ALL previous religious wars and oppressions.




"killed MANY times more" - what?!?! sooo how many more is MANY more? Please bring real information.



Varies by conflict/anthropogenic disaster.

Wikipedia - List of wars and anthropogenic disasters by death toll

You can also look at other reasons for death and see that disease far outweighs everything else.

So far, life seems 100% fatal, regardless of beliefs or behavior.


edit on 19/5/2013 by chr0naut because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 19 2013 @ 10:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by mazeofSiriusC
reply to post by chr0naut
 


"There's more time between Gobekli Tepe and the Sumerian clay tablets [etched in 3300 B.C.] than from Sumer to today,"

Read more: www.smithsonianmag.com...
Follow us: @SmithsonianMag on Twitter

- so 6,000 yrs of unrecorded human history - do you presume to know the reasons for their wars???


Based upon what humans do when we have been recording it, I'd assume Modus Operandi for the "dark times".



posted on May, 19 2013 @ 10:37 PM
link   
I believe in creation although I don't have any absolute proof. I don't want to get into any arguments with anyone about it anyway. But here are my thoughts on it.

There are billions of people in the world. None of them have the same DNA...none of them have the same fingerprints...everyone has their own unique look and personality. Can that be said for any other living creature out there? The answer to that is no. We have been created by a great and wonderful God whether we want to believe it or not.

If you disagree with me...that's fine. But you won't draw me into any debates or arguments about it.



posted on May, 19 2013 @ 10:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by kijne
I believe in creation although I don't have any absolute proof. I don't want to get into any arguments with anyone about it anyway. But here are my thoughts on it.

There are billions of people in the world. None of them have the same DNA...none of them have the same fingerprints...everyone has their own unique look and personality. Can that be said for any other living creature out there? The answer to that is no. We have been created by a great and wonderful God whether we want to believe it or not.

If you disagree with me...that's fine. But you won't draw me into any debates or arguments about it.


We have the same DNA mechanism as all other life on this planet (that we have seen). Genetic variation is not a human only trait. All life has different DNA and it may be that there are several different DNA sequences in a single organism.



posted on May, 19 2013 @ 10:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by kijne
I believe in creation although I don't have any absolute proof. I don't want to get into any arguments with anyone about it anyway. But here are my thoughts on it.

There are billions of people in the world. None of them have the same DNA...none of them have the same fingerprints...everyone has their own unique look and personality. Can that be said for any other living creature out there? The answer to that is no. We have been created by a great and wonderful God whether we want to believe it or not.

If you disagree with me...that's fine. But you won't draw me into any debates or arguments about it.


Okay, I disagree. You say that we have been created by a "great and wonderful god"...and all you have is belief? No proof, or rationale to back it up?
You probably don't 'believe' in Mitochondrial DNA lineage either.
But you believe in a sun god who is all wonderful...
This is why you don't want a debate, isn't it?

You believe it, and that's all there is to it.

Is your Jesus blond and tall?
I bet he is.
edit on 19-5-2013 by Badgered1 because: spelling



posted on May, 19 2013 @ 10:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by SixX18
reply to post by ICanHearTheTrumpets
 

Not taking sides, but IMO science is proven, religion is possibly real to an extent, such as the people and god were probably real, but they aren't still alive and watching us. religion came before government, and it has stuck. Regardless, can't say evolution isn't real.

I honestly do not care, I'm not religious, or atheist, it doesn't effect my daily life.


No I'm pretty sure government came before religion as any structured social system has a governing mechanism. Superstition happened after people got together.



posted on May, 19 2013 @ 10:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by Badgered1

Originally posted by kijne
I believe in creation although I don't have any absolute proof. I don't want to get into any arguments with anyone about it anyway. But here are my thoughts on it.

There are billions of people in the world. None of them have the same DNA...none of them have the same fingerprints...everyone has their own unique look and personality. Can that be said for any other living creature out there? The answer to that is no. We have been created by a great and wonderful God whether we want to believe it or not.

If you disagree with me...that's fine. But you won't draw me into any debates or arguments about it.


Okay, I disagree. You say that we have been created by a "great and wonderful god"...and all you have is belief? No proof, or rationale to back it up?
You probably don't 'believe' in Mitochondrial DNA lineage either.
But you believe in a sun god who is all wonderful...
This is why you don't want a debate, isn't it?

You believe it, and that's all there is to it.

Is your Jesus blond and tall?
I bet he is.
edit on 19-5-2013 by Badgered1 because: spelling


If you disagree with me...that's fine. But you won't draw me into any debates or arguments about it. Have a nice night...



posted on May, 19 2013 @ 11:00 PM
link   
reply to post by ICanHearTheTrumpets


Here's a couple questions. Why if the world is billions of years we don't have a single tree to disprove the bibles timeline? Why not one 10000 year old tree?

 


I though the bible said everything is 6000 years old? Way to move goal posts creationists.


Old Tjikko is a 9,550 year old Norway Spruce tree, located on Fulufjället Mountain of Dalarna province in Sweden. Old Tjikko is the world's oldest known living individual clonal tree


Well, shucks, 50 years from now your whole belief system will be shattered, no wait...


However, there are many examples of much older clonal colonies (multiple trees connected by a common root system), such as "Pando", estimated to be over 80,000 years old.


en.wikipedia.org...




The reason I find your rhetoric such a waste of air, or in this case, typing. Think about it, the so called "proof" you are laying out for god... 'Well jeez, there's no 10,000 year old trees, or dinosaurs in my backyard, or bla bla bla'

Well, here's the thing. You take any of those, and show you the opposite. You still wouldn't concede your argument. Your argument is a bunch of polarized rhetoric, it's not scientific, you are lacking scientific understanding, and you do a terrible job trying to "debunk" science.

Your argument is null & void simply because of it's premise.

"If X is false it proves God exists and science is wrong."

Oh, by the way, X is correct, so that means you're wrong? Science is correct?

"No, cause that doesn't mean anything, now here, look at Y. Y shows you I'm right."



posted on May, 19 2013 @ 11:04 PM
link   
Have you Ever heard of the Petrified Forest . .. . ?

Or . . .. . .

Fossils .. .. . ?





new topics

top topics



 
5
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join