It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

DEBATE Evolution vs Creation. Come on in!

page: 14
5
<< 11  12  13    15 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 27 2013 @ 01:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by TobinHatcher
[font=Times New Roman]I'm a Christian, a Lutheran if we're being specific. I believe in God. I got to church when I can. I see people spouting against evolution, and people against a higher power, or a god. Like that little taco girl, why not both? I'm not sure if this has been mentioned yet, I'm sure it has, I tried to read all the comments, but I didn't see it, the Clockwork God. I believe that Earth, and other planets holding intelligent life (that's a whole different discussion) were created. I don't think it happened two thousand years ago. That's ridiculous. Why couldn't a god create a world, a blue print, and then spark life, and see what happens? I do not see why Christians, or any religion, out right defies science, seeing as it is science. Fact. I cannot prove to you that my god exists. I can't do it. But I can show you an atom. I can show you your brain. I can show you clear lines from the Chicken in your fridge to the Archaeopteryx under your feet (please, correct me if I'm wrong with that). I see no reason that religion and science can't walk hand in hand. If you believe a god created the world, why denounce the laws that that god set forth?


Agreed completely. Evolution vs creation is a complete farce. It could very easily be both. They aren't mutually exclusive, but it seems many put the 2 against each other, when there's no actual debate. They refer to completely separate concepts.
edit on 27-6-2013 by Barcs because: (no reason given)




posted on Jun, 27 2013 @ 05:05 PM
link   
reply to post by supergravity
 


finally got link function working, have not had much time to explore the functions of this site.

No, you're still failing to cite your sources properly.


No the article is not from the 90s it is from 2010 ,stanford university.

See the part about carbon dating MAY NOT BE A CONSTANT.... there are no constants ,many catastrophic events have occurred that can affect every process on earth, neutrinos , alpha waves, supernovae , and many more.

I'm going to ask a question that I think I already know the answer to, but feel compelled to ask anyway -- have you actually read any of the work authored by Fischbach et al regarding fluctuations in decay rates? If you had, you would have noted the following:

1. Those results have yet to be replicated by another lab, so the jury is still out over whether they're really seeing what they thing they're seeing or not. Even if it this cyclic variation really exists, if you do the calculations based on their published data, the variations are on the order of days over periods of thousands of years.

2. The variations occur based on a 33 day cycle, that of the solar core. What is being observed is not a net acceleration or deceleration of decay rates over long periods of time, just on a day to day basis during that cycle. One of the researchers even explicitly stated that this would have no significant impact on archaeological data. Which leads to...

3. Radiocarbon dating methods are calibrated based on samples of known age. Research teams publish their calibration curves regularly. Someone would have noticed and published if results deviated significantly from expectations. It would be a great way to get grant funding for life, maybe even a Nobel if they could explain it. But radiocarbon dating isn't the only method, which leads to...

4. Decay rates haven’t been observed to change significantly since we’ve started measuring them. We can observe gamma ray frequencies and fading rates from multiple supernovae that we’ve observed at distances ranging from the hundreds of thousands of light-years to billions of light-years and those frequencies are accurately predicted by our current terrestrial decay rates. There are other methods for verifying that decay rates are stable, and the most deviation they've found is 0.000005% over the last two billion years.

So please, tell me again, based on your careful reading and understanding of the research you're trying to cite as support of your argument, how all radiometric dating methods should be thrown out the window? While you think about that, I'll add an eighth question to the list of things you either can't or won't answer...

1. Can you provide any evidence in support of of canopy theory?
2. Can you provide any evidence that Saturn's rings violate the law of gravity?
3. Can you provide any evidence that Jupiter's Great Red Spot is the result of rotational frame dragging?
4. Can you provide any evidence that "anomalies" occur with any regularity at 19.5° on Earth or any other body in our solar system?
5. Can you provide any evidence that modern evolutionary synthesis claims that "people turn into fish" or that "we once had wings"?
6. Can you provide any evidence that mammoths were "flash frozen" and preserved in a near-perfect state?
7. Can you provide any evidence that reputable scientists use radiocarbon dating to date anything that is considered to be millions of years old?
8. Can you provide any evidence that the work of Fischbach et al suggests that radiometric dating methods are flawed to such a degree that they would support the young Earth model you're suggesting?



posted on Jun, 28 2013 @ 12:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by Barcs


Agreed completely. Evolution vs creation is a complete farce. It could very easily be both. They aren't mutually exclusive, but it seems many put the 2 against each other, when there's no actual debate. They refer to completely separate concepts.
edit on 27-6-2013 by Barcs because: (no reason given)

Wow. Posted that without writing anything. Great. Anyway. I see the split similar to Democrats/Republicans. An unnecessary division, built because both sides have strong majorities with only their self interest at heart. I don't think, when discussing science, religion should be mentioned. There are atheists who study the sciences, there are christians, there are jews. Science is a field of studying the world, with fact. Religion is the practice of putting our faith in something we cannot prove, but feel is real. I think, I have faith, that the god I believe in created the world, and science is a way to say 'Ha! I see what you did there, you clever bugger you!' But who's to say I'm right?
edit on 28-6-2013 by TobinHatcher because: (no reason given)

edit on 28-6-2013 by TobinHatcher because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 28 2013 @ 08:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by TobinHatcher

Originally posted by Barcs


Agreed completely. Evolution vs creation is a complete farce. It could very easily be both. They aren't mutually exclusive, but it seems many put the 2 against each other, when there's no actual debate. They refer to completely separate concepts.
edit on 27-6-2013 by Barcs because: (no reason given)

Wow. Posted that without writing anything. Great. Anyway. I see the split similar to Democrats/Republicans. An unnecessary division, built because both sides have strong majorities with only their self interest at heart. I don't think, when discussing science, religion should be mentioned. There are atheists who study the sciences, there are christians, there are jews. Science is a field of studying the world, with fact. Religion is the practice of putting our faith in something we cannot prove, but feel is real. I think, I have faith, that the god I believe in created the world, and science is a way to say 'Ha! I see what you did there, you clever bugger you!' But who's to say I'm right?
edit on 28-6-2013 by TobinHatcher because: (no reason given)

edit on 28-6-2013 by TobinHatcher because: (no reason given)


I wonder what it is you see there that god did it?
The only thing science has shown us is that if a "goddidit" it used methods that are indistinguishable from natural processes and it left no evidence whatsoever that he had anything at all to do with it.
The scientific revolution came about because relying on beliefs had been shown to be wrong. The whole idea was to leave beliefs behind and instead base your inferences on empirical facts, and test those ideas against empirical facts.
The first problem you run into with the "goddidit" hypothesis is... who's god did it?
It is a belief system that creates a divisive nature in all cultures throughout all of human history, ultimately leading to destruction.
Another problem is, it suppresses intellectual progress. What has the "goddidit" hypothesis ever led to the discovery of?
The answer to that is "nothing" it should not even be put it in the same ballpark of credence as science.
edit on 28-6-2013 by flyingfish because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 28 2013 @ 12:40 PM
link   
If goddidit then the natural order would be how goddidit, that would be how a god set up the world. That's why we have a natural order, through that theory. Personally, I look around at the sheer complexity of the universe and I find it hard to believe that it happened at random, and for no particular reason. It doesn't make sense to me that way. Is there an answer to why the universe was created? That's an honest question, I am curious. Science can't prove a god doesn't exist, and Religion can't prove that he does. I merely have my belief. Call it Schrodinger Jesus.

Originally posted by flyingfish

Originally posted by TobinHatcher

Originally posted by Barcs


Agreed completely. Evolution vs creation is a complete farce. It could very easily be both. They aren't mutually exclusive, but it seems many put the 2 against each other, when there's no actual debate. They refer to completely separate concepts.
edit on 27-6-2013 by Barcs because: (no reason given)

Wow. Posted that without writing anything. Great. Anyway. I see the split similar to Democrats/Republicans. An unnecessary division, built because both sides have strong majorities with only their self interest at heart. I don't think, when discussing science, religion should be mentioned. There are atheists who study the sciences, there are christians, there are jews. Science is a field of studying the world, with fact. Religion is the practice of putting our faith in something we cannot prove, but feel is real. I think, I have faith, that the god I believe in created the world, and science is a way to say 'Ha! I see what you did there, you clever bugger you!' But who's to say I'm right?
edit on 28-6-2013 by TobinHatcher because: (no reason given)

edit on 28-6-2013 by TobinHatcher because: (no reason given)


I wonder what it is you see there that god did it?
The only thing science has shown us is that if a "goddidit" it used methods that are indistinguishable from natural processes and it left no evidence whatsoever that he had anything at all to do with it.
The scientific revolution came about because relying on beliefs had been shown to be wrong. The whole idea was to leave beliefs behind and instead base your inferences on empirical facts, and test those ideas against empirical facts.
The first problem you run into with the "goddidit" hypothesis is... who's god did it?
It is a belief system that creates a divisive nature in all cultures throughout all of human history, ultimately leading to destruction.
Another problem is, it suppresses intellectual progress. What has the "goddidit" hypothesis ever led to the discovery of?
The answer to that is "nothing" it should not even be put it in the same ballpark of credence as science.
edit on 28-6-2013 by flyingfish because: (no reason given)

edit on 28-6-2013 by TobinHatcher because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 28 2013 @ 12:50 PM
link   
IMO Evolution and God are the same. The ancients called it "God" because they did not know about higher math and physics. The scientists must have something right. Cause we can design machines that will leave the planet. I think we keep trying to make God in our image. I think God or Evolution or aliens are entities that we do not understand, but they are not human.



posted on Jun, 28 2013 @ 02:20 PM
link   
reply to post by ICanHearTheTrumpets
 





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.


As far as all the fantastic numbers science blows out there.
It's obvious how scientists self appoint themselves, as the know all
tell all, go to authority, because we have tak'in over for God
Some of the numbers people do fall for, so easily in their schools of
" Learning " I find nothing more than laughable, strictly from a neutral position.
They want us believe they know, what was going on here
on earth 65 fargone million years ago ? If you don't mind, I don't need any
science to tell me, they've gone completely bombastic and over the top.

But why not ? Who better to make gods out of themselves than themselves.
in other words, God doesn't exist and our theory is right because we're
smarter than you. And we have a lot of money vested in ......
LIES. In reality, all these schools of higher learning might just be
someone elses lies bought and paid for. Any way, hell yaa !
Some great ammo for debaate here OP.

SnF




Well we can't say where we come from. And we don't how we got here. And where we're go'in ? Notta chance.
But they can describe the eaarth to a tee as per 65 mill. Makes sense. I think God did it makes way more sense. Far more potential than some quack is offering that's for sure..

edit on 28-6-2013 by randyvs because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 29 2013 @ 01:08 PM
link   
reply to post by randyvs
 


As far as all the fantastic numbers science blows out there.
It's obvious how scientists self appoint themselves, as the know all
tell all, go to authority, because we have tak'in over for God
Some of the numbers people do fall for, so easily in their schools of
" Learning " I find nothing more than laughable, strictly from a neutral position.

The Abrahamic religions are used to supplant hundreds of other religions around the world for centuries... no problem!

Science, which is neutral on the existence of gods, shows that a literal interpretation of the Bible isn't scientifically sound... uproar!

You call that a "neutral position"? That may be the most laughable thing said in this thread.


They want us believe they know, what was going on here
on earth 65 fargone million years ago ? If you don't mind, I don't need any
science to tell me, they've gone completely bombastic and over the top.

Have you actually taken a look at any of the evidence that would explain their understanding of conditions on Earth in the past? Or are you just dismissing it out of hand?


But why not ? Who better to make gods out of themselves than themselves.
in other words, God doesn't exist and our theory is right because we're
smarter than you.

Why would theistic scientists want to make gods out of themselves? Why would atheist scientist be trying to become something they have no belief in? Science is about one thing -- understanding how the universe works.


And we have a lot of money vested in ......
LIES. In reality, all these schools of higher learning might just be
someone elses lies bought and paid for. Any way, hell yaa !
Some great ammo for debaate here OP.

What "lies" are you referring to?



posted on Jun, 29 2013 @ 01:20 PM
link   
reply to post by TobinHatcher
 





Science can't prove a god doesn't exist...


Classic idiotic statement.

You don't need to prove something doesn't exist. Its up to the person making the claim to provide evidence to support it.

This is why the religious need to get into kids heads when they are young and keep them dumb enough to parrot your words.



Look into this mirror and see a horrific reflection.




edit on 29-6-2013 by Wertdagf because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 29 2013 @ 02:01 PM
link   
reply to post by iterationzero
 





You call that a "neutral position"? That may be the most laughable thing said in this thread.


No I don't call that a neutral position Z. I call it a miscom. What I meant was, even from
a neutral. So stop laugh'in.

My bad.


What "lies" are you referring to?


Let's have you guess. You're smart as whip so why be formal ?
edit on 29-6-2013 by randyvs because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 29 2013 @ 09:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by Wertdagf
reply to post by TobinHatcher
 





Science can't prove a god doesn't exist...


Classic idiotic statement.

You don't need to prove something doesn't exist. Its up to the person making the claim to provide evidence to support it.

This is why the religious need to get into kids heads when they are young and keep them dumb enough to parrot your words.



Look into this mirror and see a horrific reflection.




edit on 29-6-2013 by Wertdagf because: (no reason given)


And why do you have to resort to calling someone an idiot for having different beliefs then you? We can't keep it civil? You provide nothing to your argument and take nothing away from mine.



posted on Jun, 30 2013 @ 01:48 AM
link   
reply to post by Wertdagf
 





Classic idiotic statement.


You don't need to prove something doesn't exist. Its up to the person making the claim to provide evidence to support it.


Do you know what a classic idiot statment is?

You just made one.
When you make a personal claim that God does not exist. How in hell can you make such a claim as a fact without factual proof???

Why doesnt you claim demand any proof, but the claim that God does exist demands proof?



posted on Jun, 30 2013 @ 11:36 AM
link   
reply to post by TobinHatcher
 





If goddidit then the natural order would be how goddidit, that would be how a god set up the world. That's why we have a natural order, through that theory.


The universe is more chaotic than orderly, at any given moment on the quantum level the physical is completely chaotic.
The entropy of the universe is increasing in time...i.e. the universe is evolving to a state of higher disorder.
Even now in our slightly stable universe nature destroys life, causing mass extinction of species at nothing but a roll of the dice of asteroids, comet strikes, solar storms, earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, hurricanes, tornadoes, lightning and fire.
For those creatures who were lucky enough to be born, some of them will die a horrible and painful death because of the chaotic nature of our universe.
Our universe isn't fit for life, we just happen to be here surviving out of coincidence, our mere survival has depended on the bloody murder of animals for meat. We fight wars and feed it with our babies, billions of people have died over the millennia just so we can sit here today and have this conversation.




Personally, I look around at the sheer complexity of the universe and I find it hard to believe that it happened at random, and for no particular reason. It doesn't make sense to me that way. Is there an answer to why the universe was created?


There is nothing to suggest life is necessary for the universe to exist.
Before the expansion of the universe, at the moment of singularity, time did not exist. Before time nothing existed.




That's an honest question, I am curious. Science can't prove a god doesn't exist, and Religion can't prove that he does. I merely have my belief. Call it Schrodinger Jesus.


Science is not trying to prove god does not exist, if science found god it would be headline news. If there is a god living in the universe, it is none physical, invisible and undetectable...i.e. none existence. If god exist outside the universe, then by definition it does exist in our universe...i.e. god does not exist.



posted on Jun, 30 2013 @ 08:21 PM
link   
reply to post by flyingfish
 


Time doesn't exist either way. Time is a construct to describe our movement through the universe. And I never said life was necessary. I merely find it hard to believe that the Universe is a random occurrence. I know science isn't trying to prove god one way or another. I've been saying that neither science nor religion can prove or disprove. I can't not hold a god in my hands and say 'look, Shiva!'

I've just been saying there doesn't have to be an argument. If you don't believe in a god, then you don't have any inherit problem. But, speaking from a Christian point of view, I think the split the Church has on Science and their theories, is unnecessary. Science is proven, most Christians choose to turn a blind eye. That's what I'm trying to say. They shouldn't .



posted on Jun, 30 2013 @ 10:47 PM
link   
reply to post by TobinHatcher
 


Your statement that " I merely find it hard to believe that the universe is a random occurrence" assumes that a logical cause must occur prior in time.

The universe coming into existence random or not, is tied to time, but believing there was a cause, one must assume that there was a time before the universe existed.
I think this time before the universe is a convenient place for your god to exist. Your argument simply assumes the relationship that you want.

Causality is an interesting and complex topic, and has been discussed by numerous philosophers, but physics is understanding existence (I'm not to say that physics has all the answers... far from it)

At the quantum level, everything is time reversible. What appears as cause can just as easily appear as effect. An electron and a positron annihilate to create two photons. Two photons pair/create an electron and positron out of the vacuum. The exact same process viewed in two opposite directions through time.

You can call this effect cause, but there is just as much validity in saying that the cause required the effect. Causality is simply a constraint on what parts of the interaction have to be consistent with what other parts.

Hawking writes:

Does it require a Creator to decree how the universe began? Or is the initial state of the universe, determined by a law of science? In fact, this question would arise even if the histories of the universe went back to the infinite past. But it is more immediate if the universe began only 15 billion years ago. The problem of what happens at the beginning of time is a bit like the question of what happened at the edge of the world, when people thought the world was flat. Is the world a flat plate with the sea pouring over the edge? I have tested this experimentally. I have been round the world, and I have not fallen off. As we all know, the problem of what happens at the edge of the world was solved when people realized that the world was not a flat plate, but a curved surface. Time however, seemed to be different. It appeared to be separate from space, and to be like a model railway track. If it had a beginning, there would have to be someone to set the trains going. Einstein's General Theory of Relativity unified time and space as spacetime, but time was still different from space and was like a corridor, which either had a beginning and end, or went on forever. However, when one combines General Relativity with Quantum Theory, Jim Hartle and I realized that time can behave like another direction in space under extreme conditions. This means one can get rid of the problem of time having a beginning, in a similar way in which we got rid of the edge of the world. Suppose the beginning of the universe was like the South Pole of the earth, with degrees of latitude playing the role of time. The universe would start as a point at the South Pole. As one moves north, the circles of constant latitude, representing the size of the universe, would expand. To ask what happened before the beginning of the universe would become a meaningless question, because there is nothing south of the South Pole.



posted on Jul, 1 2013 @ 11:59 AM
link   
reply to post by flyingfish
 



It is my understanding that all electrons and all structures of atoms are breaking apart and flying off faster than light only for more streaming in to rebuild the atom ,this occurs so fast they cant measure the freq.
If this is right then ALL matter is being generated for the observer making matter and time an illusion.
The sub atomic particles must have EXTRA communications with the atom being taken apart and with the atom being built.
It is possible that when we drive down the road nothing is over the hill until we get there, or if there is an observer there already.
either way matter is not solid.please dont hesitate to correct me as I know you won't.



posted on Jul, 1 2013 @ 12:17 PM
link   
Creation vs. evolution is one of my favorite topics because, first, there is no science, no religious dogma, no physical proof in either direction that cannot be contested.

Did humanity as we know it begin in the Garden of Eden, or from some monkeys that fell from a tree? Or... perhaps, something in-between?

It's the in-between that is both the most likely and the least attractive to either camp that is so firmly entrenched. But, even so, the obvious should be obvious. Why all the hub-bub?

Science and faith have been at war for centuries. It began with a church that persecuted the logic of science and has now come full circle to a science that persecutes the faith of faith. The results are easily definable; both sides have knights to defend their own grails and gladiators to do battle beyond the walls.

Are hearts and minds changed by the massive battles? You could put a big 'LMFAO' here and it would fit like a glove.

Um... no? LOL.

Teasing theories from ancient skeletal remains or from ancient religious texts are good for soulful devotees from both armies... who today are more often actually more devoted to OPPOSING their opposites than embracing their fellows and/or others.

No matter. Short a leap of faith, neither survives the wash.

Cheers



posted on Jul, 2 2013 @ 01:39 PM
link   
reply to post by flyingfish
 


Sorry about that last post, I did not mean to sound like no one can correct me .was in a hurry.
Here is what I was talking about.



posted on Jul, 2 2013 @ 06:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by flyingfish
reply to post by TobinHatcher
 


Your statement that " I merely find it hard to believe that the universe is a random occurrence" assumes that a logical cause must occur prior in time.

The universe coming into existence random or not, is tied to time, but believing there was a cause, one must assume that there was a time before the universe existed.
I think this time before the universe is a convenient place for your god to exist. Your argument simply assumes the relationship that you want.

Causality is an interesting and complex topic, and has been discussed by numerous philosophers, but physics is understanding existence (I'm not to say that physics has all the answers... far from it)

At the quantum level, everything is time reversible. What appears as cause can just as easily appear as effect. An electron and a positron annihilate to create two photons. Two photons pair/create an electron and positron out of the vacuum. The exact same process viewed in two opposite directions through time.

You can call this effect cause, but there is just as much validity in saying that the cause required the effect. Causality is simply a constraint on what parts of the interaction have to be consistent with what other parts.

Hawking writes:

Does it require a Creator to decree how the universe began? Or is the initial state of the universe, determined by a law of science? In fact, this question would arise even if the histories of the universe went back to the infinite past. But it is more immediate if the universe began only 15 billion years ago. The problem of what happens at the beginning of time is a bit like the question of what happened at the edge of the world, when people thought the world was flat. Is the world a flat plate with the sea pouring over the edge? I have tested this experimentally. I have been round the world, and I have not fallen off. As we all know, the problem of what happens at the edge of the world was solved when people realized that the world was not a flat plate, but a curved surface. Time however, seemed to be different. It appeared to be separate from space, and to be like a model railway track. If it had a beginning, there would have to be someone to set the trains going. Einstein's General Theory of Relativity unified time and space as spacetime, but time was still different from space and was like a corridor, which either had a beginning and end, or went on forever. However, when one combines General Relativity with Quantum Theory, Jim Hartle and I realized that time can behave like another direction in space under extreme conditions. This means one can get rid of the problem of time having a beginning, in a similar way in which we got rid of the edge of the world. Suppose the beginning of the universe was like the South Pole of the earth, with degrees of latitude playing the role of time. The universe would start as a point at the South Pole. As one moves north, the circles of constant latitude, representing the size of the universe, would expand. To ask what happened before the beginning of the universe would become a meaningless question, because there is nothing south of the South Pole.


My statement assumes nothing of the sort.



posted on Jul, 2 2013 @ 06:52 PM
link   
reply to post by supergravity
 

Have you read the paper the NaturalNews article is referencing?



new topics

top topics



 
5
<< 11  12  13    15 >>

log in

join