Mathematics, common sense and the origin of man.

page: 2
21
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 26 2013 @ 08:34 AM
link   

bastion
Just...no. You can't consider just one planet when you're estimating the chances of it occuring on one planet in the entire Universe.

Drakes equation is exactly this, though. It is a best-guess theory but I think it is flawed on several levels – mainly by missing out several factors that determine the survivability of a significant species, or a species that can later evolve into a significant species, plus all the catastrophic events on Earth that have led to our survival and dominance here on Earth. Plus several more biological and chemical necessities and evolutionary variables.




posted on Sep, 26 2013 @ 09:57 AM
link   

leostokes
reply to post by Helious
 


Darwin proposed that future researchers study the fossil records for evidence of evolution. The fossil record strongly indicates that the major kinds of plants and animals appear and disappear abruptly and do not evolve into other kinds, even over aeons of time. There is no evidence of gradual change between species. The evidence of the fossil record strongly supports creationism.

edit on 26-9-2013 by leostokes because: add the word future


I agree, the fossil record does not support evolution and in my opinion directly conflicts with the idea. Studies have also shown that evolution as we currently understand it is actually pretty hard to achieve even with the simplest of creatures.

See this article that shows there is no change or evolution in fruit flies after 600 generations of experiment. It's pretty compelling when you consider the idea of Dinosaurs into birds and monkeys into men but they can't get a fruit fly to modify itself after 600 generations.



posted on Sep, 26 2013 @ 10:51 AM
link   
reply to post by Helious
 


Try not to lack faith in God - no matter what you see, or think you know.

There is evolution, and you probably can see it for yourself, but you have found this video which kind of gives you confirmation affirmation (a sense that you have reproduced good concepts) so you try to use the video to say God didn't make evolution, most likely because, in your mind, evolution and God do not mix.

God made all things, and that includes evolution.

Adaptation happens every day. All creatures and all things adapt as they strive to (re)produce [good] concepts; and macro-evolution is what happen on day 2 of Genesis, and again every time God changes something. The goal of evolution and of this reality is to produce good concept/produce faithful children.

Of course you don't have to take my word for it, but you should always trust in God.

P.S. The Trinity is real, and it is the will, body, and consciousness by which all things exist.
edit on 9/26/2013 by Bleeeeep because: changed 2 terms for more clarity



posted on Sep, 26 2013 @ 11:30 AM
link   

mikegrouchyHe spends a great deal of energy in the book arguing about the
difference between two brothers. But instead of following up on
that and developing our own modern tests, documenting the lives of
our own siblings and building up a table of useful data to examine, the
so-called evolutionists are always ranting against creationist. Amazing.


Well if ATS is anything to go by, when these debates occur, it is usually the Creationists who start them and the Evolutionists who have to come in and debunk all their half-truths and lies again and again in the same thread then do it again in the next thread they make.

I was going to post links to all the Creationist made threads on this subject and all the Evolutionist ones to prove my point, but there are 8+ Creationist made threads on the front page of the Origins and Creationism forum, including this one to about 2 Evolutionist made threads (one of which is disparaging Creationist tactics that they use in these threads).

I'm not quite sure having 2 threads against many threads is "ranting" against Creationists. Not to mention I've read just about every one of those threads (made by both sides) and the Creationists ALWAY bring up the SAME points and the Evolutionists ALWAYS debunk them. Eventually one of the Creationists decides to make a new thread and again we repeat this song and dance.


My favorite overlooked fact is that Darwin never said that Man was descended from monkeys, but that they may have had a common ancestor. But don't try to tell that to a fan of The Gorillaz. They will get that look in their eyes that says "we must kill it before it breeds."


Neither do Evolutionists. Evolutionists say that humans' and monkeys' common ancestor is the ape. So Straw Man arguments aside, what is your point here? Honest evolutionists (read: ones without an agenda) understand that evolution doesn't disprove or prove a creator and that God and evolution can coexist. Creationists are primarily the ones who seem to think that this is some sort of impossibility.

You know it baffles me how Creationists can have this standpoint. God is supposed to be infinitely powerful or whatever, yet decides to use a very simple solution to create everything. " Here's the universe, enjoy." Wouldn't it make more sense to tap a little further into those vast powers and create complicated laws for organic and inorganic development like abiogensis, big bang, and evolution? For example: as computers become more and more powerful, you don't see has relying on the basic computing power of the original Microsoft Word to type our documents, no instead we get better and better versions that utilize more and more of the computer's cpu power.



posted on Sep, 26 2013 @ 11:34 AM
link   

Helious

leostokes
reply to post by Helious
 


Darwin proposed that future researchers study the fossil records for evidence of evolution. The fossil record strongly indicates that the major kinds of plants and animals appear and disappear abruptly and do not evolve into other kinds, even over aeons of time. There is no evidence of gradual change between species. The evidence of the fossil record strongly supports creationism.

edit on 26-9-2013 by leostokes because: add the word future


I agree, the fossil record does not support evolution and in my opinion directly conflicts with the idea. Studies have also shown that evolution as we currently understand it is actually pretty hard to achieve even with the simplest of creatures.


Except, no. The fossil record shows that there are many transitional fossils that support Evolution. In fact the very fact that the theory of evolution exists shows that the fossil record must support Evolution. That is where Evolutionary scientists get their evidence to support the theory. So what you are saying is a complete contradiction to how science operates.

Here for your benefit a wiki containing a list of many different transitional fossils. NOTE: THIS IS AN INCOMPLETE LIST, IT SAYS SO AT THE TOP OF THE WIKI.

List of Transitional Fossils


See this article that shows there is no change or evolution in fruit flies after 600 generations of experiment. It's pretty compelling when you consider the idea of Dinosaurs into birds and monkeys into men but they can't get a fruit fly to modify itself after 600 generations.


Lenski results challenge creationism


On Free Republic, a poster named "tongass kid" said of the E. coli developing the ability to process citrate, "So this was done in the laboratory by some intelligent design, not random selection. Fifty years of fruit fly genetic lab experiments on countless number of fruit fly have not created a new species using intelligent design combined with random selection. If it is done in a lab it is intelligent design and not natural selection." [sic] In the following post (post 19 on that same page), a user named "Coyoteman", who has generally been opposed to creationism and intelligent design, seemed to have been confused by the post. [11]

This argument by tongass kid, however, forgets exactly what an intelligent designer is or does; if Lenski had directly modified the genes of the bacteria to absorb citrates, then that indeed would have been an empirical case of intelligent design (and scientists do on occasion modify genes of organisms to bring about certain, intentional results). In this case, however, Lenski merely provided an environment that put pressure on the bacteria to adapt. It was expected that in the time frame of the experiment, the bacteria would be able to marginally increase their efficiency of living in the medium and this was previously demonstrated and published by the time the more prominent and famous report was made. The ability of the bacteria to absorb citrate wasn't an intentional intelligent aim of the experiment. It came as a fair shock to the researchers that the E. coli developed the ability to absorb the citrate medium (described in the popular literature as the bacteria not having enough to eat, so they evolved to eat the plates and cutlery instead).

But of course, since none of those intelligent design proponents are monitoring Lenski's lab 24/7, they of course have every reason to believe something else has been done to modify the genes of the E. coli to enable them to process citrate.


There is your argument in a nutshell.

Here is Lenski's study on E. Coli:
Historical contingency and the evolution of a key innovation in an experimental population of Escherichia coli
edit on 26-9-2013 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 26 2013 @ 11:51 AM
link   
reply to post by Krazysh0t
 





Well if ATS is anything to go by, when these debates occur, it is usually the Creationists who start them and the Evolutionists who have to come in and debunk all their half-truths and lies again and again in the same thread then do it again in the next thread they make.


I have seen that happen here on ATS and I have seen it go the other way as well but in all fairness, evolution has it's fair share of "half truths" does it not?



posted on Sep, 26 2013 @ 11:53 AM
link   
reply to post by Helious
 


Name one and we'll talk about it. Make sure it isn't something you pulled from a Creationist site claiming that this is what Evolutionists claim. You know like that humans are descended from monkeys.



posted on Sep, 26 2013 @ 01:32 PM
link   
reply to post by Krazysh0t
 


Well, I guess one of the biggest problems that I have always had is getting over the fact that evolution seems to violate entropy. I fail to see how it is possible to have such an immense amount of evidence of past extinctions yet no evidence of physical evolution.

To me, this says there is something seriously wrong with the theory as a whole.



posted on Sep, 26 2013 @ 01:57 PM
link   
reply to post by Helious
 


Entropy defined by science (non-proevolution site):

Second Law of Thermodynamics


The Second Law of Thermodynamics states that "in all energy exchanges, if no energy enters or leaves the system, the potential energy of the state will always be less than that of the initial state." This is also commonly referred to as entropy. A watchspring-driven watch will run until the potential energy in the spring is converted, and not again until energy is reapplied to the spring to rewind it. A car that has run out of gas will not run again until you walk 10 miles to a gas station and refuel the car. Once the potential energy locked in carbohydrates is converted into kinetic energy (energy in use or motion), the organism will get no more until energy is input again. In the process of energy transfer, some energy will dissipate as heat. Entropy is a measure of disorder: cells are NOT disordered and so have low entropy. The flow of energy maintains order and life. Entropy wins when organisms cease to take in energy and die.


So I believe you are referring to this:

Creationists and Entropy

And by that I guess you are referring to this from the link:


Creationists have picked up on disorder terminology and attempted to apply the second law of thermodynamics as a refutation of evolution. The analogy would state that more complex life-forms could never evolve from simpler ones.


Reading further in the link I give you this:


It seems obvious that this false analogy of a false analogy is incorrect. First, the Earth is not an isolated system - it receives a copious amount of incoming energy from the Sun. Second, evolution does not imply that life is becoming increasingly complex; it only says that natural selection allows genes to be passed on and different characteristics hence preserved.

It also is a corruption to believe life is always "more ordered" than inanimate objects. In fact, life does not violate the second law of thermodynamics in strict energetic sense. The energy of the sun is converted into chemical potential energy, which is converted to mechanical work or heat (the Earth is not an isolated system.) In each case, the energy transfer is inefficient, and some energy is dissipated as heat to the environment, leading to a dispersion of energy. In the same way, "ordered" snowflakes can form when the weather becomes cold but the entropy of the universe still increases.


I bolded a great point that Creationists fail to understand or just ignore. Also this:


In reference to evolution, PZ Myers put it: "The second law of thermodynamics argument is one of the hoariest, silliest claims in the creationist collection. It's self-refuting. Point to the creationist: ask whether he was a baby once. Has he grown? Has he become larger and more complex? Isn't he standing there in violation of the second law himself? Demand that he immediately regress to a slimy puddle of mingled menses and semen."


So to answer your question, your entire argument is a straw man argument crafted by Creationist half-truths about a real Scientific law. You see the reason I asked you to produce one half-truth or lie made by evolutionists is because they are exceedingly rare (sure they happen). When a scientist tries to use a half-truth or lie to explain his theory, other scientists using this thing called peer-review check out his claims then proceed to completely discredit him for fudging the data. So yes they may happen, but since science is self-correcting, they get filtered out in favor of actual evidence and solid science. Meanwhile, Creationists, who don't use peer-review, just repeat the same nonsense over and over again and instead of fact checking these people, their followers just echo that same nonsense.
edit on 26-9-2013 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 26 2013 @ 02:06 PM
link   
reply to post by Helious
 


How anyone can deny there is a Creator when our own scientist can grow noses on peoples foreheads is beyond me.

and BTW have you seen Bill Nye dance?

www.ajc.com...

Synthetic genome pioneer Craig Venter says that his team is close to creating a living bacterium made completely from scratch
www.ksl.com...

now how do you know you were not created?



posted on Sep, 26 2013 @ 02:21 PM
link   
reply to post by Helious
 


The natural state of The Word of God (Jesus) is the wave form of the wave-particle duality. Whenever a wave becomes energetic (filled with Holy Spirit/Will of God/Motion/energy) it produces the Image(s) of God (Jesus' body and all of us as images). Particles, spheres of all types and the images they create - trees, people, stars, planets are just that - images or bodies.

When energy loss occurs (entropy, or better yet, stasis or image stabilization as a wave/particle duality.) the image or wave form reemerges as both wave/particle duality before it goes fully back to wave. (The duality of things appear as such things as water, clouds, gases, solar systems, flowing things. It shows as both images and wave forms at once.. as in flattened out like layers or invisible plains or fields.)

This process I just described basically says why solar systems and cloud bottoms etc seem flattened or disk shaped. It also says that there is no gravity... gravity is just when a wave becomes too energetic for its wave/old image and then it increases in volume and as a result of the volume increase and entropy/wave stasis the new particle form tries to expand back into wave form and goes up (normally) because up is the path of least resistance for the particle to become wave form again (or entropy). When it goes up, it is pushing down on more dense objects giving the appearance of gravity.

I call it all thermoelectric convection but what it really is is God's Word reverting back to Word from Body as it loses will/energy/Spirit. Others may want to call it convection and entropy but that is unappreciative of what is actually happening.

Side note:Fractals/symmetry occur when energetic waves/old images become energetic but do not create a new image/particle - they remain wave state/old image and gain fractals and symmetrical shapes.

Short version:It's wave-particle duality from wave up to galaxies; and the force is thermoelectric convection.

Hope you can follow that. I understand It explains A LOT about reality in very few words so ask questions if you need to.
edit on 9/26/2013 by Bleeeeep because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 26 2013 @ 10:53 PM
link   
reply to post by Krazysh0t
 


Thank you for the reply, I enjoyed reading the information, some of which I have not seen. I understand what you are saying perfectly but I get the feeling you are somehow "annoyed" with those that don't believe in evolution. The term "creationist" in the way you use it seems........ Derogatory to me in a way. Labels painted on people for their beliefs even when you don't feel those beliefs are qualified in your opinion can be harsh sometimes but I understand the impulse to do just that, I have been guilty of it myself.

I know it may be hard for you to believe but I am not one of those people who seek to promote agenda pushing half truths, spread lies or promote falsehoods about my ideas and beliefs, just merely discuss them in a rational and productive fashion, I have a great deal of respect for science even though I am not personally in agreement with all the aspects of some of the mainstream theories regarding evolution.

I understand exactly how science works, I know the process and the logic behind it and it is sound most of the time. Science however, much like religion is dominated by tight circles of influence and it is rare that alternate theories about hot topic major issues are brought forward from within. This is because people that do so are generally branded a "heretic" and in many cases lose the ability to be taken seriously within the circle of their profession.

There are many professionals within science that dissent on the idea of evolution but they do not garner much attention because despite solid arguments, they are chastised and ostracized by peers. This however, is not the issue at hand and to be honest is the same exact thing that happens within the religious community, try giving a sermon from the book of Enoch at the 11:00 Sunday and I think you will run into the same thing.

My personal problems with evolution lie within many specific arguments that make up the theory. I take the most issue with the fossil record, it does not support evolution, it conflicts it at every turn and I have come to see a similarity between this discrepancy and that of dark matter. Sometimes, such as the two above mentioned cases, it would appear that science is occasionally willing to slide things into an awkward grey area to maintain status quo with the "accepted" current theory.

Now, claiming that you believe in a higher power, a God or a creator is a giant leap off a cliff as far as science is concerned and I understand this, it is in essence an affront to what true people of science claim to hold most dear and that is rational, evidenced logic and while that is completely understandable, I don't honestly see the difference between that and some of the ideas and theories I see postulated by some members of mainstream science.

The big bang, best guess. String theory, best guess. Dark matter, best guess. The list goes on and on but I understand that your argument will be that science can't explain everything at any given time, it can only take the data it has and make the most logical path to the solution to form the accepted theory and I get it and that's fine. The thing is though, sometimes those accepted theories are no more a leap of faith than that of most "creationists".

I have read countless articles, some of them very mainstream and sometimes from very prominent people within science about the true nature of our reality and have heard claims from computer simulation to existence and everything in our visible universe being a two dimensional reality spinning on the wrong end of a black hole. I know that most true people of science can not accept a God but the point is that there is a middle ground between the two sides, not everyone who believes one or the other is ignorant or misinformed or even must be converted. It's about communication, debate and challenging each other to progress our understanding of what we know.



posted on Sep, 26 2013 @ 11:24 PM
link   
I recently read a article that talked about fossilized remains and how rare they are in jungle environments because those environments are acidic which means they would dissolve and destroy fossils.

It got me thinking about all the oil we have and how at one time it was some form of life. To be honest why would it surprise anyone that we haven't found many transitional fossils? The conditions needed to create them is something sort of specific.

Oh well maybe I am using to much logic.

Just saying fossils are rare for a reason and all the missing links are probably in your fuel tank.



posted on Sep, 27 2013 @ 03:24 AM
link   
reply to post by Helious
 


The thing is. Nobody is claiming to have figured it all out and have the mathematical and scientific proof to back it up.

What scientists, astro physicists, biologists, quantum physicists etc etc claim to have is a large amount of scientific evidence to support the theory of the big bang and evolution. They take clues and physical evidence discovered through research to formulate these theories. Like many theories in the past they could be wrong and who knows in 100 years from now they could have trashed these theories and have completely new ones.

But like many other theories in the past they could be spot on. It will take more research and evidence to determine this though.

Science and maths does explain everything...the problem is scientists and mathematicians dont always get things right first time round. But over the years they have been doing a pretty good job.

Science and maths has had phenomenal success when it comes to explaining the world and the universe around us. we know how things work, how things move, how big or heavy or hot or cold things are that are millions of miles away. science can back track and tell us what happened in the past. it can also step forward and tell us what could happen in future. all this based on hard evidence that understandably allows people to make decisions.

what science has no room for is religious babble and illogical irrational theories of some devine super power that created everything at the click on a finger.

We know how planets form and how stars form and die. We know why we have night and day and how the rain is made etc etc etc etc etc. And it wasnt because someone up there wishes it to be.

All these types of theories have caused nothing but trouble and death since the very beginning.

Sure thou shalt not steal, thou shalt not kill, thou shalt love thy neighbour or whatever...all good rules to live by...but the rest of it? just crap to make you less scared of death.

science is logical, sensible, and impossible to argue against with anything other than more science.
edit on 27-9-2013 by Silicis n Volvo because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 27 2013 @ 06:30 AM
link   
reply to post by TerraLiga
 


Good points. i wasn't trying to claim it was perfect, just the closest model I'm aware of (personally don't like the original due to assumptions made). I thought the more recent revisions took into account the latter factors though.

reply to post by Bleeeeep
 


Please stop spouting utter drivel and read some books on this topic. No offence but you can't even get the basic terminology correct and that's before adding spiritual/religious claptrap into the mix. You're cheating yourself and others you preach to out of subject matter that is incredibly interesting and useful.


Helious
The big bang, best guess. String theory, best guess. Dark matter, best guess. The list goes on and on but I understand that your argument will be that science can't explain everything at any given time, it can only take the data it has and make the most logical path to the solution to form the accepted theory and I get it and that's fine. The thing is though, sometimes those accepted theories are no more a leap of faith than that of most "creationists".


Not quite. The key difference between the two is BB, ST, DM all have mountains of evidence to support them and nothing concrete to dismiss them, every prediction these models have made have so far fitted into new discoveries - It's still a guess, but it's a highly educated one.

Whereas a creationists leap of faith is based on no evidence whatsoever.

For a theory to be accepted all evidence must support it, it must be reproducible, make testable predictions that subsequent investigations prove right - otherwise it's thrown out/no longer accepted.

From my perspective it's incredibly frustrating because those that fit into the creationists camp are claiming something to be true simply 'because x told me' instead of learning about nature, the sciences, the theories (which are far more beautiful, interesting and intricate than any supernatural explanation) and trying to add to this wealth of knowledge.
edit on 27-9-2013 by bastion because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 27 2013 @ 06:32 AM
link   
Double post
edit on 27-9-2013 by bastion because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 27 2013 @ 07:27 AM
link   
reply to post by Helious
 


It's not that I don't like Creationists. I really don't care what you believe or don't believe. I am also of the mindset that Evolution and Creationism can coexist easily. So there's that. The issue I have is with the Creationists who utilize shady tactics to get people to believe them. These Creationists are directly opposed to the idea that Evolution and Creationism can coexist because their bible tells them otherwise. The ends do not justify the means here. The truth can only be attained by following the facts. Everything else is just a lie.

The reason I say this is because most (if not all) of the anti-evolution arguments are derived from these shady tactics. Case in point, you've mentioned two fallacies that Creationists utilize to try to disprove evolution in this very thread. The entropy argument and the evolved from monkeys argument. Both are strawman arguments. I'm not blaming you for it since you do appear to want to learn more, but be careful where you get your information from.

You have also mentioned transitional fossils. I posted a link earlier in the thread to many evolutionary lines including human depicting the transitional fossils and the chains to get to present day animals. Just because the chain may be incomplete for one animal doesn't discount the theory of evolution. We have some very complete evolutionary chains where you can easily see the change over time from one species to another. The human chain is pretty much complete and the missing link doesn't really exist anymore.

While you are correct that we do not understand everything about evolution, we do have a pretty good picture of how it works. Some of the theory may be filled in with educated guesses, but those guesses are noted as such and are put to the test when new evidence surfaces. Many times those guesses are substantiated, other times not so much.

One more thing, if evolution isn't true, then what theory would you like to suggest in its place? Keep in mind that it has to take into account the fossil record as well as all evidence uncovered so far. Creationism, or rather the Creationism that the people I'm referring to espouse, doesn't do this at all. In fact the fossil record completely contradicts their theory.
edit on 27-9-2013 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 27 2013 @ 07:42 AM
link   
reply to post by bastion
 


So you have it figured out? You know what caused the order, that evolution adheres to, and why it did so? You know why, and how, life's actions, and thoughts, get stored within its seeds?

Why is the question - how is just an image.

Nothing is random because there is order. Random is just a word that means order of such magnitude that you cannot begin to comprehend it.

Now make a guess at why you think evolution occurs and begin. My guess is God. What's yours? You want to pretend like you know the answer, well then what is it?

You realize that before life desired to survive it had to have a concept of desire, right? There must be a will for that survival. Do amoebas will evolution? Did aliens do it? What is going to be your cop out?



posted on Sep, 27 2013 @ 07:52 AM
link   
reply to post by Bleeeeep
 


No I just have a degree in the subject so know not to listen to anyone who can't spell particle-wave duality and gets concepts like symmetry and fractals completely confused.

I don't have all the answers, I don't pretend to. I enjoy not knowing, exploring and questioning various theories. It's fun and very rewarding as if you're wrong (which happens all the time) you learn loads of new and exciting stuff.

If you're adamant that your post made sense and you have a proof then please provide the mathematical model to support your theory as at the moment your assertions are just words with nothing to back them up. It would be a very interesting read.


edit on 27-9-2013 by bastion because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 27 2013 @ 08:11 AM
link   
reply to post by bastion
 


It's wave-particle duality and symmetry is a product of fractals - it occurs when a form causes another form to split in its path.

No you don't even have a single answer to what I asked you; yet for some reason, you want to tell me my answers are wrong? If my answers are wrong then you obviously have some answers that are "right". What are they?

If you are adamant, show me some math that says God is an impossibility. How about some mathematical models for evolution, modeled after the fact of witnessing something, and purely designed to coincide with what you are witnessing. A model that explains how evolution occurred before thought. Obviously you must have one because desire is an emotional trait and a desire to survive must be the after effect of something that already had a long life span if it had the ability to desire survival. Or was it just random meaning you have no clue but you still think that my guess is wrong. Why?
edit on 9/27/2013 by Bleeeeep because: (no reason given)





new topics
top topics
 
21
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join