Neil deGrasse Tyson vs. Young Earth Creationism

page: 10
17
<< 7  8  9   >>

log in

join

posted on Oct, 31 2013 @ 11:22 PM
link   
Well, what is possible really just comes down to your own preconceived notions. Even scientists are coming to the conclusion that life could not have spontaneously formed in a pool of water so they came up with panspermia. It is a theory meant to reinforce another theory.

Is it possible for chemicals and water to accidentally form into a single cell organism, fully encoded dna and all, that somehow has a will for survival? I say no, it defies everything that is known about everything.

To call something that has never been observed or reproduced through experimentation science fact, well that is beyond my understanding.

If you find an apple under a tree you may assume that the apple fell from the tree. That does rule out the possibility that someone placed it there.




posted on Oct, 31 2013 @ 11:31 PM
link   
reply to post by beegoodbees
 


The first article is pretty good however if you read carefully you would understand the reason it was able to do that especially with the fractured bedrock. and two meters in no way compares to the grand canyon.

Your second article with the "Handy Dandy Evolution Refuter" their words not mine was a waste of time reading. I would wear my fingers out typing if I were to go line by line correcting all the pseudoscience and misinterpretations along with some strait out lies. They add an ounce of truth to their claims to try to give themselves some credibility but there is a pound of garbage floating in there with it.

You don’t have to answer this but were you home schooled?



posted on Nov, 1 2013 @ 12:09 AM
link   

Grimpachi
reply to post by beegoodbees
 


The first article is pretty good however if you read carefully you would understand the reason it was able to do that especially with the fractured bedrock. and two meters in no way compares to the grand canyon.

Your second article with the "Handy Dandy Evolution Refuter" their words not mine was a waste of time reading. I would wear my fingers out typing if I were to go line by line correcting all the pseudoscience and misinterpretations along with some strait out lies. They add an ounce of truth to their claims to try to give themselves some credibility but there is a pound of garbage floating in there with it.

You don’t have to answer this but were you home schooled?


haha, yeah i didn't read them carefully, it is late here and I am spent.

I do have this to say though, according to the rigid scientific method you start with a guess (hypothesis) you then experiment to try to prove your hypothesis. If you can prove your hypothesis through experimentation you then have a working theory. If the theory stands the test of time then you have a scientific law.

So according to the scientific method evolution is still in the hypothesis stage.



posted on Nov, 1 2013 @ 06:54 AM
link   
reply to post by beegoodbees
 




Ok, fossils can form in shallow ground in the right conditions. IF this has been going on for hundreds of millions of years then where are all of the fossils at? There aren’t enough fossils according to you to support a global flood but yet there are enough to support the idea that animals have been living dying and evolving for hundreds of millions of years? Although I’m sure it is not intentional this sounds like double talk to me. Also the formation you are talking about requires the influx of water and minerals. What would cause a large influx of water and minerals in order to form a lot of fossils all over the earth all at once leaving them in only a few layers of sediment? A global flood certainly would. Every ancient civilization all over the world that has any kind of ancient records or oral history all say the same thing. There was a flood. Coincidence?

The fossils that have been in the right situations to form are in the ground. I'm not trying to double talk simply stating that the volume of animals that would die in a global flood in a single event should leave a massive footprint in the strata. We do see isolated instances of this but nothing to support the idea of it as global or a single event. The idea that a large influx of water and minerals isn't correct either. Rain will do the work just fine with minerals from the surrounding soil if the conditions are right. I've often wondered why flood stories around the world is used as a defense for a global flood. Reading through your replies other than mine you stated the imbellishment of the stories is plausible. I don't dismiss stories of floods from ancient records but I do realize flooding is something that happens to every culture so the idea of embellished stories over time is a very reasonable assumption.



As far as the tools and structures, we agree that some have been found. If there was a deluge most structures would not have survived to be found at all (large stone pyramids and the like aside). The tools that have been found are just the ones we know about, how many could have been found that we don’t know about. If scientists don’t want to be discredited, they would certainly not want to mess up the current model with pesky things like evidence.

Yet we have structures much older than those(pyramids). As well as tools and writing. What kind of timeframe are you proposing for this flood. As far as the scientist being silent we disagree.

If everything on this planet was created together and if everything but one family and one set of every kind or species survived we would find recent reptiles mixed with bones of extinct reptiles as well as recent mammals with extinct mammals. There would be no denying that in the record. Again the shear volume of death would not be something that you can just cover up. Since we find extremely old mammals in the strata it's reasonable to assume our bones would be there as well. Any archeologist(and there are many) with religious leanings has full support in today's day and age to bring their finds to light with the help of organizations yet aside from stories and claims that don't hold up to investigation we have no evidence of it. Personally I would love to see a find that proved modern man was alive with the dinosaurs. It's a fascinating idea shared by many. But to date there is nothing to even imply that's a possibility. I have looked through your links in all 10 pages of this thread and the things your using to support your claims are even denied by creationist as false because they have been proven inaccurate or recent forgeries. The scientific world doesn't have all the answers and most likely will not due to the massive amount of time being investigated but the ideas of a global flood don't have evidence to support them.

That being said let me say this.....was this world created? Possibly yes. Was it done recently with all life at once? No, I find nothing to support the idea. If it was created it was done in some way that followed nature laws allowing life to thrive and change.



posted on Nov, 1 2013 @ 07:11 AM
link   

beegoodbees
reply to post by drivers1492
 


Ok, fossils can form in shallow ground in the right conditions. IF this has been going on for hundreds of millions of years then where are all of the fossils at? There aren’t enough fossils according to you to support a global flood but yet there are enough to support the idea that animals have been living dying and evolving for hundreds of millions of years? Although I’m sure it is not intentional this sounds like double talk to me. Also the formation you are talking about requires the influx of water and minerals. What would cause a large influx of water and minerals in order to form a lot of fossils all over the earth all at once leaving them in only a few layers of sediment? A global flood certainly would. Every ancient civilization all over the world that has any kind of ancient records or oral history all say the same thing. There was a flood. Coincidence?

As far as the tools and structures, we agree that some have been found. If there was a deluge most structures would not have survived to be found at all (large stone pyramids and the like aside). The tools that have been found are just the ones we know about, how many could have been found that we don’t know about. If scientists don’t want to be discredited, they would certainly not want to mess up the current model with pesky things like evidence.

As far as a motive to cover it up well for an individual scientist like I said already, if they go against the grain they are discredited and pushed aside(not to mention they would be acknowledging that they might be wrong). As far as a motive for the establishment as a whole it really comes down to a desire to prove that there is no God and therefore the establishment is the highest law of the land. Obedience is mandatory!

edit on 31-10-2013 by beegoodbees because: (no reason given)


Flood stories are ALL based on the first one, if you look at all the flood stories they were recorded at DIFFERENT times in different places so they are ALL based on the first flood story.

As for the fossil record ALL fossils are at different depths and you DON'T find modern day dogs, cats rabbits or humans with dinosaur fossils do you? Would that not happen in your so called flood!

Also as this planet is in a constant state of change fossils can be created then destroyed these are are common sense reason why your comments don't work.



posted on Nov, 1 2013 @ 09:12 AM
link   
reply to post by drivers1492
 


Sounds good enough but it is still all speculative. No one has any real idea what that after math of a global flood would look like because no one alive has ever witnessed one.

Real science does not call speculations definitive evidence.



posted on Nov, 1 2013 @ 09:17 AM
link   
reply to post by wmd_2008
 


You are speculating based on the time the stories were written down and disregarding the oral histories that must have come before. I have already answered the question about the "cat's and dog's". The short answer is, it is entirely possible, speculatively and you might say it is entirely impossible and that would also be speculatively.



posted on Nov, 1 2013 @ 10:13 AM
link   

beegoodbees
It is all assumption starting with darwin. He saw animals and made assumptions. Later people found bones and made more assumptions. None of this can be argued without assumption. When dating rocks we assume that we know what the rocks were composed of when they were formed. No one analyzed the rock when it was formed, there are no benchmarks and controls to compare against. This is simple and obvious stuff to to anyone who is capable of critical thought.

1. Millions of missing links
2. Unprovable dating techniques
3. Archeological finds that contradict the theory
4. A history of fraud and fabrications
5. Paintings and carvings thousands of years old depicting dinosaurs that these people would have supposedly never seen
6. A whole world of ancient histories that say otherwise.
7. No answer as to why there are only lagre amounts of fossils in certain layers of earth as opposed to having fossils everywhere or nowehere.
These are the reasons why it is not science. There are no good anwers to these because there are no good answers to these. So to believe in things unseen is faith.

How do scientists "know" how far away the nearest star to the sun is? Once you figure out that there is currently no possible way to know and that it is really just a guess than you will begin to see, unless of course you stick your head back in the sand.

Einstien put it best when he said " Education is what remains after one has forgotten what one has learned in school"
edit on 31-10-2013 by beegoodbees because: (no reason given)


Science has little to do with assuming...

Your post is full of ignorance to be honest. There are way too many people like you around internet, people who do not understand scientific method and then start thinking "logically" and trying to connect the dots.

You would not be able to write your posts now, watch TV or use any technology, if scientific method was not used. The theoretical parts of these are largely based on non-observable solutions, although at the end everything is connected via numbers and math behind it. Mendelejev created the periodic table in 1869, until recent years nothing had been directly observed what is happening, yet the numbers brought up 144 years still add up and chemistry is still all based on it. . We have sent men to moon and different machines into space based on the "assumptions". Knowing how elements behave, spectral analysis etc has made it possible to calculate the distances between objects. We knew the atmosphere of Mars far before we sent the rover on it. Scientific theories and facts are not based on assumptions, but evidence which also has to be backed up by numbers and physics behind it. We would still be living in middle ages if scientific methods was not invented...

You are basing your "hypothesis" on no evidence, but simply you have no understanding of what science is about. Of course there have been some cheaters among scientists, just like as any field humans participate at, but these have been debunked fast. There might be certain weaknesses in several scientific theories, although these have substantial evidence behind them, otherwise these would not even be classified as theories, but hypothesis, although there are thousands of people, the most brilliant minds of our time, trying to find the missing pieces and improve the theory.

It would take years of learning to understand the full process behind evolution. The SCIENTIFIC THEORY of evolution (NOT HYPOTHESIS) has been backed up by various different fields from genetics to biology and geology, the methods used are backed up by other fields of science, all of these fields together would take years of learning. Becoming a polymath or a specialist at numerous different fields is rare nowadays due to the large amount of information being improved nearly daily. You read through a couple of books/articles (not even sure in that) and watched a video and you think you understand something that takes years of trainings for very intelligent people to fully understand...

I apologise if I was a bit harsh, although it makes me upset (and a bit sad at the same time) towards people who have no idea what they are talking about.

ATS is about denying ignorance not spreading it...



posted on Nov, 1 2013 @ 10:20 AM
link   

beegoodbees

Grimpachi
reply to post by beegoodbees
 


The first article is pretty good however if you read carefully you would understand the reason it was able to do that especially with the fractured bedrock. and two meters in no way compares to the grand canyon.

Your second article with the "Handy Dandy Evolution Refuter" their words not mine was a waste of time reading. I would wear my fingers out typing if I were to go line by line correcting all the pseudoscience and misinterpretations along with some strait out lies. They add an ounce of truth to their claims to try to give themselves some credibility but there is a pound of garbage floating in there with it.

You don’t have to answer this but were you home schooled?


haha, yeah i didn't read them carefully, it is late here and I am spent.

I do have this to say though, according to the rigid scientific method you start with a guess (hypothesis) you then experiment to try to prove your hypothesis. If you can prove your hypothesis through experimentation you then have a working theory. If the theory stands the test of time then you have a scientific law.

So according to the scientific method evolution is still in the hypothesis stage.


No according to the scientific method, evolution is in the theory phase. Hence the name "Theory of Evolution." Also Theories NEVER become scientific law. I'm not sure where you got that idea from.

SCIENTIFIC LAWS and THEORIES


Some scientists will tell you that the difference between them is that a law describes what nature does under certain conditions, and will predict what will happen as long as those conditions are met. A theory explains how nature works. Others delineate law and theory based on mathematics -- Laws are often times mathematically defined (once again, a description of how nature behaves) whereas theories are often non-mathematical. Looking at things this was helps to explain, in part, why physics and chemistry have lots of "laws" whereas biology has few laws (and more theories). In biology, it is very difficult to describe all the complexities of life with "simple" (relatively speaking!) mathematical terms.

Regardless of which definitions one uses to distinguish between a law and a theory, scientists would agree that a theory is NOT a "transitory law, a law in waiting". There is NO hierarchy being implied by scientists who use these words. That is, a law is neither "better than" nor "above" a theory. From this view, laws and theories "do" different things and have different roles to play in science. Furthermore, notice that with any of the above definitions of law, neither scientists nor nature "conform" to the law. In science, a law is not something that is dictated to scientists or nature; it is not something that a scientist or nature has to do under threat of some penalty if they don't conform.


Of course this explains why you wrongly claimed that the theory of evolution is still in the hypothesis stage. There is plenty of sound science backing it up, more so than for the theory of gravity even.



posted on Nov, 1 2013 @ 11:32 AM
link   

beegoodbees
reply to post by wmd_2008
 


You are speculating based on the time the stories were written down and disregarding the oral histories that must have come before. I have already answered the question about the "cat's and dog's". The short answer is, it is entirely possible, speculatively and you might say it is entirely impossible and that would also be speculatively.



Underlined above the most important word in your text yes STORIES , just because someone talks about something DOESN'T mean it happened.

Science looks for EVIDENCE and PROOF that's the difference just because some guy in a frock promotes a story book on a Sunday or whatever sabbath is relevant doesn't make that story true.

I suggest you and people who think like you should watch this video MAYBE then you will understand probability in relation to evolution!!!!



If it doesn't sink in the first time watch it again!!



posted on Nov, 1 2013 @ 11:52 AM
link   
I have already provided hard physical evidence that disproves the current hypothesis.

Radio carbon dating can give whatever age desired simply by changing the starting point of measurement.

The scientific method says it is in fact hypothesis and not theory at all since no experimentation has been able to back it up.

There is no explanation for the Cambrian explosion, the carvings, statuettes, cave paintings and written descriptions from all over the world depicting dinosaurs, for the human tools and other artifacts (not to mention fossils) found in the "wrong" layer or for all of the missing links, except for more hypothesis. Using guesses to legitimize guesses is not science.

The fact that all believers disregard evidence in favor of guess work is just more evidence that this is in fact a religion.

Rather than continuing to argue in circles and repeating myself over and over I am moving on.
edit on 1-11-2013 by beegoodbees because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 1 2013 @ 12:07 PM
link   
reply to post by beegoodbees
 


You obviously are not trying as hard as they are, because I haven't seen nearly as much evidence and support from you as I've seen from everyone else. Don't fault us for that.



posted on Nov, 1 2013 @ 12:13 PM
link   

beegoodbees


There is no explanation for the Cambrian explosion, the carvings, statuettes, cave paintings and written descriptions from all over the world depicting dinosaurs, for the human tools and other artifacts (not to mention fossils) found in the "wrong" layer or for all of the missing links, except for more hypothesis. Using guesses to legitimize guesses is not science.



Show your best evidence of a cave drawing of a dinosaur.

As for carbon dating what about these

Radiometric Dating

Show us tools found in wrong layers also what about the youtube video I take it it struck home as you want to give in



posted on Nov, 2 2013 @ 08:05 AM
link   

beegoodbees
reply to post by drivers1492
 


Sounds good enough but it is still all speculative. No one has any real idea what that after math of a global flood would look like because no one alive has ever witnessed one.

Real science does not call speculations definitive evidence.



If I may ask then based on your replies.....what makes you accept your particular view of mankind/world history/creation? Since it seems everything put forth is speculative I am curious why the things your presenting as hard evidence differs in any way other than speculative as well. I understand your not here to prove your case as you said and I'm not asking you too I'm simply asking for an expanded explanation of your reasoning.





new topics

top topics



 
17
<< 7  8  9   >>

log in

join