Neil deGrasse Tyson vs. Young Earth Creationism

page: 3
17
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Oct, 22 2013 @ 10:22 AM
link   
Heres a tid bit aI got from a friend

"Next time an evolutionist wants to debate evolution vs creationism just bring up Phi 1.618 and new discoveries that have been made on the quantum lvl concerning particle physics. Known as the Fibonacci sequence or Golden ratio. Its in everything even the very laws of physics itself. The mathematics that make up our universe down to our DNA and the even resonance of phi found in the quantized scalar field cannot be discounted as coincidence or chance evolution. If that isn't enough to shut down the debate then here are a few more tips for you.

Louis Pasteur quote "Can matter organize itself? No! Today there is no circumstance known under which one could affirm that microscopic beings have come into the world without parents resembling themselves"

Put simply the chances of Nucleotides and Peptides forming amino acids not to mention the proteins needed for 1 cell to form is 10 to the factorial of 7 or 10 to the 74th power and that's just for the amino acid. Doug Axe a molecular Biologist at Cal Tech who also taught at Cambridge University for 14 years has shown that just to get the Peptides to bond with a protein is in the area of 10 to the 154th and that's just for 1 protein. Now add in to this the fact that the proteins that make up a cell have to be there when the cell forms or the cell dies instantly and you begin to realize that evolution is impossible. Now to give you an idea on the chance of all your Nucleotides, Peptides, amino acids and proteins all forming in a soup at exactly the same time just to form 1 cell would be the same as winning more then 100 trillion different lotteries on the same day. EVOLUTION NEVER HAPPENED BY CHANCE! Anyone that tells you otherwise doesn't have the facts and needs to put down Origins of a Species.

Every missing link that evolutionist try to use from Australopithecus Afarensis or "Lucy" has been confirmed to be an extinct ape species. Homo Erectus, Homo Ergaster, Homo Sapiens Archaic have been proven to belong to different human races and are not missing links at all. Neanderthal man dismissed in 1960, Piltdown man dismissed 1953, Zinjantrophus dismissed 1960, Ramapithecus dismissed 1979 and the list goes on. Evolution IS NOT even close to being science and dont even get me started on DNA.

The next time someone wants to argue evolution vs creationism show them this post and tell them when they can scientifically show you how proteins formed to make the first cell then we can talk about it, until then everything else they bring to the table is junk. The creator's fingerprint is in everything even the very laws of physics, tell them to remember that the next time they look at a flower and see Phi or when they listen to music. "

and another

"Most evolutionary theories concerning molecular biology surround differing states of Mitochondrial and Genome formation in different species. In other words how hybridization effects the evolutionary process in species. None of these actually show from scratch how proteins peptides, nucleotides and amino acids formed on their own, all they can do is analyze their states and chart them. This confuses the masses because they think HEY he used the word evolution when talking about RNA, Hybrid Bacteriophages, Photosynthetic Eukaryotes and Opisthokonta. I can watch hair grow on my chin and say hey look proof I'm evolving but IT ISNT PROOF! Its a bunch of propaganda and honest scientists are proving one theory after another to be false daily. The problem is in the scientific community to stand against the propaganda machine is like trying to sell evolution to a church full of fundamental Christians. Who I might add can prove intelligent design with nothing more then Phi 1.618 if most were knowledgeable enough to know how. The creator literally put his signature in everything even the spiral in galaxies in order to say I was here. Even in the very atoms that make up matter, light and even sound. Anyone that thinks creation in our Universe is chaotic or random can look at the stars themselves to see that the same patterns exist in DNA itself. If your going to say that life on earth evolved on its own without a creator then why are the same patterns we see in every living creature also found through out the universe? How is it that BY CHANCE everything in the Universe was created from an explosion and just happened to arrange itself in the same order as every living thing on this planet even down to the minute particle and the very physics that make up everything even down to the quantum lvl of both scalar and vector quantities. Phi is literally found in everything, it is observable in every quantum state. So what evolutionists are saying is that BY CHANCE everything in the universe is singing the same tune because BY CHANCE it all decided on its own to do things in an orderly fashion. That's like taking a pile of wood, throwing a stick of dynamite on it and building a house instantly and then doing it over and over all through out the universe and then saying it all happened by chance and there was no intelligent structure to it at all. Its in the very laws of physics that hold everything together so perhaps evolutionists should start there instead of the origins of a species because this goes way past how organisms on some tiny blue planet in an ocean of stars just happened to form BY CHANCE!"
edit on 22-10-2013 by beegoodbees because: (no reason given)




posted on Oct, 22 2013 @ 11:06 AM
link   
reply to post by Prezbo369
 


I never said the two were different? But understandable. It is a belief, i agree of course.

But who said all beliefs were wrong, ey?



posted on Oct, 22 2013 @ 07:04 PM
link   
reply to post by beegoodbees
 





The next time someone wants to argue evolution vs creationism show them this post


One would need to be a complete moron to take that advise.

You don't have a clue what true science is all about, try some critical thinking and objective explanations. Referencing the golden ratio/pi/Fibonacci sequence to disprove evolution is NOT science and is not a credible argument in any rational forum of investigation.

I've heard all the pseudoscientific crap you are spewing over this page. The fact that you deny the overwhelming evidence supporting evolution and your complete bastardization and misrepresentation of Molecular biology, Physics, Genealogy, Anthropology and I think you even shat on Astronomy, give both your religion and science which you espouse to pretend to even understand, a black eye.

I'm not even going to waste my time going over the rest of your glowing turds.

Do the real research, try some higher learning, study underneath the researchers in the fields and in the labs, stay away from creationist websites.

Above all be objective and stop bringing your biased religious beliefs into the fray.
edit on fTuesday1318107f180707 by flyingfish because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 22 2013 @ 10:09 PM
link   

flyingfish
reply to post by beegoodbees
 





The next time someone wants to argue evolution vs creationism show them this post


One would need to be a complete moron to take that advise.

You don't have a clue what true science is all about, try some critical thinking and objective explanations. Referencing the golden ratio/pi/Fibonacci sequence to disprove evolution is NOT science and is not a credible argument in any rational forum of investigation.


I've heard all the pseudoscientific crap you are spewing over this page. The fact that you deny the overwhelming evidence supporting evolution and your complete bastardization and misrepresentation of Molecular biology, Physics, Genealogy, Anthropology and I think you even shat on Astronomy, give both your religion and science which you espouse to pretend to even understand, a black eye.

I'm not even going to waste my time going over the rest of your glowing turds.

Do the real research, try some higher learning, study underneath the researchers in the fields and in the labs, stay away from creationist websites.

Above all be objective and stop bringing your biased religious beliefs into the fray.
edit on fTuesday1318107f180707 by flyingfish because: (no reason given)



Ahhhh yes, a true liberal. When you have no evidence to present and no real rebuttal, you resort to name calling. You have just exposed yourself. Congrats!

Real science is about observation and experimentation, not speculation. Again, if you can't reproduce it through experimentation than it is not science. It is really quite simple. It requires a great deal of faith to believe evolution is science and even more to believe it actually happened. It is an unproven hypothesis and to call it anything else is dishonest.

In reality there is nothing but circumstantial evidence and hypothesis. The "overwhelming evidence" is all just guess work. No transitional record from one species to another more complex species exists. Not even close. Everyone says look at the evidence and I say what evidence? How in the heck do you think all of those fossils were formed? They were quickly buried in sediment before scavenging and decomposition cold take place such as would happen in a large FLOOD!
edit on 22-10-2013 by beegoodbees because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 23 2013 @ 12:16 AM
link   
reply to post by beegoodbees
 




Ahhhh yes, a true liberal. When you have no evidence to present and no real rebuttal, you resort to name calling. You have just exposed yourself. Congrats!


This is what psychologists refer to as "projection".
I'm not a liberal and FYI this has nothing to do with politics.
I don't need to refute your nonsense, it's been done a thousand times in these threads and all over the internet for decades. Your either late to the game, ignorant, lying, trolling or all of the above.
As for name calling, I did not call you a moron, but if you would like to own it..so be it.

Real science is about observation and experimentation, not speculation. Again, if you can't reproduce it through experimentation than it is not science. It is really quite simple. It requires a great deal of faith to believe creationism is science and even more to believe it actually happened. It is unproven, and is not even a hypothesis and to call it anything else is dishonest.

There, fixed it for you.



In reality there is nothing but circumstantial evidence and hypothesis. The "overwhelming evidence" is all just guess work.


Citations please, where is your evidence for these claims, just one example of guess work that makes it all circumstantial and hypothesis will do.



No transitional record from one species to another more complex species exists


All You're doing is displaying a lack of understanding of what constitutes a transitional fossil.
This, as with all your creationist claims are dead. It's done bleedin'... deceased. Stop flogging a dead parrot.



Not even close. Everyone says look at the evidence and I say what evidence?


That's bullsh#t. You're not addressing the evidence, you're trying to hand-wave it away.
I'm not here to educate you. If you really want to know what the evidence is you would research it. But we all know your not interested in evidence, are you.



How in the heck do you think all of those fossils were formed? They were quickly buried in sediment before scavenging and decomposition cold take place such as would happen in a large FLOOD!


It is hard to understand the level of idiotic doublethink necessary to come to the conclusion of a large flood. But it would explain why all fossils are all in ONE layer such as would happen in a large flood..... WRONG!

For the record we all have seen these semantics your trying to employ. Save yourself the embarrassment of losing all your credibility.



posted on Oct, 23 2013 @ 12:48 AM
link   
reply to post by flyingfish
 


It has been proven therefore I need not provide proof for it, good logic. Name calling and insults is your contribution to society. Yes a liberal illogical mindset you have. Political affiliation and liberalism are not mutually exclusive. How about a rebuttal instead of insults. This is not kindergarten you know, or for that matter your higher indoctrination aka university. You blindly follow stupidity without ever asking critical questions. You are taught what to think instead of how to think and that is why all you have is insults.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

I have already squashed you. read if you like.
edit on 23-10-2013 by beegoodbees because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 23 2013 @ 01:07 AM
link   

flyingfish
reply to post by beegoodbees
 




Ahhhh yes, a true liberal. When you have no evidence to present and no real rebuttal, you resort to name calling. You have just exposed yourself. Congrats!


This is what psychologists refer to as "projection".
I'm not a liberal and FYI this has nothing to do with politics.
I don't need to refute your nonsense, it's been done a thousand times in these threads and all over the internet for decades. Your either late to the game, ignorant, lying, trolling or all of the above.
As for name calling, I did not call you a moron, but if you would like to own it..so be it.

Real science is about observation and experimentation, not speculation. Again, if you can't reproduce it through experimentation than it is not science. It is really quite simple. It requires a great deal of faith to believe creationism is science and even more to believe it actually happened. It is unproven, and is not even a hypothesis and to call it anything else is dishonest.

There, fixed it for you.



In reality there is nothing but circumstantial evidence and hypothesis. The "overwhelming evidence" is all just guess work.


Citations please, where is your evidence for these claims, just one example of guess work that makes it all circumstantial and hypothesis will do.



No transitional record from one species to another more complex species exists


All You're doing is displaying a lack of understanding of what constitutes a transitional fossil.
This, as with all your creationist claims are dead. It's done bleedin'... deceased. Stop flogging a dead parrot.



Not even close. Everyone says look at the evidence and I say what evidence?


That's bullsh#t. You're not addressing the evidence, you're trying to hand-wave it away.
I'm not here to educate you. If you really want to know what the evidence is you would research it. But we all know your not interested in evidence, are you.



How in the heck do you think all of those fossils were formed? They were quickly buried in sediment before scavenging and decomposition cold take place such as would happen in a large FLOOD!


It is hard to understand the level of idiotic doublethink necessary to come to the conclusion of a large flood. But it would explain why all fossils are all in ONE layer such as would happen in a large flood..... WRONG!

For the record we all have seen these semantics your trying to employ. Save yourself the embarrassment of losing all your credibility.


Just out of curiosity how do you think all of those fossils formed? Not all in one layer but several? I of course already know the answer because I threw off my shackles of religion, so called higher learning and main stream ideology long ago and replaced it with a logical interpretation of evidence. Hey, I'm open minded and have been wrong before but I have heard no real "scientific" reason for this. As we all know when animals die they are scavenged and rotted away without a trace in most cases. You really should try to answer some of my points if you want to have any credibility. My credibility is not in question because I have presented a case for my opinions. What about you?



posted on Oct, 23 2013 @ 01:16 AM
link   
reply to post by flyingfish
 


I have dared this rodeo may times before in many forums and have never had anything but the same old crap thrown at me with no evidence to back it up. straw man after straw man, "but the teacher said" "but the TV said" "but there is no "intelligence" higher than us". Nonsense. Make a pool, you can even cheat and put whatever you want into it and you will never get a single strand of DNA no matter what you do to it or how long you do it. Again, if it can't be reproduced through experiment it is not science.

Transitional only has one meaning, just as the word theory does, you can look it up if you want to. Even though it cannot realistically be called a theory because it has never been proven by experimentation.

I have noticed that over time there has been an effort by the dishonest pseudoscientists and there adherents to manipulate the word theory in scientific applications in order to make evolution sound more authoritative. This is not ok with me. I will stand for truth and not let science be defamed and hijacked by this stupidity that some have tried to dupe the population with. Yeah dinosaurs (or dragons of old) somehow mysteriously defied all scientific laws and workable theories and magically turned themselves by accident into birds.

You find me a hair that is in the middle of transition to a feather (not a hair or a feather but something in between, half hair and half feather and then we can talk. Until then it is all speculation. There are no missing links because there are no missing links.

Again, the scientific method dictates that if it cannot be reproduced by experiment than it is not science. That really is the end of the debate no matter how many more words are bloviated by you or anyone else.
edit on 23-10-2013 by beegoodbees because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 23 2013 @ 10:07 AM
link   

beegoodbees
Evolution is pseudo science and is not even a theory, it is by definition a hypothesis since it cannot be reproduced by scientific experiment. If it can't be reproduced with experimentation it is not science.

You need to learn to use a dictionary because your definition of science looks contrived in support of your bias. Here is a dictionary definition...


sci·ence
noun \ˈsī-ən(t)s\

: knowledge about or study of the natural world based on facts learned through experiments and observation

Source- Merriam Webster dictionary

Please take note of two key words in this definition; study and observation. Experiments are a means to observation, but experimentation is not required for science. According to your made up definition of science the existence of the Moon is psudoscience because we sure can't reproduce it! Also, you don't have to have proof to make it science, the mere study of the natural world (using sound methods, of course) is science.

I have another definition of science which I like, but I did not remember the source:

Science is the process of correcting our understanding of the physical World through observation.

Both of these definitions refer to the physical or natrual World, not the super natural. Science is not against God, nor am I. The real conflict is not between God and science, but between those who believe that the physical World is all there is and those who believe that there is more than just the physical, observable Universe. Science, by definition, is limited to the physical World only.

Another Quote:

Knowledge, even that which may unsettle us, is surely perferred to ingnorance.
-James D. Watson

Don't put God in a box. Let God be bigger than you. It's okay to seek truth through science, unless you're scared that you will learn something that will kill God. I doubt it. God is all about the Truth. Would God decieve us? I don't think so. If we measure a star to be millions of light years away does that mean God is tricking us by making it look like the star is far away when in fact the star is not even there? Surely not! At least as I know God, he would not do that.

Take some time to study the life of Galileo Galilee. In his day, the church had God in a box, the Earth centered box. Galileo, through observation, provided strong evidence in support of Copernicus' Sun centered theory. Did this new evidence unsettle the status quo? You bet it did! Did it kill God? No. What do you believe? Does the Earth move? Or do you think that Aristotle was right?




posted on Oct, 23 2013 @ 10:32 AM
link   
I don't know what it is, but something about that Tyson guy creeps me out. I guess the clincher was when he bit the ear of that other guy...what was his name...Evangelist??



posted on Oct, 23 2013 @ 03:57 PM
link   

MarioOnTheFly
I don't know what it is, but something about that Tyson guy creeps me out. I guess the clincher was when he bit the ear of that other guy...what was his name...Evangelist??

Since this is ATS, I'm not even sure if you're joking or for real



posted on Oct, 24 2013 @ 09:41 PM
link   

Galileo400

: knowledge about or study of the natural world based on facts learned through experiments and observation





You just proved me right, thank you for your support. Galileo is a good example of someone going against the religious mainstream and being ridiculed by the religious powers of the time even though he was right. Just like I (and others like me) am ridiculed for going against the mainstream religion of evolution.

BTY the word science (just like the words theory and transitional) only has one real definition. Any attempt to alter these definitions is done out of desperation by the evolutionists to protect their precious religion and to protect it's scientific legitimacy.
edit on 24-10-2013 by beegoodbees because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 24 2013 @ 10:56 PM
link   

beegoodbees

Galileo400

: knowledge about or study of the natural world based on facts learned through experiments and observation





You just proved me right, thank you for your support. Galileo is a good example of someone going against the religious mainstream and being ridiculed by the religious powers of the time even though he was right. Just like I (and others like me) am ridiculed for going against the mainstream religion of evolution.

BTY the word science (just like the words theory and transitional) only has one real definition. Any attempt to alter these definitions is done out of desperation by the evolutionists to protect their precious religion and to protect it's scientific legitimacy.
edit on 24-10-2013 by beegoodbees because: (no reason given)

You are such an intellectually screwed up mess that no one can even carry on a reasonable conversation with you. I'm not even going to attempt to point out how you just contradicted yourself because it would be a waste of my time. I'm done with you, beegoodbees. Have a great life.




posted on Oct, 25 2013 @ 12:06 AM
link   

Galileo400

beegoodbees

Galileo400

: knowledge about or study of the natural world based on facts learned through experiments and observation





You just proved me right, thank you for your support. Galileo is a good example of someone going against the religious mainstream and being ridiculed by the religious powers of the time even though he was right. Just like I (and others like me) am ridiculed for going against the mainstream religion of evolution.

BTY the word science (just like the words theory and transitional) only has one real definition. Any attempt to alter these definitions is done out of desperation by the evolutionists to protect their precious religion and to protect it's scientific legitimacy.
edit on 24-10-2013 by beegoodbees because: (no reason given)

You are such an intellectually screwed up mess that no one can even carry on a reasonable conversation with you. I'm not even going to attempt to point out how you just contradicted yourself because it would be a waste of my time. I'm done with you, beegoodbees. Have a great life.



Again, insults and no rebuttal, classless and thoughtless. We haven't really had a conversation, I make points that you have no answer to so you just insult me like an ignorant teenager would. That's ok I'm used to it.
edit on 25-10-2013 by beegoodbees because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 25 2013 @ 12:21 AM
link   
reply to post by Galileo400
 


Yep, bee has got all the Dishonest Creationist Tactics covered.


1) scientists limit themselves to what is known, and they (generally) clearly state what is their opinion and speculation when they stray from what is known.

Creationists allow themselves wild speculation, baseless assertions, lies, deceit, and a belief in magic to defend their dogmas.

2) scientists discard obsolete data when new data supplants it with better evidence and explanatory power.

Creationists discard every piece of data that does not mesh with their pre-conceived dogmas.

3) scientists acknowledge the fact that many questions remain unknown, and indeed may be unknowable.

Creationists manufacture ANY possible "answer" they can imagine that supports their dogmas.

4) scientists expect their listeners to think and hear critically, and to know enough about the subject to arrive at the reasoned, valid conclusions.

Creationists DEPEND upon the ignorance of their audience. They avoid properly set up debates in front of real scientists.

5) scientists debate because they find the subject to be fascinating and they want to educate the audience of not only science, but also the threat to education Creationism poses.

Creationists "debate" because they believe it is "saving souls" from their Hell. They therefore believe they have a far bigger stake in "winning" than the scientist.

6) scientists do not expect Creationist debate opponents to lie (unless the scientist is well-read on Creationist tactics.)

Creationists expect scientists to tell the truth, thus the Creationist will not be surprised by anything the scientist brings up. I dare say that if scientists started to be as dishonest as Creationists, these "debates" would be "won" by the scientists: however, the scientific community would scream bloody murder (unlike the Creationist community, whom remain silent over their Creationist "debaters" lies).

7) scientists do not have the time to "debate" the Creationists.

Creationists have lots and lots of time, since they do no work, perform no research, and are supported by their cults. They gleefully announce that the reason scientists do not "debate" them is because the scientists are afraid of them.

8) scientists must limit themselves to a very shallow overview of evolution and Evolutionary Theory, out of time restraints and complexity of the subject.

Creationists need only make assertions that their audience will buy because they sound nice and gives the audience a warm, fuzzy feeling. For every assertion by the Creationists that the scientist demonstrates false, the Creationist utters many dozens of more falsehoods. There is no way the scientist has time to correct them all.



Sorry bee, ATS is not a website dedicated to semantic fallacies.
When bee stops ignoring the evidence perhaps he/she can be taken seriously, till then I hope the best on your recovery.

edit on fFriday13241012f243112 by flyingfish because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 25 2013 @ 12:35 AM
link   
"And God set them in the firmament of the heaven"

Hindu
"A vast dark ocean washed upon the shores of nothingness and licked the edges of the night."

Greek
In the begining there was only chaos. Then out of the void appeared Erebus, the unknowable place where death dwells, and Night.

Roman
Roman creation myth portrays the world before creation as unshaped matter, or chaos that was characterized by inharmonious co-existence of opposites.

As a scientist,, the first resonaits,, with me.

So tell me more about this,,"set them in the firmament",,

as we all know,, today we call that firmament,,, Physics.



posted on Oct, 25 2013 @ 02:03 AM
link   
reply to post by flyingfish
 


Now you are posting false generalized statements that you found on the web and still no rebuttal. If you can prove just one thing that I have stated wrong I will give you a star on every post you have made on this thread. The truth is that the gig is up, evolution has had no legs since the discovery of DNA. The establishment just hasn't informed the brainwashed yet. You have a good life too. Thank you for the mock debate.
edit on 25-10-2013 by beegoodbees because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 25 2013 @ 06:22 AM
link   
reply to post by beegoodbees
 


Again, if you can't reproduce it through experimentation than it is not science.

Being reproducible and being replicable are two different things. I think you're confusing the two based on your statement here. This paper isn't from a biology journal, but it provides a good explanation for the difference between the two.



posted on Oct, 25 2013 @ 09:09 AM
link   
reply to post by iterationzero
 

Don't waste your time with beegoodbees, he's stuck in his dogma and cannot think for himself.



posted on Oct, 25 2013 @ 09:13 AM
link   

flyingfish
reply to post by Galileo400
 


Yep, bee has got all the Dishonest Creationist Tactics covered.

Thank you. So, it's not just me. I sure don't have the time to waste on his dogma.





new topics
top topics
 
17
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join