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.

 

Intelligent Design; Does Modern Genetic Research Mean Darwin's THEORY of Evolution Belongs In The..

page: 7
12
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 29 2013 @ 01:32 AM
link   
reply to post by Xtrozero
 
The suggestion that there are infinite universes may be more difficult to support than intelligent design. It is theoretical, like the oort cloud, and is used to explain away impossibilities. Infinite universes and oort clouds are pure conjecture, and show no evidence. None have been found. They exist to support the secular belief that there is no god.




posted on Dec, 29 2013 @ 01:33 AM
link   
reply to post by Xtrozero
 


What ifs are worth 0%.

Show me an alternate universe and we'll talk about it's properties.



posted on Dec, 29 2013 @ 01:33 AM
link   
FOR ANYBODY

Can I ask simply, What are the most accepted main arguments from both spectrums? Arguments for evolution and arguments for creation? I have read quite a bit and it seems on both sides things are almost always loaded one way or another but what really is the fundamentally different view points? I do understand that there is more to it then just those two sides but as a summary, what are the most accepted arguments from either side from solid sources if anyone could provide them that would be great.



posted on Dec, 29 2013 @ 01:34 AM
link   
reply to post by Woodcarver
 




this post is a refutation of gentries work. This is a guy explaing why gentry is wrong.


Oops. Jim, you should pay more attention. Your source.

It is his interpretations and applications of his results that err. As just one example of the problems with his interpretation, in some places polonium halos occur in granite that underlies some fossil-bearing sedimentary rocks and is older than the sedimentary rocks, but in other places polonium halos are found in granites that penetrate sedimentary rocks and are younger than the fossil-bearing sediments, impossible on Gentry's view.
infidels.org...



posted on Dec, 29 2013 @ 01:38 AM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 
The polonium halos disappear if the granite cooling period exceeds about 10 minutes. Given that the halos are there, the evidence is pretty strong that the granite cooled fast. Of course, this is impossible. It supports the creation of the Earth by God, which is not a scientifically supported statement. There is enough science today to prove that we are designed by a Creator. Only one thing has to be right, and there are many.



posted on Dec, 29 2013 @ 01:39 AM
link   
reply to post by Jim Scott
 

Better read the source you gave us.



posted on Dec, 29 2013 @ 01:39 AM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 
This is not a problem for a Creationist. Neither are fossils.



posted on Dec, 29 2013 @ 01:40 AM
link   

Jim Scott
reply to post by Xtrozero
 
The suggestion that there are infinite universes may be more difficult to support than intelligent design. It is theoretical, like the oort cloud, and is used to explain away impossibilities. Infinite universes and oort clouds are pure conjecture, and show no evidence. None have been found. They exist to support the secular belief that there is no god.



In either case both are situations we can not comprehend since both would not have a beginning nor end...no time...

All of this is like looking at a cloud and seeing a bunny, why should there be intelligent design in the first place?

We do know that matter can blink in and out of our universe, so matter comes and goes somewhere but like the old story of the Chicken or Egg we seem to continually need something to create the other....when do we decide who created God?



posted on Dec, 29 2013 @ 01:40 AM
link   
reply to post by Jim Scott
 

Right. Because they tend to ignore actual science.

edit on 12/29/2013 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 29 2013 @ 01:43 AM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 
It's been fun. Thanks for the debate. Done for the day. Good luck and God bless.



posted on Dec, 29 2013 @ 01:46 AM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


A CREATIONIST: A creationist is a person who rejects the theory of evolution and believes instead that the each species on earth was put here by a Divine Being. A Creationist might accept "micro-evolution" (changes in the form of a species over time based on natural selection), but rejects the notion that one species can-- over time-- become another species.

YOUNG EARTH CREATIONIST: A young earth creationist believes that the earth is nowhere near the 4.6 billion or so years old that most scientists estimate, but is instead closer to 6,000 or so years old, based on the assumption the Genesis contains a complete listing of the generations from Adam and Eve to historical times.

INTELLIGENT DESIGN PROPONENT: An ID proponent might or might not reject the theory of evolution. At a minimum, the ID proponent rejects that evolution is randomly driven or, more generally, the notion that natural law and chance alone can explain the diversity of life on earth. Instead, the ID proponent argues--often from statistics--that the diversity of life is the result of a purposeful scheme of some higher power (who may or may not be the God of the Bible).

EVOLUTIONIST: An evolutionist accepts the Darwinian argument that natural selection and environmental factors combine to explain the diversity of life we see on earth. An evolutionist may or may not believe that evolution is the way in which a Divine Being has chosen to work in the world. Evolutionists divide into various camps, including PUNCTUALISTS (who believe that evolution usually occurs sporadically, in relatively short bursts, as the result of major environmental change) and GRADUALISTS (who are more inclined to believe that evolution occurs more evenly, over longer periods of time). The PUNCTUALISTS seem now to be winning the argument.

I found this, would you consider this to be a good place to start looking at all sides of what is debated?



posted on Dec, 29 2013 @ 01:47 AM
link   

Brotherman
FOR ANYBODY

Can I ask simply, What are the most accepted main arguments from both spectrums? Arguments for evolution and arguments for creation? I have read quite a bit and it seems on both sides things are almost always loaded one way or another but what really is the fundamentally different view points? I do understand that there is more to it then just those two sides but as a summary, what are the most accepted arguments from either side from solid sources if anyone could provide them that would be great.


All arguments for creation are purely emotional because they can produce no evidence for causation. With no evidence you are left with "it feels right"

Evolution is undeniable, if you really dig in, there is an ocean of evidence. Mitochondrial dna, fossils, and real time studies of bacteria in labs around the world.

We would find skeletons of horses, pigs, racoons, and humans, along with dinosaurs. These skeletons only start to appear from a few hundred thousand years ago. If there were no evolution, then these skeletons would have always existed. Dinos died out 65 million years ago. Animals from this period only slightly resemble what we have around today because they have changed in appearance and therefore changed species.



posted on Dec, 29 2013 @ 01:48 AM
link   

Woodcarver


What ifs are worth 0%.

Show me an alternate universe and we'll talk about it's properties.


So, what if there is intelligent design? One would think that the natural course would be randomness that is controlled somewhat by the basic laws of the universe. To throw in intelligent design is a BIG what if...



posted on Dec, 29 2013 @ 01:48 AM
link   
reply to post by Jim Scott
 



I have listed lots of evidence for evolution.

What is your evidence for creation?



posted on Dec, 29 2013 @ 01:50 AM
link   
reply to post by Woodcarver
 


Then why is it that we do not see emergence of new species in our day and age but observe extinctions? I wouldn't believe all things evolved at the same time as in there was no linear evolution pattern of all living things, rather species developed on their own respective "programs" right? Or is it that copies start to get weaker over time in regards to millions of years of reproduction on top of change in the environment?



posted on Dec, 29 2013 @ 01:51 AM
link   
reply to post by Brotherman
 

Seems about right. With a caveat. While the first three can be looked at simplistically more or less as represented (the details don't really matter, or there aren't really any details) the same cannot be said for evolution.



posted on Dec, 29 2013 @ 01:55 AM
link   
reply to post by Brotherman
 


Then why is it that we do not see emergence of new species in our day and age but observe extinctions?
It takes a lot longer for a species to emerge than to become extinct. Extintion does open up a niche though, giving existing species a chance to flourish (and not necessarily evolving to do so).



Or is it that copies start to get weaker over time in regards to millions of years of reproduction on top of change in the environment?
No. Species don't get weaker. They get replaced for a variety of reasons; changing environment, the rise or "invasion" of better competitors, the extinction of their symbiotes. The thing is, speciation would tend to occur in relatively small populations. Populations in which a small mutation could make a large difference in their likelihood to reproduce.


edit on 12/29/2013 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 29 2013 @ 01:58 AM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


The reason I ask is I'm not looking for scripture argument or facts based in religious documents to support one or the other but it seems I should probably look at all the things differing positions have to offer. I personally think I fall between category 3 ID with components of 4 EVO but I understand there is so much out there to look at that when I come across bible studies refutes ... I just go somewhere else to look. Have you ever heard a compelling creationist argument that may not have changed your mind but may have made you say "what the hell why not."?



posted on Dec, 29 2013 @ 02:00 AM
link   
reply to post by Brotherman
 

No. But I'm not really of that bent. "Oh, why the hell not" is just too simple. "God did it." The Universe is not simple. It is full of random events.

edit on 12/29/2013 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 29 2013 @ 02:03 AM
link   
reply to post by Xtrozero
 


To prove a case of inteligent design you would have to show what we call causation. We know that beavers build dams because we can observe them doing it. We know pluto has an orbit of like 300 years even though we havent observed it, but we can plot its course and with the help of a little math we can come to a reasonable conclusion.

To even hold the proposition of an ID we would have to have something to observe. The best evidence put forward is that there are patterns in the universe ( the golden ratio, pi, life itself) but to the best of our knowledge of everything observable, these are natural occurances. They are following the natural course of chemistry. To propose ID as a cause you would first have to prove a deity exists and then show how he makes universes. This is how science works. Its the only way to make any positive claim. Any claim at all. Every thing else you know is based on observations of the physical world.



new topics

top topics



 
12
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join