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.
originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
originally posted by: Ghost147
Correct, it's falsifiable. Now, how do we test that life comes through design?
That's not the hypothesis I gave. What you did is called changing the goal posts.
originally posted by: onthedownlow
I have seen lots of these threads of late. There seems to be an assumption that without the means there is no end. We don't have all the answers, but we do have all the formulas? The point of creationism is to prove science is flawed, but we want to use the same old litmus test. I like this part, "The basic idea of a hypothesis is that there is no pre-determined outcome." Maybe science has changed since I was in school, but a hypothesis use to be followed with an assumed outcome, you use to provide an implied answer to your question. Then, you would test it.
originally posted by: CantStandIt
Not saying technological advancement is bs. Just peer review. Peer review is just a process... and just like any process, has only as much honesty, integrity, and relevance as the peers doing the reviewing.
originally posted by: sHuRuLuNi
What I don't get is this assumption on the side of atheists, that every person that believes in God somehow does not believe in evolution and/or other natural processes.
originally posted by: marg6043
a reply to: Ghost147
You don't need to elaborate soo much to make a point, the reality is that Creationism is no science is a believe that comes from religious views as that is just a concept, no even close to a theory.
But as usual the religious right will eventually get away with having that "religious belief" in the curriculum, because in America everybody has the right to everything.
originally posted by: redoubt
Creationism is based on faith.
For instance, it says that God created the universe. We were not there so we base our belief in the faith that this is true. Arguing science against such faith, or faith against science for that matter, is basically pretty pointless.
originally posted by: TheConstruKctionofLight
a reply to: Ghost147
I am not a creationist, but I do know that theory of evolution has some mighty holes.
originally posted by: TheConstruKctionofLight
a reply to: Ghost147
Forget teaching evolution or creationism in schools - mankind need classes in ethics and morals...
originally posted by: onthedownlow
originally posted by: CantStandIt
a reply to: onthedownlow
The point of creationism is NOT to prove science is flawed. Get real now.
When the theory of creationism first came around, the point was that it couldn't be disproven. Very much like many scientific theories that postulate on things that we lack the current knowledge to disprove. Creationism is a man made theory. If it provides the proof you need, that is great, I am not by any means suggesting that there is no creator.
The Second Law of Thermodynamics says that systems must become more disordered over time. Living cells therefore could not have evolved from inanimate chemicals, and multicellular life could not have evolved from protozoa.
originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: TheConstruKctionofLight
It's funny how you link a paper from 2012 that talks about how evolutionary theory isn't going to get any better and then this happened literally two days ago.
Virginia Tech chickens help reveal that evolution moves quicker than previously thought
originally posted by: spygeek
interesting thread ghost, s+f!
how would one go about creating a scientific theory of creationism?
The creation theory would have to include scientific evidence and related inferences suggesting that:
1. The universe and the Solar system were suddenly created.
2. Life was suddenly created.
3. All present living kinds of animals and plants have remained fixed since creation, other than extinctions, and genetic variation in originally created kinds has only occurred within narrow limits.
4. Mutation and natural selection are insufficient to have brought about any emergence of present living kinds from a simple primordial organism.
5. Man and apes have a separate ancestry.
6. The earth's geologic features appear to have been fashioned largely by rapid, catastrophic processes that affected the earth on a global and regional scale (catastrophism).
7. The inception of the earth and of living kinds may have been relatively recent.
If evolutionary biologists have already discovered something that disproves an intelligent designer, then why would they need to continue to discover that even more?
Once you discover something, does discovering it again later make it more true? Discovering water once, should be enough to know it exists.
What science class were you in anyways?
What I don't get is this assumption on the side of atheists, that every person that believes in God somehow does not believe in evolution and/or other natural processes.
Wow what a load. Your dogmatic belief system sounds pretty biased itself. How does that work out in science class?
If evolutionary biologists have already discovered something that disproves an intelligent designer, then why would they need to continue to discover that even more? Once you discover something, does discovering it again later make it more true? Discovering water once, should be enough to know it exists. What science class were you in anyways?
originally posted by: Ghost147
a reply to: NoCorruptionAllowed
You sound like a very reasonable person. I'm curious as to why you consider yourself 'Christian' to begin with. The bible is a book which requires individualistic interpretation. There's no definitive way to tell if the original authors meant for it to be taking 100% literal, or 100% based on historic events, but to be interpreted metaphorically. The catholic church used to forbid the public/followers from even reading the bible unless you were part of their hierarchy.
So, as much as you may feel like you're not reading it in any way that suits your personal life/views, I cannot possibly see that ever being achievable.
I don't mean to say that you aren't achieving that, just that I don't understand how it could be achievable. May I ask how you've come to the conclusion that you do not interpret things based on your personal life/views?
IF everything was created so it appears exactly the way that it really does appear, then nobody can ever disprove that.
Nothing you said has any true relevance to proving or disproving the theory of creation. If you mean "the Earth is just 6000 years old" part, or things like that, then yes. I am Christian and I never have seen a single thing that would "rock my boat" about creation being viable.
Fortunately, I am not one of those people who think just because I am a Christian, that I can "remake" everything to my own tastes like so many do these days. Some people believe all kinds of different things from misinterpretation of the scriptures, and because they might be living a fairly good and honest and moral life, that entitles them to make all the facts fit their own viewpoint, kind of like Idealism. Idealists do that all the time, even though reality screams at them an entirely different tune. Like gun free zones and stupid Sh(t like that.
I prefer to remain totally UNBIASED and watch those who have a vested but misguided interest in not believing that there was a creator scream and shout and spit over it all. It is entertaining, but also embarrassing to watch BIASED people hide behind a veil of self endowed scientific pedigree and bark at the moon.
originally posted by: Ghost147
originally posted by: Isurrender73
They assume small changes account for larger changes over 1000s of years, even though It's impossible to know at this point.
Those aren't assumptions, they are verified through fossilized remains, as well as living organisms that possess (but often have no use for) specific bone structure/organs/Shared DNA.
originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Isurrender73
You are distracting from the OP. This thread isn't about evolution. It's about Creationism being valid science or not. The fact that you are trying to shift the focus of the conversation to evolution just shows that you are unable to answer the OP's questions in the opening post.
Working scientists usually take for granted a set of basic assumptions that are needed to justify the scientific method: (1) that there is an objective reality shared by all rational observers; (2) that this objective reality is governed by natural laws; (3) that these laws can be discovered by means of systematic observation and experimentation.[9] Philosophy of science seeks a deep understanding of what these underlying assumptions mean and whether they are valid.
A scientific theory is empirical,[nb 18][79] and is always open to falsification if new evidence is presented. That is, no theory is ever considered strictly certain as science accepts the concept of fallibilism.[nb 20] The philosopher of science Karl Popper sharply distinguishes truth from certainty. He writes that scientific knowledge "consists in the search for truth", but it "is not the search for certainty ... All human knowledge is fallible and therefore uncertain.
originally posted by: redoubt
a reply to: Ghost147
"... is Creationism willing to be peer reviewed, and thrown away if proven to be false?"
Just a note or two on this approach, if I may...
Creationism is based on faith.
For instance, it says that God created the universe. We were not there so we base our belief in the faith that this is true. Arguing science against such faith, or faith against science for that matter, is basically pretty pointless.
Why is such conflict so embraced by the devout from both ends of this razored polarization?
The human condition - something we have yet to overcome, from any quarter, to graduate to the next level.
IMESHO, that is.
Have a nice day
originally posted by: GetHyped
a reply to: TheConstruKctionofLight
Claims evolution has holes.
Quotes creationist propaganda as proof.
Riiiiiiiiiiiight.
Propaganda is information that is not impartial and used primarily to influence an audience and further an agenda, often by presenting facts selectively (perhaps lying by omission) to encourage a particular synthesis, or using loaded messages to produce an emotional rather than a rational response to the information presented.