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.
To all Creationists/Evolutionists
page: 3share:
Originally posted by megabytz
reply to post by mb2591
No scientific theories are always refutable.
If you have read that before, which I am sure many people in this forum have, then why do you still use the phrase "its just a theory"?
Scientific theories are hypothesis that have passed many empirical tests. Could the big bang be wrong? Sure but it is not very likely. Maybe certain aspects of the theory will change but the basic premise is pretty solid.
When people refer to scientific theories as "just a theory" they are presenting it as an untested hypothesis, such as creationism, and not a theory backed by a great deal of evidence.
I never said it's just a theory I said it is a theory as in it can still be proven wrong.
Originally posted by Godsontoo
Originally posted by IKTOMI
reply to post by TechUnique
Im sorry but the whole "big bang" theory sounds just as dumb as all the others if not more so.
I know to think this endless universe started as some super tiny super heated blob that all of a sudden pops and expands at rates faster than the speed of light is so outrageous it is comical, it is a theory that is designed to negate the possibility of a creator . The fact of the matter is of you believe in science then look at the Torah bible codes and the statistical science of the probabilities of these matrixes not being there by design therefore proving the bible was written by a being with knowledge of the future . This would be God.
Na you are wrong too. Thats dumb.
I believe in the Big Shart Theory. Its way cooler, and it doesn't have a bunch of know it all internet dorks spewing it all over the earth as if it mattered.
Originally posted by mb2591
Originally posted by megabytz
reply to post by mb2591
No scientific theories are always refutable.
If you have read that before, which I am sure many people in this forum have, then why do you still use the phrase "its just a theory"?
Scientific theories are hypothesis that have passed many empirical tests. Could the big bang be wrong? Sure but it is not very likely. Maybe certain aspects of the theory will change but the basic premise is pretty solid.
When people refer to scientific theories as "just a theory" they are presenting it as an untested hypothesis, such as creationism, and not a theory backed by a great deal of evidence.
I never said it's just a theory I said it is a theory as in it can still be proven wrong.
the theory can be wrong, but with all the evidence, it is very likely that it wont be proven false or dismissed.
Originally posted by IKTOMI
When did the pissing contest become an event in the special olympics?
What does this mean?
reply to post by mb2591
Of course they talk of a flood but they had no concept of how big the earth was. I am sure they thought it was world wide. It is simply impossible because evidence of a flood to the tops of mountains would be apparent, as a matter of fact the land mass would still be under water unless all that water magically disappeared.
Also the fossil record wouldn't be in the perfect order to support evolution. We would find animals from all different eras mixed together.
Here read this.
Many of the flood stories were obviously adapted from earlier stories. The story of Noah was very obviously adapted from the Epic of Gilgamesh.
Of course they talk of a flood but they had no concept of how big the earth was. I am sure they thought it was world wide. It is simply impossible because evidence of a flood to the tops of mountains would be apparent, as a matter of fact the land mass would still be under water unless all that water magically disappeared.
Also the fossil record wouldn't be in the perfect order to support evolution. We would find animals from all different eras mixed together.
Here read this.
Many of the flood stories were obviously adapted from earlier stories. The story of Noah was very obviously adapted from the Epic of Gilgamesh.
Originally posted by vjr1113
Originally posted by mb2591
Originally posted by megabytz
reply to post by mb2591
No scientific theories are always refutable.
If you have read that before, which I am sure many people in this forum have, then why do you still use the phrase "its just a theory"?
Scientific theories are hypothesis that have passed many empirical tests. Could the big bang be wrong? Sure but it is not very likely. Maybe certain aspects of the theory will change but the basic premise is pretty solid.
When people refer to scientific theories as "just a theory" they are presenting it as an untested hypothesis, such as creationism, and not a theory backed by a great deal of evidence.
I never said it's just a theory I said it is a theory as in it can still be proven wrong.
the theory can be wrong, but with all the evidence, it is very likely that it wont be proven false or dismissed.
Actually for it to be right there has to be some revisions for it to explain the origins of the universe although I do believe that a good portion of the theory is right.
reply to post by megabytz
Seen this arguement alot but these do exist:
Superseded scientific theories
Seen this arguement alot but these do exist:
Superseded scientific theories
A superseded, or obsolete, scientific theory is a scientific theory that was once commonly accepted but that is no longer considered the most complete description of reality by a mainstream scientific consensus, or a theory which has been shown to be false.
reply to post by mb2591
I apologize you are right. I jumped to soon I guess.
Just tired of the ignorant statement "just a theory."
Nevertheless, scientific theory is as good as it gets besides mathematical proof.
I apologize you are right. I jumped to soon I guess.
Just tired of the ignorant statement "just a theory."
Nevertheless, scientific theory is as good as it gets besides mathematical proof.
reply to post by daskakik
Of course they do. Science never proclaims absolute truth.
Yet there are some theories that are so well backed by evidence they will not likely be completely overturned. Evolution, germ theory, circuit theory, cell theory, plate tectonics, etc. are all theories not likely to be overturned or significantly changed.
Of course they do. Science never proclaims absolute truth.
Yet there are some theories that are so well backed by evidence they will not likely be completely overturned. Evolution, germ theory, circuit theory, cell theory, plate tectonics, etc. are all theories not likely to be overturned or significantly changed.
reply to post by mb2591
The big bang theory is not about the origins of the universe. It is about its development through time.
Just like evolution doesn't explain the origin of life, it explains the bio-diversity of life.
String theory is attempting to explain the origins of our current universe.
The big bang theory is not about the origins of the universe. It is about its development through time.
Just like evolution doesn't explain the origin of life, it explains the bio-diversity of life.
String theory is attempting to explain the origins of our current universe.
edit on 4-7-2011 by megabytz because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by megabytz
reply to post by daskakik
Yet there are some theories that are so well backed by evidence they will not likely be completely overturned. Evolution, germ theory, circuit theory, cell theory, plate tectonics, etc. are all theories not likely to be overturned or significantly changed.
But as far as the big bang there is still some things that don't fit. Therefore:
Big Bang Abandoned in New Model of the Universe
As one of the few astrophysical events that most people are familiar with, the Big Bang has a special place in our culture. And while there is scientific consensus that it is the best explanation for the origin of the Universe, the debate is far from closed. However, it's hard to find alternative models of the Universe without a beginning that are genuinely compelling.
edit on 4-7-2011 by daskakik because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by megabytz
reply to post by mb2591
I apologize you are right. I jumped to soon I guess.
Just tired of the ignorant statement "just a theory."
Nevertheless, scientific theory is as good as it gets besides mathematical proof.
actually Law is as good as it gets.
Originally posted by megabytz
reply to post by mb2591
The big bang theory is not about the origins of the universe. It is about its development through time.
Just like evolution doesn't explain the origin of life, it explains the bio-diversity of life.
String theory is attempting to explain the origins of our current universe.edit on 4-7-2011 by megabytz because: (no reason given)
Sorry i guess origin wasn't the best word anyways The big bang theory still needs revisions for it to explain the development through time of the universe is what I meant
Originally posted by vjr1113
reply to post by Awen24
ok i found some cites
increased genetic variety in a population (Lenski 1995; Lenski et al. 1991)
increased genetic material (Alves et al. 2001; Brown et al. 1998; Hughes and Friedman 2003; Lynch and Conery 2000; Ohta 2003)
novel genetic material (Knox et al. 1996; Park et al. 1996)
novel genetically-regulated abilities (Prijambada et al. 1995)
www.talkorigins.org...
again im no expert but apparently, new info can be added to dna.
Thanks for taking the time to look this up...
As much as the response is interesting, it's not actually addressing the point (their flaw, not yours).
No creationist will have an argument with any of the points listed above. The argument stated is that there are no known genetic processes that result in the creation of more UNIQUE genetic information. That is to say, there are plenty of instances where information can be duplicated via mutation, but none where new, unique information is added to the genetic code.
The point here is that... this may be my genetic code:
"the quick brown fox jumps over the lazy dog".
a mutation occurs. The resultant DNA may be:
"the quick quick brown fox jumps over the lazy dog".
Granted, this is MORE data, but not NEW data... simply a replication. You could even have a mutation that looks like this:
"the awehefawoea brown fox jumps over the lazy dog"
...and still not have any new data. The resultant chain still does not contain any information that was not present in the original sequence; though the resultant sequence is garbled (and in fact has less information).
That's horribly simplified, but hopefully it makes some sense.
Put it this way. Our language (English) is composed of the alphabet (A-Z); 26 letters.
in order to add new information to the alphabet, you'd actually have to create new, unique letters. Change of this type would be REQUIRED for a transition from simple to complex... and simply does not happen in nature. You can replicate, duplicate, change, garble, mutate... do what you like to the genetic code of a creature, but without direct intervention from a higher source of intelligence (whether human, with our knowledge of DNA, or from God, or from some external source), you simply cannot transition from simple to complex. There is, and must be, an external source of intelligence if there is to be any truth to positive evolution.
Originally posted by megabytz
reply to post by vjr1113
creationism is not dis-proven and not proven. so why even argue for it?
Creationism is disproved in the way they present it. We know that man did not just appear in its current form. We know the earth was not created in 6 days. We know the earth is not 6,000 years old. We know man did not walk with dinosaurs. We know there was not a world wide flood etc. etc. etc.
It is not science and should never be presented as science.
First off you and ninety percent or more of the people out there do not understand the bible because you do not take the time to rightly divide the word of truth the bible. The earth is billions of years old and that is unrefutable. The bible states in Genesis 1:1 in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth and he looked and they were good. This does not give a date and is perfectly in line with what science knows. Genesis 1:2 states and the earth became void and without form. This again goes along with science because we know the earth has a layer Were all life just stops and then it begins again . This layer is all over the world and is about 14,000 years old. This goes along with genesis 1:2 when God destroyed the first earth age.
Now we come to this earth age and god recreating it , first off to God one day is a thousand years to man so on the sixth day when God created all the races the earth was six thousand years into coming back from the destruction God wrought upon it for Satan turning one third of us against God. God rested on the seventh day which would be another thousand years. On the eighth day he created Adam and eve which Jesus would come from . Now that was about six thousand years ago or so . This all adds up with the layer of earth showing the massive die off about 14,000years ago and also adds up with us coming up on the second seventh day of rest which is the day of the lord or Christs millennial rein . By the way the destruction I spoke of has nothing to do with the flood of Noah.
edit on 4-7-2011 by Godsontoo because: (no reason given)
reply to post by Awen24
I am sorry but that was complete hogwash.
An intelligence does not have to act on the natural world in order to cause a mutation. You just presented an argument from ignorance.
Every single one of us has multiple new mutations in our DNA. DNA mutates every single generation and does so without the need of a creator.
I encourage you to take a biology class at your local community college.
I am sorry but that was complete hogwash.
An intelligence does not have to act on the natural world in order to cause a mutation. You just presented an argument from ignorance.
Every single one of us has multiple new mutations in our DNA. DNA mutates every single generation and does so without the need of a creator.
I encourage you to take a biology class at your local community college.
reply to post by Godsontoo
I was a christian for 23 years and a pastor at my church. I know the bible.
I also know that the genesis story of creation directly contradicts science simply because it states man was created in his current form.
Birds before land mammals.
Light before the sun.
The moon as a light source.
The falsities abound but you can rationalize and use all the apologetics you want but it doesn't change the fact that it is wrong.
It is obvious they were attempting to explain the earth and life with their limited knowledge.
Would you like to provide some evidence that an earth day is a thousand years to god? Or is that just a convenient rationalization to explain the bibles inconsistencies, which it doesn't even come close to explaining.
I was a christian for 23 years and a pastor at my church. I know the bible.
I also know that the genesis story of creation directly contradicts science simply because it states man was created in his current form.
Birds before land mammals.
Light before the sun.
The moon as a light source.
The falsities abound but you can rationalize and use all the apologetics you want but it doesn't change the fact that it is wrong.
It is obvious they were attempting to explain the earth and life with their limited knowledge.
Would you like to provide some evidence that an earth day is a thousand years to god? Or is that just a convenient rationalization to explain the bibles inconsistencies, which it doesn't even come close to explaining.
edit on 4-7-2011 by megabytz because: (no reason given)