Can you prove never ending evolution vs. creationism threads are productive?

reply to post by Osiris1953


As to Creation.

There is some weird psychological phenomena that makes people ignore someone truly creative or take credit for someone else's work. I have seen this in business. I have also read about inventors who were deemed crazy, only to have their work copied and monetized. Along this line of thought. Who discovered America? The white guy who sailed the Atlantic on an "official mission" or the dark skinned men women and children that lived there for many, many years?


I think this phenomena also occurs on a large scale when dealing with creation. I guess it ain't as rewarding to "discover" what someone else already designed and created.

How did we get here?

Could there be a Creator of the universe?

All discussions life's origins should start there.




As far as Evolution.

It has NOTHING to do with the origins of life.

I think it is weird that people on ATS dismiss the idea of a Creator during these discussions of evolution.

People have discovered many things, but these discoveries lead to even more questions.

It is still an open question as to how the concepts of quantum theory can be reconciled with those of general relativity.

We still do not know what Dark Energy or Dark Matter is.


I really believe that someday we will understand and reconcile the true nature of the universe.



The only way that I will prove these threads are productive is if,

10,000 years from now, Mr XYZ and I are standing on a green hillside with our friends and families. As far as the eye can see, up to the curve of the earth, it all looks, good. A gentle breeze will make the grass move like the waves of the great ocean, as we discuss our plans to travel to a planet, circling a distant star........................

Originally posted by rhinoceros
reply to post by EnochWasRight

 

How does the monophyletic origin of mitochondria, as supported by genomic data, fit into your creator argument that as far as I can tell is not supported by any objective observations? It created everything living, and then it made it seem as if inside all eukaryotic cells there are highly derived marine alphaproteobacteria (that we call mitochondria) that were first acquired by the common ancestor of all extant eukarya. Why? It's of course the same story with the hosts themselves. Everything points to common ancestry. Why would a creator go through so much trouble just to make it seem as if there was no creator? In this context, how does it even make any sense to argue for a creator?

Further still, how does your creator argument counter my argument of Anti-Creator that cancels out every single action of the creator, including its very existence?

I don't mind people saying that God is in the laws of nature or something like that (even Einstein said something to this spirit). However, dismissal of the modern synthesis is refusal to accept reality, i.e. you're closing your eyes, ears and mind and going "lalala it's not true" although everything objective points to it being true and nothing to the contrary..

edit on 31-3-2012 by rhinoceros because: (no reason given)

I will defer to Reasons.org and Dr. Fazale Rana:

The evolutionary paradigm cannot accommodate “repeatable” evolution. When evolutionists observe a tree frog ideally suited for its environment, they assert that natural selection––environmental, predatory, and competitive pressures repeatedly operating on random inheritable variations for long periods of time––has led to this relationship. Chance governs the evolutionary process at its most fundamental level. Because of this, it is expected that repeated evolutionary events will result in dramatically different outcomes. The concept of Historical Contingency embodies this idea and is the theme of Stephen J. Gould’s Wonderful Life:

"“…No finale can be specified at the start, none would ever occur a second time in the same way, because any pathway proceeds through thousands of improbable stages. Alter any early event, ever so slightly, and without apparent importance at the time, and evolution cascades into a radically different channel.”1

Again, we run into the problem of randomness, probability and entropy in information theory. Apart from a conscious choice, a pattern of increasing and complex information states will not emerge from indeterminate probability. This is essentially what is stated above with theory of why it is so.

Gould’s metaphor of “replaying life’s tape” asserts that if one were to push the rewind button, erase life’s history, and let the tape run again, the results would be completely different.2 The very essence of the evolutionary process renders evolutionary outcomes as nonreproducible (or nonrepeatable). Therefore, “repeatable” evolution is inconsistent with the mechanism available to bring about biological change.

LINK

This aspect of evolutionary theory rests on an improbable foundation to begin with. This is only one aspect. This is the exact reason I keep pointing to Susskind. He reveals an aspect of our universe that was previously unimagined. We now know that a projection is much more accurate to what is actually happening at the subatomic level. When you hear the Bible state things like this:

Matthew 3 9 And do not think you can say to yourselves, ‘We have Abraham as our father.’ I tell you that out of these stones God can raise up children for Abraham.

....realize that the science points to a grander technology behind our universe than what we can currently see with clarity. If God is continually making improvements from one cycle of time to the next, I would assume a constant update to the programming is taking place. Science is merely noticing the process and attributing it to the wrong implication.

Ask yourself a simple question: Are you aware that the Bible promises us to die and then rise to new life with an improved body? I have this extra bit of information as verification that the process is what we observe. I also have the added knowledge that the process is a produce of a creative God who admires his own work enough to give to it's future benefit from a platform of constant love and nurture.

Again. We know the answer if we are honest. All the data fits this paradigm much more clearly. Antiquity and history back the Creationist on this in a way that cannot be denied if a person is honest with themselves apart from bias against God.

God loves us, but demands that we do the same by our own actions. I don't have a problem with this requirement.

reply to post by MrXYZ

Of course you can if all the objective evidence supports it...just like we can fly planes based on thermodynamics.

Flying a plane is a result. The cause is the law you mentioned. A creator is necessary for matter to be governed. The plane was a creation. They don't make themselves. The air it travels through just happens to be a smaller particle than the light or the pilot, also conscious, would not be able to see where he was going. Very handy. The fuel he uses runs through a motor. Apart from the water molecules in the fuel, the hydrogen would not allow the fuel to ignite. Water is still not fully understood by science. It is unique to all other matter. It just happens to be the key ingredient for ALL life. The Bible states that water is life itself. Back to the plane. Is the motor naturally selected or did it result from engineering? I am sorry, but you have a very good example there. Nothing about that example can be separated from consciousness. You prove my point with simplicity itself.

Originally posted by EnochWasRight
This aspect of evolutionary theory rests on an improbable foundation to begin with.

How is non-repeatability of the evolutionary history an improbable foundation?

P.s. you did not answer my question. Instead you did as predicted "lalala reality isn't real - all that gene stuff doesn't mean anything".. you probably forgot it already too. That's how our brains work. They tend to only remember things that enforce our core believes..

Originally posted by EnochWasRight
reply to post by MrXYZ

 

Of course you can if all the objective evidence supports it...just like we can fly planes based on thermodynamics.

Flying a plane is a result. The cause is the law you mentioned. A creator is necessary for matter to be governed. The plane was a creation. They don't make themselves. The air it travels through just happens to be a smaller particle than the light or the pilot, also conscious, would not be able to see where he was going. Very handy. The fuel he uses runs through a motor. Apart from the water molecules in the fuel, the hydrogen would not allow the fuel to ignite. Water is still not fully understood by science. It is unique to all other matter. It just happens to be the key ingredient for ALL life. The Bible states that water is life itself. Back to the plane. Is the motor naturally selected or did it result from engineering? I am sorry, but you have a very good example there. Nothing about that example can be separated from consciousness. You prove my point with simplicity itself.

edit on 31-3-2012 by EnochWasRight because: (no reason given)

Don't like the plane example? Take a bird!! We fully understand how a bird can fly, and we have ZERO evidence that birds are the result of some creator (unless you wanna call mama bird a "creator"). And I'm not sure why you believe water isn't understood, and why it's unique. It really isn't compared to oxygen other molecules. But yeah, it's crucial to life...just like carbon...at least for the life forms we know of.

Doesn't matter what the bible states about water, it's demonstrably wrong in many many things like that global flood that never happened or people being able to live inside whales....that book isn't objective evidence

I used the plane as a simple example...but you can also use birds, fish, or pretty much every life form you want. We also know how bats fly. No creator required.

Of course everything we produce is made by us...just like an ant hill is made by ants, and just like birds create nests. Due our superior intelligence, our "creations" are just more complex. But there's zero proof life itself is the result of some creator...claiming otherwise is preaching and not based on any facts, rationality, or logic.

Originally posted by MrXYZ

Originally posted by vasaga

Originally posted by MrXYZ
reply to post by vasaga

 

First of all, I'm not sure why you quote stuff about materialism when we're talking about the scientific theory of evolution

Secondly, your stance doesn't really matter because you are STILL ignoring objective evidence and facts supporting the theory of evolution...all the while you pretend it's a total tossup between creationism (which has zero objective evidence behind it) and evolution which we are ACTIVELY APPLYING in modern medicine.

You are doing the same as a guy looking at a car saying "this car might run gas or pixie dust, we can't know"...but we DO know because objective evidence tells us how a car works, just like it tells us that evolution works

That is the only argument you every use, even when evidence against you is used. Then you just say "that's not evidence" and you just ignore it. And at the same time, even when people say they are not religious, and even argue against religions, you still keep using the religious position against them for some reason. But of course, when I pick materialism, then suddenly it's not warranted and I'm not discussing the subject. Mr hypocrite.. But.. Whatever. Believe what you want to. Keep sheeping out.

edit on 31-3-2012 by vasaga because: (no reason given)

You talk about materialism in a thread about EVOLUTION

Do you realize why that's off topic and not an argument?

Stop with your BS. This thread is not about evolution. This thread is about whether the creationism vs evolution debate is productive, and my replies fall well within it, especially when I explain perfectly why people with your mentality, be it on the religious or evolution side, are what make it unproductive. The fundamental issue in these debates is still materialism vs dualism, even when it's not mentioned. You are the one trying to make the thread something it's not. I probably put you on the spot right? Because you know that description of you is true. So now you're trying to draw attention away from you and from that description so you can avoid looking at it and pretend that everything you're doing is right. And it's funny how every counterargument you make falls well within the description I posted before.. You've given your mind away and you actually think you're smart.. I actually feel sorry for you...

Stop with your BS. This thread is not about evolution. This thread is about whether the creationism vs evolution debate is productive, and my replies fall well within it, especially when I explain perfectly why people with your mentality, be it on the religious or evolution side, are what make it unproductive. The fundamental issue in these debates is still materialism vs dualism, even when it's not mentioned. You are the one trying to make the thread something it's not. I probably put you on the spot right? Because you know that description of you is true. So now you're trying to draw attention away from you and from that description so you can avoid looking at it and pretend that everything you're doing is right. And it's funny how every counterargument you make falls well within the description I posted before.. You've given your mind away and you actually think you're smart.. I actually feel sorry for you...

The problem is not materialism vs dualism. The problem is scientific evidence vs guesswork. People keep treating evolution like a religion and not a field of science. The constant attack on it is not justified. Again, it's purely the fault of the creationists for A: attacking a theory they know nothing about, and B: turning their personal opinion on complexity / DNA into absolute fact.

Why can't creationists or ID advocates promote their ideas without talking about evolution? I don't understand that at all, and I don't understand why the arrogant attitude about it. Admit it is your personal faith and use it to make your life better. Attacking a field of science is not doing that, it's dishonestly promoting your religion, something that Jesus would NEVER do.

If you enjoy living under a rock, devoid of all scientific knowledge and progress that we've made as a society in the last few hundred years, you are welcome to do so. I can respect personal beliefs, just don't have the audacity to tell others they are wrong when you haven't even done an ounce of scientific study or research.

Originally posted by AwakeinNM

Originally posted by boymonkey74
reply to post by AwakeinNM

 

It should be up to the parents to teach anything Religious not the school. Lets keep schools teaching the scientific stuff etc not the Religious stuff.

Evolution is not science. It is speculation, based on the writings of ONE guy. Nobody on the planet thought that humans evolved from monkeys until Darwin came along. Oh, you can find a few sources that suggest there were, but look at the sources. They are a good example of revisionist history.

Teach both, or teach neither.

edit on 30-3-2012 by AwakeinNM because: (no reason given)

Good to see you stopped reading in about 1860.

Its idiotic statements like the above that cause the Evo vs Create debates to linger. No-one wants to change your opinion, but peddeling crap like the above shouldnt go unchallenged.

Evolution is not based on the thoughts and ideas of one man. Darwin may well have been the first to recognise, and get recognised the most plausible mechanism for evolution of species, but the science didnt stop in the mid 1800's.

And its not a case of teach either or teach neither. Teach facts in fact based classes, theach philosophy in philosphical based classes. At the moment, religious texts dont even have enough truth to them to support being taught as history, let alone science.

Strange how quick the religious types are to say that both should be taught, but when countered with all religions should be taught equally no longer want to play.

We have religious education classes, why isnt that good enough? I say go the whole hog as previously stated, teach isalm, hinduism, sihkism, buddhism and all the rest with equal time as is devoted to christianity, and if anybody ever produces verifiable, replicateable evidence for any of the myths in the rligious texts, then move them to the correct part of the syllabus.

Originally posted by idmonster
I say go the whole hog as previously stated, teach isalm, hinduism, sihkism, buddhism and all the rest with equal time as is devoted to christianity, and if anybody ever produces verifiable, replicateable evidence for any of the
myths in the rligious texts, then move them to the correct part of the syllabus.

I think Hinduism should be among the first religions taught, since its scriptures actually have rather reasonable time frames for different events, that is at least in comparison to Judaism and its two cults - Christianity and Islam.

I prefer to transform evolution into what it really is. A world faith. Why can I do this? Read the following summation in a song we all know. It sums it up beautifully...

Our whole universe was in a hot dense state,
Then nearly fourteen billion years ago expansion started. Wait...
The Earth began to cool,
The autotrophs began to drool,
Neanderthals developed tools,
We built a wall (we built the pyramids),
Math, science, history, unraveling the mysteries,
That all started with the big bang! BANG

....and that people is why evolutionists are people of even greater faith than all the religious people of all the religions all combined together over all time.

And they have the cheek to call believers in an intelligent creator nuts..!!!??

one would hope that we could have a debate about the fundamental flaws in our belief systems and learn from that debate...

Unfortunately...

We cannot.

reply to post by vasaga

Stop with your BS. This thread is not about evolution.

Thread title: Can you prove never ending evolution vs creationism thread are productive?

Evolution's in there

Talking about being off topic, here's your post I replied to:

That is the only argument you every use, even when evidence against you is used. Then you just say "that's not evidence" and you just ignore it. And at the same time, even when people say they are not religious, and even argue against religions, you still keep using the religious position against them for some reason. But of course, when I pick materialism, then suddenly it's not warranted and I'm not discussing the subject. Mr hypocrite.. But.. Whatever. Believe what you want to. Keep sheeping out.

It's not as if the above adds anything to the topic. You spoke about something that isn't even part of the thread title...you spoke about materialism. And you accuse me of being off topic? Really?

reply to post by pacifier2012

Conveniently forgetting that science is supported by objective empirical observations where as faith based systems, e.g. religions, are not. On the contrary, religious dogma often defy empirical observations, e.g. talking snakes, flying camels, women made from bones of men, etc.