| Author |
Message |
drath
D
Joined: 27 Sep 2005
Posts: 1680
Location: Canada
|
 Posted: Thu Mar 15, 2007 2:49 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| Rashy wrote: | I think its funny that many people just repeat what I have said, way to rack up that PBPP guys 
Anyways, we also have transitional fossil records for trilobytes and horses. We can see how horses have changed from a four footed-five fingered animal to the four hooved-single fingered animal that it is now. (more or less, the other 4 fingers receded into the foot and the fingernail of the 5th digit is the horses hoof).
| Quote: | | Population grows exponentially, and the growth rate is definitely is lower than 2%, it's over less than half of that number actually. I don't even know what you are talking about in the last sentence, it really MAKES NO SENSE. |
According to census.gov, the growth is at 1.17% right now. A lot more than half (especially when you are dealing with populations of 6.6 billion).
I would also like to say that in science, a theory is more than just a hunch or a guess. It is a well thought out idea that is supported by substantial evidence. A law is a fact that is proved by excessive, irrefutable evidence. The theory of evolution is more than just some crack pot's idea, it is fairly well backed up by evidence. I can dig out my notes and get it to you later tonight. |
Hey, I didn't just copy you . I brought up lots of my own points/knowledge as well. Although, thanks for the "census.gov" information, as well as the information on scientific laws. I can't update my original post, but I can update it on my site.
_________________
[img:941f13b8ba]http://thegamersjournal.com/newsig.gif[/img:941f13b8ba]
-
Portfolio | TANOOKI REBIRTH |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
asusreviews.com
Master Poster
Joined: 24 Apr 2007
Posts: 172
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 25, 2007 3:12 am Post subject: |
|
|
Great post. All of the things mentioned seem to make sense. I do not believe in evolution. I believe in an intelligent creator, God. I do however believe that God has created things to evolve over time. (micro evolution)
_________________
[img:a4f912901a]http://www.asusreviews.com/forum/images/logo.gif[/img:a4f912901a]
We need your support! Join our forums today! |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
Duck
Pinko Liberal Communist
Joined: 21 Dec 2004
Posts: 1558
Location: Canada
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 25, 2007 2:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| asusreviews.com wrote: | | Great post. All of the things mentioned seem to make sense. I do not believe in evolution. I believe in an intelligent creator, God. I do however believe that God has created things to evolve over time. (micro evolution) |
Did you even read the rest of the thread? Not a single one of those points is actually valid.
_________________
[img:d156d322f3]http://seriousbusiness.l2p.net/img/seriousbanner.gif[/img:d156d322f3]
I've kicked the clouds, and punched lightning! |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
teampo
Lifeless Raider
Joined: 14 Mar 2005
Posts: 2352
Location: Toronto, Canada
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 30, 2007 6:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
am i the only one who finds it funny that someone is trying to disprove evolution with facts, yet blindly believes in creationism.
just something i thought i'd share. |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
Shaggybreeks
Savant Poster
Joined: 18 Mar 2007
Posts: 104
Location: In the Mighty Sea
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 08, 2007 2:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Why is this debate even taking place? Do they debate evolution in non christian countries? I seriously doubt it's as big a deal in the Buddhist world. I've heard and read that Islam has no problem with evolution and science. Why is is such a big deal in America? Why are some people so obsessed with disproving evolution?
For that matter, what exactly is being discussed in the first place? It's my understanding that evolution is an explanation of a process in which living things change with the generations over time, reflecting changes in their environment. The reasoning goes that mutations and cross breeding cause some offspring of a species to be better suited to survival than others, and the ones who survive have offspring which carry their successful traits onto following generations. What could be so offensive about that?
The opponents of evolution have an interesting task of trying to unconvince the public of somebody else's idea. Not a difficult task if you allow yourself to misrepresent the idea in the first place! When an opponent frames the debate, it usually goes along as a "they say, they believe, they say, they they they..." train of thought, with each "they say" couched in the most unconvincing terms, or misstated, or spun, and then attacked with some counterclaim, seldom supported with any evidence.
But even the basic idea is even represented. Opponents treat the theory of evolution as if it is supposed to be the be-all, end-all explanation of life.
Basically, the reasoning goes, that if evolution is true, then the Bible is wrong, and that means there's no God.
Heck, let's not mince words. It means that Charles Darwin is God.
To some. To those who have a black and white, absolutist, this-or-that kind of brain. In other words, the debate wouldn't be happening except for those simpleminded people who either belive in ALL of the Bible or NONE of it. And they assume that everybody else thinks the same way.
Relax, people. Most people are capable of seeing wisdom in the Bible, and if they read it in any depth, a lot of contradiction along with the cruelty, arbitraryness, pettiness, violence, and ideas that most civilized people would consider quaint but meaningless.
Can you tell I don't think highly of the Bible? 
Yet I can still find beauty and wisdom in it, and I recognize that some of those 'quaint' things actually make sense. I just don't think it should be taken as pure, 100% absolute truth on all things. Heck, you read it enough and you -can't- believe it 100%, because it contradicts itself!
Which makes me wonder about the people who say it's 100% literally true. Either they are sadly deluded, or they are con artists trying to control people. I could feel it in my gut when I was knee-high. There sure are a lot of phonies in religion. I have seen them as Christians, both Catholic and protestant, I've seen it in moslems (you think Allah really blesses suicide bombers who murder civillians?); there are 'gurus' from India who go to the west and hustle millions of dollars and plenty of sex from their followers. Probably there are a few Buddhist hustlers in the world.
One of the 'tools' of a con artist is to get their victim to agree to something dishones, to get the victim to 'join' him. For example, they will make a miscalculation on a sum in favor of the victim, and when the vicim signs the contract, he's locked in, knowing he's done something dishonest, he's now afraid to say he's been conned.
So here we have it with the Bible's theory of creation, vs. "Darwinism". A hustler (indeed a whole society of them) want you to agree that every single word of the Bible is true, 100%.... and when they've gotten you to go along with that lie, (and be convincing about it! Show the lord you believe! Call the hotline now and pledge your faith and money!) it's all a matter of course that you will go along with other lies, such as how God approves of slavery, forced marriage of underaged girls, blowing up cafes, and whatever other thing comes to mind when money alone doesn't satisfy their greedy lust for power over others.
_________________
Only mutants evolve. |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
voltare
Lifeless Person
Joined: 26 Jun 2004
Posts: 568
Location: Austin, Texas
|
| Posted: Sat Aug 11, 2007 6:21 am Post subject: Re: 10 Facts why evolution if false |
|
|
Hi. I'm game.
| mr.x wrote: | | All the things below are all facts which have been proven. So don't say they are wrong. Very long post but read all of them. If you have any thing that proves evolution post it. I would like to check it out. |
You forgot to quote where you pulled your sources from. Here's some help.
http://www.youngearth.org/evowontfly.htm
http://www.creationevidence.or.....vidn4.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/
I assume that you believe these arguments in whole, though.
| Quote: |
1. Lack of Transitional Fossils.
Charles Darwin wrote, "Lastly, looking not to any one time, but to all time, if my theory be true, numberless intermediate varieties, linking closely together all the species of the same group, must assuredly have existed. But, as by this theory, innumerable transitional forms must have existed, why do we not find them embedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth?" (Origin of Species, 1859). Since Darwin put forth his theory, scientists have sought fossil evidence indicating past organic transitions. Nearly 150 years later, there has been no evidence of transition found thus far in the fossil record. |
If we can't find fossils, it does not mean they do not exist. It's like saying the sun is really made of orange taffy, because we can't scoop a handful of helium up. Indirect evidence is still acceptable.
| Quote: | A cell being created
2. In order for evolution to be true atoms must form useful molecules such as enzymes, amino acids and proteins by random chance. It is mathematically impossible for these molecules, much less the far larger DNA molecule, to form by random action in nature. It cannot happen! continued below...
.A living cell is so awesomely complex that its interdependent components stagger the imagination and defy evolutionary explanations. A minimal cell contains over 60,000 proteins of 100 different configurations.16 The chance of this assemblage occurring by chance is 1 in 104,478,296 to the 17 power. |
And how many planets exist in the universe? It stands to reason, if we were one of the planets that did not have cells to begin with, this conversation wouldn't be taking place on that planet in the first place. While I, personally, believe in the concept of God, this does not discount the possible theory of intelligent creation, that includes an evolution model. I can only imagine that for a universe to exist, it must have laws. One of those laws should be that nothing may spring from nothing. That life must evolve, for it to have any value.
| Quote: | 3. FIRST LAW OF THERMODYNAMICS: The first law of thermodynamics, also known as the Law of Conservation of Energy, states that there can be no creation or annihilation of mass or energy. Certainly, one form of energy can be converted into another, one state of matter can be converted into another, and matter/energy interconversion's can occur. But, the total amount of matter and energy combined always remains constant. This law has application to the creation sciences by verifying that the universe could not just spring into existence by accident. The Big Bang theory, proposed and repeated as an article of faith by naturalists, violates this fundamental law of physics. What do you think: could matter and energy mysteriously appear without a Prime Mover, a Creator God?
SECOND LAW OF THERMODYNAMICS: The Second Law, also called the Law of Entropy, states that anything which is organized tends, with time, to become disorganized. Any physical system left to itself will decay; that is, it will lose energy and organization inside the system. Instead of remaining highly organized, as earth’s systems, everything tends to become gradually less organized. For example, over time, chemical processes will reach equilibrium and become inert. The Second Law of Thermodynamics can be expressed in different ways, all of which are equivalent. Three applications include;
A. Classical Thermodynamics: The energy available for useful work in a functioning system tends to decrease, though the total energy remains constant.
B. Statistical Thermodynamics: The complexity or order of a structured system tends to become disorganized and random.
C. Informational Thermodynamics: The information that is conveyed by a communicating system tends to become distorted and incomplete over time.
This fundamental law of physics clearly states that the incredible increase of information required for a life form to evolve from amino acids could never happen. Does it make sense to you that evolution could repeatedly violate the Second Law by organizing more complex forms of life from “simpler” versions? |
| Quote: | | And remember a law is proven. |
No, a law in this context is a theory with supporting fact. You don't cite any facts, just theory. What you have, is just theory. Someone who asks me 'doesn't it make sense' usually says so, because it doesn't.
You'll really need to read and understand your source better.
| Quote: | 3. Population Statistics...
World population growth rate in recent times is about 2% per year. Practicable application of growth rate throughout human history would be about half that number. Wars, disease, famine, etc. have wiped out approximately one third of the population on average every 82 years. Starting with eight people, and applying these growth rates since the Flood of Noah's day (about 4500 years ago) would give a total human population at just under six billion people. However, application on an evolutionary time scale runs into major difficulties. Starting with one "couple" just 41,000 years ago would give us a total population of 2 x 1089 to the 9 power. The universe does not have space to hold so many bodies. |
Human life predating 10,000 years ago didn't have any civilization with sufficient cohesion to permit war on the scale we are capable of today. Your flood theory is like claiming that the computer chip doesn't exist, because moore's law can't cut processing power in half going backwards. You sort of nix this argument later, though, by stating that since we have no records that predate a couple thousand years ago, there's no way to know. The fossils we mention, on the other hand, tell a very different story.
| Quote: | | 4. Decay of Earth's Magnetic Field... Dr. Thomas Barnes, Emeritus Professor of Physics at the University of Texas at El Paso, has published the definitive work in this field.4 Scientific observations since 1829 have shown that the earth's magnetic field has been measurably decaying at an exponential rate, demonstrating its half-life to be approximately 1,400 years. In practical application its strength 20,000 years ago would approximate that of a magnetic star. Under those conditions many of the atoms necessary for life processes could not form. These data demonstrate that earth's entire history is young, within a few thousand of years. |
[font=georgia]So all those creatures that did leave fossils behind, were really just stuck there by God so we wouldn't realize it?
And exactly what does the magnetic field (whatever that's supposed to mean in this context) have to do with gravity, the real force that keeps matter in one place?
| Quote: | | 5. [b]OIL AND COAL ARE YOUNG: When the carbon-14 test was first created, scientists used the process to date all sorts of things. Two examples included oil and coal. Tests of these two substances by the carbon-14 dating method reveal them to be only several thousand years old instead of millions of years old, as predicted by evolutionary theory. Once this method was shown to predict recent dates for oil and coal, scientists stopped dating these products using this method. Do you think it is intellectually sound to reject a process that fails to yield the results you so badly wanted? Is this good science? |
What tests? Sources? Facts? "The tests were wrong" is about as informative as "The moon is made of cheese." Give us some data.
I might come back to the rest, later...
Stephan
_________________
[img:3378ced9c2]http://www.vv3b.com/img/forumbanner.png[/img:3378ced9c2] |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
Necromis
Lifeless on my Boat
Joined: 11 Apr 2005
Posts: 739
Location: USA
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 14, 2007 6:44 am Post subject: |
|
|
You know the real kicker on this, and I know slightly off main subject, but brought up by the original poster, is how the Earth is only 6,000 years old. We have proven the speed of light. We have proven the average distance to some of the stars we currently see in the sky. We know based on those two things that the light we see in the sky was sent to Earth several MILLION years ago.
I also think that man, especially religious man, is very arrogant. Even if there is a God, how does that preclude there being life on other planets? I mean assuming God does exist, and he created the Universe. Why then would he create the billions of planets and stars in the universe and leave them barren only populating our planet?
I cannot wait to see how religion will spin that once we find other intelligent life out there. |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
linuxdoctor
Infallible Persona
Joined: 23 Apr 2005
Posts: 1202
Location: Ottawa, Canada
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 15, 2007 1:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I certainly reject the nonsense of Protestants/Fundamentalists when they attempt to use the Bible as scientific document and assert a 6000 year old earth. The Catholic Church, the One True Church of Christ, has always had the greatest respect for science and scientific progress even if at times they have treated scientists with somewhat less than respect.
The Catholic Church has always said that there could be no conflict between scientific truth and religious truth since both are true in their own respective spheres. Where they overlap, they are necessarily in complete agreement. The so-called Creationists are nothing but crackpots.
However, scientists themselves are wont to jump the gun on this issue also. I see many scientists often claim that the universe is full of life even though there is absolutely no evidence that there is life anywhere but here on the earth. They point to the billions of galaxies with billions of stars each and all the planets that we have recently discovered orbiting many of these these stars and simply assume that there must be life on some of them. Such statements are totally unscientific because there is no data to support them.
There is an equation that speculates on the likelihood of intelligent life in the universe called the Drake Equation. It is entirely speculative but, depending on what numbers you place in for its different values, it could indicate that there is either millions of civilisations out there in out galaxy alone or, now hold onto your hat, there could be only one in the entire universe. That means that even according to science itself, we could be the only (pseudo) intelligent life in the universe.
Never mind how 'religion' will spin things. Science right now is spinning things presuming there is intelligent life in the universe beyond the earth, yet science itself admits to the possibility that the earth could be the only place where it actually exists.
_________________
Misanthrope: someone who realizes that humans really are as stupid as they appear.
If you think I'm 'politically' incorrect you have the wrong politics. |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
Shaggybreeks
Savant Poster
Joined: 18 Mar 2007
Posts: 104
Location: In the Mighty Sea
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 15, 2007 2:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
No fossil record?
What -- you think they can dig up the body of every single animal that ever lived?
_________________
Only mutants evolve. |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
voltare
Lifeless Person
Joined: 26 Jun 2004
Posts: 568
Location: Austin, Texas
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 15, 2007 7:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| linuxdoctor wrote: |
There is an equation that speculates on the likelihood of intelligent life in the universe called the Drake Equation. It is entirely speculative but, depending on what numbers you place in for its different values, it could indicate that there is either millions of civilisations out there in out galaxy alone or, now hold onto your hat, there could be only one in the entire universe. That means that even according to science itself, we could be the only (pseudo) intelligent life in the universe.
Never mind how 'religion' will spin things. Science right now is spinning things presuming there is intelligent life in the universe beyond the earth, yet science itself admits to the possibility that the earth could be the only place where it actually exists. |
So, we're basically saying that everything is being spun, and we just plain don't know one way or the other.
It's this paradox of logic, whenever faith is called into question, that ensures that neither atheists, nor believers will ever win the discussion. Because there is no means to prove either side absolutely true, faith becomes a necessary component (invalidating the argument for atheism, that states faith is misplaced) yet faith is not fact (invalidating an argument for God, since a truth must be proven, not simply guessed at.)
One could, of course, say that since there can be no proof of any religion, there is certainly no proof of any one true religion...but this is a topic that will ultimately fall on deaf ears on both sides, and only end up with another flame war 
_________________
[img:3378ced9c2]http://www.vv3b.com/img/forumbanner.png[/img:3378ced9c2] |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
LP-SolidRaven
Dictator of the Dump
Joined: 06 Jun 2004
Posts: 7015
Location: The cheese is made out of moon
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 16, 2007 2:45 am Post subject: Re: 10 Facts why evolution if false |
|
|
The sites that he used as base line don't exactly have a record for being reliable.
| Quote: |
1. Lack of Transitional Fossils.
Charles Darwin wrote, "Lastly, looking not to any one time, but to all time, if my theory be true, numberless intermediate varieties, linking closely together all the species of the same group, must assuredly have existed. But, as by this theory, innumerable transitional forms must have existed, why do we not find them embedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth?" (Origin of Species, 1859). Since Darwin put forth his theory, scientists have sought fossil evidence indicating past organic transitions. Nearly 150 years later, there has been no evidence of transition found thus far in the fossil record. |
Where indirect evidence is lacking, logical thinking can fill up holes most of the time. An example would be how they found out that the earth was round. While they couldn't see it they figured it out with rather simple tests. And they made a logical conclusion in the end that was rather correct. They even approached the diameter of the earth with the not exactly advanced math they had back then.
| Quote: |
| Quote: | A cell being created
2. In order for evolution to be true atoms must form useful molecules such as enzymes, amino acids and proteins by random chance. It is mathematically impossible for these molecules, much less the far larger DNA molecule, to form by random action in nature. It cannot happen! continued below...
.A living cell is so awesomely complex that its interdependent components stagger the imagination and defy evolutionary explanations. A minimal cell contains over 60,000 proteins of 100 different configurations.16 The chance of this assemblage occurring by chance is 1 in 104,478,296 to the 17 power. |
And how many planets exist in the universe? It stands to reason, if we were one of the planets that did not have cells to begin with, this conversation wouldn't be taking place on that planet in the first place. While I, personally, believe in the concept of God, this does not discount the possible theory of intelligent creation, that includes an evolution model. I can only imagine that for a universe to exist, it must have laws. One of those laws should be that nothing may spring from nothing. That life must evolve, for it to have any value.
|
Additionally assuming we live in an infinite sized multiverse then we can assume that every possible thing has already happened and that every choice you ever had to make was taken. What also means that there is an infinite sized chance that live was created in one of those universes. In other words, you lack the capability to understand "infinite chance" mr.x or you're too stubborn to accept that.
| Quote: |
| Quote: | 3. FIRST LAW OF THERMODYNAMICS: The first law of thermodynamics, also known as the Law of Conservation of Energy, states that there can be no creation or annihilation of mass or energy. Certainly, one form of energy can be converted into another, one state of matter can be converted into another, and matter/energy interconversion's can occur. But, the total amount of matter and energy combined always remains constant. This law has application to the creation sciences by verifying that the universe could not just spring into existence by accident. The Big Bang theory, proposed and repeated as an article of faith by naturalists, violates this fundamental law of physics. What do you think: could matter and energy mysteriously appear without a Prime Mover, a Creator God?
SECOND LAW OF THERMODYNAMICS: The Second Law, also called the Law of Entropy, states that anything which is organized tends, with time, to become disorganized. Any physical system left to itself will decay; that is, it will lose energy and organization inside the system. Instead of remaining highly organized, as earth’s systems, everything tends to become gradually less organized. For example, over time, chemical processes will reach equilibrium and become inert. The Second Law of Thermodynamics can be expressed in different ways, all of which are equivalent. Three applications include;
A. Classical Thermodynamics: The energy available for useful work in a functioning system tends to decrease, though the total energy remains constant.
B. Statistical Thermodynamics: The complexity or order of a structured system tends to become disorganized and random.
C. Informational Thermodynamics: The information that is conveyed by a communicating system tends to become distorted and incomplete over time.
This fundamental law of physics clearly states that the incredible increase of information required for a life form to evolve from amino acids could never happen. Does it make sense to you that evolution could repeatedly violate the Second Law by organizing more complex forms of life from “simpler” versions? |
| Quote: | | And remember a law is proven. |
No, a law in this context is a theory with supporting fact. You don't cite any facts, just theory. What you have, is just theory. Someone who asks me 'doesn't it make sense' usually says so, because it doesn't.
You'll really need to read and understand your source better.
|
All of this is based on those sites voltare, and we all know how stubborn over religious people are. Also Energy will not decay. Particles can at the other hand.
| Quote: | | 4. Decay of Earth's Magnetic Field... Dr. Thomas Barnes, Emeritus Professor of Physics at the University of Texas at El Paso, has published the definitive work in this field.4 Scientific observations since 1829 have shown that the earth's magnetic field has been measurably decaying at an exponential rate, demonstrating its half-life to be approximately 1,400 years. In practical application its strength 20,000 years ago would approximate that of a magnetic star. Under those conditions many of the atoms necessary for life processes could not form. These data demonstrate that earth's entire history is young, within a few thousand of years. |
The only thing the magnetic field of the earth does is protect us from our beloved sun that would fry us if we didn't have the earth its magnetic "shield" to keep us safe. Keep in mind that the magnetism of the earth varies through out the years. This has a lot to do with the positions of other celestial bodies and mainly with the sun. When the sun reaches its next solar maximum the earths magnetic field will be under a serious stress again cause the sun will practically bombard it with waves of highly charged particles. And we can only hope the earth's magnetic field is strong enough to bounce it of, else it might get nasty down here if it hits electronics.
| Quote: | | 5. OIL AND COAL ARE YOUNG: When the carbon-14 test was first created, scientists used the process to date all sorts of things. Two examples included oil and coal. Tests of these two substances by the carbon-14 dating method reveal them to be only several thousand years old instead of millions of years old, as predicted by evolutionary theory. Once this method was shown to predict recent dates for oil and coal, scientists stopped dating these products using this method. Do you think it is intellectually sound to reject a process that fails to yield the results you so badly wanted? Is this good science? |
Good try about this one. But actually you need to start reading more about this type of stuff before you make another thread like this. Both oil and coal (pretty much any fossil fuel, now really where did those fossils go to ) lack Carbon-14. And if there is some carbon-14 that can be detected then it's usually not enough to do determine any date.
_________________
| Quote: |
<bart416> I just realized something
<bart416> we celebrate the fact that this piece of rock made one rotation around a glowing ball of plasma that is kept together due to its own gravity well
<njsg> HAPPY NEW YEAR
<Easter> ^^
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
linuxdoctor
Infallible Persona
Joined: 23 Apr 2005
Posts: 1202
Location: Ottawa, Canada
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 16, 2007 5:35 am Post subject: |
|
|
| voltare wrote: | | It's this paradox of logic, whenever faith is called into question, that ensures that neither atheists, nor believers will ever win the discussion. Because there is no means to prove either side absolutely true, faith becomes a necessary component (invalidating the argument for atheism, that states faith is misplaced) yet faith is not fact (invalidating an argument for God, since a truth must be proven, not simply guessed at.) |
There is a component of faith in everything, even empirical Science. The faith in Science can be stated quite succinctly as follows: Everything in the universe is knowable exclusively by empirical means and we are capable of knowing it. This is most certainly not a statement of fact by any means.
As to the atheists, their position, too, is a statement of faith not fact: There is no God nor gods of any kinds. Unlike the position of the theists and of Science, this is not a positive faith but a negative one. They basically are affirming belief in a negative. Since most atheists tend to be supporters and even advocates of Science it is actually a contradiction since science is a positive affirmation of empirical knowledge and atheism is a belief based on a lack of empirical knowledge.
Similarly for Creationism. The beliefs of the Creationists is quite negative. They point to what they term as the 'failures' of Evolution Theory and all the things that Science has yet to explain and assert that as a result of these 'failures' some Higher Power, God if you will, created the universe and all life on earth. For a system that purports to be scientific the very premise of Creationism is unscientific based on a negative assessment of a real scientific theory not a positive affirmation of actual empirical evidence.
One can never prove a negative; in fact, one can only disprove something with a negative. Both Atheism and Creationism are negative expressions of faith specifically designed to negate the positive affirmations of other faith systems, Religion and Science respectively. Because they are both expressed in terms of a negative, neither can ever be proved true and therefore, by default, both are necessarily false.
_________________
Misanthrope: someone who realizes that humans really are as stupid as they appear.
If you think I'm 'politically' incorrect you have the wrong politics. |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
Necromis
Lifeless on my Boat
Joined: 11 Apr 2005
Posts: 739
Location: USA
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 16, 2007 7:33 am Post subject: |
|
|
| LD, I have to disagree with you on the negative faith of atheists. Theists are putting forth a theory as fact, the atheists are just stating they do not believe the theory. After all the atheists did not put forth the theory of God, the theists did. Also science is a growing knowledge. There is proven scientific fact that in time man has the ability to solve all of the mysteries. How can I say this? Easily. As man and his knowledge have evolved, what was previously thought of as magic has been analyzed and understood. We have come from the days of thinking the sun revolved around the earth to knowing now what the sun is composed of. |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
voltare
Lifeless Person
Joined: 26 Jun 2004
Posts: 568
Location: Austin, Texas
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 16, 2007 8:54 am Post subject: |
|
|
| linuxdoctor wrote: | | Because they are both expressed in terms of a negative, neither can ever be proved true and therefore, by default, both are necessarily false. |
Which, of course, leads us to another paradox; that one or the other is true. God either exists, or he does not. We have no babelfish to prove otherwise
Stephan
_________________
[img:3378ced9c2]http://www.vv3b.com/img/forumbanner.png[/img:3378ced9c2] |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
voltare
Lifeless Person
Joined: 26 Jun 2004
Posts: 568
Location: Austin, Texas
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 16, 2007 8:56 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Necromis wrote: | | LD, I have to disagree with you on the negative faith of atheists. Theists are putting forth a theory as fact, the atheists are just stating they do not believe the theory. After all the atheists did not put forth the theory of God, the theists did. Also science is a growing knowledge. There is proven scientific fact that in time man has the ability to solve all of the mysteries. How can I say this? Easily. As man and his knowledge have evolved, what was previously thought of as magic has been analyzed and understood. We have come from the days of thinking the sun revolved around the earth to knowing now what the sun is composed of. |
I disagree, Necromis, though it may be semantics. Atheism is a belief that God positively does not exist. An Agnostic believes that God may, or may not exist, but has not been sufficiently convinced that He might.
Stephan
_________________
[img:3378ced9c2]http://www.vv3b.com/img/forumbanner.png[/img:3378ced9c2] |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
|
|
|
Forum FAQs 
Knowledge Base 
Memberlist 
Usergroups 
Hosting
Register
Donate 
Profile 
Log in 
