Creationists Demand Airtime On 'Cosmos' For The Sake Of Balance

I was hoping this thread would get back on course...

But I guess it's not fully off topic considering it's a creationist debate!!!



So is the latest discussion about Darwinian evolution & that we evolved from Apes!!!

Or is it actually about how we have always been the same Animal but we have enhanced & adapted better as a species & evolved into a stronger creature all round!!!



My two cents is we did evolve from the A.P.E... But not Darwin's theory, my theory... & possibly another Biologists theory I have yet to hear but possibly shared a wavelength...
The A.P.E was...
Atoms... Protons... Electrons...



Peace everybody!!!

Now if that was on the show then could see where some groups would have their panties in a twist.

reply to post by CharlieSpeirs

I was hoping this thread would get back on course...

But I guess it's not fully off topic considering it's a creationist debate!!!

Yep, it's a loaded topic, for sure.

Interesting A.P.E. theory. Thanks for presenting it!

reply to post by Grimpachi


LOL!!! I love that!!

Brilliant.
See, that's the thing! Why can't we all just agree that we don't know?
Like, gather at the UN (kick those guys out first)..and just admit that neither side knows for sure.

Grimpachi

Now if that was on the show then could see where some groups would have their panties in a twist.

Hahaha...that's cute. Another example of how one word can change an entire picture.

Grimpachi

Now if that was on the show then could see where some groups would have their panties in a twist.

LMAO, first i was like, is this poster serious? he knows the gender of the god... then im like... wait a minute why do i feel like walking into a trap... then BAM! Helium.

< - chemist/microbiologist

reply to post by Grimpachi


This post wins the thread! For your reward, I give you a big bowl of He. Enjoy.

Fromabove

AfterInfinity
reply to post by Fromabove

 

To date, there is no math or science that can establish evolution. It just hasn't been proven only assumed.

To be clear on this: you're saying evolutionary theory is not based on legitimate science, and that if evolution were to be replaced as the leading theory in its field, the replacement theory would have to be scientifically sound?

And following that, what scientifically sound theory are you proposing in place of evolutionary theory?

No theory is needed. Life exists. Why can't it be said that life just is and study that, and that the universe is, and study all of it's wonders. Then we could leave unanswerable question like where life began and what caused the universe to be as thoughts to ponder. Science cannot answer such questions and until it can it should just admit it doesn't know.

If we didn't ask why and try to answer supposedly unanswerable questions then I wouldn't be replying to you using a magical tablet connected to the world through the ether.

reply to post by BuzzyWigs


Certainly is pal, I guess it's all in line though, might as well enjoy the debate


Very much appreciate the kind words too
The theory hit me one day when I was trying to connect Initials to major theories, corporations & other such stuff..,
Sort of a symbology pass time I have with initials!!!
Usually I do it for fun, sometimes I see something & feel the need to delve in further!
Sincere apologies, I digress... other than A.P.E's being one of the basics for life, I haven't fully worked out my A.P.E theory, very early stage, hopefully research leads me somewhere!!!
Probably not though


Peace Buzzy!!!

Grimpachi

Now if that was on the show then could see where some groups would have their panties in a twist.

That transcends magical.

reply to post by Fromabove

I love science, but I also love God. As a Christian, I can see the remarks made in the show that could be offensive to Christians because there easy to recognize as a Christian.

Look. I still don't see what the conflict is.
You can probably discern that the rest of us are having a good time discussing this topic. You, however, seem to be quite nonplussed about it. Why so glum?

Also, forgive my pedantry, but you mean "offensive to Christians because THEY are easy to recognize"....right?

But see, there's still no reason to crowbar the two apart!
Even according to your interpretation, the Bible has room for evolution. And now I'm led back to the offtopic tangent of how religion tries to supercede science by any means possible.

Nope! Not going there again. There's no need for the tussle.

reply to post by Fromabove


I read this whole thread and created an account just to say; ironically, you are one of many great arguments against Christianity. Not even the OJ jurors could read threads like this and come to rule the objective evidence in your favor, good work.

reply to post by BuzzyWigs


You cant reconcile the bible and evolution. Genesis says god created man from dust, that is not how evolution works. It's that simple. I realize youre being genial, but stop making excuses for their delusions.

mmathers
reply to post by Fromabove

 

I read this whole thread and created an account just to say; ironically, you are one of many great arguments against Christianity. Not even the OJ jurors could read threads like this and come to rule the objective evidence in your favor, good work.

edit on 28-3-2014 by mmathers because: (no reason given)

If no one has yet, let me welcome you to the ATS. Of course people as yourself would say such a thing because they don't understand things about God, life etc. That is unless they can touch it with their hands. So anything I say is just so much foolishness to people like that. It comes with being a Christian and having a Biblical perspective on the world view.

reply to post by mmathers


Welcome to ATS!

Glad you joined in, hope you enjoy the ride. Buckle up, we'll have a blast!


What is your opinion of the show (if you've seen it)?

Fromabove
Of course people as yourself would say such a thing because they don't understand things about God, life etc. That is unless they can touch it with their hands. So anything I say is just so much foolishness to people like that. It comes with being a Christian and having a Biblical perspective on the world view.

I've got to ask, are you purposely being demeaning towards people here as you pontificate from authority because of the superior nature of your religiosity? You are making a lot of sweeping broad assumptions about people and what they can or can't understand and then you're confused when it's not rainbows puppies and open armed hugs waiting for you. Take a serious look at your rhetoric and wording. Choosing your words more carefully instead of making statements that border on insulting would make your position a little more amiable and receptive to people. I debate and discuss things on this site with some very conservative religious folks who's world view couldn't be any farther away
from my own but the language and syntax on both sides are full of respect and a desire to understand where the other person is coming from. It leads to an open and interesting dialogue where both sides learn from each other as opposed to talking down to someone and deciding they just can't grasp your superior mindset before giving them the chance
to have a discussion with you. The demeanor and perspective come off as decidedly unChristian as Jesus would never speak to or treat others with such contempt.

BuzzyWigs
reply to post by Fromabove

 

I love science, but I also love God. As a Christian, I can see the remarks made in the show that could be offensive to Christians because there easy to recognize as a Christian.

Look. I still don't see what the conflict is.
You can probably discern that the rest of us are having a good time discussing this topic. You, however, seem to be quite nonplussed about it. Why so glum?

Also, forgive my pedantry, but you mean "offensive to Christians because THEY are easy to recognize"....right?

But see, there's still no reason to crowbar the two apart!
Even according to your interpretation, the Bible has room for evolution. And now I'm led back to the offtopic tangent of how religion tries to supercede science by any means possible.

Nope! Not going there again. There's no need for the tussle.

Yes, the Bible has room for an argument for evolution, but it is a guided evolution. And if the show would have at least looked at that in support and the science claimed to exist for it that would have been one thing.

Religion itself is a system of governance over individuals and can be anything. It can be Buddhist, Islam, Catholic, and Voodoo. And it can also involve science. Take global warming for instance. Some of the supporters of this are quite religious in their actions. And evolutionists can sometimes take science as their religion. Religion is just that, religion.

But there are three things I think we are all talking about here. God, life, and evolution. God being a person entity He can't be a religion so that would be how I would think of God.

Evolutionaries would argue that life "evolves" from one thing to another through the process of time and change combined with mutation. Selective changes through the concept of the survival of the fittest also come into play here. But there has never been a controlled experiment where this has been proven in the lab. The adaptation of viruses and bacteria don't really count because in the end they are still viruses and bacteria. But while evolutionaries can take this stance on present life, they cannot come up with the reason for life itself, that is, how it happened to begin at all. Life happened but they don't know how, so their journey would seem to have hit a road block. Science demands that a thing be proven by experimentation and repeat outcomes ruling out other controls. If life happened from a whack of lightning and soupy amino acids then it should be provable in the lab. But still nothing to show for it. So the evolutionaries stop there not wishing to be pressed on life itself.

We go back to life itself then, where on that one day it all began, and life happened. And we have two choices. One of those choices is by intentional design, and the other is by random chance. If I choose by design I should have something to show for it. So I look at the complexity of the double helix and the millions of things it does. To prove design I must by experimentation prove that it can be modified and reprogrammed by intentional interference. This has already been done in the lab and repeatedly so. So I now know the DNA helix is not only a code but a programmable code at that.

If I take the random chance stand, I must prove by random chance that it can happen as I claim. If I believe that in a mixture having all of the right chemicals and ingredients, that if I apply electrical force there should be evidence of life happening, then I must conduct the experiment in the lab to prove the results and then repeat the experiment. The experiment was conducted, and while acids did combine to form other chemicals, life was never found. The experiment has been repeated many many times and without any success.

Now, if I use my deductive reasoning, I would see that the designer hypothesis has more weight to it than the random act hypothesis. I would tend to go with intentional design. And if so, then by whom?

The whom for me is God.


As for the discussion. I'm not glum, I like good ol fashioned discussion. Some Christians, like those who are evolutionaries tend to get a little disjointed because they feel the need to convince others that they are right. Mr. Ham is one of them. There are a couple in some of the replies here towards me. These people would be upset one way of the other and if a creationist show version of COSMOS were to pop up, you could bet that Stephen Hawkins and Bill Nye would have a few things to say as would Richard Dawkins. As for me, I'm comfortable with what I believe I know and what I believe the science says.

peter vlar

Fromabove
Of course people as yourself would say such a thing because they don't understand things about God, life etc. That is unless they can touch it with their hands. So anything I say is just so much foolishness to people like that. It comes with being a Christian and having a Biblical perspective on the world view.

I've got to ask, are you purposely being demeaning towards people here as you pontificate from authority because of the superior nature of your religiosity? You are making a lot of sweeping broad assumptions about people and what they can or can't understand and then you're confused when it's not rainbows puppies and open armed hugs waiting for you. Take a serious look at your rhetoric and wording. Choosing your words more carefully instead of making statements that border on insulting would make your position a little more amiable and receptive to people. I debate and discuss things on this site with some very conservative religious folks who's world view couldn't be any farther away
from my own but the language and syntax on both sides are full of respect and a desire to understand where the other person is coming from. It leads to an open and interesting dialogue where both sides learn from each other as opposed to talking down to someone and deciding they just can't grasp your superior mindset before giving them the chance
to have a discussion with you. The demeanor and perspective come off as decidedly unChristian as Jesus would never speak to or treat others with such contempt.

Oh, no,no,no... don't go there. If you walk away with that thought it is your own. You do realize that I am saying that I understand why people think "I'm" foolish don't you? Science shows us that we must have proof and proof can be seen and touched. Matters of faith are rejected by the science mind and disregarded as mere foolishness. I am a person of faith. I don't know what you are and this topic of discussion is not on your good and bad points but about the show and maybe a twist of creation vs evolution by default. So please, keep with good discussion and don't pick fights.

Was my statement wrong to say that people who will only accept tangible hands on provable science will only see faith as foolishness and God as a foolish notion. Let me know. I don't have a superior mindset, just a different point of view from your own. That remark btw about having a superior mindset could have been insulting to someone else.

nm. totally off-topic again, dammit.

The show. The show doesn't have to address "God" at all, and insisting that it is just drivel because it doesn't include any discussion of God does not indicate that you really are doing much except trolling. At least you're keeping the conversation alive while we await the next episode. But really, you're not being very deep, and I suspect it's purposeful.

You can't possibly be competent enough at writing a well-thought out post reiterating your 'lightning' vs 'creator' argument and also expect us, thinking adults with very valid points, to simply accept your judgment that COSMOS is nothing but junk science.

But you know that.

reply to post by BuzzyWigs


While you're reading my post, let me say that when I say God as a person I'm talking as a spiritual inter-dimensional entity not flesh. One that is greater than mere physical existence yet capable of influencing at will. And for the moment I'm not trying to say for the sake of argument that God has to be the God of Abraham. That would only be my belief and I want to set that to the side for the concept of an entity that could've created life on this planet by design. God would be the definition of one of two possibilities. The other is random chance. So for the sake of the discussion I am talking about intelligent design and not any person's religion.