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.

 

A Matter of Faith: New movie by Answers in Genesis

page: 6
12
<< 3  4  5    7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 7 2014 @ 07:07 PM
link   
a reply to: BuzzyWigs

Don't let the insults get you down, huh? Should I feel bad now? Miss Empathy herself who derides others she doesn't know with terms like "Nutjob, Nutter, Virulent Christianity," etc. Save yourself the embarrassment. No one feels pity for you except yourself.




posted on May, 7 2014 @ 07:19 PM
link   
a reply to: Phantom423

When you learn the actual process and theory behind the evidence you claim you understand, then let me know. As far as the uneducated insults, you yourself would know. Should I call you Enlightenedone or Phantom? Cause you both sound exactly like the same person.

I ask this: Do you think you are a troll? If so you are terrible at that as well. Is this an attempt to goad Christians into receiving the ban hammer? That's the way it seems, as are all the threads you and your group post. It has been enjoyable making you appear as foolish as you seem to be. It brings a smile to my face. Should I feel sorry for you? A tear. A tear.

I only go after those that deserve it. I would go after prejudice louts like yourself and Buzzy all the live long day. I don't believe you should exist. You don't respect others. You are prejudiced. You are all that is wrong with society. If it was me, you would have been banned long ago. As soon as you started calling people names. Disrespect like that has no place in society, no matter what shape it takes. Please do the world a favor: ____ ________ Can you fill the blanks?


(post by pleasethink removed for a manners violation)

posted on May, 7 2014 @ 07:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: pleasethink
a reply to: peter vlar

When you declare that proof exists, then never show anything that appears to prove that man evolved down the line from a single celled organism.


Whatever works for you. I've done it 1000 times on ATS and am over repeating the same information over and over like a broke record. What's the point when you have no interest in actually looking at the data. All you are interested in is picking an argument for your own amusement.


What you champion is not proof. And you rant from a position of illogic, of which no intelligent debate is possible. When someone clearly displays your illogic, you dance around it and try to make intelligently(to you and others of you ilk) worded arguments that are lying blatantly but are not understood because humans in general appear to not have a desire to proceed forth from what one tells them to instead formulate an opinion of their own. Whoever jumps to my rescue is right! Well continue down your unprovable road while claiming it proven. These are the works of foolish men, as is trying to speak sense to one who clearly has none.


Why stop there? Your pedantic goading was just getting me to crack a smile. Mock all you want, I'm not playing with bible thumping trolls today. Ill continue down my unprovable road as you put it and you'll continue to wallow in a froth of ignorance and we shall likely be equally pleased with the results.


At least I admit that what I believe requires faith. It is because it does. That is understanding on display, not words that sound intelligent but lack intelligence in every which way possible. I suggest you look up empirical evidence, the origin of evolution, the theory of evolution, and anything else to argue your point in a more constructive manner.


No need, I've had all that covered for years. I'm not I te rested in lowering myself to your level so ill just quit while I'm ahead of the curve.


Notice how they dance around the HCLCA? And how about this:

"All life on Earth is descended from a last universal ancestor that lived approximately 3.8 billion years ago."
from the wiki page for "Evolution"
You'd think they were Fred Estaire reincarnated


Fred believed in evolution too so that works for me.


Who exactly has addressed this? No one but I. But it must be me, correct? I am the one who does not understand. I had an idea that you would be more intelligent, but alas, you are the same. Championing foolishness with the peanut gallery while the peanut gallery applauds.


And here we find the true crux of your issue, you're so very sad that everyone has mocked you but you're the only one who is on the attack for me when you think people should be lining up to tke a steaming poop on my porch. It's pretty pathetic.


A real scholar would tear you to pieces. But you would still claim you won.


Do you know any? Send them over and we can measure each others dicks to see who is more hung, maybe compare educational backgrounds and then drink a nice single malt as we discuss how many chicks we hooked up with in grad school.


If I were you, I would not like what I saw in the mirror. But I am what you pretend to be. And that is how it shall stay.


That was a fascinating look at my character through your flawed version of reality. You keep pretending you are who I'm pretending to be while awaiting my monthly check from SAG and the law of averages will take care of the rest.


Shout out to Ken Ham, the guy who made Bill Nye look stupid in front of the world. The bow tie was nice, though.


In front of the world huh? You must be referring to the insular construct that YEC's have created around themselves and think is the world becaus they stick their fingers in their ears and shout nanny nanny booboo to drown out the sounds of the tral workd aroumd them, because the rest of the world does not see it your way.

Thank you for this fascinating journey down memory lane as I reminisce to myself why I avoid people of your ilk like the plague bringers you are.



posted on May, 7 2014 @ 08:35 PM
link   
a reply to: peter vlar

Please continue to avoid me in the future.


And you appear flustered. I'm sorry if I got under your skin. Also, should I be impressed by your SAG reference? Oh, my. What on earth have I done? Not Paul Reubens are you? Oh my gosh, I better stop now. Actually, my real reaction is "Oh a minor celebrity." Was it the real world portland? That would be boss. I never watched it either. How about the depends commercials I always skip. Or maybe guy in coffeeshop #2. Congrats on your educational prowess and your obvious acting ability.

Your illogical nature is on display, sir/madam. As such, I will bid you adieu. Continue the good fight against us terrible christians while helping the world graciously through many minor roles in soap operas. Cause thats definitely the type of help it needs. I support you all the way.

And just to let you in on a little secret: I never got mad one time. A smile is equipped on my person. A smile you put there. Have a nice day. No hard feelings.



posted on May, 7 2014 @ 09:03 PM
link   
"And just for clarity, what I asked is for you to describe the experiment, and why it was valid to your argument"

And this confirms what I said before - you never read the articles and if you did, you don't understand them. If you read the "methods", everything is right there as it is in every paper which is accepted by a recognized scientific journal for publication.
It's about time you admit that you know jack Sh**&&^^$T about scientific and laboratory methods.
Get over it already.



posted on May, 7 2014 @ 09:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: pleasethink
a reply to: peter vlar

Please continue to avoid me in the future.


Sorry,but thats not how it works around here. If you're posting in a thread and I'm reading it and I think you're off your rocker I'm going to say so and always expect the same in return.


And you appear flustered. I'm sorry if I got under your skin. Also, should I be impressed by your SAG reference? Oh, my. What on earth have I done? Not Paul Reubens are you? Oh my gosh, I better stop now.

It was a joke, apparently they don't tell jokes at your church or place of worship.


Actually, my real reaction is "Oh a minor celebrity." Was it the real world portland? That would be boss. I never watched it either. How about the depends commercials I always skip. Or maybe guy in coffeeshop #2. Congrats on your educational prowess and your obvious acting ability.


Thanks, I'm clearly a better actor than I thought because you couldn't discern the humor and then extrapolated it far enough to try to use it to mock me. Kudos to you! I'm far more likely to be found with my nose buried in the most recent AJA than I am a script but thank you for admiring my acting prowess.


Your illogical nature is on display, sir/madam. As such, I will bid you adieu. Continue the good fight against us terrible christians while helping the world graciously through many minor roles in soap operas. Cause thats definitely the type of help it needs. I support you all the way.


Thanks, but i'll just keep doing what I really do. It's much more interesting and far less embarrasing than the depends commercial you thought I was in.


And just to let you in on a little secret: I never got mad one time. A smile is equipped on my person. A smile you put there. Have a nice day. No hard feelings.


Well I'm glad to be of service, though I'm not sure how I feel about the smugness associated with that Cheshire grin but please do carry on. I will be doing performances all day and matinees on Saturday so feel free to come back anytime.

edit on 7-5-2014 by peter vlar because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 7 2014 @ 09:30 PM
link   
I was a grad student at Cal Tech when Linus Pauling still had his lab there. One of his students was my mentor for my double Ph.D. in Chemistry and Physics. Now, that may mean nothing to you. But I've worked with the best of them. I'm a published scientist and have been cited in more than a few publications.
I tried to have a debate because I'm curious about this subject and how people come to these conclusions. I've had conversations with high school grads who are Creationists or whatever who could defend their positions more eloquently than you can. That's embarrassing.



posted on May, 8 2014 @ 12:02 AM
link   
a reply to: Phantom423

And yet you couldn't even describe the test in which you yourself linked. Smells kinda familiar. Are their any bulls around?



posted on May, 8 2014 @ 12:22 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on May, 8 2014 @ 12:23 AM
link   

originally posted by: ParasuvO
a reply to: Kandinsky

Too bad Science is totally controlled at many levels so that we cannot yield actual proof about a good many things.

Especially the parts about just HOW Science was 'invented' so that it could then invent things.

It will be most interesting when the humans and computers alike all find out just what is actually going on, and it is NOT the Creationist NOR Scientific view, both are completely controlled, and handled by an UNKNOWN SOURCE.




This makes absolutely no sense. Science is merely a standardized method to learn. We went from philosophy to the scientific method; however, you elude to some larger "conspiracy" yet have no answers.



posted on May, 8 2014 @ 03:47 AM
link   

originally posted by: pleasethink
a reply to: peter vlar


Shout out to Ken Ham, the guy who made Bill Nye look stupid in front of the world. The bow tie was nice, though.


I think that you have that backwards. Bill Nye is the guy who says that he can change his mind via proof. Ken Ham said that nothing can make him change his mind, showing that his mind is in fact closed.



posted on May, 8 2014 @ 07:04 AM
link   

originally posted by: pleasethink
a reply to: Phantom423

And yet you couldn't even describe the test in which you yourself linked. Smells kinda familiar. Are their any bulls around?


Really? And when did you ask me to "describe the test"????? Show me the link.

I posted several pages back that any time you want to discuss the methods in depth, I would be happy to do it. No reply from you. On top of everything else, now you're fabricating responses you never made.

Once again: Where's your evidence. Where's the laboratory data. Where are the peer-reviewed journal articles which support your position.

And every modern physics textbook includes chapters on fundamentals of spectroscopy. The comment you made about C14 in textbooks shows the depth of your ignorance.
edit on 8-5-2014 by Phantom423 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 8 2014 @ 08:19 AM
link   
Pleasethink,

Just a reminder for you and the rest of ATS that the belief in Creationism is not recognized by the Church and only represent a minority (but quite vocal) of Christians worldwide, mainly anglo-saxon protestants advocating for a literal interpretation of the Bible (again something the Church does not encourage).

These views usually base their thinking on the initial hypothesis that the Bible is inherently correct and literally the word of God. That hypothesis cannot be verified and thus cannot be used for argumentation purpose, and thus any subsequent attempt to explain creationism through the bible is logically flawed.

The goal of religions is to provide spiritual and philosophical guidance. The goal of modern science is to explain how the world works. They are not contradictory as they deal with different but complementary realities.

Anyone rejecting the theories proposed by modern science based on his faith is attributing to religion a role that it does not have. Religion does not explain the laws of nature, only philosophical questions like purpose, will, grace, etc...

Here is the generally accepted Church position on the concepts of the birth of the universe and evolution (basically they are accepted).



According to the widely accepted scientific account, the universe erupted 15 billion years ago in an explosion called the 'Big Bang' and has been expanding and cooling ever since. Later there gradually emerged the conditions necessary for the formation of atoms, still later the condensation of galaxies and stars, and about 10 billion years later the formation of planets. In our own solar system and on earth (formed about 4.5 billion years ago), the conditions have been favorable to the emergence of life. While there is little consensus among scientists about how the origin of this first microscopic life is to be explained, there is general agreement among them that the first organism dwelt on this planet about 3.5–4 billion years ago. Since it has been demonstrated that all living organisms on earth are genetically related, it is virtually certain that all living organisms have descended from this first organism. Converging evidence from many studies in the physical and biological sciences furnishes mounting support for some theory of evolution to account for the development and diversification of life on earth, while controversy continues over the pace and mechanisms of evolution.



We cannot say: creation or evolution, inasmuch as these two things respond to two different realities. The story of the dust of the earth and the breath of God, which we just heard, does not in fact explain how human persons come to be but rather what they are. It explains their inmost origin and casts light on the project that they are. And, vice versa, the theory of evolution seeks to understand and describe biological developments. But in so doing it cannot explain where the 'project' of human persons comes from, nor their inner origin, nor their particular nature. To that extent we are faced here with two complementary—rather than mutually exclusive—realities.



The clay became man at the moment in which a being for the first time was capable of forming, however dimly, the thought of "God". The first Thou that—however stammeringly—was said by human lips to God marks the moment in which the spirit arose in the world. Here the Rubicon of anthropogenesis was crossed. For it is not the use of weapons or fire, not new methods of cruelty or of useful activity, that constitute man, but rather his ability to be immediately in relation to God. This holds fast to the doctrine of the special creation of man ... herein ... lies the reason why the moment of anthropogenesis cannot possibly be determined by paleontology: anthropogenesis is the rise of the spirit, which cannot be excavated with a shovel. The theory of evolution does not invalidate the faith, nor does it corroborate it. But it does challenge the faith to understand itself more profoundly and thus to help man to understand himself and to become increasingly what he is: the being who is supposed to say Thou to God in eternity.



Currently, I see in Germany, but also in the United States, a somewhat fierce debate raging between so-called "creationism" and evolutionism, presented as though they were mutually exclusive alternatives: those who believe in the Creator would not be able to conceive of evolution, and those who instead support evolution would have to exclude God. This antithesis is absurd because, on the one hand, there are so many scientific proofs in favour of evolution which appears to be a reality we can see and which enriches our knowledge of life and being as such. But on the other, the doctrine of evolution does not answer every query, especially the great philosophical question: where does everything come from? And how did everything start which ultimately led to man? I believe this is of the utmost importance.



As a theist, I wanted to remind you and ATS that your views do not represent the majority of people who believe in a divine presence in the universe, but only a small and local branch of a vast spiritual and religious tree, and that for most of it, there is absolutely no contradiction between belief in god and modern science.



posted on May, 8 2014 @ 10:49 AM
link   
a reply to: SpaceGoatFarts

Excellent post. There is no conflict between belief in God and modern science. Francis Collins, Director of the Human Genome Project and a practicing Catholic, has said on several occasions that he sees God every day in his laboratory. His book, The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief, is a wonderful example of how modern science really has no conflict with spirituality.

en.wikipedia.org...:_A_Scientist_Presents_Evidence_for_Belief

BioLogos (Collins' suggested relabeling of Biology) rests on the following premises:[7]

1.The universe was created by God, approximately 14 billion years ago.
2.The properties of the universe appear to have been precisely tuned for life.
3.While the precise mechanism of the origin of life on earth remains unknown, it is possible that the development of living organisms was part of God's original creation plan.
4.Once life began, no special further interventions by God were required.
5.Humans are part of this process, sharing a common ancestor with the great apes.
6.Humans are unique in ways that defy evolutionary explanations and point to our spiritual nature. This includes the existence of the knowledge of right and wrong and the search for God.

Ken Ham and Answers in Genesis have organized a cult around fraudulent science directed at the lame, lazy and the crazy who need a guru to direct their lives. It is a typical cult of deviant practices which sucks in those who need a crutch.

Throughout this thread, I have asked only one question: Where is the evidence? Where are the experimental results? Where is the data to support the position? I have asked the same question of others closely involved with Answers in Genesis. To date, none of them can come up with the evidence either - other than the bogus, fraudulent "science" at their website. Challenge them on anything and they have no answers.

I think pleasethink has been exposed for what he/she is: Just another failed salesman peddling a fraudulent product.



posted on May, 8 2014 @ 01:34 PM
link   

A Matter of Faith: New movie by Answers in Genesis



That is the topic.
Please debate it...other members are not the topic.
So, let's put away the barbs and stay on topic.

You are responsible for your own posts.

We expect civility and decorum within all topics. and How Not To Be Banned From ATS...Or, A Word About Politeness.

--Off Topic, One Liners and General Back Scratching Posts--



posted on May, 8 2014 @ 03:51 PM
link   
a reply to: Phantom423

In my earlier days on ATS, I made the point that some scientists have faith in God and was shot down in flames by a couple of staunch atheists. It was on the back of hearing a radio programme that interviewed astrophysicists who believed in God. Dr Francis Collins seems to be a fine example of an influential scientist who's somehow maintained their faith.

Faith in God and accepting the major tenets of science aren't mutually exclusive.

Nevertheless, the 6 listed statements are arguable and your link doesn't refer to any of them.

1- The universe was created by God approximately 14 billion years ago would be more objectively phrased as 'the universe came into existence approximately 14 billion years ago.

2- The properties of the universe appear to have been precisely tuned for life. The universe has the appearance of being 'precisely tuned for life' because we're the only known life-form in existence with the capacity to study and measure it. We've no idea how many iterations of life have become extinct between the points of abiogenesis and technological success.

3- While the precise mechanism of the origin of life on earth remains unknown, it is possible that the development of living organisms was part of God's original creation plan. It is 'possible.' At the same time, who can say for sure there is a God? How do we prove that? If we 'prove' or 'know' the existence of God, it's speculative to start weaving 'creation plans' and second-guessing the purported Creator. Seems much simpler to accept that current knowledge doesn't hold the answers and we'll just keep looking.

4- Once life began, no special further interventions by God were required. Like in point 3, are we trying to invoke 'special knowledge' to explain away the profound discord between the various accounts of God's intent and the reality of life's hardships?

5- Humans are part of this process, sharing a common ancestor with the great apes. Nothing to add.

6- Humans are unique in ways that defy evolutionary explanations and point to our spiritual nature. This includes the existence of the knowledge of right and wrong and the search for God. We'd need to define 'unique' and the contexts of where 'unique' applies before getting into aspects that 'defy evolutionary explanations.' Right and wrong is generally defined as morality and numerous experiments and studies have, arguably, identified it in non-human species.

The Answers in Genesis folk do a disservice to people of faith and stand opposed to people with the pedigree of Dr Francis Collins. I'm agnostic and don't really care whether God exists or not. We can dispute Collins' views and respect them at the same time. It's very hard to respect the prejudiced BS of Answers in Genesis.



posted on May, 8 2014 @ 04:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: Kandinsky
a reply to: tsingtao

You're sitting out there typing on a computer that wouldn't exist without the progress of science going back centuries. Your life expectancy is higher than at any time in history and you can watch footage of humans in space using a technology that has connected most people on this planet - the internet.

Do we thank priests, churches and holy books for that? Do you think Bibles print themselves or were they prayed into existence? Did an archangel invent the printing presses?

Like it or not, science has done more for humanity than any sermons.


Scriptures state all knowledge and all understanding come from God.

God is a spirit being (mind being, thought being, consciousness).

To claim anything came from "science" is premature and arrogant. The minds of scientists can receive knowledge and understanding from a mind being (God) even if the human being receiving it takes the discovery and attributes it to their own intellect, and mankind praises them for the "discovery".

God gave mankind (the inventor) the knowledge to create the computer. God gave mankind (the doctors) the knowledge to extend your life expectancy. God gave mankind the knowledge (Al Gore??? j/k) of how to create the internet.

God gave the knowledge and what does mankind do with it?

Every good thing you attribute to "science" has been used selfishly by mankind to hurt, and harm one another. Time and time again the true knowledge given is abused and use to control and subvert mankind as slaves.

You should thank God for it all, never a priest, organization, scientist, inventor or book; all the glory honor and praise belong with Almighty God the Creator and Sustainer of all life in existence, the giver of all Knowledge, including that which mankind attributes to themselves in vanity (called "science").

God Bless,


edit on 8-5-2014 by ElohimJD because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 8 2014 @ 05:00 PM
link   
a reply to: Kandinsky

Hello Kandinsky - Those are Dr. Collins' words, not mine.

Collins proposes a new term for theistic evolution: "BioLogos" --

"The book proposes the name "BioLogos" as a new term for theistic evolution. "BioLogos" is also the name of a science-and-faith organization founded by Francis Collins in November 2007.[4]

Bios is the Greek word for "life". Logos is Greek for "word," with a broader meaning in Heracleitean Philosophy and Stoicism—namely the rational principle ordering the universe. This concept was appropriated by Christian theology. In Christian theology, "Word" is actually a creative agent for all that exists, in addition to being an ordering principle. Furthermore, in some Christian thinking the eternal and divine Logos merged and synthesized with a human nature to become Jesus Christ in the Incarnation. This is laid out in the opening prologue of the Gospel of John, forming part of the textual basis for Christian belief in the Trinity, as the concept of Logos morphed over time into God the Son for the second person of the Trinity.[5]

"BioLogos" expresses the belief that God is the source of all life and that life expresses the will of God. BioLogos represents the view that science and faith co-exist in harmony.[6]

"Collins raises arguments for the idea of God from biology, astrophysics, psychology and other disciplines. He cites many famous thinkers, most prevalently C. S. Lewis, as well as Saint Augustine, Stephen Hawking, Charles Darwin, Theodosius Dobzhansky and others. In 2007 Christianity Today judged it one of the best books of the previous year.[3]"

en.wikipedia.org...:_A_Scientist_Presents_Evidence_for_Belief

I believe he's brought spirituality and hard science together within a framework that's acceptable to most people. I think it's an important achievement because naturally, people of good faith, want answers. They want to know that their fundamental grounding in spirituality is not being rejected and cast aside as unimportant and irrelevant by the scientific community.

Dr. Colllins has been criticized by some in the scientific community for mixing "apples and oranges". But I think anyone with an open mind can see that there's no conflict between the two. With respect on both sides while continuing to have an inquiring mind is the most important thing. There are no "absolutes" in science. Anything can be questioned and should be questioned when evidence is found to dispute some long-held rule or law. When classical mechanics couldn't answer certain observed phenomena, Max Planck and others proposed quantum theory. Francis Collins recognized that the more we discover about nature, the closer it brings him to his God. This is a good thing.



posted on May, 8 2014 @ 06:21 PM
link   
a reply to: ElohimJD

ElohimJD, if God is a spiritual being or consciousness, who was Jesus Christ?

If all things come from God, doesn't that suggest that humans are nothing more than mechanical objects, preprogrammed by this being to carry out his/her/its will? It's sort of depressing to think that all creativity comes from this God and that humans are merely the vehicle for the output.

And that hypothesis doesn't explain evil. If all things come from God, and we assume that it's a good God, then evil is a contradiction and goes against God's plan.

Free will has to fit in there somewhere, I'm afraid. And with free will, comes the choice to create or destroy. If the God-being is responsible for everything, then the theory of a "good God" has to be seriously questioned.

Your thoughts?



new topics

top topics



 
12
<< 3  4  5    7  8 >>

log in

join