A Matter of Faith: New movie by Answers in Genesis

page: 7
12
<< 4  5  6   >>

log in

join

posted on May, 8 2014 @ 10:20 PM
link   
a reply to: SpaceGoatFarts

First, thank you for your polite manner. It is something that appears to be lacking in these threads. If you were to go back through the posts I made that weren't removed because I'm a bad bad boy, you will see that I never once declared that a contradiction existed, only that what was posted wasn't proof of evolution. I have, in fact, multiple times stated that quite plainly. I have also stated that this science vs. religion battle has been started as a political movement to sway religious people to being non religious people. This is not news. It has been going on a long time now. I have had intelligent conversation about it with those who don't agree. I have also had silly spats with nonsensical people who can't even explain their own theory.

Here is my point: showing that life forms can adapt to harsh situations to me is not proof that we evolved from a single celled organism. Now others will rant with illogical facts that make no sense and present their beliefs, I merely am trying to show that it isn't proving what you claim it is proving. This has been the argument. The question still is the same. Where is the HCLCA? Has any life form ever changed into another life form under scientific scrutiny? The answer is very clear to both questions.

This is the trick that is apparent to those who possess discernment. One cannot prove evolution by those very clear scientific methods, therefore the definition changes. All of a sudden evolution is proven(?). So a large group of people who aren't intelligent enough start to champion it. The process hasn't been proved. Adaptation to abnormal conditions have been proved. And no one denies that. I'm starting to see this isn't about denying ignorance at all, and it has begun to leave a bad taste in my mouth in regards to this website. Why support discrimination? It is evident that it's okay to call Christians nut jobs, loonies, or whatever else but if a christian starts to display any real thought and stands up for what they believe, you get banned. That is the opposite of denying ignorance. That is supplying it. As I have said before, if anyone would like to start a new thread about Science in the Bible, I would be all over it. That is if I'm not b& first. It is a very real possibility.



(post by pleasethink removed for a manners violation)

posted on May, 8 2014 @ 11:58 PM
link   
Turning The Other Cheek

As anyone following this thread knows, there has been more than a little trouble with personal commentary.

We've been asked to stay on topic and put away the barbs. I know that's not easy, but it would be a godsend, if you will, if that should happen.

There are still many posts that don't quite meet our community standards, but I'm hoping those of us who choose to continue can let bygones be bygones and focus on our differences of opinion, rather than differences of person.

Thanks to everyone who can do this, and should things not go well, please be sure to let us know.



posted on May, 9 2014 @ 03:05 AM
link   

originally posted by: Kandinsky
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.


Actually, through history, it's even more than "some" scientists who had faith in God.

Here's a post I made in another thread with a short excerpt from a much longer list of major Christian contributors of science. Of course it was called disinfo because some people have a caricatural view of science and religion, but it can be easily verified.




To prove you that this is not only false, but that actually a great deal of the most important discoveries were made by theists, I invite you to check the following names (selected few from a very long list), their contribution to science and their belief in a universal deity:

- Roger Bacon (the scientific method)
- William of Ockham (principle of parsimony)
- Nicolaus Copernicus (heliocentrism)
- Tycho Brahe (astronomy)
- Francis Bacon (experimental science)
- Galileo Galilei (heliocentrism)
- Johannes Kepler (planetary motion)
- René Descartes (philosophy)
- Gottfried Leibniz (calculus)
- Isaac Newton (gravity)
- Carolus Linnaeus (taxonomy)
- Antoine Lavoisier (chemistry)
- Charles-Augustin de Coulomb (electrostatic)
- Jean-Baptiste Lamarck (evolution :lol
- John Dalton (physics)
- Michael Faraday (electromagnetism)
- Gregor Mendel (genetics)
- Heinrich Hertz (electromagnetism)
- Louis Pasteur (microbiology)
- Lord Kelvin (thermodynamics)
- Henri Becquerel (radioactivity)
- Max Planck (quantum physics)
- Georges Lemaître (Big Bang)
- Wernher von Braun (rockets)
- Kurt Gödel (mathematics)
- etc...


Not only all these people were believing in a higher force, belief that motivated their scientific endeavor, but also many of them wrote extensively on religion or were even engaged in the clerical life.

That should settle once and for all that there is no correlation between scientific skills and the belief in higher power.

The contribution of these people is the basis of modern science, and to deny them their faith is an intellectual deception.


"Gene therapy" couldn't have existed without the input of monk Mendel, and the series "Cosmos" wouldn't be the same without priest Lemaitre contribution regarding the Big Bang.



posted on May, 9 2014 @ 03:13 AM
link   
a reply to: pleasethink

Thanks for your reply.

I respect your opinion for what it is. I just have to disagree when you say there is no proofs but anyway that has been discussed previously.

I just wanted to remind you and ATS that though you seem to talk for all Christians, it's hardly the case as the position of the Church on evolution is that it is real, and that the universe is more than 14 billions years old.

Religion is about spirituality, science is about the material world.

Let everyone do his job because it's what they do best. Religion doesn't need to be critical to science, science can be critical to itself.


I am a theist and a scientist, and I'm comforted in my position because the majority of Christian don't feel the need to attack science because the Bible makes no scientific claims, so science does not disprove the Bible.

That is unless you read it literally, in that case you are from a specific and small branch of Christianity called fundamentalism, and certainly not mainstream Christianity.

Fundamentalism is by essence close-minded and refusing any other truth than its own tenets, so engaging in a debate with a fundamentalist is basically useless.




Fundamentalist groups generally refuse to participate in events with any group that does not share its essential doctrines and they reject the existence of any type of commonalities with theologically related religious traditions. For instance, Christian fundamentalists ignore the common Abrahamic origin of Christians, Muslims and Jews








pleasethink
I have also stated that this science vs. religion battle has been started as a political movement to sway religious people to being non religious people.


It's incorrect. This battle has been started by fundamentalist lobbies to fight against the increasing modernism in the American society. You can see it clearly in the Texas board of education willingly promoting schoolbooks containing texts supporting fundamentalist interpretations. The American society is only defending themselves against that dangerous inference in public life. Likewise, fundamentalist movements influence the military policy of the US, to the point of convincing Bush that the US were to fulfill an end-time prophecy via a holy war against Islam.

Even the Vatican warned against this increasingly dangerous influence of fundamentalists lobbies in the US, threatening both international peace and the very values of the US through its regressive and simplistic worldviews.

Fundamentalism (both Christian and Islamic) does not want compromise nor a multicultural society. It wants its own set of beliefs to become the only accepted one through the world, and people who cherish freedom of thought should fight it, even if they are theist or even Christian.
edit on 9-5-2014 by SpaceGoatFarts because: (no reason given)
edit on 9-5-2014 by SpaceGoatFarts because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 9 2014 @ 10:34 AM
link   
When discussing form transformation, or morphological changes, it's important to understand genetic drift and reproductive isolation. Speciation is a slow process - it doesn't happen overnight. Birds descendent from dinosaurs is a good example. The humming bird in my backyard does not look like Tyrannosaurus Rex or an alligator in Okefennokee Swamp. Yet, they have a common ancestry.

From: news.harvard.edu...

"Alligators and birds are part of the same larger group, called archosaurs, which has existed for 250 million years and which has given rise not only to birds and crocodilians, but also to dinosaurs. Though dinosaurs are now extinct, the crocodilians, such as alligators, crocodiles, and narrow-jawed gharials live on, and scientists see in them many characteristics of the primitive archosaurs."

“It is a bit like building a house. You have the same bricks, the same tools, but buildings can come out differently,” Abzhanov said. “It’s how and when you use these tools that’s important.”

And this: news.nationalgeographic.com...

"Now, for the first time, scientists have obtained partial protein sequences from the soft tissue remains.
"The sequences are clearly from T. rex," said John Asara of Harvard Medical School in Cambridge, Massachusetts, who led one of the studies.
In addition, both studies found similarities between the dino sample and the bone collagen of chickens, providing molecular support for the hypothesis that modern birds are descended from dinosaurs.
Until now the dino-bird connection has been entirely based on physical similarities in fossils' body structures (related: "Earliest Bird Had Feet Like Dinosaur, Fossil Shows" [December 1, 2005]).
In a related study, a team led by Mary Higby Schweitzer of North Carolina State University conducted tests that also revealed the presence of collagen in the T. rex remains.
In one experiment, antibodies that normally react in the presence of chicken collagen reacted strongly to the dinosaur protein, suggesting a similar molecular identity.

Multiple Tests
For the protein sequencing study, Asara's team isolated seven fragmentary chains of amino acids—the building blocks of proteins—from the T. rex specimen.
The results are by far the oldest such data ever recovered. Previously, the earliest protein sequence data came from a 300,000-year-old mammoth specimen.
Asara's team extracted the amino acids using a highly refined version of the analytical technique known as mass spectrometry. "

And this: www.science20.com...
"Dinosaurs aren't extinct; there are about 10,000 species alive today in the form of birds. We wanted to understand the evolutionary links between this exceptional living group, and their Mesozoic relatives, including well-known extinct species like T. rex, Triceratops, and Stegosaurus," said Dr. Roger Benson of Oxford University's Department of Earth Sciences and leader of the study. "We found exceptional body mass variation in the dinosaur line leading to birds, especially in the feathered dinosaurs called maniraptorans. These include Jurassic Park's Velociraptor, birds, and a huge range of other forms, weighing anything from 15 grams to 3 tonnes, and eating meat, plants, and more omnivorous diets."
_______________________________________________


It's no mystery why different species have developed very different morphologies. We know from genetic sequencing and protein sequencing that these very different-appearing creatures have a common ancestry. At some genetic level, all organisms, including humans, have common genetic ancestry. The genetic code for an amino acid in a bacterium is exactly the same in humans.

The number of common factors amongst all living creatures on this planet is proof enough to validate evolution from common ancestry. Whether you call it shape, form or morphology - it's exactly the same thing.

edit on 9-5-2014 by Phantom423 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 9 2014 @ 11:55 AM
link   
a reply to: Phantom423


It's no mystery why different species have developed very different morphologies. We know from genetic sequencing and protein sequencing that these very different-appearing creatures have a common ancestry. At some genetic level, all organisms, including humans, have common genetic ancestry. The genetic code for an amino acid in a bacterium is exactly the same in humans.

I get really frustrated with the suggestion that to prove evolution one must torture a fish to see if it grows lungs, or turn a frog into a T-rex.
That is not what evolution is about.

Adaptation IS evolution.

Every week the Answers in Genesis people get all panty-twisted about "COSMOS", and it just doesn't come across as rational, no matter how you look at it.

The government in Kentucky is excited about - and supporting - the Ark Encounter....
Ken Ham argues that it will create jobs. He also admits it's a for-profit enterprise....
which the taxpayers/government are subsidizing.

Ham is asked - is this a ministry? He says it's a for-profit organization -
his opponent says it's to convince the world there is a literal truth to the Bible. AiG is just a "member" of the for-profit 'partnership' of The Ark Encounter.

Kentucky should not be asking taxpayers to pay for the park, IMO. (Even if it's indirectly - to build new exits and roads to access the 'park').
"It is a hard question," they say.

Courts have said: The govt can't sponsor something if the primary purpose is to advance religion.

Ham says: It's for 'tourism' to bring tourists into the park - to make money for the state, and uses the 'ripple effect' to excuse it.
The issue is whether it is a 'ministry' or not. Which, it is. But, I suppose lots of people will go there just to see how ludicrous it is.

If you can, please watch the clip.
edit on 5/9/2014 by BuzzyWigs because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 9 2014 @ 01:49 PM
link   
a reply to: ElohimJD

Two passages caught my eye and I hope you can meditate on them.



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.




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.


In the first quote, your beliefs attribute all of Mankind's achievements to God - every thought has been placed there by God. Yet in the second quote, your beliefs attribute Mankind with independence and free thought. This perspective on life just doesn't make sense to me and you might benefit from reflecting on those beliefs to see if they stand scrutiny beyond pure Faith. Each to their own, friend



a reply to: Phantom423

Hello Phantom, I wasn't aiming those thoughts at you personally, they were just obvious questions about the statements. They were rather startling as they embody statements of fact with no evidence to support them. It's odd that a successful scientist would feel able to adapt that stance in clear conscience and with the glaring holes in the logic. Having faith in God doesn't necessarily conflict with science - balancing our equations with 'God did it' is a step further.



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.


^^ These comments tend to negate the need to involve God. Classical scientists lived in milieus whereby they were immersed in cultural beliefs in pantheons (Aristotle), vengeful God (Tycho Brahe) or modern God (Newton the Protestant). Notwithstanding fears of heresy, they were imbued with religious beliefs and opted for 'God did it' whenever they reached the limits of their abilities to explain. Newton had to explain planetary mechanics with God in the equation and subsequent generations went further. In that context, scientists are metaphorically chasing God further and further away and back into the gaps.

As mentioned, I'm agnostic and more open to the questions than my posts appear.



posted on May, 9 2014 @ 01:55 PM
link   
a reply to: SpaceGoatFarts

You made some fair points in that post and, yes, capital S science owes a debt to all who contributed; even those who oppose science like in the OP video. I's worth pointing out that we're all conditioned by our cultures and most of those listed can't be described as having the freedom of speech that we enjoy. Neither did they have access to the centuries of discourse that we take for granted.



posted on May, 9 2014 @ 10:36 PM
link   
a reply to: Kandinsky

"They were rather startling as they embody statements of fact with no evidence to support them."

Hello Kandinsky and BuzzyWigs: Yes, I noticed Dr. Collins' statements as well. But his faith requires no evidence. Anyone's faith requires no evidence whatever it entails - Gods, demons, witches, ghosts. Here's the difference: Collins does not go into his lab with a conclusion and try to fit the evidence. He doesn't optimize one result in his favor against another result which may contradict it. When Dr. Collins goes into his lab, he doesn't have to leave his faith behind because he understands the difference between approaching a problem objectively and approaching it from a biased point of view. He can believe in his God but he doesn't skew his results to support his belief. A man of his character and intelligence doesn't have to corrupt the known world to validate his beliefs.

A bad actor like Ken Ham and his crowd formulate their conclusions and then construct the evidence to fit that conclusion. There's no objectivity, no research, no experimental data, no results. Ham is a wolf is sheep's clothing. He uses Christianity as a pretext for his cult philosophy. But in fact, he is no more a Christian than an atheist is. He's not grounded in Christianity as a moral center for living his life. He's come up with a scheme to use the Bible to perpetrate a fraud for financial gain.

Ham is another Jonestown in the making. He built a museum for his crap science, produced a movie and now is planning a theme park based on his personal interpretation of Noah. His next project will probably be an island in the Caribbean to wait for the end of days. Where does he get all this money?? Good question??

Have a great weekend.



The video posted by BuzzyWigs (thanks for posting that) exposes their agenda. It's a propaganda campaign which will put substantial amounts of money into their pockets and their organization.



posted on May, 10 2014 @ 10:50 AM
link   
a reply to: Phantom423


He's come up with a scheme to use the Bible to perpetrate a fraud for financial gain.

Ham is another Jonestown in the making. He built a museum for his crap science, produced a movie and now is planning a theme park based on his personal interpretation of Noah. His next project will probably be an island in the Caribbean to wait for the end of days. Where does he get all this money?? Good question??


Yes, good question. And you answered it. His crap science museum, and his proselytizing. People, for some reason (the only one of which I can imagine is out of morbid curiosity, but I understand there are those who actually believe in YEC) hand over their cash to hear him.



posted on May, 10 2014 @ 10:55 AM
link   
What are the main points here?

Is it that the earth is 6000 yrs old or 12000 yrs old? Is this up for debate?
What about dinosaurs?
Is there actually any form of evolution?
Is there proof of a world wide or local flood?
Why are there parts of Genesis taken from other older texts like from Sumerian culture?
What about Kangaroos?
What about the bible being gods word that shouldn't be changed, yet...was changed by man?

Are these the main points?



posted on May, 10 2014 @ 11:04 AM
link   
a reply to: amazing

I'm not sure what you're asking. The earth is billions of years old. Not 6,000. Nor 12,000.
The Ark never happened. (If you look at the vid I posted, it shows the 'artist's rendering of the Theme Park; with a "life-sized" Ark...).

For people to continue to disperse info (DISinfo) about the age of the Earth, and evolution, is IMO unconscionable. Now - if adults come across this notion and choose to believe it, that's up to them. But DON'T TEACH IT TO THE CHILDREN.

ETA: I, like Kandinsky, am an agnostic. Just wanted to put that out there.
It is, in my opinion, the only reasonable stance.

edit on 5/10/2014 by BuzzyWigs because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 10 2014 @ 11:47 AM
link   
I just watched the clip again.
Ham states that they spent $74,000 dollars on legal advice. Other than that, he totally skirts the issue.



posted on May, 11 2014 @ 03:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
a reply to: amazing

I'm not sure what you're asking. The earth is billions of years old. Not 6,000. Nor 12,000.
The Ark never happened. (If you look at the vid I posted, it shows the 'artist's rendering of the Theme Park; with a "life-sized" Ark...).

For people to continue to disperse info (DISinfo) about the age of the Earth, and evolution, is IMO unconscionable. Now - if adults come across this notion and choose to believe it, that's up to them. But DON'T TEACH IT TO THE CHILDREN.

ETA: I, like Kandinsky, am an agnostic. Just wanted to put that out there.
It is, in my opinion, the only reasonable stance.



Sorry if I was unclear. I don't believe that but I need to know what the issues are and why the anti science crowd is against cosmos.



posted on May, 11 2014 @ 06:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: amazing

originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
a reply to: amazing

I'm not sure what you're asking. The earth is billions of years old. Not 6,000. Nor 12,000.
The Ark never happened. (If you look at the vid I posted, it shows the 'artist's rendering of the Theme Park; with a "life-sized" Ark...).

For people to continue to disperse info (DISinfo) about the age of the Earth, and evolution, is IMO unconscionable. Now - if adults come across this notion and choose to believe it, that's up to them. But DON'T TEACH IT TO THE CHILDREN.

ETA: I, like Kandinsky, am an agnostic. Just wanted to put that out there.
It is, in my opinion, the only reasonable stance.



Sorry if I was unclear. I don't believe that but I need to know what the issues are and why the anti science crowd is against cosmos.


maybe you should ask a couple of them?
not really sure where you can find one, tho.
"anti-science" is just so....so, disingenuous.

maybe they are just disagreeing with some of the theories?



posted on May, 12 2014 @ 03:30 AM
link   
Just for info, Ken Ham isn't at all an isolated case.

Biblical literalism is pretty strong among anglo-saxon protestants (hopefully nowhere else as strongly) and anglo-saxon protestant fundies are a huge lobby in the US.

Like really huge and powerful.

They could even influence Bush into trying to start a holy war to fulfill end-time prophecies, and are also pretty good at revising all US schoolbooks to push for a fundie and racist agenda. This kind of behaviour has always been plaguing the southern states but they are pretty strong US wide thanks to the power of Texas.




The Chairman of the Texas board of education literally wants children to be taught there were dinosaurs on the Ark.


I think no other Christian countries wordwide has it this bad, and they make normal Christians look very tame in comparison.

These people want nothing but the US to come to a dark age where everyone thinks the same. Europe already had a dark age and grew out of it, but the US still have to experience something similar. This might be the case with the national rise in bigotry, racism and general intolerance.





top topics
 
12
<< 4  5  6   >>

log in

join