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.

 

Creationist Quackery, Part 150, 001 : Creationists Say Aliens Don't Exist, So Let's Stop Looking!

page: 25
10
<< 22  23  24    26  27  28 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 9 2015 @ 09:55 AM
link   
No but it does employ many forms of literature devices .Satire is only one of many . a reply to: GetHyped




posted on Jan, 9 2015 @ 10:02 AM
link   
a reply to: the2ofusr1

Satire can use sarcasm to get its point across, but don't confuse sarcasm for satire. Satire is a story or parable. Sarcasm is usually just a one line joke.



posted on Jan, 9 2015 @ 10:15 AM
link   
Well that is why I said in the story of the challenge to Baul . It's a story and it has different elements within the story and can be seen as a form of satire but it also has other elements and levels. The bible is not a one way,size,level fits all .The more a person studies it the more is revealed .One person can see elements that another may not have seen ,until shown . Your brief study on the subject of satire brought to your attention that it does exist in the bible .a simple fact you were unaware of until you decided to check out for yourself . a reply to: Krazysh0t



posted on Jan, 9 2015 @ 10:29 AM
link   
a reply to: the2ofusr1

Just because I've admitted to satire being in the bible doesn't automatically make you correct. Satire is satire and taunting isn't a form of satire.



posted on Jan, 9 2015 @ 10:33 AM
link   
Well then the incidence in France has to eliminate from the narrative that the terrorist were not taunted by their satire and it was just a coincidence that the terrorist were shouting All-achbar . a reply to: Krazysh0t No you are absolutely correct that you admitting there is satire in the bible doesn't make me correct but it does show that satire being in the bible and me saying so was correct and had nothing to do weather you admitted it or not . It's not about consensus .It's about the truth .


edit on 9-1-2015 by the2ofusr1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 9 2015 @ 10:41 AM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: the2ofusr1

Just because I've admitted to satire being in the bible doesn't automatically make you correct. Satire is satire and taunting isn't a form of satire.


That's not true, ridicule/mockery to make something or someone appear foolish is a form of satire.




Satire is a technique employed by writers to expose and criticize foolishness and corruption of an individual or a society by using humor, irony, exaggeration or ridicule.


Literary Devices - Satire



posted on Jan, 9 2015 @ 10:43 AM
link   
a reply to: the2ofusr1

Ok, then let's just drop it. I admitted I was wrong and we are just splitting hairs at this point.



posted on Jan, 9 2015 @ 12:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: NOTurTypical

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: the2ofusr1

Just because I've admitted to satire being in the bible doesn't automatically make you correct. Satire is satire and taunting isn't a form of satire.


That's not true, ridicule/mockery to make something or someone appear foolish is a form of satire.




Satire is a technique employed by writers to expose and criticize foolishness and corruption of an individual or a society by using humor, irony, exaggeration or ridicule.


Literary Devices - Satire


That's useful to know.

So now whenever I'm mocking and ridiculing those with foolish beliefs, I can reply with:

"hey buddy relax, it's just satire!"




posted on Jan, 9 2015 @ 03:26 PM
link   
a reply to: Prezbo369

You can.



posted on Jan, 9 2015 @ 03:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: the2ofusr1
Yet it is only in recent times that humans can render the fossils into what they looked like by using computer models and other scientific techniques to do so .The old art looks mighty close to what the new art does . How did they get it correct if they didn't have the methods to do so back then ? One group spouting Hoax does not work in science .Plese link me to the scientific rebuttal .... a reply to: Barcs


I haven't seen any of those figurines or artwork that looks exactly like our modern depiction. I see folks forcing evidence where it does not fit. How do you know they didn't have methods to dig up fossils back then and guess at their appearance? I gave you the exact rebuttal, but you didn't acknowledge it. It talked about foot sizes and exactly why they were not human footprints. It's a widely known hoax, if you have evidence to suggest it is true based on science from an unbiased source, then lets have it. Humans have great imaginations, as shown by the thousands upon thousands of works of fiction in all art forms. Art doesn't prove anything aside from that.

www.talkorigins.org...

ncse.com...


edit on 9-1-2015 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 9 2015 @ 07:31 PM
link   
The ancients are considered today to have had the ability to depict there subject matter very well according to professional's in the field of art .Weather on a coin or carved from marble .The ancients we equally capable of describing people places and things they saw .Some of the things they saw they described as best they could .Historians ,poets,and other writers have works available even today . There is today a science that deals with documents and can using a forensic analysis to determine the possible author . Now it would be possible to throw away any suggestion that what was written or painted as being a hoax .But just like many subjects of esquire ,there has to be someone willing to engage in it . The Institute of Science is not the last word on all subject matter because they decided what they would not look into . Just because one institute of study can not impose their rules for prof on another institute of study does not invalidate the other . I believe that is using a logical fallacy in the appeal to authority . Just as science cant produce the evidence to prove there is no God, science can not prove that the artist has not drawn a creature he saw . There are facts and facts do not prove anything .A interpretation of facts can be true or false .Unless if you have credible eye whiteness you are unable to prove something . Speculation and circumstantial evidence may get a jury to believe something to be true when in fact it may not be . So it's a judgement call that we of course will put our own bias opinion on the understanding and what we choose to believe .If you want proof then I suggest you look for it . After all the scientific method is not to prove you are correct but to find proof that you are wrong . You can cherry pick your data or you can consider all evidence . have at it a reply to: Barcs



posted on Jan, 10 2015 @ 03:15 PM
link   
a reply to: the2ofusr1

Nothing you said has anything to do with my points. I showed you hard evidence and analysis that shows those alleged human footprints were not human and many were intentionally faked. I asked for evidence to show they were human and you didn't even acknowledge the point. Generally speaking, people that dodge points and change the subject rather than addressing them or providing requested evidence, are not even worth wasting time on.

Trusting science isn't an appeal to authority. An appeal to authority is believing a scientist's OPINION or personal belief on something, just because he's a scientist. For example, a scientist says that he believes in god, so folks quote him on it and say it is evidence for god. Believing Kent Hovind is an appeal to authority (even though he's not even an authority on anything he speaks about other than possibly the bible). I am not talking about scientist's personal beliefs or opinions. I'm talking about scientific research papers based on hard data and experiments that have been repeated and confirmed by scientists in the field. Science boils down to results. A hypothesis is proposed and then rigorously tested to determine whether or not it is accurate. Facts are not based on interpretation. If you measure something to be 10 feet tall, that becomes a fact and proves exactly that.

A couple pages back you wrote this:


Nope ,but will say that the evidence for circular reasoning is well documented with pictures from museums where they date the rocks by the fossils found in them and date the fossils by the rock they were found in


This is a Kent Hovind argument and is completely untrue. It is long debunked. Scientists can measure the isotope decay rate in recently formed rocks from sedimentary layers. Fossils ARE rock because over time the organic material is compressed and compacted and gets replaced by rock, leaving an imprint. Bones aren't dated based on layers and layers aren't dated based on fossils. The stone is what is dated. Now we have hundreds of thousands of fossils and all of them date consistently to their respective time periods. Again, if this measurement was wrong, why are there no mixed fossils layers? Why aren't there hundreds of human fossils that date to the dinosaur ages and numerous dinosaur fossils that date recently? Young earth doesn't make sense, and neither does "the dating is wrong" argument because they are all consistent and several different methods of dating all pull similar results. It's the furthest thing from an assumption.


ust as science cant produce the evidence to prove there is no God, science can not prove that the artist has not drawn a creature he saw.


Again, burden of proof is on the person who asserts the claim, not the one that doesn't buy it. Proving absolutely non existence of anything is near impossible. Science does not need to prove there is no god, to leave that assumption out of their findings. There could very well be a god, but as of now there is no objective evidence, so the default position is non belief or agnosticism. The point is that there are many things we don't know. Assumptions do not help anybody in these arguments. Claiming that drawings from a long time ago are based on real things is a guess. If something happened to human society today and future societies dig up our artifacts and find X-men comics are they going to just assume the X-men were real people? You can't assume because it is illogical, just like the hundreds of other myths and legends from the old days.


Unless if you have credible eye whiteness you are unable to prove something .


Then why do you believe ancient myths and legends as truth? That would throw any study of the past instantly out the window.



posted on Jan, 10 2015 @ 04:05 PM
link   
The answer to my question I found and it was not found in science or using the scientific method .After I found my answer I discovered many pathways to the answer I got .The only reason I got my answer was because I wanted to know for sure and I wouldn't stop until I got it .Now that I don't have to look for my answer I can think about other things .I can ask questions to things I had never had the desire to know .The greatest freedom I got from my answer was not needing any other question . Because my answer was to the greatest question anyone could have ever asked ....peace a reply to: Barcs



posted on Jan, 10 2015 @ 06:15 PM
link   
a reply to: the2ofusr1

Since you don't want to address any of my points, I'll assume you conceded them. What answer did you get, and how did you get it?
edit on 10-1-2015 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 11 2015 @ 08:29 AM
link   
a reply to: the2ofusr1

What was the question and what was the answer? You seem to rotate back and forth between science and religion without a firm foundation in either one.

I'm just curious why Creationists find it necessary to deliberately corrupt and misinterpret the real world of science. You drive a car, you fly in airplanes, you go to the doctor and access high tech instruments for health - you use science that is founded on hard evidence every single day. And it's exactly the same science that yields hard evidence about everything from the age of the Earth, dating fossils, and all aspects of evolution. The Creationist belief system is diametrically opposed to every tool of technology that you use today. Yet when it comes to religion, somehow science gets totally reworked into some false god/prophet that has absolutely no logic.
It's hypocritical. If you truly believed that your brand of science is correct, then you shouldn't avail yourself of all the benefits which have been developed using what you consider to be erroneous science. If your science is correct, then why don't you have your own brand of drugs or technical instruments which are based on YOUR science?

I have a better idea: How about designing a nuclear power plant based on YOUR interpretation of radio isotope decay? Or how about engineering medical diagnostic instruments using YOUR science. There are about 50M medical procedures performed worldwide using technetium-99 - a radioactive isotope with a half life of about 6 hours. The market for radio isotopes is about 5B annually. Hell, Ken Ham could be a zillionaire in no time with his new science!!!

You're not living in the real world - or rather, you are living in the real world, but denying that the real world actually "works".



posted on Jan, 11 2015 @ 01:43 PM
link   
a reply to: Barcs




Why aren't there hundreds of human fossils that date to the dinosaur ages and numerous dinosaur fossils that date recently?


Mary Schweitzer discovers soft tissue in a dinosaur bone received from Jack Horner, here's what happened.


the bone that I first studied I got from Jack, and when I gave him our initial results he was rather angry—I called him a few times and by my third call he said, “Dammit Mary the creationists are just going to love you.” But I said, “This is just what the data say— I’m not making it up.”
link


Jack Horner seems uncomfortable with the idea of trying to carbon date the soft tissue sample.



Nova T Rex Blood Video on the find.


I have repeatedly been told that soft tissue was not found in dinosaur bone, however:



The find was also controversial because scientists had thought proteins that make up soft tissue should degrade in less than 1 million years in the best of conditions. In most cases, microbes feast on a dead animal's soft tissue, destroying it within weeks. The tissue must be something else, perhaps the product of a later bacterial invasion, critics argued.


Mysteriously Intact T Rex Tissue Finally Explained



posted on Jan, 11 2015 @ 02:31 PM
link   
a reply to: dusty1

The full quote from your link:


One thing that does bother me, though, is that young earth creationists take my research and use it for their own message, and I think they are misleading people about it. Pastors and evangelists, who are in a position of leadership, are doubly responsible for checking facts and getting things right, but they have misquoted me and misrepresented the data. They’re looking at this research in terms of a false dichotomy [science versus faith] and that doesn’t do anybody any favors. Still, it’s not surprising they’ve reacted this way—the bone that I first studied I got from Jack, and when I gave him our initial results he was rather angry—I called him a few times and by my third call he said, “Dammit Mary the creationists are just going to love you.” But I said, “This is just what the data say— I’m not making it up.”


You are doing the EXACTLY what Mary is talking about: misrepresenting the research to push a creationist agenda.


Jack Horner seems uncomfortable with the idea of trying to carbon date the soft tissue sample.


And Jack Horner explains exactly why.



posted on Jan, 11 2015 @ 04:22 PM
link   


You are doing the EXACTLY what Mary is talking about: misrepresenting the research to push a creationist agenda.
a reply to: GetHyped

I'm not a young earth creationist.

I have heard repeatedly that what was found in the T Rex was not soft tissue.

This has been demonstrated to be soft tissue. This is controversial because it seems improbable that these tissues could survive for 65 million years.

In the pursuit of knowledge, it would seem logical to test and see if this T Rex could have lived in more recent times.






Schweitzer is set to search for more dinosaur soft tissue this summer. "I'd like to find a honking big T. rex that's completely articulated that's still in the ground, or something similar," she said. To preserve the chemistry of potential soft tissue, the specimens must not be treated with preservatives or glue, as most fossil bones are, she said. And they need to be tested quickly, as soft tissue could degrade once exposed to modern air and humidity



Was soft tissue there all along but not regularly tested for?

Link Pawlicki 1966

Will it be frequently found in the future?



posted on Jan, 11 2015 @ 07:42 PM
link   
Phantom423



You drive a car, you fly in airplanes, you go to the doctor and access high tech instruments for health - you use science that is founded on hard evidence every single day.


The Creationist belief system is diametrically opposed to every tool of technology that you use today.:



You mean the technology created by intelligent designers?



posted on Jan, 11 2015 @ 07:59 PM
link   
a reply to: Phantom423




I have a better idea: How about designing a nuclear power plant based on YOUR interpretation of radio isotope decay?


Nuclear power.

Who would use such a dangerous unstable thing?




new topics




 
10
<< 22  23  24    26  27  28 >>

log in

join