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.

 

How does creationism explain....

page: 15
0
<< 12  13  14    16 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 26 2005 @ 01:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by mr conspiracy
"UK academic gives evidence in intelligent design case"


is a valid scientific one because it has been used to describe biological phenomena

That doesn't amount to much, and it doesn't make ID scientific. ID posutlates that an all powerful super being created life, the universe, everything. Supernatural beings are not subject to scientific investigation. Therefore ID is not scientific.

Notice that this guy is a professor of Sociology, not a biologist. He also seems to merely be an IDist, having written books for intelligent design in the past and being hired by the ID movement to testify at Dover.


Citing the work of Michael Behe, a leading advocate of intelligent design and a previous witness at the trial, Prof Fuller said scientists have observed biological systems and inferred that a "designer" must exist

He's cites Behe's statements that ID is scientific to show that its scientific????


halfofone
If there is no way to prove or diprove it, and never will be, then how can it be discounted?

You are correct, it can't be. However, if there is no way to refute an idea, even potentially, then that idea is not scientific. So ID is certainly possible, at the level of anything being possible, but its simply not scientific. Also, even in the nonscientific world, we commonly reject things that are equally 'possible, since anything is possible'. We don't state that, for example, when we turn around, that what is now behind our backs is completely and utterly different, and that it reverts back to normal once we face it again. We can't prove or disprove that it isn't, but that hardly means that we should do things like teach it in school or call it a science.


Ok so how does that prove a creator does not exist.


It doesn't. Nothing will. Anyone saying that evolution, or any science, disproves

  1. God
  2. The ressurection
  3. The curing power of saintly relics
  4. Bleeding Statues
  5. Brhama
  6. or Creationism (so long as we're not talking about scientific creationism)


is Simply Wrong.

Science doesn't say anything about metaphysical events. It can not disprove them nor prove them. And anything seeking cause in supernatural events or entities is not a science.


to Created Evolution Vs. Random chance

There is not now, nor will there ever be, any scientific evidence that any god did any one thing in particular, such as creating the world in 6 24 hour periods, creating the world directly but over a longer period of time, nor even creating the world but thru a means that gives it the appearance of being completely natural. Its not something that can be discussed scientifically.
The evidence supports the evolution of populations via a mechanism of natural selection acting upon variation within the population, some of which has come about thru random mutations, which leads to adaptation.




posted on Oct, 26 2005 @ 02:48 PM
link   
Ok great, finally you are starting to get my point.

If we cannot discuss this issue scientifically, based upon the fact that science does not attempt to explain creation, then this issue must then be discussed philosophically. Isn’t that what Creation theories have always been about, trying to explain what we cannot? The bible, the Koran, etcetera do not have footnotes or a bibliography; it’s all about faith which need not be scientific.

We need to come up with new ideas, because the old ones have been proven wrong. The ideas that are espoused by Christianity for example are flawed, at least in a literal sense, and should be re-examined. We need to take what we do know scientifically and extrapolate philosophical theories from those facts.

Was there once nothing and a creator triggered a start?

Has everything that exists now always existed (like the law of thermodynamics that states energy cannot be created or destroyed) and the expansion of the universe merely a cyclical event?

Could everything be one entity existing without time learning from itself and evolving itself through the creation of life?

Could this be all there is?

Could the God figures already espoused exist, and could the problems with current religions only be a result of literal interpretation?

I don’t think that we should assume that what we now know scientifically is the be all and end all of what we should believe. Faith in a higher purpose can exist within science, that is my ultimate point.


Urn

posted on Oct, 26 2005 @ 03:29 PM
link   
Halfofone, i didn't mean for my post to apear to be entirley directed at you, and seeing as how i quoted you twice, i should have been ALOT clearer about that



Originally posted by Halfofone If there is no way to prove or diprove it, and never will be, then how can it be discounted? You see it works both ways. Unless by discounted you mean science just pretendes that it isn't a question to be asked then you are right.


ya, thats pretty much what i mean...science has no choice but to turn a blind eye to it...


Originally posted by Halfofone
Ok so how does that prove a creator does not exist.


i never claimed it did,


Originally posted by Urn
the fact that evolution occurs, hasn't been in question (at least not by the scientific community anyways) for a long time...the theory of evolution on the other hand, tries to explain the mechanisms of the evolution that we blatently see...

the fact that evolution happens has never seriously been in dispute, how evolution happens, on the other hand, is still being seriously disputed...

this bit wasn't really directed at you halfofone, i was just sort of throwing it out there for everybody in the thread, again, i should have made myself clearer.



posted on Oct, 26 2005 @ 09:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by Halfofone
If we cannot discuss this issue scientifically,

Just to be clear, science can't answer if god made the universe or anything liek that, but science can tell us how things like evolution operate and how the universe itself operates and its history.




We need to come up with new ideas, because the old ones have been proven wrong.

But they haven't.


The ideas that are espoused by Christianity for example are flawed, at least in a literal sense, and should be re-examined.

Christianity is a religion, which means that its based on faith. One either has faith in what its says (or what one thinks it says), or does not. Either way, what would be shown in a 're-examiniation' or an analysis? There is no evidence to examine, at least.



We need to take what we do know scientifically and extrapolate philosophical theories from those facts.

You can't extrapolate tho, you can take what the scientific foundation is and then build an unscientific structure upon it, call it a church or a philosophical academy or a cult-house, but its still unscientific, and thus, irrational and ultimately faith based. We're not going to be able to logically distinguish between it or any of the other old religions and cults, short of simply personally prefering it.


Could this be all there is?

Well, if it is, "then lets keep on daaaaaancing". er, ahem.


I don’t think that we should assume that what we now know scientifically is the be all and end all
[
I agree, that would be unscientific.

Faith in a higher purpose can exist within science, that is my ultimate point.

I'd rephrase that to that science can co-exist with any faith, so long as that faith isn't intermixed with science.



posted on Oct, 27 2005 @ 08:07 AM
link   

you can take what the scientific foundation is and then build an unscientific structure upon it


ex·trap·o·late
1. To infer or estimate by extending or projecting known information

If your not talking about extrapolation then I don't know what other word could be used (no doubt it will be a synonim). Christian and Catholic church dogma, was extrapolated from the scientific understanding of the time it was espoused, and a faith based expanation given to what was not understood. Today we have an arguably better understanding of the universe and can therefore form more rational faiths upon that. Accepting for example evolution as a reality, that way faith and science can co-exist. Now before you go ripping my post apart again in some attept to prove your supioriority. Let me say that I think faith has no place in schooling but it should not fly in the face of accepted science.



posted on Oct, 27 2005 @ 10:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by Halfofone
If your not talking about extrapolation then I don't know what other word could be used

How about 'making some stuff up'??



Christian and Catholic church dogma, was extrapolated from the scientific understanding of the time it was espoused,

Interseting, what are you basing this on? I don't see how its accurate.

Now before you go ripping my post apart again in some attept to prove your supioriority.

What the heck man, are you hear to have a discusison on the subject or no? I don't need to prove anything to some guy at some computer screen somewhere in the world.



but it should not fly in the face of accepted science.

Why? Also, Science makes no statements about the objects of faith, so how can faith go against it? Any faith involves a supernatural being that is simply not bound by regular scientific laws and reasoning. So any faith is equally 'compatible' with science. If, for example, one has faith that little invisible and undetectable angels push the planets thru the sky, thats unscientific, but it no more 'flys in the face of science' than saying that god created the planets and set them on their course a billion years ago (ala the watchmaker-god idea).
Neither idea is scientific, though they would conflict with science if they claimed to be scientific, such as with creationism or intelligent design.
So if one were to take our current scientific understanding, and then suppose that a god was active in the places that science can't reach, that still wouldn't be anymore scientific or 'more compatible' with science than any other faith.



posted on Oct, 27 2005 @ 10:34 AM
link   
I was talking about things that can now be explained by science. The dogma of the Catholic church for example once stated that the world was the center of the universe, we know now that isn't true. What I am saying is that anything your faith espouses should not be the antithisis of the facts.


I don't see how its accurate.


So they just came up with their ideas based upon nothing? It just poped into there head?
Everything that we do has some basis in our belifes, especially when it comes to philisophical ideas... I don't see how it cannot be accurate.



[edit on 27-10-2005 by Halfofone]



posted on Oct, 27 2005 @ 11:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by Halfofone
So they just came up with their ideas based upon nothing? It just poped into there head?
Everything that we do has some basis in our belifes, especially when it comes to philisophical ideas... I don't see how it cannot be accurate.
Most religious beliefs were created because of lack of answers and a need for them to be explained. Things like the gods of the air making the wind blow, the water gods making the tides and current shift or sacrificing virgins to make sure the sun god came up etc. You are kind of vague in what context you mean 'accurate' in.. obviously we are 'no longer' the center of the universe. Faith is what someone believes despite having no evidence or even having evidence to the contrary- science is based purely on physical evidence alone. I don't see how you can compare the two.

[edit on 27-10-2005 by riley]



posted on Oct, 27 2005 @ 11:19 AM
link   
You can't compair the two but if something has been explained by science why would we need religion to explian it too?



posted on Oct, 27 2005 @ 11:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by Halfofone
You can't compair the two but if something has been explained by science why would we need religion to explian it too?

Good point. Religion and science should not mix.



posted on Nov, 1 2005 @ 07:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by The Big O
How does creationism explain items that are carbon dated older than the bible says the earth is?

Also, what is the religious take on dinosaurs? One big hoax?

How does creationism explain things that lived and died before man showed up?


1. As an Old Earth Creationist (OEC), I believe scientific dating methods are reliable. Creationists who believe science, including dating methods, are unreliable are called Young Earth Creationist (YEC). To make a long story short, the Bible does not state how old the planet is. YECs say the six creation "days" are twenty-four hour days but the Hebrew word "yom" can also mean a nonspecific time period. OECs believe the six creation days are actually very long periods of time. We believe science, in general, is reliable.

2. OECs believe the fossil record is accurate and falls perfectly in line with the biblical creation account. We believe they lived and went extinct millions of years ago. We believe God created them, and everything else in the universe, to prepare our planet for mankind.

3. Again, OECs believe the fossil record is accurate. We believe all animals were created (and died) for the purpose of preparing our planet for mankind.

I hope this helps.



posted on Nov, 1 2005 @ 08:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by Proverbs1Seven
As an Old Earth Creationist (OEC), I believe scientific dating methods are reliable.

? Why not accept that radioisotopic methods are reliable because of the evidence, rather than if it is permissible within your faith?


We believe science, in general, is reliable.

Except that OECs beleive that god created all the different kinds of animals, rather than that they evolved. So, again, its not that OECs are somehow more scientific than YECists, they accept some postulates of science, and reject others, regardless of evidence.


OECs believe the fossil record is accurate and falls perfectly in line with the biblical creation account.

How do you figure???


genesis 1:
11And God said, Let the earth put forth [tender] vegetation: plants yielding seed and fruit trees yielding fruit whose seed is in itself, each according to its kind, upon the earth. And it was so.[...]
20And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly and swarm with living creatures, and let birds fly over the earth in the open expanse of the heavens.
21God created the great sea monsters[...]
24And God said, Let the earth bring forth living creatures according to their kinds: livestock, creeping things, and [wild] beasts of the earth according to their kinds. And it was so.

That order doesn't accord with the fossil record at all. Especially notice that great sea monsters are usually interpreted as whales, which are mammals, descended from land mammals, which don't exist yet, according to this order.

This also doesn't jive with the other creation order:

genesis 2:
5When no plant of the field was yet in the earth[...]the Lord God formed man[...]
8And the Lord God planted a garden [...]
19And out of the ground the Lord God formed every [wild] beast and living creature of the field and every bird of the air

Before birds were made well before land animals, and plants before anything, including man, and birds were brought out of the sea. Here they're from the land and there isn't even a mention of the sea, its as if the originators of this story weren't really familiar with the sea, and they have strong emphasis on rivers. And, of course, this order doesn't jive with the fossil record either.



posted on Nov, 1 2005 @ 10:38 AM
link   
nygdan your confusing the OEC position on the differences of Gen 1 and 2 , and also the gap between gen 1:1 and 1:2. as far as the leviathan being a whale?
Here is the word as utilized in The KJV gen 1:23 for whale (in your translation monster)

H8577
תּנּים תּנּין
tannîyn tannîym
tan-neen', tan-neem'
(The second form used in Eze_29:3); intensive from the same as H8565; a marine or land monster, that is, sea serpent or jackal: - dragon, sea-monster, serpent, whale.

It could be a whale, it could be a sea snake, it could be a dragon. That doesnt really narrow it down.....



posted on Nov, 1 2005 @ 12:18 PM
link   
Nygdan:

1. I believed dating methods were reliable prior to becoming a Christian. I am not sure why it matters anyway. Either I do or I do not.

2. OECs do not reject scientific facts or laws. The theory of Evolution states whales came from land mammals, not the fossil record itself. So the first passage from Genesis 1 cannot be disregarded by the fossil record alone, only by drawing conclusions from the theory of Evolution.

3. Genesis 2 focuses more on the creation of mankind and not on the creation in general (as Genesis 1). The order of both are the same if you read carefully. Plants, animals, then mankind. Also, chapter 2 is taking place in the Garden of Eden where there were only rivers. One also needs to look at verses 1-3 and verses 4-6 by themselves. Verses 1-3 states God is finished creating (in relation to Chapter 1). Verses 4-6, describe conditions before the creation of plants, animals, and man. A water vapor came from the ground as it appeared from under the sea (saturated earth, evaporation).



posted on Nov, 2 2005 @ 01:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by Halfofone
You can't compair the two but if something has been explained by science why would we need religion to explian it too?


But that's the problem... This weekend is saw a documantary on my local TV about the growing number of people who believe in creationism in the States.
And the guy in the docu had this oppinion:


If there is something in the bible that can be proven wrong by science, then science is wrong by default.....the bible can't be wrong it's the word of god....


I was completly shocked by this guy's statement.... sheer ignorance.




[edit on 2-11-2005 by XyZeR]



posted on Nov, 3 2005 @ 09:08 PM
link   
It's quite obvious from reading over this thread that the evolutionist/atheists are impossible to hold a discussion with. For example, Nygdon comes on and just makes statements flat out of denial to my carefully written posts, and thinks that should be enough to settle the matter. Sorry. There's only one person in the world who I believe without question -- and it's not Nygdon. Nygdon is not proving any of his statements. He just goes in and rips others' arguments to shreds by making blanket statements of "that's false," "you just don't understand evolution," and flatly stating a contrary position as though that settled THAT! No reasoning, no examples, just denial and insults.

Nygdon claims "Macroevolution is occurring and we can see it occurring." Wow. Now we all know this is true because Nygdon said it was. Nygdon says a dynosaur's forearm can transform itself into a wing and always at every moment look like a useful, non-blobby appendage. A caterpillar changes into a butterfly and if you cut open the pupa in the two weeks this is happening you would see a scrambled mess. But somehow Nygdon thinks that a dinosaur can transform into a bird and at all times it will be some kind of perfect creature that if you were to find it as a fossil it would look like just another creature, all done and finished. Nygdon says never at any time does a creature which is evolving from one kind of creature into another look like it's actually changing. A forearm can change into a wing and always be a perfect appendage as this is occurring. And you ask, how can this be so? Because Nygdon says so, and Nygdon knows. How does Nygdon know? Because he just knows, so it must be true because Nygdon says it's true. Anybody who doesn't agree with Nygdon is ignorant and foolish. So you better agree with Nygdon if you want to be smart and informed. See how easy it is to be smart and informed? Just agree with Nygdon.

In fact what Nygdon says goes against everything we know and see with our two eyes and our common sense. But that doesn't matter, because who really cares what's true or not? The important thing is that you not be different. If you have a different opinion, it doesn't matter how many good reasons you give or how logical or how persuasive you are, if people want to stick with the flow of the lemmings they will just laugh you to scorn without even trying to defend their position. They will even misrepresent the truth and claim they have offered proof, which they have not. They will say, Oh we already covered that before earlier in the thread and you already lost that debate. When that is also not true.

The thing that really breaks my heart the most is when I'm told that my opinions don't count and that I should not even be contributing to the discussion at all because I am a Christian. Christians should be seen and not heard. There is a place for Christians called Below Top Secret where they can go and talk to each other, but nobody else, because everybody else is at Above Top Secret. So why does somebody want to be sent to a Christian ghetto? Especially when they know they have so much proof and good things to contribute to any subject at hand -- not just origins but any other topic as well.

How can people be so rude as to come in and demand that someone not speak, to just rip up their postings with flat denials and insults and never address any of the points? To just make blanket statements and offer no proof and demand that everyone agree if they want to be considered "smart" and not "ignorant" or, even worse, "religious?"

Fact is the most religious people of all are the evolutionists. I actually hate religion and I'm not religious at all. I want the truth, and that's all I want. If I think I'm not on the truth train, I bale real quick. I do not go with blind faith against all my eyes and senses tell me, against common sense and logic. Rather it's the atheists who cling to their belief in gradual evolution even though there is no transitional life form to be found, alive, dead or fossilized of any creature -- plant, insect, fish, reptile, bird or mammal. Since Darwin the atheists are still pathetically scratching in the dirt looking for their proof. When they find some rotted bone or piece of skull, they are delirious thinking they have finally found their proof. They cannot find a transitional life form of anything and have not a feather of evidence, unless you want to say some fossil that they want to use their vivid imaginations to create the transitions, tell everyone this is what the creature actually looked like, and these little squiggly things here in are actually half feather half scales. Right. Do you take the word of people with blind faith in evolution when they tell you the squiggly lines are half feather, half scales? For that matter, do you believe much of anything these people say? NOT! They are so blindly and fiercely biased in their opinions that there is no trusting much of anything they say on this subject. They are zealots -- absolute zealots. If God himself knocked on their door and told them they were wrong they'd still believe that evolution is a fact, not a religious theory and a very far out one at that.

I'm aware of many religious beliefs, and I consider the belief in evolution and "aliens" to be at the top of the heap of "out there" beliefs. Yeah, there is GOING to be an alien invasion. Why? Because the Illuminati knows what lemmings people are, how they will not think, will not question, will go along with whatever Dan Rather or Shep Smith or whoever tells them, or whatever they read in Time Magazine, whatever. Since the Illuminati controls all these media how easy to manipulate the lemmings. Whatever you tell them, they will believe. So they are doing to stage a fake alien invasion, just like they staged a fake moon landing. They will bring out these creatures and pass them off as aliens. Remember this when it happens that I told you so and that I said it is a lie. It is a fake. It is a deliberate deception, and if you believe it you will be deluded, just as you are deluded about evolution.

Nygdon's is saying in essence that a turnip can transform to a bumblebee without a lot of funny blobbies going on. If this is true, we should be able to observe these "in-between transitions, and that SHOULD be apparent both NOW (i.e. why has evolution apparently stopped cold?) and also in the fossil record. He claims the transitions did not occur in jerks or leaps but smoothly over long periods of time (billions of years?) so where's the evidence? Answer: There IS no evidence, literally not one feather of evidence.

Now who is called the bigot here? Why, I am. I am the bigot. But it's very, very plain to me that this board is filled with people who hate Christianity, who hate God, and who hate people who do not agree with their atheist point of view. You guys are rabidly bigoted against a person who defends their belief in a self-existant, almighty Creator God. Which I DO.

Pretty funny, huh? The thread is called "How Does Creationism Explain?" Yet when a person tries to actually do that, they are told to get off the thread and go talk to people on Below Top Secret, go associate with your own kind.

Is that how ATS is supposed to work? Each thread is isolated and it's only for people of one point of view? I did not read that in the rules and regs. I was told by AmoryMeltzer that these forums were open to everyone.

I am not a Nazi, a Muslim terrorist, a white supremacist, whatever. I am not a bigot at all. In fact, with my belief in Creationism I believe all the races were included in the genes of the first people on this earth -- the same people who BTW Scripture says had children, who were named, who also had children WHO WERE NAMED, and this went on and on and on in the "begats." People might wonder why the Bible would have all those boring begats. Well, the begats kind of show you that God wasn't fooling when he said he created the first man and woman and named them Adam and Eve. They had kids -- lots and lots of them, most not named in Scripture. But they were healthy and fertile and lived about 900 years. So they had probably at least 500 children if not more. But the point is, at least three of their children are specifically named in Scripture -- Cain and Abel and Seth. Scripture says Seth was born when Adam was 130 years old, and Adam lived to be 930 years old. The genealogy goes on from there showing the direct line of descendants from Adam to David to Jesus (through both Mary and Joseph, Joseph being the stepfather of Jesus). So Adam and Eve were real people whose genealogies are laid out in Scripture specifically.

So Nygdon says he has given proof for macroevolution. I concede there is microevolution or speciation, but maintain this is just more proof of the Creator's hand, that God put within the genes of each kind the different species, which would emerge at God's timing and purpose. Never in the history of the world has there ever been any example of one "kind" turning into another "kind" -- what we call macroevolution. Nygdon says he can prove this happened, that he has proved this to happen. He has not done so or even attempted to do so that I can see.

A turnip will never be a bumblebee. Never. Why? Because the genetic material is not there. Mutations are harmful, not helpful. Mutations do not cause new genetic material to form. Rather, they cause genetic material already put there by the Creator to be lost or damaged.

Evolution means going from the simple to the complex. So anyone who tries to use speciation as an example of evolution is disproving their own theory, because speciation is a reduction of genetic material, not an adding to it.

I look forward to a two-page "rebuttal" (if you want to call it that) of either Nygdon or Riley going through my post with a long, long list of flat denials and insults or worse. The gist of what I'm saying will never be answered in a post such as mine is, just laying out the argument in a logical and complete way so nobody should mistake what the point is. We all know that you disagree with me. But what do YOU think? What point can you offer to counter mine that makes more sense than mine does? Do you have one?
To continue to rip my posts apart by isolating every word I say and just putting out blanket statements of "false, not true, you're wrong, you don't understand, go back to school" is not productive. Zip says to go talk to somebody on a religious thread. Nygdon accuses me of being "rude" because I dare to disagree with the atheistic viewpoints that are presented. Meantime, this is not a real discussion or a debate. You don't win points in a debate for insults and flat denials. Anybody can do that.

I have made many points here and defended them with good logic and sound reasoning. Far as I can see, not one of these points has been refuted, or even has anyone tried to refute them. Just blanket statements that I'm wrong and insults.

For example, I explained microevolution or speciation, that the genetic material was already there in the parent of the kind or family. Does anybody have an alternate explanation that makes more sense than that? We have a point of agreement which is that there is microevolution or speciation that can be observed. But the evidence shows that the species appear suddenly, and are complete and finished creatures. Anybody disagree with this? When you say that new genetic material can create itself or that it does create itself, this defies everything we know about genetics. So why are you guys claiming to be so"scientific" and saying that I am so "religious?" I am the one who conforms my beliefs to the facts here.

This will never be a real discussion because a "moderator" and some others won't allow any real discussion to occur here. I wonder, Nygdon, if you are able to actually write something yourself, argue your point persuasively, not just rip what I say apart with blanket denials and insults. Do you have anything positive to contribute to this dinosaur foreleg turning into a wing discussion? It's just not logical to maintain that this occurs with the appendage always appearing to be complete and useful and never any kind of a transitional blobby thing at all. Yet you say you don't believe in punctuated equilibrium and claim I don't even know what the word means.

Iif Riley comes on here and rips my post apart with his blanket denials and smoke and mirrors I will just repost the whole thing again below it. I think it's really funny that he never posts anyplace on the board that I can see. No place. But if I'm posting, he likes to jump in and tell me not to post, that I shouldn't be saying anything, that I'm burdening people to show me proofs, demanding and forcing people, and I need to just go away. Well, maybe I will go away, but not because of this one person who seems to feel like it's his mission in life to keep me from posting, his one and only mission --

Merkeva is the only one who actually ever addressed anything I ever said here, acknowledging that she at least understood what I was saying. Not that Merkeva agrees with me, but people like Merkeva at least have hope to acknowledge the truth, at least have some sense of fairness and sincere looking for the truth. The rest of you are just defensive of your religion of evolution, so touchy that it will be blown out of the water (as it is so easy to do) that you must try to silence people who speak rather than offer any kind of arguments.

Merkeva, I'm sorry I didn't answer you about the embryo that had legs that disappeared. I couldn't find anything on it so I can't venture an opinion on why that's happening. I don't believe in the existance of vestigial organs however.








[edit on 3-11-2005 by resistance]



posted on Nov, 3 2005 @ 09:13 PM
link   
I thought you quite the board???? Planning to stick around for a while now?

I'll read your post and continue the discusion tommorrow.



posted on Nov, 4 2005 @ 01:23 AM
link   
I havent posted in quite a while, but I felt the need to on this thread.

Resistance-
You sarcastic comments about Nygdan's superiority on the board are unnesessary. I dont think he was trying to be condescending in any way, so dont go acting like your being oppressed because your a Christian. ATS is for any and all people to voice their opinions/ideas regardless of religion, race, or age. You are expected to back up your claims, and support your arguments, not just spout biblical rhetoric. (That was not a prejudicial insult towards Christianity, please do not take it that way.) Are you forgetting the thousands of other God's of different cultures, that(in some respects)go against not only evolution, but Christianity?

Atheism has nothing to do with evolution, and not all evolutionists Atheist. There are fanatics of all types, not just ones supporting evolution. If I have seen zealots of any kind, they are religious one supporting Christianity.

I am no expert on evolution, but I think judging on your terminology neither are you. Evolution is decent with modification. Things do not change because of a goal, but because they have to. The enviroment dictates the speed of evolution. Its not the biggest, or smartest that survives, but the one most adapt to change.

Mutations are not always harmful, where did you get that?

The reason you get negative posts from Nygdan/Riley/Zipdot, I'm assuming is because they have had these discussions with creationists just like you, time and time again. Members who get banned, but repeatedly rejoin just to post the same jargon, not even planning on acknowledging responses. These people just plain ruin it for everyone else.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I think the problem is quite simple. ID and creation cannot be proven nor disproven and therefore is not scientific. Falsification, I think, is the basis if science.

[edit on 4-11-2005 by Charlie Murphy]



posted on Nov, 4 2005 @ 05:20 AM
link   


Merkeva, I'm sorry I didn't answer you about the embryo that had legs that disappeared. I couldn't find anything on it so I can't venture an opinion on why that's happening.


First off im a he just to set the record straight
These arent vestigial oragans there vestigial limbs, even some species of whale still have legs bones.



I don't believe in the existance of vestigial organs however.


Thats does'nt mean they dont exist.



posted on Nov, 4 2005 @ 06:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by resistance
The thing that really breaks my heart the most is when I'm told that my opinions don't count and that I should not even be contributing to the discussion at all because I am a Christian. Christians should be seen and not heard. There is a place for Christians called Below Top Secret where they can go and talk to each other, but nobody else, because everybody else is at Above Top Secret.





Iif Riley comes on here and rips my post apart with his blanket denials and smoke and mirrors I will just repost the whole thing again below it.

That is what you usually do anyway.

I think it's really funny that he never posts anyplace on the board that I can see. No place.

I don't want to impose on this delusion of grandeur you have going but this is complete bs.

But if I'm posting, he likes to jump in and tell me not to post, that I shouldn't be saying anything, that I'm burdening people to show me proofs, demanding and forcing people, and I need to just go away.

..again. I asked you not to continue ignoring people's answers then asking the same questions.

Well, maybe I will go away, but not because of this one person who seems to feel like it's his mission in life to keep me from posting, his one and only mission --



don't make any sudden movements..

[edit on 4-11-2005 by riley]



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 12  13  14    16 >>

log in

join