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.

 

Is There Evidence for Creationism? Show it to us.

page: 3
17
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 27 2015 @ 11:37 AM
link   
a reply to: GetHyped

Honestly what is to address...

I could easily say he is manipulating their data to fit his own narrative of what they studied...

But it's pointless.

It's not a scientific argument he presented, it's rife with ad hominem attacks and "neener neener" rhetoric when he had absolutely no involvement in the study or reviewing it physically...

He looked at their charts and did his own deduction of what they presented.


What's to rebut?
edit on 27-8-2015 by CharlieSpeirs because: (no reason given)




posted on Aug, 27 2015 @ 11:41 AM
link   
a reply to: GetHyped

Take a deep breath... maybe a couple... count to ten... feel better?

This, um, discussion is obviously outside your comfort zone. I will leave you be and let your blood pressure go back down to normal.

Our words will have to stand on their own merits.



posted on Aug, 27 2015 @ 11:43 AM
link   
a reply to: CharlieSpeirs

So you cant address the rebuttal. I tell you what, I'll make it easier for you. Show me EXPLICITLY where in the paper it supports creationism, because the abstract says this:


the actual scenario for the origin of terrestrial life is far from being settled, the proposal that it might have been seeded intentionally cannot be ruled out


So in addition to the shoddy nature of the paper, it doesn't even support your conclusion! LOL!!!

So again:

1) Why can't you address the rebuttal?

2) Show us where in the paper it supports creationism



posted on Aug, 27 2015 @ 11:44 AM
link   
a reply to: Boadicea

Yes, be a good creationist and pick up your ball and go home when you realize you're not in an echo chamber. At least the thread can get back on topic now.



posted on Aug, 27 2015 @ 11:45 AM
link   
a reply to: THEatsking


Creationism is to be taught in religious classes alongside other stories from the bible. It has nothing to do with Science, and therefore it is idiotic to teach alongside scientific theories.


Got it. All ways are secular fundamentalist ways... we will impose our views on everyone else... and then accuse everyone else of doing exactly what we are doing.

Gotcha!

(But not really... I won't lump all evolutionists in the same box -- just those who do.)



posted on Aug, 27 2015 @ 11:47 AM
link   

originally posted by: GetHyped
a reply to: CharlieSpeirs

So you cant address the rebuttal. I tell you what, I'll make it easier for you. Show me EXPLICITLY where in the paper it supports creationism, because the abstract says this:


the actual scenario for the origin of terrestrial life is far from being settled, the proposal that it might have been seeded intentionally cannot be ruled out


So in addition to the shoddy nature of the paper, it doesn't even support your conclusion! LOL!!!

So again:

1) Why can't you address the rebuttal?

2) Show us where in the paper it supports creationism


I asked you not to get ahead of yourself, but you went and did it anyways.
I also told you that ad hominem attacks are not something I wish to debate, his rebuttal is trashy.

Also...
Find one post of mine that mentions "creationism"...

I can assure you everything I've shared is to do with intelligent design rather than creationism.
But you're all rabid and frothy, you can "debate" someone else.



posted on Aug, 27 2015 @ 11:47 AM
link   
a reply to: Boadicea

Lol! Teaching only science in the science class = "secular fundamentalism imposing their views on society!!"

Does Glenn Beck's pay rent to live in your head?

It's been [0] posts since the thread was on topic.



posted on Aug, 27 2015 @ 11:54 AM
link   
a reply to: CharlieSpeirs

Let's see: you're posting supposed evidence in a thread called "Is There Evidence for Creationism? Show it to us" and now you're claiming it's NOT evidence for creationism? Did you just debunk yourself??

Intelligent design IS creationism, no matter how you creationists pretend it isn't. Or should I (infamously) say... "cdesign proponentists"?

en.wikipedia.org...

Still haven't answered either of my two questions.



posted on Aug, 27 2015 @ 11:56 AM
link   
a reply to: GetHyped

1. It's a trashy bloviated opinion full of ad hominem attacks, not a studious rebuttal.

2. "the proposal that it might have been seeded intentionally cannot be ruled out".


Have a good day.
edit on 27-8-2015 by CharlieSpeirs because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 27 2015 @ 12:00 PM
link   
a reply to: CharlieSpeirs

1) is.. Is that an "ad hominem"?? GASP!

Why don't you show us why "It's a trashy bloviated opinion full of ad hominem attacks, not a studious rebuttal.". Come on, show us the logical thought process that lead you to this conclusion! Or isn't there one?

2) yes, I too read the passage I quoted. Show us how it relares to creationism aka God.


Have a good day.


Wait! You forgot your ball!
edit on 27-8-2015 by GetHyped because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 27 2015 @ 12:13 PM
link   
a reply to: GetHyped

Sigh.

Your childish remarks make it difficult to take you seriously.


I answered you question numerous times.

What you're doing is trying to force one man's opinion onto me as if it's the be all and end all deduction of a study he unceremoniously "debunks" with nought but ad hominem and an assumption of their own narrative...

Who peer reviewed this blog for it to be taken so seriously?
He had no involvement in the study or physically peer reviewing the study and therefore his "rebuttal" as you keep glorifying it is nothing more than an opinion.



posted on Aug, 27 2015 @ 12:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: CharlieSpeirs
a reply to: GetHyped
I answered you question numerous times.


You spelt "dodged" wrong.

Why don't you show us why "It's a trashy bloviated opinion full of ad hominem attacks, not a studious rebuttal.". Come on, show us the logical thought process that lead you to this conclusion! Or isn't there one?

Bonus question: why was it published in a journal about planetary science (!!!) and not a biology journal? Hint: it's to do with the quality of the paper.
edit on 27-8-2015 by GetHyped because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 27 2015 @ 12:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: GetHyped
a reply to: Boadicea

Yes, be a good creationist and pick up your ball and go home when you realize you're not in an echo chamber. At least the thread can get back on topic now.


Awwwww... now I feel bad. Did I hurt your widdle feelings? Did you still want to play? Okay.

So let's get back to the OP.

Age Confirmed for 'Eve,' Mother of All Humans


A maternal ancestor to all living humans called mitochondrial Eve likely lived about 200,000 years ago, at roughly the same time anatomically modern humans are believed to have emerged, a new review study confirms. The results are based on analyses of mitochondrial DNA. Found in the energy-producing centers of cells, mitochondrial DNA is only passed down the maternal line, and can be traced back to one woman.


One woman. Not two. Not half a dozen. Not a hundred. One. Where did she come from? Maybe she was a mutant. Maybe she was a product of evolution. Maybe she was created by our Creator out of thin air, and this is why her mitochondrial DNA cannot be traced back to a mother. She was the first. There is no evidence to prove her origins one way or another. I do know that she was created... and she obviously came from somewhere... and we all came from her. Given that we know that various "humans" have been identified -- homo-erectus, homohabilis, homosapiens -- and that she did not evolve from those subspecies, and that other subspecies have become extinct, there is much room for hypothesizing... including creationism.

And, of course, given that evolution cannot explain her existance, but creationism can, creationism therefore becomes the default position... for me. It is actually far more complex in my head, but I put it in the simplest terms possible for you.



posted on Aug, 27 2015 @ 12:20 PM
link   
a reply to: GetHyped

You haven't once shown a "logical" reason for this opinion to be taken seriously either...
Cry to someone else that I won't play your silly game of "opinion over study".

& I've spent far too much time pointing out the pointlessness of such a "Godless liberal's" measly opinion on something they had no involvement in whatsoever!!!



posted on Aug, 27 2015 @ 12:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: Boadicea
So let's get back to the OP.



Oh boy, here we go...



Age Confirmed for 'Eve,' Mother of All Humans


A maternal ancestor to all living humans called mitochondrial Eve likely lived about 200,000 years ago, at roughly the same time anatomically modern humans are believed to have emerged, a new review study confirms. The results are based on analyses of mitochondrial DNA. Found in the energy-producing centers of cells, mitochondrial DNA is only passed down the maternal line, and can be traced back to one woman.


One woman. Not two. Not half a dozen. Not a hundred. One. Where did she come from? Maybe she was a mutant. Maybe she was a product of evolution. Maybe she was created by our Creator out of thin air, and this is why her mitochondrial DNA cannot be traced back to a mother. She was the first. There is no evidence to prove her origins one way or another. I do know that she was created... and she obviously came from somewhere... and we all came from her. Given that we know that various "humans" have been identified -- homo-erectus, homohabilis, homosapiens -- and that she did not evolve from those subspecies, and that other subspecies have become extinct, there is much room for hypothesizing... including creationism.


This just shows you don't understand genetics or populations:


Owing to its figurative reference to the first woman in the Biblical Book of Genesis, the Mitochondrial Eve theory initially met with enthusiastic endorsement from some young earth creationists, who viewed the theory as a validation of the biblical creation story. Some even went so far as to claim that the Mitochondrial Eve theory disproved evolution.[37][38][39] However, the theory does not suggest any relation between biblical Eve and Mitochondrial Eve because Mitochondrial Eve:

is not a fixed individual
had a mother
was not the only woman of her time, and
Y-chromosomal Adam is unlikely to have been her sexual partner, or indeed to have been contemporaneous to her.


en.wikipedia.org...



And, of course, given that evolution cannot explain her existance

Yes it can:


In human genetics, Mitochondrial Eve is the matrilineal most recent common ancestor (MRCA), in a direct, unbroken, maternal line, of all currently living humans, who is estimated to have lived approximately 100,000–200,000 years ago. This is the most recent woman from whom all living humans today descend, in an unbroken line, on their mother’s side, and through the mothers of those mothers, and so on, back until all lines converge on one person. Because all mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) generally (but see paternal mtDNA transmission) is passed from mother to offspring without recombination, all mtDNA in every living person is directly descended from hers by definition, differing only by the mutations that over generations have occurred in the germ cell mtDNA since the conception of the original "Mitochondrial Eve".

Mitochondrial Eve is named after mitochondria and the biblical Eve.[2] Unlike her biblical namesake, she was not the only living human female of her time. However, her female contemporaries, excluding her mother, failed to produce a direct unbroken female line to any living person in the present day.




but creationism can,


All you're showing is your ignorance of the sources you use to support your position. READ them first, THEN post them.


creationism therefore becomes the default position... for me.


Good for you! Shame it's not a scientific position.


It is actually far more complex in my head, but I put it in the simplest terms possible for you.


And you managed to get even that wrong.



posted on Aug, 27 2015 @ 12:23 PM
link   
Lets put an end to this all.... Well except he is opening the banana on the wrong end...ask any chimp...


edit on 27-8-2015 by Xtrozero because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 27 2015 @ 12:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: CharlieSpeirs
a reply to: GetHyped

You haven't once shown a "logical" reason for this opinion to be taken seriously either...


I gave you a rebuttal. You addamently are refusing to address any of its contents.


Cry to someone else that I won't play your silly game of "opinion over study".


Yeah, just an evolutionary biologist's opinion. What's that worth when discussion evolutionary biology, eh? Clearly not as much as yours.


& I've spent far too much time pointing out the pointlessness of such a "Godless liberal's" measly opinion on something they had no involvement in whatsoever!!!


I wish you spent more time pointing out the flaws of the critique instead.

Look, here's another one for you to avoid addressing:

doubtfulnews.com...

Let's add that one to the growing list of questions and rebuttals you refuse to address.

EDIT: let's and another to the list: www.geneticliteracyproject.org...


On the other hand, because the Genetic Code does not evolve in any major way, it allows for the rest of the genome to evolve, and to do so in very dramatic, unpredictable ways. We don’t know where this research will go, but even at this early point, we can be sure that once understood it will not support biblical creation.

...

David Warmflash is an astrobiologist, physician, and science writer.


Just another "blogger", eh?
edit on 27-8-2015 by GetHyped because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 27 2015 @ 12:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: Boadicea
a reply to: THEatsking


Creationism is to be taught in religious classes alongside other stories from the bible. It has nothing to do with Science, and therefore it is idiotic to teach alongside scientific theories.


Got it. All ways are secular fundamentalist ways... we will impose our views on everyone else... and then accuse everyone else of doing exactly what we are doing.

Gotcha!

(But not really... I won't lump all evolutionists in the same box -- just those who do.)


I never said that. I never said creationism must not be taught.


Don't put words in my mouth, bro.


Creationism isn't science. It isn't a theory, that cannot be debated. It is in a book (the bible). Which can absolutely be taught to people.


A scientific theory isn't some guess.



posted on Aug, 27 2015 @ 12:58 PM
link   
a reply to: GetHyped

Ooooh! I feel so ashamed... not.

Science schmience. Unless and until your science can reproduce exact conditions and replicate the same exact results each and every time, it's all theory. Period. You know it and I know it. You can point to patterns -- and I can tell you correllation doesn't equal causation. You can point to a lack of proof -- and I can tell you that lack of evidence does not mean lack of being.

I think what's really bugging you is that you cannot, no matter how hard you try, no matter how insulting and bullying you are, no matter how smug and arrogant, you CANNOT make me or anyone else believe what you want us to... even worse, you can't shut us up. Bummer for you.

If you want to end it here and now, I'm ready. If you want to keep trying to beat my opinions out of me, I'm ready to respond. It's up to you.



posted on Aug, 27 2015 @ 01:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: THEatsking

I never said creationism must not be taught.


Don't put words in my mouth, bro.


My apologies. You're right. You didn't say creationism must not be taught at all... just not in science class alongside evolution.

P.S. Make that "sis" not "bro"

edit on 27-8-2015 by Boadicea because: to add "P.S."



new topics

top topics



 
17
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join