It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

Continuing Challenge to Creationists

page: 12
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in


posted on Sep, 25 2015 @ 12:22 PM
a reply to: UniFinity

First of all, thanks for link.

Now, of course I was not surprised that everything goes around field that we can with high certainty tell no one of those involved understand - quantum physics. Before we go into there, let's first concentrate on misuse of scientific terms.

Theory is hypothesis are not the same thing for science - hypothesis is an idea, suggestions, might be true, but also might be wrong. Theory is proven hypothesis, one that does work and is repeatable and testable.

Articles, links from your link misused that term, pointing to absence of scientist in any of experiments, if there ever were any, really.

Hoping that what they don't understand and field very young as quantum might show their already formed answer (spirits) is no different then our ancestors telling that God created earth and life in 6 days. In science you can't something you don't have answer for replace with hypothetical solution. It just does not work that way, and that is reason none of those articles have any material worth checking. I went through first couple, and they had 'Theory', but nothing measurable, repeatable or even suggestion how it should be tested?!

To my big surprised, you managed to show links without any of them pointing to Deepak Chopra and his voodoo work.

It was incredible to watch him being washed by Dr. Dawkins on dangerous ideas, but this is what happened when he try to sell his voodoo quantum physics ideas to quantum physicists. Very funny...

It is really sad that people are loosing time (and possibly lots of money) on voodoo like this...

And to be fair and answer your question, there is much more in our world then what we know today. We are learning a lot on daily bases now, there are discoveries in many fields, just follow scientific journals such as PNAS ( ) You can browse online 100 years of data on their site, and subscribe to their free letters. But our answers for sure will not be found in voodoo science... it did not work with alchemy 100 years ago, it does not work today either...
edit on 25-9-2015 by SuperFrog because: (no reason given)

posted on Sep, 25 2015 @ 02:16 PM

originally posted by: UniFinity
And a good scientist would do as you say, but there is more. A good scientist would take any opinion into account weather it is outside his beliefs or comfort zone and work with all the tools at his disposal. They are not biased.

I think you are mixing it up. A good scientist follows the evidence and uses it to come to conclusions or formulate new hypotheses. It has nothing to do with taking any opinion into account. That's like saying that if somebody says gravity doesn't exist or that the boogey man lives in your closet, he has to consider that. He doesn't because it conflicts with what we know about the world, which again, is based on that evidence. A good scientist can discount ideas that do not have tangible evidence to support them, because that is what science is about. No evidence means no acknowledgement in science. That doesn't mean science is against that idea or that the idea is definitely wrong, it just means science cannot comment on it so it does not factor in to the experiments and studies.

edit on 25-9-2015 by Barcs because: (no reason given)

posted on Sep, 26 2015 @ 09:57 AM
a reply to: Barcs

And my new thread is up, I wasn't going to do it, until you called the idea a strawman, which it clearly is not, it is a topic worthy of discussion at the intellectual, theological, and scientific levels. I called it E=mc2.

posted on Sep, 26 2015 @ 11:58 PM
a reply to: Phantom423

Pardon my absence, ma'am. I've had a very busy few days out here in the Real Tropics.

The discussion is science that can be backed up by evidence and pseudo science which has no evidence.

Oh, I see. I thought the discussion was Creationism vs. Evolutionary Science.

If we are merely arguing Science vs. Pseudoscience, then, obviously, science must win by a walkover — because pseudoscience is defined as such in opposition to science. As you know, 'pseudo' means sham, pretended, insincere.

So that's not an argument at all, and I can't see that anyone would be interested in taking it up. I certainly am not.

The Paley argument only addressed the idea of an intelligent designer. Paley never compared intelligent design to evolution because the concept of evolution and natural selection only came about with Darwin.

Correct but irrelevant. You have tied yourself to the idea that empirical evidence is the sole basis of any truthful representation of reality, and your proposition is sinking along with that unexamined canard.

I'm afraid your refutation of the Paleyan interpretation makes the same fatal error; it is, in fact, logically absurd. Before you make such claims you must first prove that empiricism is a valid — indeed, the only valid — philosophical position. This is, as far as I know, impossible.

edit on 27/9/15 by Astyanax because: of bits and bobs.

posted on Sep, 27 2015 @ 12:01 AM
Unnecessary post; apologies to all, particularly the staff.

edit on 27/9/15 by Astyanax because: never mind.

posted on Sep, 27 2015 @ 12:17 AM
a reply to: Barcs

Well, it's not personal opinion, it is based on physical evidence.

Is the decision to privilege physical evidence over all other forms of validation not personal?

I understand that many BELIEVE that acknowledging evolution as science is a personal choice, but it isn't.

No, of course not. Evolutionary theory is solid science. But evolutionary theory does not address the basic claim of Creationism: that life was created and did not spring fully armed from the brow of inanimate matter.

If somebody does not, then I feel the person should be consistent with this view toward all science instead of cherry picking certain fields to be at odds with due to scripture conflicts.

Well, of course. But those who call science into question in order to throw doubt on evolutionary theory are a relatively sophisticated breed of Creationist. Most Creationists, as you say, merely deny the validity of the evidence.

I think this is an important distinction to realize. The latter sort of Creationist are not really a problem for science, which continues to narrow the gaps in which their God resides; as SuperFrog observed, there are fewer of them around nowadays because they've been defeated in argument so many times. Soon they will be history.

A much more dangerous kind of Creationist is the kind that tries to make the gaps themselves bigger. Those are the ones who cast doubt on the scientific method and its revelations. They are the counterintelligence division of the Army of Unreason, the standard-bearers of irrationality and superstition. It is their banner I've been temporarily marching under here.

I think this is kind of why you posted the questions, because science is based on evidence and creation is based on opinion, so you can't really have a debate on the subject, you can only correct the misunderstandings of science.

Quite so. I wanted to show that the debate is futile. I think the OP now realizes this: hence the recent signs of topic creep.

I've learnt a lot about my fellow ATSers from this little exercise. Your response has, by the way, only increased my respect for you personally — if I may say so. And no, you didn't over-explain anything this time.

edit on 27/9/15 by Astyanax because: wel, why not?

posted on Sep, 27 2015 @ 12:34 AM
a reply to: Phantom423

As I mentioned early on...

Yes, many of us have lost friends or family to these parasites — sometimes temporarily, sometimes for ever.

I'm sorry to have helped disappoint you in your hopes for the thread, but it wouldn't have achieved its object anyway.

Obviously there is no scientific foundation for Creationist belief. But demonstrating that — however conclusively — will not make any difference to what Creationists believe. You believe in the validity of empirical evidence and the scientific method; they don't. This attitude may be irrational; it may be deployed inconsistently, as Barcs points out; but once someone has adopted this position, you can't reason them out of it. They have stopped their ears to reason.

The world would be a lot easier to run if everybody behaved reasonably, I agree. But apply the principle of natural selection to the question: if pure rationality offered a survival advantage over the mix of rationality, habit, instinct and intuition we currenty use to make sense of reality, don't you think our brains might have evolved further in that direction?

A thought to ponder.

posted on Sep, 27 2015 @ 12:44 AM
a reply to: Astyanax

Our friend Noinden, for example, would say that mystical intuition is the royal road to the truth. He or she is hardly the most effective propagandist for that viewpoint, but Rumi and St. John of the Cross do a pretty good job.

Sincere apologies to Noinden; I had no idea what I was thinking. I meant, of course, UniFinity.

posted on Sep, 27 2015 @ 03:44 AM
a reply to: Astyanax


but it is nothing mystical! do you not posses intuition? I think everybody has it, but some notice it more others rarely. So no mystical preposition is necessary. Since you mentioned him, which is one of my favourites writers for poems. Oh I wish I had Rumis ability to write I could express myself better here
I apologize for my messy posts, I am not good with talking or writing, it can be confusing to read or listing to me.

But just to be clear I am not a propagandist, I hope hehe. I just tell it how I see it from my prospective based on my own research. I do not want for anyone to blindly take my word for truth. But just know, that meditation is a TOOL just like any other in science or a microscope to know the world and your/mine relation in with it. Science is external and for all and working with facts (sometimes until newer facts are discovered
), meditation is internal and personal and working with intuition and feelings. No beliefs required or I might say even better that way. Because when you belief something you get caught in the net called expectation.

I get the feeling in this thread from a lot of posters that we are all searching for the same thing but we have gone searching by different methods. But the only difference is I relay on experiences (they are not spiritual or mystical even though people would say that, but that is just hyping up something ordinary which can be achieved by anyone with faith and deep meditation or drugs) and you relay on science which is great! I think that science will soon discover something extraordinary and they will just label it with their own labels. The same way like we have put labels on god,prana,creator,energy...but the truth is -silence is the language of god, all else is poor translation - said by our dear Rumi

which means ALL IS ONE! all words and labels are useless, we just use them in order for US who are still lost so we can find our way back to the absolute truth. You are learning labels and understand things from prospective of science, spiritualist from experience and uses different labels.

I think you are the kind of people who has to be sure about one thing 100% to accept it as a fact. Well I and maybe other spiritual people are not so clingy to science and their evidence or facts. We are, or I certainly am more like an open book. I was not sure about anything I did not belief anything when I started meditation. I Just did it for fun without any goal or knowledge whatsoever! And was wandering what would happen if I managed to TRULY quite my mind for let say 10 minutes. And it feel awesome! And I just continue doing it until I got to some wired, sometimes even scary experiences, which are not unusual and I have discovered that this happens to a lot of people who meditates. And my faith just got bigger until I was certain about the stuff that I write here.

posted on Sep, 27 2015 @ 08:43 AM
a reply to: Barcs

I have no problem with that whatsoever. It's the fallacious cherry picking that grinds my gears, so to speak.

Cherry picking?

Like saying evolution has nothing to do with abiogenesis?

I've been saying for years that these discussions should be Abiogenesis vs Creation.

By the way, technological inventions have nothing to do with evolutionary biology.

posted on Sep, 27 2015 @ 08:55 AM
a reply to: Astyanax

Obviously there is no scientific foundation for Creationist belief.

Creationists created science.

A much more dangerous kind of Creationist is the kind that tries to make the gaps themselves bigger.

"Science" does that for me i.e. Dark Matter, Dark Energy, the Multiverse.

posted on Sep, 27 2015 @ 08:56 AM
a reply to: Astyanax

I think you're absolutely wrong with regard to empirical evidence. In the behavioral sciences perhaps a priori evidence, or evidence that's based on pure logic and reasoning, works. In the hard sciences, it simply doesn't work. You can't reason your way around large data sets. Only mathematical analysis yields results that can be validated by repeating the experiment.

Paley's watchmaker analogy is absurd. He was a Christian apologist and a philosopher attempting to speak like a scientist. It may work at the pulpit, but it doesn't work in the laboratory.

Inserting philosophy into empirical observation and results might be fun over a martini. But it has no relevance to outcomes of experimental data. The data is the data and until you can demonstrate that it isn't, I stand by my comments.

Remember it was the philosophers who thought the Earth was flat. Aristotle was the first who said the Earth was probably spherical because of its reflection on the Moon. An outstanding example of empirical evidence trumping philosophy!

edit on 27-9-2015 by Phantom423 because: (no reason given)

edit on 27-9-2015 by Phantom423 because: (no reason given)

edit on 27-9-2015 by Phantom423 because: (no reason given)

edit on 27-9-2015 by Phantom423 because: (no reason given)

posted on Sep, 27 2015 @ 06:52 PM
a reply to: Astyanax

Rationality is a perspective, not a gene. Evolution grants the capacity to be rational but not necessarily the inclination. That's a psychology matter and a subject perhaps for another thread.

But I agree, this was a fruitless endeavor. A point that has been made a hundred times on this forum, and there will be no clear victor until long after time has crushed all memory of us, I suspect.

posted on Sep, 28 2015 @ 12:59 AM
a reply to: dusty1

I said

there is no scientific foundation for Creationist belief.

You said

Creationists created science.


Since we both agree this is the case, we both agree that there is obviously no scientific foundation for Creationist belief.

"Science" does that for me i.e. Dark Matter, Dark Energy, the Multiverse.

I'm happy for you.

edit on 28/9/15 by Astyanax because: no, really, I'm happy.

posted on Sep, 28 2015 @ 01:11 AM
a reply to: Phantom423

I think you're absolutely wrong with regard to empirical evidence. In the behavioral sciences perhaps a priori evidence, or evidence that's based on pure logic and reasoning, works. In the hard sciences, it simply doesn't work.

There is no science, other than mathematics (if you wish to call it science), in which a priori evidence (in the Kantian sense) is admissible.

But why are you still clinging to science like a shipwrecked sailor to a wormy plank? We have already established that we cannot rely on science to lead us to the truth until we have presented a convincing argument for empiricism.

You seem to have been so well indoctrinated in the doctrine of the supremacy of science (perhaps through constant immersion) that you cannot move upwards one level in order to view science as only one of many modes of human inquiry.

Creationism does not need science to prove it true, as we have seen. It has other modes to rely on.

Remember it was the philosophers who thought the Earth was flat. Aristotle was the first who said the Earth was probably spherical

Aristotle was a philosopher. In no sense was he a scientist. And it was Pythagoras who demonstrated that Earth must be a sphere. He was a philosopher too, and in additiona a thoroughoing mystic and mumbojumboist.

posted on Sep, 28 2015 @ 01:16 AM
a reply to: Astyanax

And it was Pythagoras who demonstrated that Earth must be a sphere.

No. Pythagoras did not demonstrate it. He was one of several who suggested it though.

But Eratosthenes did actually did demonstrate it. And also came up with a pretty good estimate on its size.

edit on 9/28/2015 by Phage because: (no reason given)

posted on Sep, 28 2015 @ 01:20 AM
a reply to: TzarChasm

Rationality is a perspective, not a gene.

We'd have to define what you mean by 'rationality' before we can discuss this. But to anticipate a little:

— Rationality is a property of consciousness
— Consciousness is a product of brains (this is my view; some will not agree)
— Brains are a product of genes
— Therefore rationality is a product of genes.

It may not be apparent from my foregoing contributions to this thread, but I am not only a dedicated scientific materialist but also one whose view of evolution is gene-centred. I believe, as Richard Dawkins does, that living things are merely devices for preserving and propagating genes. This applies to humans as much as to any other species of organism.

there will be no clear victor until long after time has crushed all memory of us

There will never be a clear victor. Even if God were to pop up tomorrow and say, 'stop arguing, chaps; I did it', there are people who would hesitate to believe Him. I would probably be one of them.

posted on Sep, 28 2015 @ 01:24 AM
a reply to: Phage

Not quite, Phage. Eratosthenes, a relatively late Greek philosopher, was the first to calculate the circumference of the planet. Pythagoras, one of the earliest, was apparently — at a remove of more than 2,500 years, no-one can really be sure — to argue that it must be spherical.

Pythagoras, Aristotle or Eratoshenes, my point stands. None of these guys were scientists.

posted on Sep, 28 2015 @ 01:25 AM
a reply to: Astyanax

I said that Pythagoras (among others) suggested that the world is round. You said he demonstrated it.

But I agree, none of them were scientists.

posted on Sep, 28 2015 @ 01:46 AM

originally posted by: Astyanax
Obviously there is no scientific foundation for Creationist belief...

Another thought to ponder...

It ought to be obvious to all but the most obtuse that the so-called 'science' of evolution is not a science but a scam.

It has been riddled with fraud and deception from the start and has never produced a single piece of irrefutable evidence to prove its claims.

And they have the audacity to call it a science.

The reality is that Darwinism is actually a tool of religious propaganda disguised as a scientific theory.

In fact, it has more in common with Scientology than it does Science...

"The more one studies paleontology, the more certain one becomes that evolution is based on faith alone." ~ paleontologist T.L. Moor

There are several fundamental characteristics that identify a field of study as being "scientific".

• Genuine science is objective and invites scrutiny and investigation. It does not ridicule the critics of its conclusions, but instead silences their criticisms by setting forth the evidence from which those conclusions are drawn.

• Genuine science seeks the truth that explains the observed evidence. It does not prejudice the investigation by ruling out, from the start, hypotheses that may very well provide the best explanation for the observed evidence.

• Genuine science rejects any hypothesis that consistently fails to fit observed scientific evidence. It does not persistently assume that the fault lies in the evidence rather than in the hypothesis itself.

On all three counts, the commonly-accepted "Theory of Evolution" fails the test of being scientific. With the passing years, proponents of this failed theory are behaving more and more like religious dogmatists in their unwillingness to submit the foundations of their theory to open inquiry and discussion. Instead, they heap scorn and ridicule on their critics, insisting that anyone who has the audacity to question the truth of their sacred theory must be either stupid, insane or evil.

At the heart of the problem is the fact that Evolution, disguised as a viable scientific theory, is actually a tool of religious propaganda and cultural domination, used by those who hold to the religion of Naturalism.

When the Evolutionist says that life originated without the intervention of a supernatural Being, he is making a religious assertion, not a scientific one. The fact that he may be a scientist by profession, or that he conducts his science in light of this presuppostion does not change the fact that it is a religious claim. It is no more "scientific" than the Creationist's assertion of an intervening Creator.

“… the general scientific world has been bamboozled into believing that evolution has been proved. Nothing could be further from the truth …” ~ Dr. Samuel L. Blumenfeld

Modern media often refers to the creation/evolution debate as a conflict between “science and religion.” In fact, there is no science to support evolution. The word science refers to knowledge gained through observation. A scientist (through experimentation) observes events as they happen, and then chronicles the details of those events.

The evolutionist has faith that these things happened, but he has not seen them and neither does he have any way of proving them. Therefore, the Evolution vs. Creation debate is not a matter of science vs. religion – but rather, religion vs. religion.


Science has so thoroughly discredited Darwinian evolution that it should be discarded. ~ Australian biologist Michael Denton

"`Scientists who go about teaching that evolution is a fact of life are great con men, and the story they are telling may be the greatest hoax ever. In explaining evolution we do not have one iota of fact.' A tangled mishmash of guessing games and figure juggling. ~ T.N. Tahmisian, physiologist for the Atomic Energy Commission

Evolution is positively anti-science. Science deals with things that are testable, observable, and demonstrable and evolution has none of those qualities. To call evolution "science" is to confuse fairy tales with facts. True, evolution has been mixed with science for the last thirty years, but that does not mean that it is the same as science.

Beer is often advertised during sporting events but the two subjects have no logical connection, and evolution has no more to do with science than beer has to do with sports.

Cult of Evolutionism

new topics

top topics

<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in