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.

 

Continuing Challenge to Creationists

page: 13
9
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 28 2015 @ 02:14 AM
link   
So have any Creationists signed up for the debate? It's a real challenge as there are only two chapters of the Bible to refer to plus a scattering of referential verses. Evolution has so much more and it would be impossible for a Creationist debater to be able to preempt the Evolutionist argument. I would have a go at taking the Creationist side but I never went to debating club and am not a biologist. That said, I do have some tricks up my sleeve. Any Creationist debaters out there who want to join forces, or try at least? My views are unconventional but they are inspired by the Holy Spirit and for the greater good of God's glory. We have God on our side. How can we lose?




posted on Sep, 28 2015 @ 02:16 AM
link   
a reply to: Murgatroid


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.

No-one who knows me regards me as obtuse, so empirical evidence tells me you're full of tripe.


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

Quite probably this is your reality. It is of a piece with all the fantastic drivel you post on this site.


edit on 28/9/15 by Astyanax because: of drivel.



posted on Sep, 28 2015 @ 04:20 AM
link   
a reply to: Phantom423

Debates are for people who want to argue. Discussions are for people who care about the truth. Also let me save you the time. Within this world we observe information. Information is contingent upon conscious input. The information we find is not tethered to a physical mind, therefore it must be tethered to an external mind.



posted on Sep, 28 2015 @ 06:29 AM
link   
a reply to: Astyanax


You're wrong about Aristotle. He was a philosopher AND a scientist, unlike many other philosophers of the time.





Aristotle (384–322 bc): philosopher and scientist of ancient Greece


P M Dunn

Aristotle's studies encompassed the entire world of living things. Many of his descriptions and classifications remain sound today. Although not a physician, he exerted a profound influence on medicine for the next 2000 years.

Keywords: history


Aristotle was one of the greatest philosophers and scientists the world has ever seen. He was born in 384 bc at Stagirus, a Greek seaport on the coast of Thrace. His father, Nichomachus, court physician to King Amyntus II of Macedon, died while he was still a boy, and his guardian, Proxenus, sent him to complete his education at the age of 17 in Plato's Academy in Athens. He remained there for the next 20 years, first as a pupil and later as a teacher. Plato and Aristotle recognised each other's outstanding qualities, but they had frequent arguments and disagreements. Whereas Plato believed that reality existed in ideas, knowable only through reflection and inspiration, Aristotle saw ultimate reality in physical objects, knowable through the experience of the five senses. He believed that every problem had an objective solution. His was a scientific approach. Of his master he wrote: “Plato is my friend but truth is much more”.

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...


Aristotle understood what empirical evidence was. I think you're jumping through a lot of hoops trying to find some reason not to acknowledge that empirical evidence is self evident. It is what it is. You want to attach a lot of philosophical mumbo jumbo to it when it's very straight-forward.






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.


Well you might be right in a sense. In addition to my Ph.D. in Biochemistry/Biophysics, I'm board certified in cytopathology. When I signed out a case as being a malignancy of one type or another, I better know what I'm doing - and that knowledge only comes from rigorous scientific inquiry and study. Neither I nor the patient have the luxury of considering another level of "human inquiry". But you're right, total immersion obviously is a large part of what forms the person as a whole.



posted on Sep, 28 2015 @ 06:34 AM
link   

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
a reply to: Phantom423

Debates are for people who want to argue. Discussions are for people who care about the truth. Also let me save you the time. Within this world we observe information. Information is contingent upon conscious input. The information we find is not tethered to a physical mind, therefore it must be tethered to an external mind.


Well I hope you have a functional crystal ball - because if you don't have the capacity to make decisions and know your own mind, that's the only thing I can think of that may be of help



posted on Sep, 28 2015 @ 08:33 AM
link   

originally posted by: Phantom423
I am reiterating my continuing challenge to Creationists to debate their position.

1. The debate would be held in the Debate Forum.
2. The debate would be moderated and the format would be the standard rules of debate.
3. Rules can be found here: homepage.ntu.edu.tw...
4. Members on both sides can participate.

Also, the ATS Evolution website has been updated - not complete, but updated. Any recommendations would be welcome.

ats-library.wix.com...


I'm up for standing by God's Creation if anyone else is and the debate is between Creation and Evolution. I don't want to get into a debate on science and how it is practised as I'm not a scientist. The rules say two or three speakers. I've got most of the arguments in my head, but any additional input would be welcomed. All we have to do is prove God exists and is omnipotent, demonstrate how Creationism explains what Evolution can't and reconcile Creationism with Evolution. We can show where Evolution falls short if necessary. It couldn't be simpler. What do you think?
edit on 28-9-2015 by TheLamb because: Added framework to debate



posted on Sep, 28 2015 @ 08:51 AM
link   

originally posted by: TheLamb

originally posted by: Phantom423
I am reiterating my continuing challenge to Creationists to debate their position.

1. The debate would be held in the Debate Forum.
2. The debate would be moderated and the format would be the standard rules of debate.
3. Rules can be found here: homepage.ntu.edu.tw...
4. Members on both sides can participate.

Also, the ATS Evolution website has been updated - not complete, but updated. Any recommendations would be welcome.

ats-library.wix.com...


I'm up for standing by God's Creation if anyone else is and the debate is between Creation and Evolution. I don't want to get into a debate on science and how it is practised as I'm not a scientist. The rules say two or three speakers. I've got most of the arguments in my head, but any additional input would be welcomed. All we have to do is prove God exists and is omnipotent, demonstrate how Creationism explains what Evolution can't and reconcile Creationism with Evolution. We can show where Evolution falls short if necessary. It couldn't be simpler. What do you think?


Science has to be part of the debate - evolution is science - no way around that.



posted on Sep, 28 2015 @ 09:10 AM
link   

originally posted by: TheLamb

I'm up for standing by God's Creation if anyone else is and the debate is between Creation and Evolution. I don't want to get into a debate on science and how it is practised as I'm not a scientist. The rules say two or three speakers. I've got most of the arguments in my head, but any additional input would be welcomed. All we have to do is prove God exists and is omnipotent, demonstrate how Creationism explains what Evolution can't and reconcile Creationism with Evolution. We can show where Evolution falls short if necessary. It couldn't be simpler. What do you think?


This degradation of Science and placing term 'practice' where only religion is practiced as far as I know.

Here is one of MW definition of science: knowledge about or study of the natural world based on facts learned through experiments and observation

Evolution together with biology is only one of science branches, and it is impossible to talk about evolution, without talking about science.

Please avoid degradation of science to fuel your agenda.

I really wonder how will you prove existence of God.
edit on 28-9-2015 by SuperFrog because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 28 2015 @ 09:28 AM
link   

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
a reply to: Phantom423

Debates are for people who want to argue. Discussions are for people who care about the truth. Also let me save you the time. Within this world we observe information. Information is contingent upon conscious input. The information we find is not tethered to a physical mind, therefore it must be tethered to an external mind.



de·bate
dəˈbāt/
noun
1.
a formal discussion on a particular topic in a public meeting or legislative assembly, in which opposing arguments are put forward.


can we stop arguing about the nature and necessity of debating, and have a debate already?

or is that just not happening?
edit on 28-9-2015 by TzarChasm because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 28 2015 @ 09:39 AM
link   
a reply to: TzarChasm

Cant have a debate when there is nothing to debate...



posted on Sep, 28 2015 @ 09:41 AM
link   
a reply to: Phantom423


You're wrong about Aristotle.

I think not.


He was a philosopher AND a scientist.... Aristotle understood what empirical evidence was.

Indeed he did, but an empiricist is not necessarily a scientist. Anyone who accepts (albeit provisionally) the evidence of the senses is an empiricist. A scientist is one who investigates nature through observation, experiment, etc., as per the attractive little graphic you posted earlier. I am an empiricist (albeit provisionally), but I assure you I am no scientist.

Yes, Aristotle was willing to accept the world we perceive as real while Plato was not; but he was equally willing to accept that other modes of reasoning could arrive at the truth, and he was an accomplished metaphysician.


I think you're jumping through a lot of hoops trying to find some reason not to acknowledge that empirical evidence is self evident.

It is not worth my while to convince you otherwise. I refer you instead to Bishop Berkeley, and that consummate empiricist David Hume. They will soon set you right.

It's a little surprising to meet an educated and intelligent person who seems so innocent of even a basic grounding in philosophy. Still, as you say, your education has been of a rather specialized kind.


edit on 28/9/15 by Astyanax because: of prior mention.



posted on Sep, 28 2015 @ 09:45 AM
link   
a reply to: TheLamb


I'm up for standing by God's Creation if anyone else is and the debate is between Creation and Evolution.

Having just read and participated in two of your recent threads, I think Lamb vs. Phantom would make an excellent show.

I hereby second the motion, endorse the candidate and announce my willingness to act as second for either party.

Fight!


edit on 28/9/15 by Astyanax because: I had to fish out my Everlasts.



posted on Sep, 28 2015 @ 09:50 AM
link   

originally posted by: Cypress
a reply to: TzarChasm

Cant have a debate when there is nothing to debate...


hasnt stopped us before.



posted on Sep, 28 2015 @ 11:06 AM
link   
a reply to: TheLamb

I don't see a point in talking about it. You can show them the neo-darwinism is dead all you, cognitive dissonance just won't let them see the truth



posted on Sep, 28 2015 @ 11:35 AM
link   

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
a reply to: TheLamb

I don't see a point in talking about it. You can show them the neo-darwinism is dead all you, cognitive dissonance just won't let them see the truth


The same could be said for you, hence this entire thread (and many, many others).



posted on Sep, 28 2015 @ 12:37 PM
link   
a reply to: TzarChasm

Not really.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

there is your issue right there.



posted on Sep, 28 2015 @ 02:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: Astyanax
Is the decision to privilege physical evidence over all other forms of validation not personal?


I would say it is not personal because there is nothing personal about following evidence. It stands on its own regardless of who argues against it. Debates are supposed to be about arguing points logically and it seems that arguing a personal opinion does not follow that logic. What exactly do you mean by "all other forms of validation"? The way I see it, there aren't any other forms aside from personal experience, and even that doesn't validate something to somebody else.


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.


Yes, I agree completely. As far as we know evolution has nothing to do with it and this false dilemma has been championed by many folks on here. I believe that Phantom was trying to see if anybody could actually prove any of this "creation science" stuff to see if any of it actually holds weight or is actual science. I believe this was the challenge, not to argue personal opinion vs science. Many folks do not consider creation "science" to be pseudoscience, so the challenge is for the folks that think that it is valid, to argue their case. This is how I interpreted it, at least. I agree with everything else you said.



posted on Sep, 28 2015 @ 02:26 PM
link   


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.


That's not cherry picking, that is more along the lines of equivocation when folks argue that abiogenesis is required for evolution.

Cherry picking is when you base on argument on a concept or single point of data, while ignoring all of the data that contradicts it. The majority of arguments against evolution are exactly this. They argue that evolution research is scam or flat out wrong while ignoring all of the evidence that supports it. Likewise, they single out evolution out of all the other scientific disciplines when it is based on the same method that all other science is based on.


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


I never said they did, although there are actually numerous inventions that were based on knowledge gained from biology. I said they had to do with SCIENCE. If one agrees that the scientific method is a reliable method to discover facts and understand how things work, then this notion should apply across the board to all field of science. You can't logically state that it works in everything except evolution and geology. That is cherry picking.


Creationists created science.


Irrelevant. Science is a method, not an invention or creation. Even if a Christian first proposed the scientific method, it doesn't validate their beliefs or have anything to do with it.
edit on 28-9-2015 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 28 2015 @ 03:15 PM
link   
a reply to: Astyanax

Cool. Can you send private messages on here?



posted on Sep, 28 2015 @ 03:20 PM
link   
a reply to: TheLamb

Who is Jesus Christ?

What is required for salvation?




top topics



 
9
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join