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: 15
9
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 29 2015 @ 09:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: Astyanax
a reply to: Phantom423


You're asking irrelevant questions which don't require a response.

How can it be irrelevant to ask you to state the topic?

Don't you know how a debate works? The two sides are called the Proposition and the Opposition. The Proposition proposes a statement: in the present case it might be something like 'The theory of evolution explains the diversity of life better than the the theory (or whatever you prefer to call it) of Creationism.' The task of the Opposition is to refute that statement. They speak in turns, and when the time is up the hearers decide by vote (or some other system) to adopt or reject the proposition.

All I'm asking is for you to state your proposition. It is something you have to do anyway. One sentence, for goodness' sake? How hard can it be?

If you want to debate, you have to play by the rules of debate. Stop being huffy and state your proposition.



I gave some thought to your questions and here's what I would suggest: You should open up a thread which discusses philosophy and science and how they interface. Note that I didn't say philosophy vs. science. This should be a discussion about the contributions, or lack thereof, each discipline contributes to the other.

My position is based on hard science i.e. evidence that's accumulated and analyzed with the methodology that we have. That's what I know and that's what I bring to the table. Yours (I think) is based on philosophical considerations. And that's fine. But the topic of the debate that I set forth is based strictly on hard evidence.

If you're any kind of intellectual you'll see the difference.

edit on 29-9-2015 by Phantom423 because: (no reason given)

edit on 29-9-2015 by Phantom423 because: (no reason given)




posted on Sep, 29 2015 @ 10:41 PM
link   
a reply to: Phantom423


The topic of the debate that I set forth is based strictly on hard evidence.

State. The. Topic.



posted on Sep, 29 2015 @ 11:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: Astyanax
a reply to: Phantom423


The topic of the debate that I set forth is based strictly on hard evidence.

State. The. Topic.


It is modern science versus Creationist science. That's the last time I'm going say it.



posted on Sep, 30 2015 @ 12:04 AM
link   
a reply to: Phantom423

That is not a debating topic. I just explained what one is, so you have no excuse for repeating this nonsense.

Until you state a topic, how can you expect anyone to debate you?

You're just hugging the ball to your chest and jumping up and down chanting 'I win, I win!' like a four-year-old. If you want a game, you have to let go of the ball.

It took a long time to get to this, but: thread fail.



posted on Sep, 30 2015 @ 12:54 AM
link   
I would consider it but as a whole the average non creationist hasn't the manners I would be comfortable dealing with.
Also I am not a fundamental Christian, have just read the opposing view to evolution and can see a validity in the argument

Maybe leave creation out of the argument and just debate the science of evolution based on its merits, standing alone

I don't believe in the theory of evolution as it stands



posted on Sep, 30 2015 @ 02:22 AM
link   
a reply to: Raggedyman




Maybe leave creation out of the argument and just debate the science of evolution based on its merits, standing alone


Of course you would rather not discuss the actual topic.

Why enter a thread dedicated to a specific topic and try to change it. Hmmmm.



posted on Sep, 30 2015 @ 03:41 AM
link   
a reply to: Grimpachi

Oh contrare

The topic is science or are you just trying to sidestep the issue.
I would happily debate the issues I have with science and evolution, unresolved questions need answers.

I disagree with evolution based on science, not creation

Your argument is with God believers, my argument is based on a lack of evidence provided to justify evolution.

Do you believe in the Big Bang or a steady state theory or believe something else

I entered a thread because I wanted to, trying to chase me off is a sign of fear



posted on Sep, 30 2015 @ 06:51 AM
link   

originally posted by: Astyanax
a reply to: Phantom423

That is not a debating topic. I just explained what one is, so you have no excuse for repeating this nonsense.

Until you state a topic, how can you expect anyone to debate you?

You're just hugging the ball to your chest and jumping up and down chanting 'I win, I win!' like a four-year-old. If you want a game, you have to let go of the ball.

It took a long time to get to this, but: thread fail.


You have a real problem with English comprehension. I posted the following several days ago in this thread.

The debate isn't about the existence of God. It's about the science of the modern world versus the fraudulent science of Creationists. For instance,
* Creationists preach that the Earth is about 6000 years old. Modern science tells us that the Earth is billions of years old.
* Creationists don't believe in evolution. However, modern science has proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that organisms on this planet have evolved and have common genetic ancestry.
* Creationists say that humans and dinosaurs existed in the same period of time. However, modern science tells us that dinosaurs lived millions of years ago.
* Creationists believe that radio carbon dating and other more sophisticated spectroscopic techniques cannot date fossils, even though they have been proven wrong many times.

These are some of the subjects to be debated. It's not about religion. Creationism is not a religion. It's a cult.

Any Creationist who steps up to the plate for the debate needs to bring evidence that their position on Creationist science is correct and that modern science is wrong. That's the essence of the debate. And that's what it always has been - it has never been a question of God, intelligent design or religious belief systems.

So take your pick - which topic do you want to debate???



posted on Sep, 30 2015 @ 06:53 AM
link   

originally posted by: Raggedyman
I would consider it but as a whole the average non creationist hasn't the manners I would be comfortable dealing with.
Also I am not a fundamental Christian, have just read the opposing view to evolution and can see a validity in the argument

Maybe leave creation out of the argument and just debate the science of evolution based on its merits, standing alone

I don't believe in the theory of evolution as it stands


It's not about "manners". It's about evidence. If you have evidence that the science of evolution is false, bring it on.
Once again, it's not about religion. It's about modern science versus the pseudo science of Creationism.



posted on Sep, 30 2015 @ 06:59 AM
link   

originally posted by: Raggedyman
a reply to: Grimpachi

Oh contrare

The topic is science or are you just trying to sidestep the issue.
I would happily debate the issues I have with science and evolution, unresolved questions need answers.

I disagree with evolution based on science, not creation

Your argument is with God believers, my argument is based on a lack of evidence provided to justify evolution.

Do you believe in the Big Bang or a steady state theory or believe something else

I entered a thread because I wanted to, trying to chase me off is a sign of fear


Sounds like you're ready to step up to the plate for the debate. The topics must be scientifically oriented (you did say your argument was with the science). Here's a partial list of proposed topics. Select one and we can start there.

* Creationists preach that the Earth is about 6000 years old. Modern science tells us that the Earth is billions of years old.

* Creationists don't believe in evolution. However, modern science has proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that organisms on this planet have evolved and have common genetic ancestry.

* Creationists say that humans and dinosaurs existed in the same period of time. However, modern science tells us that dinosaurs lived millions of years ago.

* Creationists believe that radio carbon dating and other more sophisticated spectroscopic techniques cannot date fossils, even though they have been proven wrong many times.

If you want to select your own topic, that's fine as long as it's based on science. I really makes no difference to me as long as it's science-oriented and is related to evolution.





edit on 30-9-2015 by Phantom423 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 30 2015 @ 08:34 AM
link   

originally posted by: Phantom423

originally posted by: Raggedyman
a reply to: Grimpachi

Oh contrare

The topic is science or are you just trying to sidestep the issue.
I would happily debate the issues I have with science and evolution, unresolved questions need answers.

I disagree with evolution based on science, not creation

Your argument is with God believers, my argument is based on a lack of evidence provided to justify evolution.

Do you believe in the Big Bang or a steady state theory or believe something else

I entered a thread because I wanted to, trying to chase me off is a sign of fear


Sounds like you're ready to step up to the plate for the debate. The topics must be scientifically oriented (you did say your argument was with the science). Here's a partial list of proposed topics. Select one and we can start there.

* Creationists preach that the Earth is about 6000 years old. Modern science tells us that the Earth is billions of years old.

* Creationists don't believe in evolution. However, modern science has proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that organisms on this planet have evolved and have common genetic ancestry.

* Creationists say that humans and dinosaurs existed in the same period of time. However, modern science tells us that dinosaurs lived millions of years ago.

* Creationists believe that radio carbon dating and other more sophisticated spectroscopic techniques cannot date fossils, even though they have been proven wrong many times.

If you want to select your own topic, that's fine as long as it's based on science. I really makes no difference to me as long as it's science-oriented and is related to evolution.






Phantom
Quite frankly I dislike you
I think you are both rude and arrogant

What would be the benefit to me to debate you

I have read many of your comments in this particular forum and your stock and trade is attacking people, not the argument but the person

Not interested

Read this thread and see how you attack the person not the issue.
I don't want to be a part of that

But just to put you on the spot
Big Bang?
Steady state?
What do you believe in, where is your faith directed in the beginning ?


Maybe, if you answer that Question I will dance
It takes courage to answer that question, got any?



posted on Sep, 30 2015 @ 08:40 AM
link   
a reply to: Phantom423

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Since you seem to enjoy biology.



posted on Sep, 30 2015 @ 08:42 AM
link   

originally posted by: Raggedyman

originally posted by: Phantom423

originally posted by: Raggedyman
a reply to: Grimpachi

Oh contrare

The topic is science or are you just trying to sidestep the issue.
I would happily debate the issues I have with science and evolution, unresolved questions need answers.

I disagree with evolution based on science, not creation

Your argument is with God believers, my argument is based on a lack of evidence provided to justify evolution.

Do you believe in the Big Bang or a steady state theory or believe something else

I entered a thread because I wanted to, trying to chase me off is a sign of fear


Sounds like you're ready to step up to the plate for the debate. The topics must be scientifically oriented (you did say your argument was with the science). Here's a partial list of proposed topics. Select one and we can start there.

* Creationists preach that the Earth is about 6000 years old. Modern science tells us that the Earth is billions of years old.

* Creationists don't believe in evolution. However, modern science has proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that organisms on this planet have evolved and have common genetic ancestry.

* Creationists say that humans and dinosaurs existed in the same period of time. However, modern science tells us that dinosaurs lived millions of years ago.

* Creationists believe that radio carbon dating and other more sophisticated spectroscopic techniques cannot date fossils, even though they have been proven wrong many times.

If you want to select your own topic, that's fine as long as it's based on science. I really makes no difference to me as long as it's science-oriented and is related to evolution.






Phantom
Quite frankly I dislike you
I think you are both rude and arrogant

What would be the benefit to me to debate you

I have read many of your comments in this particular forum and your stock and trade is attacking people, not the argument but the person

Not interested

Read this thread and see how you attack the person not the issue.
I don't want to be a part of that

But just to put you on the spot
Big Bang?
Steady state?
What do you believe in, where is your faith directed in the beginning ?


Maybe, if you answer that Question I will dance
It takes courage to answer that question, got any?


This board is about Creationism and Origins. If you want to discuss physics and cosmology, then go to the Science and Technology board.

Your opinion of me is irrelevant. If you have evidence that evolutionary science is incorrect in some specific area, start a new thread and it will be discussed.

In the meantime, why don't you take a look at the library website. You just might learn something (what a concept!)



posted on Sep, 30 2015 @ 08:44 AM
link   
a reply to: Phantom423




Creationists don't believe in evolution. However, modern science has proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that organisms on this planet have evolved and have common genetic ancestry.


Not according to Craig Venter. According to Venter, there is no tree of life and they have identified as of right now 17 unique gene sets.

Go to about the eight or nine minute mark.

thesciencenetwork.org...

Now pay close attention because Venter makes a joke about a bush of life, and you can tell it was a joke because right after he says there is no tree of life.



posted on Sep, 30 2015 @ 08:58 AM
link   
a reply to: Phantom423

Smell fear? That's you

I am not scared of you, scared of being lead by you

One minute you ask me to pick MY subject then tell me I am not welcome
I am not interested in another link I am interested in creation and origins

I am interested in evolutionary science A?.nD discussing it with you, are you scarred of that?

I am growing a little disrespectful of you and your back peddling nature

Let's debate

My subject Big Bang
The creation of the universe, CREATION

Now you better have some issues with your internet connection, go quiet for awhile, that's my advice phantom





Any Christians, pleas pm some advice and info, I would appreciate it
Less phantoms Isp fails accordingly



posted on Sep, 30 2015 @ 08:59 AM
link   

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
a reply to: Phantom423




Creationists don't believe in evolution. However, modern science has proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that organisms on this planet have evolved and have common genetic ancestry.


Not according to Craig Venter. According to Venter, there is no tree of life and they have identified as of right now 17 unique gene sets.

Go to about the eight or nine minute mark.

thesciencenetwork.org...

Now pay close attention because Venter makes a joke about a bush of life, and you can tell it was a joke because right after he says there is no tree of life.


Yes, I'm familiar with his statement. Here's the actual dialogue:

[8:40] LK: Craig, do you know from your work—do we yet know what the minimal configuration is to make life?

CV: You mean the minimum gene set.

LK: The minimum gene set.

CV: We’re whittling down on it, but there won’t be “a minimum gene set.” There will be multiple ones because—I’m not so sanguine as some of my colleagues here that there is only one life form on this planet. We have a lot of different types of metabolism, different organisms. I wouldn’t call you the same life form as the one we have that lives in pH 12 base, that would dissolve your skin if we dropped you in it.

PD: I’ve got the same genetic code, therefore a common ancestor.

CV: Well you don’t have the same genetic code. In fact the mycoplasma use a different genetic code that would not work in your cells. So there are a lot of variations on a theme.

PD: But you’re not saying it belongs to a different tree of life than me, are you?

CV: Well I think the tree of life is an artifact of some early scientific studies that aren’t really holding up. So the tree, you know, there may be a bush of life. … So there is not a tree of life. In fact from our deep sequencing of organisms in the ocean, out of, now we have about 60 million different unique gene sets, we found 12 that look like a very, very deep branching—perhaps fourth domain of life. That obviously is extremely rare, that only shows up in those few sequences. But it’s still DNA-based, but the diversity we have in the DNA world—I’m not so sanguine and ready to throw out the DNA world, I think we’re gonna, like Richard was saying, we’re gonna find the same molecules and the same base systems wherever we look.

[…]

[11:20] RD: I’m intrigued by Craig saying the tree of life is a fiction. I, I, mean the DNA code of all creatures that have ever been looked at is all but identical, and, um, surely that means that they’re all related. (pregnant silence) doesn’t it?

CV: A wry smile.





posted on Sep, 30 2015 @ 09:02 AM
link   
a reply to: Phantom423

Then why are you acting like evolution has been proven.. If you really are working on your PhD I am sure you are aware of the search problem I linked you . In which for just one functioning protein you have more possible scenarios than there are physical events in the universe. Neo-darwinian mechanisms are just not holding up to science. Not to mention every time we think there is some vestigial part left over we found it it does have some kind of function. The Appendix plays a role in the immune system. The "backwards" photo cells in the eye.

"So it is with our retina and its “backward” photocells. They were celebrated as an example of nature’s “errors and bungles” and yet another vindication of the Epicurean call for a designer-less world.

But that was then and this is now. It turns out those backward photocells, along with the retina’s Müller cells, work to focus the green-red part of the light spectrum onto the cone photoreceptors and pass the shorter-wavelength blue-purple light through to the rod photoreceptors. As Professor Erez Ribak put it, those backward photocells and the overall retina “optical structure is optimized for our vision purposes.”

The source is just a blog post, but the information is yours to check.
edit on 30-9-2015 by ServantOfTheLamb because: Added stuff about the Eye



posted on Sep, 30 2015 @ 09:02 AM
link   

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
a reply to: Phantom423

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Since you seem to enjoy biology.


Your comments in that post are incorrect. These topics have been discussed many times and have been substantiated with research articles. Look them up.


edit on 30-9-2015 by Phantom423 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 30 2015 @ 09:03 AM
link   

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
a reply to: Phantom423

Then why are you acting like evolution has been proven.. If you really are working on your PhD I am sure you are aware of the search problem I linked you . In which for just one functioning protein you have more possible scenarios than there are physical events in the universe.


That was discussed in a previous post. Look it up. You're wrong.



posted on Sep, 30 2015 @ 09:07 AM
link   
a reply to: Phantom423

I'd prefer you tell me how I am wrong, and show me.



new topics

top topics



 
9
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join