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: 2
9
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 18 2015 @ 10:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: WakeUpBeer

originally posted by: randyvs
The debate is rigged against creation from point A.

Do you mind elaborating? Thank you.


Science determines it's findings by it's own protocols and peer reviews
pertaining to the type of evidence it allows objectively. And that certainly
doesn't include creation with it's foundation based on mans spirituality.

But science can in no way prove man isn't a spiritual creation.




posted on Sep, 18 2015 @ 11:14 PM
link   
What is the debate about? It's very simple. It's about the scientific method as opposed to no method whatsoever.

Let me ask all of you this: When your doctor prescribes a drug, do you question the safety? When you go to hospital for a serious operation - let's say for removal of a lethal tumor - of course there are risks. But do the risks outweigh the rewards? Do you have a level of confidence that allows you to take the drug or undergo the surgery?

You have that confidence because science employs a very strict protocol to ensure that what you put in your mouth or when the surgeon cuts you open that there is statistically reliable evidence and data that says you're reasonably safe. That's the result of adherence to the scientific method. That method is practiced across all areas of science. It's the first thing you learn when you go into the lab. Honesty. Honesty in your work. Honesty in the outcomes whatever they are.

So again, let me ask you this: Who would you prefer to develop and test the drugs, test the surgical procedures - a Creationist scientist who has a complete distain for the scientific method? A so-called scientist who spits out to their followers that radiometric methods are a joke? That they don't work? A crackpot who says that humans and dinosaurs cohabited? A Creationist scientist who says that everyone from Albert Einstein to the faculty at MIT and Nobel prize winners in Physics, Chemistry and Biology are all wrong. A crackpot cult who can attract the lame, lazy and the crazy to believe that the hundreds of thousands of research papers published in recognized journals are wrong?

A real scientist understands that he/she is morally obligated to ensure that their results are peer-reviewed, are tested over and over and have a high degree of confidence before that research is published. There isn't a single paper in the Creationist literature that has questioned any aspect of modern science with any degree of credibility.

Who carries the weight of responsibility? You do. Because if you buy into that garbage, you deserve the outcome. You shouldn't avail yourself of the science that you do every day because if you do, you're a hypocrite.

So now it's up to you to answer a question - who would you rather have reviewing your surgical procedure, testing a drug, fixing your car, engineering a nuclear energy facility? And if you don't think that your Creationist bull# isn't connected to mainstream science, you are wrong. It's all connected.

The bottom line is Creationists have rejected mainstream science while utilizing that same science every day of their lives. They are hypocrites. They are liars. They are frauds.

And that's why a debate is my venue of choice. I will go up against 100 of those SOB's and win. Guaranteed.






edit on 18-9-2015 by Phantom423 because: (no reason given)

edit on 18-9-2015 by Phantom423 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 19 2015 @ 12:08 AM
link   
a reply to: Phantom423


Let me ask all of you this: When your doctor prescribes a drug, do you question the safety?

Invariably. One would be foolish not to.


When you go to hospital for a serious operation — let's say for removal of a lethal tumor — of course there are risks. But do the risks outweigh the rewards?

It depends on the case. Remember that the lethality of the illness is also a medical opinion.

I had a friend who suffered a heart attack at the age of about fifty. He recovered, changed his lifestyle and lived on for another decade or so in apparently perfect health. Then he was persuaded by someone to undergo various tests, which revealed that he had major blocks in one or more arteries and needed to have a bypass operation.

He died on the operating table.

I'm not alleging malfeasance by anybody, neither am I implying that drugs and surgery don't work. I am not a believer in medical conspiracy theories. But medical procedures are not perfect solutions; you pay a price in health and strength and confidence, and sometimes the price is too high.

This post may appear to be a digression from the thread topic. In fact, it exposes a weakness in what I take to be your proposed debating strategy. I don't suppose any Creationist will debate you; but if a sufficient number of Creationists are willing to appoint me their champion, I might take up the challenge just to see what kind of a fist I make of it. Who knows, I may even end up convincing myself!

Sadly, I'm not a man with a lot of spare time to waste on Above Top Secret...



posted on Sep, 19 2015 @ 05:24 AM
link   
let me start by writing that I do not know anything special and I am not special, just normal man who is very curious about the real nature of our existence, who we are, who I am, what is the universe, how did our solar system come to be, what is atom, what are dreams, lucid dreams, astral projections, sleep paralysis, ghosts, UFOs, logos, conciousness, evolution...and the list go on and on.

So as you see there are a lot more questions than answers. And you know what, that is perfect! This is only a chance for growth and to develop ourself in an area which seems interesting. Isn't that awesome?

From the limited knowledge that we have now from science to conclude that there was no creation? Are you sure you want that bet? While evolution is in my opinion true to certain extent but to think that is all of the story is naive. And if you are really curious anyone would realize that! Then from science point of view life started with abiogenesis. But again to think that is all to it, I think you are very based and fast to make that conclusion. Even though the evidence says so!

Some time from now, they will find new evidence which will contradict some of the old ones (as it happens all the time), and scientist will say: we do not know everything, we are always learning...that is science, work in progress.
Well, heellooo!? everything is a work in progress!
So why are we so based when it comes to our opinions and are so eager to take challenges or various other things which can bring conflict amongst us and separates us into groups? Do you not see that this is not the way, when pursuit for knowledge divides than this is not real knowledge and that is not even a real pursuit!
You are just in it for your ego: I am right, you are wrong.

Evidence.

That word is the king here, as it seems. Everywhere I look, somebody wants evidence of or for something. But what counts as evidence? If I have a wired experience does that counts as evidence?
it certainly does for me! I cannot show you, sorry, but I can only try to describe my experience.

And when you start to truly meditate you will get a lot of those!

For instance the most popular experiences are with astral projection, chakras or internal sounds which only you can hear. Are you saying am I going crazy? while you can argue that, but then you must take into account all of the other people with those experiences...today and in the past.
Science does not, as far as I know, admit to such things/forces, because they cannot get empirical evaluations. But I challenge you to meditate for some time and when you will develop your will to achieve one pointed concentration for, let say, an hour, you should have wired experiences and not just one, A LOT!

But you will not find explanation in science, but you know where you can find it?
You can find it in the old ancient and sometimes religious text. They have explored human body and conciousness in a way science probably never will (with personal experiences by meditation) and they were aware of these things. They know that seeing is not believing - Experience is!
If you would take your time and read some old texts (china, india, tibet,...) about these energies and if you would then take your time to try and experiment with this in mind, you will have evidence of your own, that science today is lacking and that there is something more to life than just material!

Why does so few people bother with experimenting on ourself? Why does majoraty of people think they are completed and are satisfied with answers from science OR other people? Just as with science, everything is work in progress even you as individual! There is no end to knowledge, more you know the less you know you know


From my experience, the word and the visible universe is just a small part of all. There are things which we know nothing about from scientific prospective, yet they are certainly true and in existence and can be experienced by all normal, healthy people.

Is evoulution true? yes
is abiogenesis true? yes
is there an infinity and eternal energy/creator from which all originates? YES
are there gods? YES
are gods and creator the same? NO
is creation true? YES

I will not debate anyone about my beliefs or evidence and I do not want to get any further involved in this debate as I already have with this post.

Thank you for attention and reading my poorly written and long ass post!



posted on Sep, 19 2015 @ 06:24 AM
link   
a reply to: UniFinity


From the limited knowledge that we have now from science to conclude that there was no creation? Are you sure you want that bet?

Science does not say there was no creation. You are free to believe in a creator if you wish.

Scientists have opinions, but even if these opinions are based on science, they're still just opinions.


While evolution is in my opinion true to certain extent but to think that is all of the story is naive.

To me, this suggests that you find the claims of evolutionary science implausible. But that too, like a scientist's views about creation, is an opinion. I have a different opinion; this may be due to my having made it my business to study the subject in some depth. Perhaps if you did the same you might find the evidence more convincing. Then again, you may not want to.


Then from science point of view life started with abiogenesis. But again to think that is all to it, I think you are very based and fast to make that conclusion.

Is this, again, because you don't think the evidence is strong enough? That's quite an acceptable position to take regarding abiogenesis. We do have an idea of how it might have happened, but we don't know with any confidence that it did happen as we think.


Evidence.

That word is the king here, as it seems. Everywhere I look, somebody wants evidence of or for something. But what counts as evidence? If I have a weird experience does that counts as evidence?

To you, it would. Though if I were you I would still ask myself some very hard questions about what I actually experienced, and maybe discuss it with someone else and see what they thought.

It doesn't work that way for people who haven't shared your experience. If you want to make them believe you, you have to bring them proof. I understand how frustrating this must be for you. Can you understand, then, how much greater must be the frustration of people wrongfully dismissed from employment, or wrongfully accused of crimes?

What do people do in cases like that? You know as well as I do. They try to obtain evidence that will convince others of their innocence and good faith. In your case, no-one doubts your good faith, but they will ask for evidence that what you experienced was real, and that your reporting and interpretation of it is correct.

You would do the same in another's shoes.


When you start to truly meditate you will get a lot of those!

For instance the most popular experiences are with astral projection, chakras or internal sounds which only you can hear. Are you saying am I going crazy?

No, but you have put yourself into an altered state of consciousness. Distorted perceptions and even outright hallucinations are not uncommon in such states.


While you can argue that, but then you must take into account all of the other people with those experiences...today and in the past.

The same argument applies to them.


You will not find explanation in science, but you know where you can find it? You can find it in the old ancient and sometimes religious text. They have explored human body and conciousness in a way science probably never will (with personal experiences by meditation) and they were aware of these things. They know that seeing is not believing - Experience is!

Bravely said. Could you quote a passage in some ancient text that greatly impressed you? No need to explain it, just quote it.

Also, what texts would you recommend as especially enlightening?


Why does so few people bother with experimenting on ourself? Why does majoraty of people think they are completed and are satisfied with answers from science OR other people? Just as with science, everything is work in progress even you as individual! There is no end to knowledge, more you know the less you know you know

Experimenting on oneself is usually rather damaging to one's health. I suppose that must discourage people.


Is evoulution true? yes
is abiogenesis true? yes
is there an infinity and eternal energy/creator from which all originates? YES
are there gods? YES
are gods and creator the same? NO
is creation true? YES

Did you learn this through meditating?


I will not debate anyone about my beliefs or evidence and I do not want to get any further involved in this debate as I already have with this post.

That would be a pity, since you've said some provocative things. I usually pass over posts like yours, but it's Saturday afternoon and there's not much happening round here. Thought I'd give yours a read for a change. You lay down the law quite a bit, don't you? First you scold science for being dogmatic, then you go on to make a whole series of definitive — dare I say dogmatic? — claims of your own. Surely sauce for the goose must be sauce for the gander? Come on, now — you've intrigued me. Tell us more.


edit on 19/9/15 by Astyanax because: bah!



posted on Sep, 19 2015 @ 10:13 AM
link   
There's nothing to debate.

Man is created.

We have a book that tells us so.

Of course, you might not believe the book. But, then you'd have to explain why anyone would write a book about things that were not true. What possible reason would there be for such a book? And where would the "idea" of "creation" come from in the first place, if not from factual events?

Today, we go to school and study "science books" that tell us of things "other people" observed and recorded. And we "believe" in the scientific texts, even though we ourselves might not actually conduct the experiments to "prove" the content of the books to be true.

The first characteristic of a good scientist is "to doubt".

Doubt "creation", but doubt "evolution" too.

Then, "compare the books" other people have written over the ages.

We have a book of scripture that tells us of a man called "Jesus" that was born of "a virgin". The book also tells us that people of his time did not believe that such a thing was possible. Everyone "knew" that a woman must have sex with a man to produce a child. They even teased Jesus,


...Then said they to him, We be not born of fornication; we have one Father...KJV, John 8:41


suggesting that Jesus' mother Mary fornicated before marriage to Joseph, and thus Jesus was born, not of a virgin, but from the fornication with some other man. Thus they had "one father only", while "Jesus obviously had two fathers".

But, today, if a pregnant woman tells you that she is "a virgin", nobody would doubt it. We have a scientific procedure called "artificial insemination", a technology that enables women to get pregnant without sex. And many women have made use of this scientific technique to get pregnant in our time. Our "knowledge has increased", so we can now "understand" such a thing. But, 2000 years ago, men did not have the knowledge. That doesn't mean some "advanced beings" didn't have the knowledge also, just men didn't know how, so didn't have a basis to believe such things at that time.

The scriptures are closed texts to those who do not know, as it says,


But thou, O Daniel, shut up the words, and seal the book, even to the time of the end: many shall run to and fro, and knowledge shall be increased. KJV, Daniel12:4

And he said, Go thy way, Daniel: for the words are closed up and sealed till the time of the end. KJV, Daniel 12:9



The book itself tells man that as time of the end approaches, there will be sufficient knowledge accumulated by then in the society of men, that they will begin to understand the words of the book. Men will see things differently. The book will begin to make sense in a new way.

Just like virgin birth. Men now begin to understand, to see things differently today.

Currently, genetic engineering can create new forms of living things, on the small scale, like bacteria and viruses. Men can now "conceive of the possibility" of one day mastering DNA technology sufficiently to "create new men". So, it's no longer "beyond the imagination" of man, that a man might be created from molecules (dust of the ground), one day in the lab. Men still can't do this, yet, but can at least conceive of how it might be possible.

So, "proof of creation" will have to wait for "knowledge to be increased" further. But, for now, the books written by others alert us to what is coming, and as events unfold, the eyes of men are opened gradually to the truth documented in the texts.

No amount of "debate" can establish the truth today. But some can see, already, and don't need debate. The rest will just have to wait for tomorrow when the knowledge is sufficient to establish the historical text as fact.



posted on Sep, 19 2015 @ 10:17 AM
link   
No offence OP because i'm sure you mean well but this won't go anywhere it hasn't been before.

There will forever be 2 sides. One can not disprove the other.

We're entitled to our beliefs and differences. It's what makes us different.

As you were.



posted on Sep, 19 2015 @ 10:46 AM
link   

originally posted by: randyvs

originally posted by: WakeUpBeer

originally posted by: randyvs
The debate is rigged against creation from point A.

Do you mind elaborating? Thank you.


Science determines it's findings by it's own protocols and peer reviews
pertaining to the type of evidence it allows objectively. And that certainly
doesn't include creation with it's foundation based on mans spirituality.

But science can in no way prove man isn't a spiritual creation.


You still don't get it. The debate isn't about science vs spirituality or God. The debate is about real science vs Creationist "science". Go to www.icr.org and read their "research" section. If you still don't get it, I can't help you.


edit on 19-9-2015 by Phantom423 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 19 2015 @ 10:53 AM
link   

edit on 19-9-2015 by TzarChasm because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 19 2015 @ 11:00 AM
link   



posted on Sep, 19 2015 @ 11:24 AM
link   
a reply to: AMPTAH

Not responding to that, sorry, no.



posted on Sep, 19 2015 @ 11:28 AM
link   
a reply to: AMPTAH

This is about science vs pseudo science. It is not about religion, the Bible, Jesus, intelligent design or anything else associated with religious beliefs.



posted on Sep, 19 2015 @ 11:30 AM
link   
a reply to: MrConspiracy

As I said in my previous post, this is about science vs pseudo science. And yes, science can prove pseudo science wrong.

You are entitled to your beliefs. Creationist "scientists" are not entitled to perpetrate fraud.



posted on Sep, 19 2015 @ 12:02 PM
link   
a reply to: Astyanax

Since you were very nice and have posted a respectful replay, I have decided to elaborate a little for you my on-line friend.

maybe it seems dogmatic. But this was not my intent. I think that science is great. After all I am a computer geek and web developer. So please, don't misunderstand. Science is by itself awesome. But to conclude that there is not more to existence then science can tell us at this moment OR any moment in the future, is as I said before, naive...I doubt that we will ever know everything!?

Look, science is a never ending process of learning and it is the best tool we posses currently for experimenting on nature and get results. But why limit ourself by what is known and proved to be the case today. How can you be sure that we have not missed something or that there maybe things which are awaiting to be discovered by different technology which will be available in the future.

And what goes for science, it goes for ourselves to. We to are in a process of learning if you are wise, then never stop learning, there is always something more to know. Everyday we are learning or can learn about new things, it is just a matter of our interests and in what we decide to invest time.

So if you want to invest into meditation and spirituality, here to you will get results. That is what I have learned after I honestly (pure intentions) and without any bias for some religion approached this subject. And the truth is not in just one place, it is everywhere. It is in nature, in books and in all various religious text and of course also in science - almost everywhere you look you can get some meaning out of it. It is just a matter of prospective. If you open eyes and mind wide enough you can see how it all comes perfectly together from all imperfections, you can call that coincidence but as Einstein said: Universe does not play dice, or something along those lines?

Grab any spiritual or religious text which you feel is interesting for you and take what you feel is right or the truth and discard the rest. And after some learning and meditating read it again and you will notice that you understand it differently than before and maybe even the stuff which you discarded before, can make sense now. Your intuition will work with you so you are constantly changing. Just like with science and everything else intuition is universal. But there is and end - self realization, liberation, moksha, call it whatever you want.

My opinion is that we should strive to learn the best we can with tools at our disposal, but we should not take what we learn for completed knowledge, that is arrogance. That goes for science and meditation. Both are just different tools by which we can learn. So we should learn and after learning about something you must proof it to yourself with some experience. Beliefs plays no part here, but will and faith does.

And if you have doubts, then will is weak. And I think this is the hardest part of spirituality. Doubts. Validation. But after a while you develop intuition. And for instance when you are meditating and you will notice a vibrations along the backbone where major energy centres are in the body like ancients says in the books. This is a normal occurrence for some when in deep meditation. You will know intuitively that something is going on and it is not just imagination. The same goes for different concious states or astral travel or other occult experiences.

All of us have intuition. Some have it more developed than others. But with meditation this faculty will develop and you will just know and be sure in yourself! And you can always repeat the process or meditation and try the experiment again. It is harmless and you don't need drugs to induce something. So is that any different than scientific experiment? It is just the prospective. Science is used with technology to know the external world. But while meditating you get subjective experiences and you get to play scientist with your own conciousness or internal world. Or if you are not the type to meditate than maybe explore your dreams. Remember no coincidences, even dreams have meanings and can be learned a lot from them.

And that is why I dislike to participate in this kind of debate. Because I think we should take everything into account because all is just different side of the coin and you can get proof for the truth you imagine to be real wherever you want. Just remember always that truth is everywhere and parts of your version is right but there are probably parts which are wrong and parts waiting to be discovered.

And the same applies for me and everyone else. So instead of challenging and everyone sticking to just one side we could do a lot more good with just sharing and have an open discussion about this and give up the sides. Because as you can see here with this thread, many religious or spiritual people do not wish to challenge, they are here mostly to share and debate in a non conflicting manner. But this is getting harder because everyone needs some proof instead of just doing something on your own to get to conclusion.

So sorry that you read all that as I cannot give you any proof which you desire and take for the truth.

But just remember when you were a child and you were learning how to swim. You could listen to explanations for a year, but until you get over your fear and get into the water you wont learn for yourself. Try this approach in life in general for anything...it works. At least I now know how to swim

edit on 1442683022917September179173015 by UniFinity because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 19 2015 @ 12:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: randyvs
Science determines it's findings by it's own protocols and peer reviews
pertaining to the type of evidence it allows objectively. And that certainly
doesn't include creation with it's foundation based on mans spirituality.

But science can in no way prove man isn't a spiritual creation.


So it's rigged because science has tons of evidence for evolution and none for creation? "Rigged" isn't the word I would use. Factual is more like it. At least you admit that creation is faith based and doesn't have any scientific evidence. I have never argued that creation is wrong, only that it lacks objective evidence.
edit on 19-9-2015 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 19 2015 @ 12:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: AMPTAH
There's nothing to debate.


I agree with this.


Of course, you might not believe the book. But, then you'd have to explain why anyone would write a book about things that were not true.

Have you not seen the fiction section in the library? People make careers out of writing books about things that are not true. There are myths out there from virtually every society. Greek gods, Roman gods, Egyptian gods, Hindu gods, etc. What makes the bible right and all the other myths wrong?

edit on 19-9-2015 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 19 2015 @ 12:40 PM
link   
a reply to: UniFinity

that is all well and good. but when we say "hey lets study that" we are told such phenomena are exempt from the conventional tools of science, the only means we have of telling us something isnt just in our head. benefit of the doubt is not how science works. instead of looking for a black cat, lets turn on the light.



posted on Sep, 19 2015 @ 12:42 PM
link   
how can you "debate" someone that has faith in a mythical being?...it's a non-starter as with many of the religious people that come to my frontdoor....no matter the logic, or critical-thinking skills I use with them, they simply fall back on that old tried and true phrase, "we have faith"....it ends there for me. the problem most of us have with the "Faith-Based", is when they become a political power able to pass laws that control your life, based on religious belief, NOT on personal freedom.
edit on 19-9-2015 by jimmyx because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 19 2015 @ 01:14 PM
link   
a reply to: UniFinity

I'm so disappointed. You didn't answer any of my questions or name any texts.



posted on Sep, 19 2015 @ 02:31 PM
link   
a reply to: Phantom423




The debate is about real science vs Creationist "science". Go to www.icr.org


Then what you're looking for is a creationist scientist to
debate. What is so hard about making that clear?
Or are you just trying to suck in any wandering believers so
you can crush them with a stacked ton of bricks? Seeing
no reasonable out come other than the redundant. It
certainly leaves one wondering to ask. And if that's
your motivation? That's just lame. At any rate I'm no scientist.
Just an iron worker/glazier/simple man, who has always held is
own pretty well in this forum. I wish you no luck at all in your
endeavor. Because you don't believe in it any way and your high
intellect and expensive education should suffice at any rate.



edit on Rpm91915v32201500000058 by randyvs because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
9
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join