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: 3
9
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 19 2015 @ 02:55 PM
link   
a reply to: randyvs

the REAL reason you are getting huffy is because phantom423 has insisted on a proper debate. obviously, that complicates things for you.

dont hate the player.




posted on Sep, 19 2015 @ 03:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: Barcs
What makes the bible right and all the other myths wrong?


That is a very good question. It is also answered in the book.


And he said unto them, Unto you it is given to know the mystery of the kingdom of God: but unto them that are without, all these things are done in parables: That seeing they may see, and not perceive; and hearing they may hear, and not understand; lest at any time they should be converted, and their sins should be forgiven them. KJV, Mark 4:11-12


You ether understand what is said, or you don't. The truth is obvious to some, but others need more proof. Yet, if you ask any disbelieving man "what kind of proof" would he need to be satisfied, he cannot say. He himself does not know what he would need to accept the words of the scriptures as the truth. To him, the scriptures are no different from any ancient myth. Yet, by the end of this time cycle, all men will be able to see the truth for themselves. The text is sealed with parables and dark sayings that are only revealed to all at the end of time.



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

edit on 19-9-2015 by AMPTAH because: punctuation

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



posted on Sep, 19 2015 @ 03:27 PM
link   
a reply to: Astyanax

haha, I sure did not expect such a response. Because I think at least a few issues were cleared in my response. Maybe I converse in such a confusing manner, I apologize.

I was not sure to post this link, because I did not wish to associate with any religion, but since you asked. Here is a great link in my opinion. For me this is the gold treasure and I read it sometimes when I feel like it.

www.theself.com...

and also this, for general reading, take your pick as I said, parts of truth are everywhere for me. And I am very grateful to science that I can have access to this much stuff from my chair
Lately I am a lot in Hinduism section.
www.sacred-texts.com...



posted on Sep, 19 2015 @ 03:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: AMPTAH

originally posted by: Barcs
What makes the bible right and all the other myths wrong?


That is a very good question. It is also answered in the book.


And he said unto them, Unto you it is given to know the mystery of the kingdom of God: but unto them that are without, all these things are done in parables: That seeing they may see, and not perceive; and hearing they may hear, and not understand; lest at any time they should be converted, and their sins should be forgiven them. KJV, Mark 4:11-12


You ether understand what is said, or you don't. The truth is obvious to some, but others need more proof. Yet, if you ask any disbelieving man "what kind of proof" would he need to be satisfied, he cannot say. He himself does not know what he would need to accept the words of the scriptures as the truth. To him, the scriptures are no different from any ancient myth. Yet, by the end of this time cycle, all men will be able to see the truth for themselves. The text is sealed with parables and dark sayings that are only revealed to all at the end of time.





In inferential statistics the null hypothesis usually refers to a general statement or default position that there is no relationship between two measured phenomena, or no difference among groups.


the null hypothesis in this case would be that there is no supernatural force or "higher power" anywhere in the universe. or at the very least, there is no reason to suspect any such entity is responsible for...well, anything. because the natural assumption is that no connection exists until we have reason to believe it does. not the other way around. that would be called "assumption" and for the rest of us to swallow it without question is "presumption". its also worth nothing that this is barely qualifies as a null hypothesis because the phenomena of a deity has yet to be measured in any reliable capacity - but i digress.

i would also like to pose a question that ought to be addressed at some point: if the universe requires an intelligent higher power, then surely such a sophisticated entity requires its own creator/designer. this is only logical. who then is this super-intelligent designer? and who is their super-super-intelligent designer? so on and so forth.
edit on 19-9-2015 by TzarChasm because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 19 2015 @ 03:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phantom423
This is about science vs pseudo science. It is not about religion, the Bible, Jesus, intelligent design or anything else associated with religious beliefs.

Makes just as much sense as the State Farm commercial:


Guy: Where did you hear that?
Girl: Science.
Guy: And you believed it?
Girl: Yeah. They can't put anything in Science that isn't true.
Guy: Where did you hear that?
Girl: Science.

You also forgot to mention that it's a 'fact'...


Darwinism is anything BUT Science...

There are so many holes in it that it clearly becomes obvious what the real "faith" is...


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

"What is it evolution based upon? Upon nothing whatever but faith, upon belief in the reality of the unseen—belief in the fossils that cannot be produced, belief in the embryological experiments that refuse to come off. It is faith unjustified by works." ~ Arthur N. Field.

"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.

members.toast.net...

"Most of what is being taught in university classrooms today, in biology, and also in physics and mathematics, is actually not science at all, but essentially a variety of religious cult, whose immediate roots can be traced, among other things, to the Cathars and Bogomils of the medieval "dark ages"!

True, this cult, which controls much of our educational system and scientific community, naturally does not advertise itself openly as a fanatic form of irrationalist belief; rather, it calls itself "the scientific establishment"; it typically brands those who refuse to accept its most egregious doctrines, as "unscientific." Now, it is easy to show that Darwinism, one of the pillars of modern biology, is nothing but a kind of cult, a cult religion. I am not exaggerating. It has no scientific validity whatsoever.

Darwin's so-called theory of evolution is based on absurdly irrational propositions, which did not come from scientific observations, but were artificially introduced from the outside, for political-ideological reasons."

Jonathan Tennenbaum: Toward a True Science of Life




edit on 19-9-2015 by Murgatroid because: felt like it...



posted on Sep, 19 2015 @ 04:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: Barcs
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?

Barcs, dang it if you don't ask some of the most intriguing questions...


And BTW the answer to your question is the single biggest reason that I do not believe in evolution.

God always endorses what he does...

Religion is about disinformation, God is about demonstration.

The below posts go into more detail on this:

www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...



edit on 19-9-2015 by Murgatroid because: felt like it...



posted on Sep, 19 2015 @ 05:14 PM
link   
The Gish Gallop


The Gish Gallop is the debating technique of drowning an opponent in such a torrent of small arguments that the opponent cannot possibly answer or address each one in real time. More often than not, these myriad arguments are full of half-truths, lies, and straw-man arguments — the only condition is that there be many of them, not that they be particularly compelling on their own. They may beescape hatches or "gotcha" arguments that are specifically designed to be brief, but take a long time to unravel. Thus, galloping is frequently used in timed debates (especially bycreationists) to overwhelm one's opponent.


As can been seen, this is employed frequently on these boards.........




posted on Sep, 19 2015 @ 05:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phantom423
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.





Then why are you addressing creationists specifically? They are not the only people to misrepresent science.



posted on Sep, 19 2015 @ 05:32 PM
link   
a reply to: TzarChasm

I don't hate anyone all tho you try to be annoying you
barely succeed at that. And debate isn't anything to get
all huffy about. With your whopping 20 flags I hardly expect
you to know so I'm telling you.



posted on Sep, 19 2015 @ 05:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: Phantom423
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.





Then why are you addressing creationists specifically? They are not the only people to misrepresent science.


Because this forum is targeted at Creationists. But anyone else who is anti-science can participate as well. I don't discriminate when it comes to ignorance.



posted on Sep, 19 2015 @ 05:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: randyvs
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.






Read the title of


Then what you're looking for is a creationist scientist to
debate. What is so hard about making that clear?



Read the title of this thread: Continuing Challenge to Creationists

Clear enough?

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



posted on Sep, 19 2015 @ 05:49 PM
link   
a reply to: Murgatroid

I hope your insurer isn't State Farm.



posted on Sep, 19 2015 @ 06:01 PM
link   
a reply to: Phantom423

Yeah, it's clear enough now after pulling teeth. I'm a creationist
just not a scientist. I believe in creation = creationist. I'm not a
scientist so ixnay on the creationist scientist. Any takers yet?



posted on Sep, 19 2015 @ 06:12 PM
link   
a reply to: [post=19828001]Astyanax

Sorry - just catching up with the thread.

The point I was trying to make (and perhaps failed) was that all science, regardless what branch it is - biology, chemistry, physics, pharmacology, anthropology - they all have a commonality in that they all adhere to the scientific method to gather and analyze their data. It doesn't mean that every outcome is perfect. But it does mean that there are rules as to how you conduct scientific discovery.

Look at the chart below. Do you think that the Creationist crowd over at icr.org gives a hoot about the scientific method when they post their junk? Anyone ever go into the lab? No. Anyone publish a paper in a credible journal challenging the status quo of a particular topic? No. Select any "research" paper over at icr.org and bring it over here. Let's tear it apart and see what it really says. Compare it to the real science. It would be a good exercise in discovery and critical thinking.

Pseudo science benefits no one.



Lawrence Krauss on Creationism:




posted on Sep, 19 2015 @ 06:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: randyvs
a reply to: Phantom423

Yeah, it's clear enough now after pulling teeth. I'm a creationist
just not a scientist. I believe in creation = creationist. I'm not a
scientist so ixnay on the creationist scientist. Any takers yet?


Hell no!



posted on Sep, 19 2015 @ 06:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phantom423
Pseudo science benefits no one.

Absolutely correct...



Evolution does not fit the real definitions of science. It cannot be tested, repeated, observed, measured or falsified. It is a belief system about the past. Fundamentalist evolutionists have a great deal of faith.

The Skeptic’s Dictionary contains an entry on ‘pseudoscience’ that includes ten characteristic fallacies of pseudoscientific theories. The list’s compiler clearly did not have evolution in mind, as the very first group the article identifies as pseudoscientific is ‘creationists’. Ironically, evolution has almost every characteristic on this list.

Evolution, a Pseudoscience


Thats not science, thats fairy tale stuff, thats Pseudo Science. Thats already been disproven by real science. ~ Carl Gallups




edit on 19-9-2015 by Murgatroid because: felt like it...



posted on Sep, 19 2015 @ 07:22 PM
link   
a reply to: Murgatroid





Evolution does not fit the real definitions of science. It cannot be tested, repeated, observed, measured or falsified. It is a belief system about the past. Fundamentalist evolutionists have a great deal of faith.


156,000+ research papers in peer-reviewed journals say you're wrong. How many does your side have??


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



posted on Sep, 19 2015 @ 07:34 PM
link   
a reply to: AMPTAH

I understand what the bible says. I just don't see any reason to view it as absolute truth. I understand that you place faith in it, but that wasn't your argument.

You basically said that creation is true because the bible is right; and that the bible is right because it says so in the bible. This is circular reasoning.

You also said that there is no reason to write something in a book that is false. This is a self defeating statement because there are tons of books written about false things and tons of ancient myths. You avoided my question rather than answering it. I'll try again. How do you know that what the bible says is true, while the hundreds of other myths are not?



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

Au contraire mon frère...

If anything, it only confirms what I already know.

The truth always rests with the minority.




posted on Sep, 19 2015 @ 08:29 PM
link   
Are we talking about all/any intelligent design or merely the 7 day creationist kinda guys?



new topics

top topics



 
9
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join