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.

 

Why Creation Is The Only Logical Explanation...

page: 54
42
<< 51  52  53    55  56  57 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 26 2016 @ 09:16 AM
link   
a reply to: peter vlar

I don't think that Beha has even yet recovered from the Dover Case and the humiliating defeat that he suffered there.




posted on May, 26 2016 @ 10:56 AM
link   
a reply to: cooperton

Complete BS and absolutely untrue. We follow the evidence whether we like where it leads or not. If things were as you choose to portray them then evolutionary theory would be entirely reliant on natural selection as its only mechanism much the way Behe chooses to portray it in his fraudulent and deceptive rants. We would also be in the mindset that Clovis came to the Americas first around 13 KA and that humans evolved in east Asia. We wouldn't have Internet or knowledge of genetics, space travel or any of the other useful things science has accomplished in the last century.



posted on May, 26 2016 @ 10:56 AM
link   
a reply to: AngryCymraeg

I doubt he will ever recover from that embarrassing fiasco.



posted on May, 26 2016 @ 12:22 PM
link   
a reply to: peter vlar

It begs the question.. where is the logic?
Goes to show even with a doctorate, once a religion gets it's hooks in you, logic and reason are replaced with dogma. I feel sorry for the guy, I hope one day he can free himself from them.
edit on fThursday1628512f280212 by flyingfish because: Doh!



posted on May, 26 2016 @ 01:45 PM
link   
a reply to: whereislogic

It's not that I don't want to hear it. It's that I want proof of his claims before I will take him seriously. Behe does not offer proof, he offers coincidence and complexity. He claims that is enough to suggest that intelligent design is a real thing. The problem is he never proves any of it. He just appeals to complexity, much like you have when you claimed that intelligent design is required for it.

Behe is a joke. He has never had any of his intelligent design claims peer reviewed and published and for good reason. I just wish you guys would actually use scrutiny and logic instead of blindly believing everything that loosely supports ID and blindly dismissing anything that doesn't. At least you didn't run off on some tangent appealing to quote mines again, that's progress at least. Now if only the ID claims could be substantiated with something more than conjecture.

Remember, you are the one that argued against my "nature can design things" quote, adamantly trying to refute it. This is why I posted the pictures to show you that nature DOES design things, just not intelligently, which was my point. You claimed that saying that nature did it was equivalent of saying god did it, when it's not even close. Funny after I post the pictures and give examples that you requested, you try to change the subject and claim they don't count because Behe says so without even offering a rebuttal. You haven't refuted anything I said, and neither has Behe.

edit on 5 26 16 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 26 2016 @ 04:53 PM
link   
a reply to: flyingfish

The flip side to that is that there are some very devout Christians who are doing some outstanding work because when conducting science, they adhere strictly to the scientific method and their personal faith plays no role in how they conduct their work. Francis Collins from the HGP is someone who comes to mind as a good example of a Christian who believes that their God set everything in motion but still understands that evolution is a real biological process that occurs. His work has been a massive assist to evolutionary biology the past few years.



posted on May, 26 2016 @ 05:37 PM
link   
a reply to: peter vlar

Yes but Francis Collins also points to DNA complexity as proof of a creator.



posted on May, 26 2016 @ 06:13 PM
link   
a reply to: Joecanada11

True. I think the actual quote was

think of DNA as an instructional script, a software program, sitting in the nucleus of the cell."
but yes, he believes that it's the fingerprint of the Judeo-Christian deity. But he reserves that type of rhetoric for the appropriate audiences and the belief doesn't hinder his adherence to the scientific method. He's an old world creationist in the sense that he believes God set everything in motion and that evolution is a natural biological result of God pushing the start button. He doesn't dispute biology, geology, anthropology etc. so I can forgive him his belief in the supernatural so long as he continues to adhere to the scientific method and maintain the integrity of his work.


edit on 26-5-2016 by peter vlar because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 26 2016 @ 06:20 PM
link   
a reply to: peter vlar

Good points. And as you've said his contributions to the field are extremely valuable.



posted on May, 28 2016 @ 02:39 PM
link   
a reply to: Barcs
You just wanna play your straw man and conflating patterns with designs game. Your pictures are as lame as bringing up snowflakes when the subject is biomolecular machinery.

You do someting similar with trying to make it just about the word "complexity" and then capitalizing on the ambiguity of language (I never even personally used the word, you just keep bringing it up until I respond to it and then you keep going with playing that particular card and mental trigger others have been conditioned with, the word alone triggers a whole wrong warped way of thinking about the actual subject).

I'm not in the mood to play that game for very long, just wanted to point out something about it at least.


edit on 28-5-2016 by whereislogic because: addition



posted on May, 28 2016 @ 04:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: whereislogic
I'm not in the mood to play that game for very long, just wanted to point out something about it at least.

Nobody is buying your argument so why go on about it. You pointed something out pages ago.



posted on May, 28 2016 @ 07:02 PM
link   
If creation is a fact or not Depends on how Our universe was formed. There is no doubt that life comes from Within Our universe and With its properties. Everything that now is. Is a part of the evolution from the point Our universe was formed and untill this day.



posted on May, 29 2016 @ 12:13 AM
link   

originally posted by: whereislogic
a reply to: Barcs
You just wanna play your straw man and conflating patterns with designs game. Your pictures are as lame as bringing up snowflakes when the subject is biomolecular machinery.


Straw man? I'm not bringing up anything that you yourself did not try to argue for. Plus evolution is far more than a pattern.


A logical follow-through for me would be that to believe what you suggested I would require logical reasonable evidence that the laws of nature actually CAN design things as you claim



unsupported unsubstantiated just-so stories or maybe-so stories that nature can design things



"Nature can design things" doesn't even qualify as hypotheses



and talk as if nature can find a way to produce such artistic expressions whose beauty can only be appreciated by lifeforms


Maybe I misinterpreted you, but to me those quotes are saying, "Prove it!" So I gave you examples of nature designing things that can easily be mistaken for intelligence, and you got bent out of shape about it. I don't care how detailed the cell is. That, alone, does not prove anything in regards to ID, nor does it suggest nature couldn't have designed it. It's an argument that neither you nor Behe can prove.


You do someting similar with trying to make it just about the word "complexity" and then capitalizing on the ambiguity of language (I never even personally used the word, you just keep bringing it up until I respond to it and then you keep going with playing that particular card and mental trigger others have been conditioned with, the word alone triggers a whole wrong warped way of thinking about the actual subject).


I don't care if you wrote or used the word "complexity." I used it. What I'M saying is that you and Behe are both falling back on complexity as your go-to argument. There is no ambiguity in the term complex (unless you thought I was talking about an apartment complex?). Are you NOT suggesting that the extreme level of intricate detail shown in the inner workings of a cell is why you believe ID? Would you prefer that I use the term complicated, extremely detailed, involved, intricate, or elaborate instead? I do not speak in metaphors as you do with the term "machinery". If I say complex, I mean extreme level of intricate detail.

Again, I'm not saying that DNA definitely arose naturally. Just that it's the only view with experimental evidence to support it. Personal opinions about the extreme detail and intricate features of DNA are not proof of ID. I see more evidence than not that shows nature could have designed DNA. Abiogenesis will eventually become a theory, and when it does, it's going to be hilarious watching all you guys move the goalposts again, revert back to "god may have started the big bang"... of course until we figure out that he didn't.
edit on 5 29 16 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 29 2016 @ 04:19 AM
link   

originally posted by: Barcs
Are you NOT suggesting that the extreme level of intricate detail shown in the inner workings of a cell is why you believe ID? Would you prefer that I use the term complicated, extremely detailed, involved, intricate, or elaborate instead?


No, that would all be the same straw man you're so fond of. Described in the documentary "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed." and constantly repeated by the likes of you and people like you (more examples in that documentary from all your popular teachers and gurus). I'm not going to spend much time on responding to that when the definition for "design" was very clearly given by Michael Behe in his presentation.

P.S. I don't use the term ID unless in response to someone using it. Just like complexity and for similar reasons. But you're so fond of playing your usual game, you don't even care, you'll bring it up anyway, never said I "believe ID", please stop putting words in my mouth to play your standard argumentation and mental cardgame (playing one card after the other, pushing people's buttons).

Your straw man argument regarding the word "complex(ity)" (or any variation on it) is also described at 0:40 in the video below (standard tactic from MSM as well regarding this topic):

Oh, and btw, I know that you've played this straw man hundreds of times on ATS and are fully aware that it is a straw man and are intentionally playing dumb as if you don't know any better, it's all part of that game you're playing on others here, I feel sorry for them not being able to see how deceptive and dishonest you are, and how much you are poisoning their minds to get some easy satisfaction (financially perhaps, otherwise emotional and social benefits).
edit on 29-5-2016 by whereislogic because: addition



posted on May, 29 2016 @ 12:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: whereislogic
I feel sorry for them not being able to see how deceptive and dishonest you are, and how much you are poisoning their minds to get some easy satisfaction (financially perhaps, otherwise emotional and social benefits).

Oh please come save us with your little book full of truths.



posted on May, 30 2016 @ 02:34 AM
link   

originally posted by: daskakik

originally posted by: whereislogic
I feel sorry for them not being able to see how deceptive and dishonest you are, and how much you are poisoning their minds to get some easy satisfaction (financially perhaps, otherwise emotional and social benefits).

Oh please come save us with your little book full of truths.



There is nothing this little book can do for you that it hasent already done.

There is only one who is reponsible for saving you, and that is You.







edit on 27.06.08 by spy66 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 30 2016 @ 06:50 AM
link   
a reply to: whereislogic

This is too funny. So basically you are now claiming that you are NOT arguing for intelligent design or that the "biomolecular machines" in the cell suggest design? What are you arguing then by bringing that up? Please describe your exact position. Instead of whining about Behe's definition of design, please post it right here for all of us to see.

I don't care what the propaganda documentary "expelled" claims about reporters and how they report ID. The truth is that it is NOT real science as determined in court, and there is not objective evidence in its favor. It is an opinion based on what's in the cell. If it is anything more than this, it's on you to demonstrate instead of accusing me of a straw man, when you clearly don't even understand what the term means. It's flat out silly too suggest that cell complexity has nothing to do with Behe's position or ID.


Oh, and btw, I know that you've played this straw man hundreds of times on ATS and are fully aware that it is a straw man and are intentionally playing dumb as if you don't know any better, it's all part of that game you're playing on others here, I feel sorry for them not being able to see how deceptive and dishonest you are, and how much you are poisoning their minds to get some easy satisfaction (financially perhaps, otherwise emotional and social benefits).


LMAO! I guess when you have no argument whatsoever, this become the norm. You ignore all the arguments and make it purely about me and accuse me of playing games, when you are the one posting known propaganda and failing to address my counterpoints. Please try to make a coherent logical argument this time, instead of living up to your name with your constant promotion of propaganda that is completely void of logic.

And to suggest that I am financially reimbursed for speaking against your propaganda or gain some kind of social benefit is ludicrous. I'm just a fan of real science. I wish I got paid to do this, it's too easy. I feel that clearing up the misunderstandings of science that fuel the constant attack attacks on here against it, is far more important than cash or social points, lol. I'm trying to find the logic in your position, please help me find it.


edit on 5 30 16 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 30 2016 @ 08:24 AM
link   

originally posted by: spy66
There is nothing this little book can do for you that it hasent already done.

There is only one who is reponsible for saving you, and that is You.

Great, then maybe people should stop filling the webz trying to save people who don't want to be saved.
edit on 30-5-2016 by daskakik because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 30 2016 @ 08:38 AM
link   
I begin sometimes to think that mankind's entire existence is a.....

I wrote much more about quantum entanglement and such.....

The thing is, you can know the truth about everything but you can't explain it in a way to someone who is willfully ignorant in a way they can understand it.

The truth about everything you ask?....

There is no simple truth.

Truth is transient, it changes with the acquisition of further knowledge and learning.



posted on May, 30 2016 @ 11:27 AM
link   

originally posted by: daskakik

originally posted by: spy66
There is nothing this little book can do for you that it hasent already done.

There is only one who is reponsible for saving you, and that is You.

Great, then maybe people should stop filling the webz trying to save people who don't want to be saved.



Hehehe.... no-one is forcing you to be saved against Your will. Neither is anyone forcing you to read and reply to topics like this. That is all on you.

There is not doubt in my mind that you will have Your whish granted. So dont be worried, the little book mentions that specifically as well.

The little book also mentions that many of you will regret being ignorant after. But i am sure you wont be one of them?
edit on 27.06.08 by spy66 because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
42
<< 51  52  53    55  56  57 >>

log in

join