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.

 

The Origins Conspiracy, A Master Deception!

page: 6
22
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 16 2015 @ 01:04 PM
link   
a reply to: TzarChasm

So tl:dr, the God of the Gaps argument?




posted on Nov, 16 2015 @ 01:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: Blue_Jay33
Actually just last week I took an IQ test just for fun, I got a perfect score on the "Analytical Thinking" part.
The report said I have exceptional analytical thinking compared to the rest of the population, only 8% score that.
I am only bringing this up because of the insult, I am very confident in my ability to think critically, but more importantly to analyze the data and evaluate.


Then why do you deny evolution? If you understand critical thinking and analyzing data, then your denial of evolution makes no sense, since you have never analyzed any of that data in any of your arguments. In fact you avoid the data every time it's brought up. Please explain why you deny and denounce evolution if not for religious texts? Surely you have a reason based on analyzing the evidence rather than flat out denying it in favor of the bible.


People who believe the universe or even just the earth and all life was created in just 6 - 24 days are in the YEC camp, and attacking the argument with this as a baseline is a strawman.

The vast majority of evolution deniers are young earth creationists. You can't deny that. It's not a strawman. People deny evolution because it conflicts with passages of holy books, it has nothing to do with analyzing the data. They avoid analyzing data like the plague. The truth is that evolution is perfectly compatible with theism unless you take your holy books literally. This is a fact, not a strawman.


edit on 11 16 15 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 16 2015 @ 03:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: TzarChasm

So tl:dr, the God of the Gaps argument?


is a paragraph really tl;dr? the op was longer than that but everyone seems to have managed.

and i was addressing the other half of "god of the gaps", the science that surrounds those gaps. your question was how do they reconcile, and i explained it. they dont reconcile, they just wedge those gaps so they cant close. even when science finally gives us a conclusive answer to the question of what kicked off the big bang and what came before, do you think they will accept it?

no, they will engineer their own gaps to stick god in.



posted on Nov, 16 2015 @ 05:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: TzarChasm
a reply to: Krazysh0t

they need a "hypothetical" that isnt too maligned with science, because that undermines their ability to borrow credibility by association. it needs to be plausible at the very least, which is why some models of creationism are being scrapped in favor of more modern interpretations which leave room for legitimate science while not compromising the spiritual nature of the beast.

gotta love that wiggle room. even better, gotta love how they honestly think we wont catch on.


Kinda like Behe‘s irreducible complexity or the polonium halo argument in favor of YEC. They sound scientific and technical.



posted on Nov, 16 2015 @ 05:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: Cypress

originally posted by: TzarChasm
a reply to: Krazysh0t

they need a "hypothetical" that isnt too maligned with science, because that undermines their ability to borrow credibility by association. it needs to be plausible at the very least, which is why some models of creationism are being scrapped in favor of more modern interpretations which leave room for legitimate science while not compromising the spiritual nature of the beast.

gotta love that wiggle room. even better, gotta love how they honestly think we wont catch on.


Kinda like Behe‘s irreducible complexity or the polonium halo argument in favor of YEC. They sound scientific and technical.


well, the OP is an exercise in gullibility anyway.



posted on Nov, 16 2015 @ 08:14 PM
link   
a reply to: Barcs




The vast majority of evolution deniers are young earth creationists. You can't deny that. It's not a strawman.

For me it is a strawman, at least on ATS, the YEC people never post anymore, or they have left ATS all together.
They don't dare pop their heads up anymore as they will get pummeled from both sides these days.

I will argue just as strongly against the Christians that believe the YEC as I do against evolutionary theory.
Believe me I am laughing right with you when I hear God or Satan either removed or put fossils somewhere as a test of faith.
He can sabotage theoretical science, but he isn't allowed to actually change the true reality of historical and present science.



posted on Nov, 16 2015 @ 09:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: Blue_Jay33
a reply to: Barcs








The vast majority of evolution deniers are young earth creationists. You can't deny that. It's not a strawman.



For me it is a strawman, at least on ATS, the YEC people never post anymore, or they have left ATS all together.

They don't dare pop their heads up anymore as they will get pummeled from both sides these days.



I will argue just as strongly against the Christians that believe the YEC as I do against evolutionary theory.

Believe me I am laughing right with you when I hear God or Satan either removed or put fossils somewhere as a test of faith.

He can sabotage theoretical science, but he isn't allowed to actually change the true reality of historical and present science.
YEC is only one segment of the creationism centipede. theres still 99 other fallacies to crush as we tackle this master deception.



posted on Nov, 17 2015 @ 06:39 AM
link   

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: TzarChasm

So tl:dr, the God of the Gaps argument?


is a paragraph really tl;dr? the op was longer than that but everyone seems to have managed.


I know. I was just joking. Don't take it so seriously



and i was addressing the other half of "god of the gaps", the science that surrounds those gaps. your question was how do they reconcile, and i explained it. they dont reconcile, they just wedge those gaps so they cant close. even when science finally gives us a conclusive answer to the question of what kicked off the big bang and what came before, do you think they will accept it?


Well that's the problem. There is no way to be conclusive about anything in science. Science always works within a margin of error. Because that is the case, there will ALWAYS be gaps in science for religious people to wedge god into. It's like trying to find the smallest positive number. Every time you come up with a new number, just place another zero in front of the decimal place and you have an even smaller number. You are playing with infinity.

Now we don't necessarily KNOW that the knowledge of the universe is infinite, but we can assume that the amount that needs to be learned about it is vast enough that we can compare it to infinite knowledge.


no, they will engineer their own gaps to stick god in.


Of course, there's always a smaller number.



posted on Nov, 17 2015 @ 11:39 AM
link   
a reply to: Blue_Jay33

A strawman is a false definition of something that is set up to be easily refuted. What is being falsely defined here? Nobody is arguing that evolution is true because YEC is BS.

YECers do still post here, although it has died down a bit in past few months.

So let me ask you again. You claim to be a critical and analytical thinker, and agree with the science about the age of the earth/universe. So, why do you deny and denounce evolution? I'm still trying to understand it.

YECers do it because it conflicts with a literal interpretation of Genesis. What is your reasoning?
edit on 11 17 15 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 17 2015 @ 08:12 PM
link   
a reply to: Barcs



A strawman is a false definition of something that is set up to be easily refuted.


The YEC people have already done that for you, ever listen to Bill Maher attacking people who believe in creation, he leads with that because it's easy and funny.




So, why do you deny and denounce evolution? I'm still trying to understand it.


Because Jesus was there, and he says in the Gospels that God created man and woman.
I believe him.
edit on 17-11-2015 by Blue_Jay33 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 17 2015 @ 08:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: Blue_Jay33
a reply to: Barcs



A strawman is a false definition of something that is set up to be easily refuted.


The YEC people have already done that for you, ever listen to Bill Maher attacking people who believe in creation, he leads with that because it's easy and funny.




So, why do you deny and denounce evolution? I'm still trying to understand it.


Because Jesus was there, and he says in the Gospels that God created man and woman.
I believe him.


you do of course realize that that isnt evidence by any stretch of the imagination?



posted on Nov, 18 2015 @ 11:48 AM
link   

originally posted by: Blue_Jay33
So, why do you deny and denounce evolution? I'm still trying to understand it.

Because Jesus was there, and he says in the Gospels that God created man and woman.
I believe him.


So in other words, you blindly believe ancient texts as absolute truth. So your view is no different than the YECers. Why would you denounce YEC as a straw man, and then follow the exact same logic that they do? That's silly. So your only reason for the evolution denial is because the bible say so, exactly like I said above.

Why couldn't god use evolution as a tool to create man and woman?

Where is your critical / analytical thinking?

The deception is strong in this one... Too bad, just when I was thinking you were coming around you revert back to blind faith magically over riding scientific evidence and facts. Sorry, but there is nothing analytical about that. It is blind acceptance and adherence to a dogma.
edit on 11 18 15 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 18 2015 @ 03:26 PM
link   
a reply to: Barcs


Why couldn't god use evolution as a tool to create man and woman?


there is no evidence to suggest this.



posted on Nov, 18 2015 @ 03:30 PM
link   
a reply to: Blue_Jay33

Why would the devil, A deceiver only associate himself with a Ouija Board. One minute he is all powerful, akin to a God, the next he is only subjected to special kind of boards to reveal himself...go figure.



posted on Nov, 18 2015 @ 07:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: TzarChasm
a reply to: Barcs


Why couldn't god use evolution as a tool to create man and woman?


there is no evidence to suggest this.


Yes indeed, but there is also no evidence in favor of the rest of his beliefs. I was hoping it could help him reconcile his faith, so he wouldn't have to be at odds with a field of science for no reason other than scripture. Putting evolution on the same level as Satan is just so downright preposterous, it clearly does not belong in any type of religious context.



posted on Nov, 18 2015 @ 07:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: Barcs

originally posted by: TzarChasm
a reply to: Barcs


Why couldn't god use evolution as a tool to create man and woman?


there is no evidence to suggest this.


Yes indeed, but there is also no evidence in favor of the rest of his beliefs. I was hoping it could help him reconcile his faith, so he wouldn't have to be at odds with a field of science for no reason other than scripture. Putting evolution on the same level as Satan is just so downright preposterous, it clearly does not belong in any type of religious context.


Putting a deity on the same level as evolutionary theory is equally preposterous.



posted on Nov, 19 2015 @ 10:26 AM
link   

originally posted by: TzarChasm
Putting a deity on the same level as evolutionary theory is equally preposterous.


Agreed, but I wasn't trying to suggest that. I was just saying that there is room for having faith in god without denouncing and denying evolution and other sciences. Evolution stands on its own merit. But if one believes that god created evolution (or life that evolves), there is no forced contradiction. Most Christians essentially believe this. God started the process, god works through science. Yes, it's still blind faith, it's just way more rational than biblical literalism that causes people to attack science with no justification whatsoever as the "analytical thinking" OP did.


edit on 11 19 15 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 19 2015 @ 09:14 PM
link   
a reply to: Barcs


God started the process, god works through science. Yes, it's still blind faith, it's just way more rational than biblical literalism that causes people to attack science with no justification whatsoever as the "analytical thinking" OP did.


you want to give them an easy out, instead of backing them into a corner and wrenching their golden calf out of their defiant fingers.

...well, nothing else has worked. no point in pushing the issue. its quite possible that in a few thousand years or so, this debate will be a curiosity for our descendants, nothing more. and no one will care that this discussion took place or that this website existed.

time to get on with our lives and quit fussing over what happens after its too late, before its too late.



posted on Nov, 19 2015 @ 09:31 PM
link   
originally posted by: TzarChasm
a reply to: Barcs


Barcs: Why couldn't god use evolution as a tool to create man and woman?



Tzarhasm: there is no evidence to suggest this.

You have no idea the sense or humor or complexity of your creator; it is out thinking you at ever angle/turn/corner (this is your evidence). The whole creationism vs evolution argument is fundamental. NO ONE CAN agree it is a combination of both.
edit on 19-11-2015 by vethumanbeing because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 20 2015 @ 02:21 AM
link   
a reply to: Barcs




So your only reason for the evolution denial is because the bible say so, exactly like I said above.


Nope, and I have studied the subject critically and scientifically and I conclude something different than you.



new topics




 
22
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join