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.

 

Creationists: Have you ever read a book about Evolution?

page: 4
5
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 2 2015 @ 07:39 AM
link   

originally posted by: Cinrad
a reply to: flyingfish

What is the point of posting the evidence, it would take a thousand years of arguing back and forth before you or I were convinced otherwise to what we already believe,


By that token, why post at all then? It's intellectually dishonest to sit there and make all manner of insinuation and claim while refusing to support your position while simultaneously expecting others to support their statements.


this thread has drifted from its original intent (or maybe the intent was always to get it to where you would browbeat people who dont believe that main stream science media is an impartial reporter of the evidence) and is now pointless.


Nobody's intent is to browbeat anyone else. If expecting people to support conjecture and hyperbole with proper citations is browbeating then perhaps ATS isn't the appropriate forum for you. We like looking at the evidence here. It gives us a better perspective of people's positions. Even when they aren't able to fully articulate said position in many instances. Now, what exactly is "mainstream science media"? Is there a special news outlet specifically to push flawed science that I'm unaware of? Because I'm not sure where you get your science info from, but many of us refer to the original work from peer reviewed journals so we can see the actual data as opposed to just taking somes shortened abstract as gospel truth.


Well not really pointless, but I wont be bothered spending a thousand years posting back and forth. This is how me posting evidence would go: 1) I post a few links to papers that agree with Genesis; 2) you post 3 papers that show my paper is bull#; 3) I respond to each of your three papers, each time taking longer to go back in the main stream science media to address specific points about a technique and how the original developers reported the limitations of thier technique, or to point out how the data can be interpreted another way; 4) you post reports that have to do with what I am referring to and and reports that dont and 5) whilst we argue about which reports are correct we bring in other points from previous posts and then; 6) we decide that we have got a life and you or I dont really matter that much to you or I. It is a no win situation, if you really want my proof, you will find it in exactly the same place I would - the internet.


As a former or professional in a related field, I personally get my information from the stack of journals I subscribe to as well as the physical library I have in my office. The same holds true for many others on here who you seem to believe are mere keyboard warriors who learn talking points from a Google search. By the same token, unless the "papers" you cite have been published in an accredited journal, it's not a paper. It's an article written for consumption by a target audience who's mind is already made up and presents no new or science based data. If It did, it would have been published, the data would have been reviewed and if the data was testable and repeatable the whole world would know about it. But that doesn't ever seem to happen. Instead, those "Papers" get published online and hosted on websites owned by proponents of YEC. That's not how science works.


And if you're still reading at this point I take my hat off to you, I have had enough of the bull# and dont really care anymore what lies you have swallowed. I dont think anyone else is reading anymore so we can probably stop shilling each other anyway.


That's kind of cute. I like how being able to understand peer reviewed data and understanding how the scientific method works and how it apies to MES is somehow swallowing lies. Only one side of this discussion is shilling.


originally posted by: Cinrad

originally posted by: peter vlar


And you studied Genesis when? Oh, you didn't?


Would you like a hand removing your foot from your mouth? I studied for several years actually in preparation for seminary.

I dont believe you. Prove it. What is the purpose of Genesis 2?


You don't even see your own hypocrisy do you? You won't support your hyperbolic conjecture but dand others play a game of gotcha huh? The difference here though is that I actually can support my statements.

Genesis 2 while expanding a bit on the creation story, specifically how it relates to man, such as the institution of the sabbath, which was made for man, to further his holiness and comfort, ver. 1 - 3.

A more detailed account of man's creation, as the summary of the whole work, ver. 4 - 7.

A description of the garden of Eden, and the placing of man in it under the obligations of a law and covenant, ver. 8 - 17.

The creation of the woman, her marriage to the man, and the institution of the ordinance of marriage, ver. 18 - 25.

in sure having been brought up in an Irish Catholic family that the Franciscans I studied with have a slightly different POV on scripture than some Protestants and every evangelical so please feel free to add your personal critique. I look forward to it. Then perhaps we can actually revisit the topic of the OP




posted on Dec, 2 2015 @ 12:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: Cinrad
I respond to each of your three papers, each time taking longer to go back in the main stream science media to address specific points about a technique and how the original developers reported the limitations of thier technique, or to point out how the data can be interpreted another way; 4) you post reports that have to do with what I am referring to and and reports that dont and 5) whilst we argue about which reports are correct we bring in other points from previous posts and then; 6) we decide that we have got a life and you or I dont really matter that much to you or I. It is a no win situation,


I have never ever once in my entire history on this site, seen a creationist address science and actually break down research papers like that and talk about the scientific details as you are referencing above. If a creationist ever did this it would be a win, in my eyes, or at least a definite plus for creationism. The typical pattern is this:

1. Creationist makes claim
2. Claim is proven faulty, and links are given to the research that shows it.
3. Creationist ignores this, denies it and then repeats the original argument.
4. Rinse and repeat

I would jump for joy if a conversation about evolution or creation went any other direction on this site. I feel that discussing science and learning about the theories involved is good for everybody.


And if you're still reading at this point I take my hat off to you, I have had enough of the bull# and dont really care anymore what lies you have swallowed. I dont think anyone else is reading anymore so we can probably stop shilling each other anyway.


Science is not lies. I'm not sure why you keep suggesting that supporting science (which brings us computers and all kinds of other working technology), is a result of social engineering, when it is verifiable and provable right in front of your face. You type on the keyboard and it shows up on a liquid crystal display monitor. You then send your response to a worldwide internet that posts it for billions to see. This is scientific knowledge in action. If you have so many doubts about science, then why are you trying to justify a belief system with it?

Again, if you choose to place faith in the ancient scriptures, I have no problem with that. The problem is when you try to say that they are in line with science. They are not. That is attempting to place the square peg in the round hole.

Also I can't help but notice you didn't address my concerns in the post above.

edit on 12 2 15 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



 
5
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join