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.

 

Bush Advocates Teaching ID in Schools

page: 7
0
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 22 2005 @ 10:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by kegs
Why is the Christian creation theory viewed as the only alternative to evolution?
[edit on 21-8-2005 by kegs]


A very valid question, usually ignored entirely.

Bush just stuck his foot squarely into his mouth once again, opening the door for the study of all creation mythology in public schools.




posted on Aug, 23 2005 @ 12:16 AM
link   
spamandham,

My analogy is fine, and is quite solid. I don't feel like you took my challenge, but instead said your heart was beating and you weren't thinking about that.

Allright, fine, let's take a look at that heart and compare it to a machine, like a car.

Ford Motors gets an "idea" of a car and builds it. Now, it was an "idea" before it was ever "created." But now you have a machine that can sit at an idle without thinking about it anymore, yet it is still a "creation." Fair enough? And the heart is a machine, right? A meat machine, but still a machine.

How about my challenge? You might get a little amusement out of it if nothing else.

Troy



posted on Aug, 23 2005 @ 01:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by cybertroy
How about my challenge? You might get a little amusement out of it if nothing else.


I already answered it in a way I thought met the intent of the question. It isn't my fault that you weren't specific enough. Before answering a revised challenge, answer my simple 2 part question.

Is it your contention that everything happens according to intellignt design, and if so, what is the purpose of the appendix? Since you are the one claiming our design is intelligent, it is up to you to explain the intelligence behind the portions that seem pretty stupid.



posted on Aug, 25 2005 @ 12:37 AM
link   
I said, more or less. Spring into action without any forethought as to what you will be doing. When you have accomplished this let me know.

There are a lot of mechanics involved in this universe, but to understand creation you need not try to get into cells, brains, or evolution. You can simply look at how creation is continuing to occur right now.

Troy



posted on Aug, 25 2005 @ 12:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by cybertroy
Spring into action without any forethought as to what you will be doing. When you have accomplished this let me know.


This is a pointless challenge that proves nothing. I already met it, and you simply disregarded the answer with another poor analogy rather than explaining why the response was inadequate. If I keep playing this silly game long enough until we reach the point where I admit that I can not purposefully do anything without forthought, what does that prove other than the definition of "purposefull"?

I asked you about the appendix. I take your failure to provide an answer as a tacit admission that you recognize the appendix does not reflect well on the intelligence level of your intelligent designer.



posted on Aug, 28 2005 @ 10:36 PM
link   
Until you are at least willing to take a good look at what I have to say, and actually give my "challenge" a shot, then you are shooting blanks with your rebuttals.

You said my analogies were weak, yet I never heard of you getting up to wash your car, or take out the garbage without thinking about it before hand.

Discussion with you about this is over until you actually take my challenge.

Take care man,

Troy



posted on Aug, 29 2005 @ 11:54 PM
link   
Show Me the Science if you want to make a challenge of any sort regarding creationism. As with so many others in the tradition of Archbishop Ussher, who established creation at 4004 BCE, no actual evidence of the event is offered. Certainly, such a significant event would leave at least some kind of trace? Even details such as the eye would bear the impressions of an intelligent designer.

"Brilliant as the design of the eye is, it betrays its origin with a tell-tale flaw: the retina is inside out. The nerve fibers that carry the signals from the eye's rods and cones (which sense light and color) lie on top of them, and have to plunge through a large hole in the retina to get to the brain, creating the blind spot. No intelligent designer would put such a clumsy arrangement in a camcorder, and this is just one of hundreds of accidents frozen in evolutionary history that confirm the mindlessness of the historical process [of evolution]."

Other excerpts from "Show Me the Science":

"To formulate a competing hypothesis, you have to get down in the trenches and offer details that have testable implications. So far, intelligent design proponents have conveniently sidestepped that requirement, claiming that they have no specifics in mind about who or what the intelligent designer might be...

"It's worth pointing out that there are plenty of substantive scientific controversies in biology that are not yet in the textbooks or the classrooms. The scientific participants in these arguments vie for acceptance among the relevant expert communities in peer-reviewed journals, and the writers and editors of textbooks grapple with judgments about which findings have risen to the level of acceptance - not yet truth - to make them worth serious consideration by undergraduates and high school students.

"SO get in line, intelligent designers. Get in line behind the hypothesis that life started on Mars and was blown here by a cosmic impact. Get in line behind the aquatic ape hypothesis, the gestural origin of language hypothesis and the theory that singing came before language, to mention just a few of the enticing hypotheses that are actively defended but still insufficiently supported by hard facts...

"For now, though, the theory they are promoting is exactly what George Gilder, a long-time affiliate of the Discovery Institute, has said it is: "Intelligent design itself does not have any content.""





posted on Aug, 30 2005 @ 12:02 AM
link   
"No intelligent designer would put such a clumsy arrangement in a camcorder..."
...and yet, it works wonderfully for you, doesn't it?

Yet, the "Theory" of evolution cannot in the least be defended as a theory, but is taught as fact in school and those in control of the school systems cannot tolerate anything competing against their religion.

Don't worry, everybody Wang-Chung tonight! Just as long as the whiners in control are allowed their religious monopoly!



posted on Aug, 30 2005 @ 12:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by Thomas Crowne
"No intelligent designer would put such a clumsy arrangement in a camcorder..."
...and yet, it works wonderfully for you, doesn't it?


With corrective lenses, oh, and sure, it works so well for everybody.


Originally posted by Thomas Crowne
Yet, the "Theory" of evolution cannot in the least be defended as a theory, but is taught as fact in school and those in control of the school systems cannot tolerate anything competing against their religion.


You seem to use the definition for "hypothesis" interchangeably with "theory." What religion are you talking about? Certainly, I'm a life-long adherent of Christianity and even served as deacon at a First Presbyterian Church.


Originally posted by Thomas Crowne
Don't worry, everybody Wang-Chung tonight! Just as long as the whiners in control are allowed their religious monopoly!


That's simply the strangest comment, what can you be thinking? (If that is indeed the case at all)



posted on Aug, 30 2005 @ 02:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by cybertroy
Until you are at least willing to take a good look at what I have to say, and actually give my "challenge" a shot, then you are shooting blanks with your rebuttals.


I already answered your challenge.


Originally posted by cybertroy
Discussion with you about this is over until you actually take my challenge.


Agreed. I'm adding you to my ignore list.



posted on Aug, 30 2005 @ 10:23 PM
link   
Sorry folks, this went off on a tangent. Oh well, it wasn't disrelated.

For the record, spamandham didn't answer my challenge, and was only seeking to make the ideas I posed wrong, and basically wasn't a willing participant in the conversation we started. It's like trying to give someone a hair cut who is constantly wiggling around and avoiding the scissors. Nothing comes out of the situation but a mess.

He put me on an ignore list, not necessary, because I'm sure there is something we agree on. I only wanted to end this particular fruitless conversation topic, not necessarily conversation with this guy entirely. I've had debates with some of my best friends, but I didn't put them on some ignore list.

Much love,

Troy

[edit on 30-8-2005 by cybertroy]



posted on Aug, 31 2005 @ 12:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by cybertroy
Sorry folks, this went off on a tangent. Oh well, it wasn't disrelated.

For the record, spamandham didn't answer my challenge,

This was your challenge:


I challenge anyone to create something (a painting, a sculpture, a cake, etc.) without first getting an idea about it.

Done. I'm an artist and I rarely have an idea of what I am going to paint beforehand and have many examples of this. Your reasoning is flawed as for an artist to have an idea to create.. they first need paint to work with [matter]- the painting cannot exist without a canvas existing beforehand [space]. This is not a sentient being. Of course the painting could not exist without the artist.. but without time and space neither could the artist. For a sentient being to exist it needs to be somewhere.. and for it to have a concept of space and time [obviously your god does has as it counted 7 days/ages.. when did it know to start counting?] it would need to exist within it as time cannot exist without space.

Atypical response to this: "God always was an always has been!" etc.. much more likely the universe has. For something to even have a thought requires space and time.. [sinapses may be small but thoughts still travel from a to b] and for god to have 'spoken' the universe into existence.. ever heared of sound waves? They require space as well.



posted on Sep, 1 2005 @ 11:45 PM
link   
Wow, great response Riley, applause.

The details queried in creationistic postings are highly digressive. Most often, people do that only as a debating technique. Certainly, the debate may be important, however no inconclusive result is ascertained by bandying about with words. Of course, observations, hypotheses and repeated testing are used to reach conclusions. But they are not reached by simple acceptance a priori.

If creationism has merit, do the science, prove it. Period.

I choose to believe that God created the universe. Importantly, we are discovering how it was done. And we are endowed with God-given reason in that course of discovery. How great is the sin of not using the means we have of thinking?

Thought and reason are among the finest attributes of humans. Hopefully, that is a reflection of the Creator. But the sciences are indicative of origins that diverge widely from Genesis. Perhaps that is a function of the writers and editors of the Bible, in that scientific thought was alien to them. With certainty, however, science based upon careful observations and reasoning simply does not confirm the Biblical creation narrative.

Science can not prove God. If it could, that would be anathema to religion, which emphasizes belief and faith, not proof. And saying that "God did it" is not an explanation. You might as well assert "It's because I say so."

One science that, IMHO, could provide evidence of Divine structuring is quantum physics (QP). Presently, the incomprehensibilty of its tenets are reminiscent of attributes ascribed to the ultimate Godhead. Otherwise, it appears that QP describes "ordered chaos" that permeates every stretch of the universe. Even space-time itself seems to be somehow impressed with an order. After all, we know that mass does warp space-time, so can energy.

Without offending God in any way, we may use reason, which led inexorably to science. Moreover, it would be an offense not to think, being that it is one of our greatest gifts.



posted on Sep, 2 2005 @ 10:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by Aeon10101110
Without offending God in any way, we may use reason, which led inexorably to science. Moreover, it would be an offense not to think, being that it is one of our greatest gifts.


This is the greatest 'sin' of creationist types. They have intelligence and the capacity to explore and reason. They have the ability to see that the universe is comprehensible, yet they reject this capacity in favor of ancient myths and legends passed down from prehistory and recorded by mushroom eating sun stroked goat herders with political agendas.

There is evidence that solidly refutes the possibility of a world wide flood. There is evidence that solidy refutes a young earth. There is evidence that shows that if we are intelligently designed, then the designer was not a perfect designer, as our 'design' has tons of flaws. There is solid evidence of species being 'created' at different time periods. If there is a designer, then he comes along every now and then and creates new species, rather than having done it all at once.

Yet they will answer none of these contentions, and instead will pick nits at gaps of knowledge and fill in those gaps with 'See! that's where god operates. Oh you mean you just filled that gap? No problem, I just found another one. That's where god operates! Oh you just filled that one too? No problem...' They don't understand that a lack of knowledge is a lack of knowledge. There is no basis for filling in a gap of knowledge with any answer at all, supernatural or otherwise.

Worse, they use deceptive tactics to turn the tables.

"Well, abiogenesis is impossible no matter what else you say."

"It's not impossible because [details of experiments and studies that show how it could have happened]."

"But you don't know that's how it happened, your just speculating, therefor evolution is a religion. I don't have enough faith to believe in evolution."

"I never said that was how it happened. You said it was impossible, and I demonstrated a possible mechanism, thus proving that it is not impossible. Nothing more."

"La la la la, I'm not listening, Evolution is a religion and therefor you must pray to Jesus in school in order to teach both sides."

It would be too gentle to call people like Kent Hovind liars. He's pathological.



posted on Sep, 4 2005 @ 01:27 AM
link   
Hey Riley,

Thanks for the response. Let's debate, but let's keep it friendly.

I see what you are saying, but you first decided you were going to create something, or else you would have never started with your artistic creation. You did have an idea, but it just wasn't a definite form, but you just knew you were going to create something. Fair enough? See, the idea and the decision to create something was there first. You may not have known exactly what it was untill you worked it around a bit (be it clay paint or whatever), but yes you eventually got a clearer idea of what it was you wanted to do.

The universe creating itself is pretty near impossible. To me it's a degredation of what we really are, which is spiritual beings, to think things create themselves with no conscious force behind it.

I also don't want to force the "creation" idea on someone, sorry if anyone feels that way. If the idea doesn't ring as true, then ok. But hopefully I can get some to see what I am talking about. It is far from fiction.

For the purposes of this topic, in proving creation is a real thing, let the challenge be specifically:

"Sit down. Clear your mind. Go and make something without having any forethought of making something."

I wait.

Troy



posted on Sep, 4 2005 @ 09:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by cybertroy
Hey Riley,

Thanks for the response. Let's debate, but let's keep it friendly.

I see what you are saying, but you first decided you were going to create something, or else you would have never started with your artistic creation.

I'd love to keep it friendly.. however this was your question:

I challenge anyone to create something (a painting, a sculpture, a cake, etc.) without first getting an idea about it.

.. I answered it and now you've changed it to suit when an answer didn't.

You did have an idea

No I didn't.

but it just wasn't a definite form, but you just knew you were going to create something. Fair enough? See, the idea and the decision to create something was there first.

As was the canvas.
There have also been times where I've started drawings without even realising it.. say while having a boring phone conversation. Of course I need to have a pen in my hand at the time [matter].

The universe creating itself is pretty near impossible.

In contrast to a sentient being existing nowhere and never?
What facts do you base this assumption on?

To me it's a degredation of what we really are, which is spiritual beings, to think things create themselves with no conscious force behind it.

It's degrading to me to underestimate the power of the universe itself by reducing it to a fictional guy in the sky.

For the purposes of this topic, in proving creation is a real thing, let the challenge be specifically:

"Sit down. Clear your mind. Go and make something without having any forethought of making something."

I wait.

This is a seperate challenge not a more specific one.. however:
Carbon dioxide.. and one day a kid if I have no forethought whatsoever.
Now.. while you are handing out assignments.. and then reassigning them when your logic fails.. perhaps, in the interest of 'keeping it friendly' you could actually answer the rest of my previous post instead of ignoring it for convenience.

Your reasoning is flawed as for an artist to have an idea to create.. they first need paint to work with [matter]- the painting cannot exist without a canvas existing beforehand [space]. This is not a sentient being. Of course the painting could not exist without the artist.. but without time and space neither could the artist. For a sentient being to exist it needs to be somewhere.. and for it to have a concept of space and time [obviously your god does has as it counted 7 days/ages.. when did it know to start counting?] it would need to exist within it as time cannot exist without space.

Atypical response to this: "God always was an always has been!" etc.. much more likely the universe has. For something to even have a thought requires space and time.. [sinapses may be small but thoughts still travel from a to b] and for god to have 'spoken' the universe into existence.. ever heared of sound waves? They require space as well.

Again [in brief].. How does a sentient being exist outside of space and time?


I wait.

[edit on 4-9-2005 by riley]



posted on Sep, 4 2005 @ 10:49 AM
link   
The challenge is absurd anyway. What difference does it make if you can not set out to do something (i.e. purposefully) without purpose? All that is being demonstrated is the definition of "purpose", not some grand metaphysical revelation.

This is a purposeless challenge. Hey!



posted on Sep, 4 2005 @ 11:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by spamandham
The challenge is absurd anyway. What difference does it make if you can not set out to do something (i.e. purposefully) without purpose? All that is being demonstrated is the definition of "purpose", not some grand metaphysical revelation.

This is a purposeless challenge. Hey!

You must be a god then.. and I should be able to spontaneously combust just because I decide to.. just like a sun must decide to go supa nova. It is not really a relevent challenge but I gave it a fair hearing.


[edit on 4-9-2005 by riley]



posted on Sep, 4 2005 @ 09:54 PM
link   
We are creators in our own rights, we create things all the time. This is not unlike the first "creator(s)."

My challenge was reworded to deal directly with creation, the act of creating to be more specific, not with things that are allready created like the beating heart. This is far from a pointless experiment. It is intended to show that creation is a conscious thing. Here it is again:

"Sit down. Clear your mind. Go and make something without having any forethought of making something."

Here is how it will be done.
1) Try the experiment.
2) Then post your comments. Don't post arguments against creation until you have tried the experiment. I'm not going to waste my time debating if you aren't at least willing to try the experiment.
3) We will proceed at this point.

Troy



posted on Sep, 5 2005 @ 05:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by cybertroy
Here is how it will be done.
1) Try the experiment.
I have.. this will be the THIRD time.

2) Then post your comments. Don't post arguments against creation until you have tried the experiment.

We have.. first I said paintings. That wasn't the answer you wanted so you change the question. I then said carbon dioxide.. oh wow I did it again! I also said a kid.. [most conceptions are done for fun- not to create]. and a drawing while on the phone without realising.. and.. just now.. I sighed and made sound! I made a cup of coffee before without thinking about it too. Why don't these things count?

3) We will proceed at this point.
I'm not going to waste my time debating if you aren't at least willing to try the experiment.

Yet you have absolutely no problem wasting other people's time by handing out silly challenges and then 'disqualifying' people's answers when they don't fit.. and completely ignoring their points. How about actually answering our questions? How does something exist nowhere?

Your 'challenge' isn't even relevent. It does not prove a creator.. it only proves that PEOPLE can sometimes create things subconciously. How does that disprove metaphysical reactions [the big bang]? Does god have to take a deep breath for wind to blow? Does a volcano have to think and decide to errupt? Does gravity have to concentrate to make sure we stick to the planet? Perhaps you should try your hand at actually debating instead of just trolling.

[edit on 5-9-2005 by riley]







 
0
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join