creationists/IDists, admit your defeat

page: 1
9
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 20 2007 @ 11:08 AM
link   
O&C conspiracy has, as of late, become relatively inactive
why?
because every argument for creationism and intelligent design has been soundly refuted

so, please
admit scientific defeat
sure, creationism can be philosophically sound
but you have lost in the realm of science




posted on Jan, 20 2007 @ 11:19 AM
link   
All you got to do is look at a Chihuahau, did god create chihuahuas?
NO!
We created the chihuahua through forced evolution.

There you have it, evolution is a FACT!

Were we created by god? Doubt it.
Were we created by the Universe? Yes

So, if you want to call the Universe god, then I guess we were created by god after all.



posted on Jan, 20 2007 @ 11:49 AM
link   
I am an etheist, and for one do not believe for a moment that the creation movement will admit any sort of defeat, and as far as I can see they are still active and presenting there scientific funding.. I for one think that, relgions set aside, there could be some productive finds to the science that these people dabble in, mainly in the area of weather patterns, and plate techtonics..
I would never acuse one of these men or woman, who hold valid degrees from valid institutions, not scientists. As long as they are not trying to cram jesus down my throat and tell me that I am going to hell and such and such..



posted on Jan, 20 2007 @ 12:12 PM
link   
Just popped in to get the thread rolling. Nothing heavy to say.

But when you cite 'science', are you referring to the same science/scientific community that claimed HRT would 'save' women from 'going insane and being locked away in asylums in middle age' like their mothers and grandmothers' supposedly were?

The same 'science/scientific community which claimed women used to shrivel up and suffer senility due to menapause and used to die young' ? THAT 'science' ?

When almost all of us can find within our family-history women who lived well into their 80's and 90's WITHOUT the scientific-miracle, HRT?

The SAME 'science' that promised HRT would alleviate/prevent hot-flushes, stroke, cancers, hirsuteness, etc? The same 'science' that then KILLED thousands of women world-wide and gave thousands more strokes, mental confusion, heart-irregularities, varicose veins, obesity, etc. FROM the scientific 'miracle' drug, HRT ?

Oh --- really? It WAS that same 'science/scientific community' as the one you're citing in your OP? Oooops, huh?

You'll need to accept that I have NO reason to accept a word that comes out of THAT 'science/scientific community's' mouth.

Because wasn't it 'science' that ostracised and ridiculed Velikovsky's catastrophe-theories ? And yes, it WAS that same 'science/scientific community' which AFTERWARDS STOLE and PLAGIARISED Velikovsky's theories and who NOW posit them as their own !

'Science' cites its unproven theories as fact.

'Science' refuses to accept anything that doesn't conform with its unproven theories --------- even THOUGH 'science' reserves the right to ALTER its theories without notice at any time, despite that those now discarded theories continue to be taught in schools and universities.

'Science' is the puppet of State and Church (and Big Business AND anyone else with enough folding-money).

'Science' is bought and paid for; it's a prostitute with attitude !

The 'scientific community' bickers amongst itself continually, like fish-wives.

'Science' -- due to its backers in State and Church etc. --- believes it never has to say it's sorry; never has to admit it's wrong and believes that it alone may cite mere opinion (flawed as it so often is) as 'fact'.

'Science' claimed aeroplanes would never fly; that it was 'impossible'. See what I mean? And 'science' states that the bee should not be able to fly either. Do these guys ever step out into a real world? A child can refute 'science', for a child is able to attest that yes, planes DO fly as do bees.

'Science' dismisses the paranormal and there was a huge bitch-fight recently when Sheldrake broke ranks and announced that for people IN a real world, paranormal experience is far from rare. How did Sheldrake reach this controversial conclusion? Simple, he listened to what real people in the real world, had to say.

Isn't it 'science/the scientific community' who sit around alternately giggling, sulking and fighting and throwing up their hands in confusion re: String Theory, M-Theory etc. ? Why is that, if 'science' is undiluted proven scientific 'fact' ?

'Science' can't even date something as simple as a carved stone-head within 20,000 years or 100,000 years. I can tell you that for a REAL fact, because 'science' dated two such heads (described 'scientifically' as Celtic Carved Stone Heads) as being in the region of several thousand years old. WRONG.

Those heads were displayed in pride of place at the entrance to a museum. They remained there for 20 or so years, before my uncle decided he'd better put the record straight before he died. He PROVED, beyond dispute, that those allegedly 'several thousand year old carved stone heads' WERE in fact carved in the early 1940's by his brother as part of an art assignment. And the joke (at 'science's' expense) was revealed in several UK newspapers.

Science !

Science has NEVER even come close to explaining how/where human life began. Oh sure, it can chatter on about primeval soup, but it CANNOT tell us where the universe commenced or originated. Life on earth may be attributable to a number of causes: cosmic dust for example. But WHERE did the cosmic dust originate? And from where -- in turn -- did THAT originate? And from where -- in turn --- did THAT originate?

WHAT was the very beginning of absolutely EVERYthing ? Has 'science' provided the answer? Nope.

Nothing comes from nothing. 'Science' knows that, but it doesn't stop 'science' from pronouncing nonsensically and illogically.

If EVERYthing began from one tiny spark ----- ask 'science' to tell you from whom, what, where, that spark emerged? But of course, 'science' CANNOT provide you an answer.

So until it can, 'God' (or whatever term you prefer) is still very much a contender. In fact, at the moment, 'God' is the ONLY explanation.

It may BE that the Multiverse and everything it contains (the 'scientific Theory of Everything) had its beginnings in one tiny bit of excreta expelled by something, somewhere.

Yes, our entire Enormous Everything may be no more than bacterial decomposition taking place within one nugget of poo that fell from the backside of something totally beyond our comprehension.

'Science' is still struggling to come to grips with the common cold.

I'm not expecting 'science' to arrive at anything near a believable explanation for the origins of All ----- not for quite a while at least.



posted on Jan, 20 2007 @ 01:03 PM
link   
Your 'straw man' argument won't work here, just by dissing science, which is a quest for knowledge, always seeking, getting closer.
To dis science does not increase the likelyhood of a creators existence one iota.



posted on Jan, 20 2007 @ 01:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by Dock6
WHAT was the very beginning of absolutely EVERYthing ? Has 'science' provided the answer? Nope.

Nothing comes from nothing. 'Science' knows that, but it doesn't stop 'science' from pronouncing nonsensically and illogically.

If EVERYthing began from one tiny spark ----- ask 'science' to tell you from whom, what, where, that spark emerged? But of course, 'science' CANNOT provide you an answer.

So until it can, 'God' (or whatever term you prefer) is still very much a contender. In fact, at the moment, 'God' is the ONLY explanation.

It may BE that the Multiverse and everything it contains (the 'scientific Theory of Everything) had its beginnings in one tiny bit of excreta expelled by something, somewhere.

Yes, our entire Enormous Everything may be no more than bacterial decomposition taking place within one nugget of poo that fell from the backside of something totally beyond our comprehension.

'Science' is still struggling to come to grips with the common cold.

I'm not expecting 'science' to arrive at anything near a believable explanation for the origins of All ----- not for quite a while at least.


:yawn:

Well, we can agree with something. Science probably won't come up with a 'theory of everything' for some time, if ever.

The rest is just a rant against the MOST powerful tool to understanding the real-world we have. Yes, science makes mistakes; yes, we don't not know everything; yes, we work at the boundaries of ignorance which means evidence does change our knowledge.

When private spiritual revelation can actually answer anything useful, then we might question its power.

As for god being the 'only explanation', it is actually a non-explanation.



posted on Jan, 20 2007 @ 08:45 PM
link   

by Toadmund
always seeking, getting closer.


I think it's called 'Ever seeking, but never coming to an understanding'. At least that's how God's Word puts it. But, have fun looking.





by melatonin
When private spiritual revelation can actually answer anything useful, then we might question its power.


When Evolution can actually answer anything 'useful', then we can discuss its 'power'.



posted on Jan, 20 2007 @ 09:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by HimWhoHathAnEar
When Evolution can actually answer anything 'useful', then we can discuss its 'power'.


I think it undoubtedly does.

When we wanted to find Tiktaalik (a transitional form for fish>tetrapod), we didn't consult a leader in divination, we used scientific findings from an evolutionary perspective.

We found it.



posted on Jan, 20 2007 @ 09:21 PM
link   

by melatonin
When we wanted to find Tiktaalik (a transitional form for fish>tetrapod),


My point exactly. Not only is that not 'useful' to me, but the 'power' of it totally escapes me. What did humanity ever do without the Tittitilak?



posted on Jan, 20 2007 @ 09:46 PM
link   
Madnessinmysoul:

How proud must you feel to degrade creationist? I just wan't to know what it's like to stand tall and so self absorbant. How's it feel to be the first person to prove creationism wrong?

I felt like I had to add a little useless comment on this useless thread. I'm suprised they didn't delete this thread, as it has no value at all, but only an attempt to declare conclusion at an ill proven theory.

Since this thread is simply bashing people with different religious beliefs, can you give me a piece of evidence that proves creation wrong?

P.S. - Since I'm one of the few willing to stick up for creation, please don't all attack me at once, understand I am only one person.



posted on Jan, 20 2007 @ 09:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by thexsword
Madnessinmysoul:

How proud must you feel to degrade creationist? I just wan't to know what it's like to stand tall and so self absorbant. How's it feel to be the first person to prove creationism wrong?


o
you completely misunderstand the purpose of this thread

i'm not here to degrade
far from it
i'm not saying i've proven creationism wrong
hell, i'm no scientist

this thread..
well, it's like an onion
it has layers

you are only seeing the top one



posted on Jan, 20 2007 @ 10:08 PM
link   

by madnessinmysoul
i'm not saying i've proven creationism wrong





creationists/IDists, admit your defeat


Maybe it's just me, but those two statements seem to be in direct contradiction. I believe there really is MadnessInYourSoul. Maybe it's time to figure out why.



posted on Jan, 20 2007 @ 10:31 PM
link   
I have said it before, I am not a great debater, so I'm not going to get in a great debate over data etc. But I can tell you this. If you truely seek out god you will find him. He is everywhere and in everything all around us. All you need to do is to get rid of all the disinformational programming that is being pumped into your head on a daily basis. God is there but the world tries to cover him up. What most people see everyday is what man has made and wants you to see. Open your eyes and your heart and you will find him.



posted on Jan, 20 2007 @ 10:32 PM
link   

because every argument for creationism and intelligent design has been soundly refuted


To the best of my understanding, that statement says that Intelligent Design has been refuted(proven wrong, thrown out, ect).


so, please
admit scientific defeat
sure, creationism can be philosophically sound
but you have lost in the realm of science


In this statement it seems as if you are saying that science has defeated Intelligent Design. You also say ID has lost in the realm of science. You said you were not proving creationism wrong, but it seems that you have claimed that it has been proven wrong. That's a rather heavy accusation, can you show me where science has proven Intelligent Design wrong?

I am not accusing you of anything. I am just sticking you to your accusations. Obviously I have nothing against you, I just think this thread was overly extreme with out any evidence.



posted on Jan, 20 2007 @ 10:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by HimWhoHathAnEar
Maybe it's just me, but those two statements seem to be in direct contradiction. I believe there really is MadnessInYourSoul. Maybe it's time to figure out why.


just because i say a group was defeated doesn't mean i think i did the defeating

if i said to a losing sports team that they should admit their defeat, it doesn't imply that i think they lost to me



posted on Jan, 20 2007 @ 11:07 PM
link   
Why would you claim defeat over creation without irrefutable evidence?



posted on Jan, 21 2007 @ 12:50 AM
link   

by madnessinyoursoul
it doesn't imply that i think they lost to me


This statement shows a serious disassociation tendency. Attempting to remove yourself from your own statements. Are you defending someone who could interject on your behalf?


Edit: Noticed your signature line. Quoting 'Science Fiction' as some great truth, when does your interstellar flight depart space dock?


[edit on 21-1-2007 by HimWhoHathAnEar]



posted on Jan, 21 2007 @ 01:12 AM
link   
What a strange argument to make. Someone made a thread discussing something that he believes to have happened and you say he has a 'serious disassociation tendency'.

I guess we'll have no more threads on ATS unless they're about yourself please people. *Wags finger.



posted on Jan, 21 2007 @ 02:04 AM
link   

by captainlazy
Someone made a thread discussing something that he believes to have happened


No, actually it's about contradictory statements. Try reading the thread again. If the laziness doesn't kick in capn'.



posted on Jan, 21 2007 @ 02:59 AM
link   
Alright, if you want to open up the lid and stir the doo doo, here we go.


Explain the composition of matter. Explain the atom. Explain how all the atoms come together to form substances, compounds and all that stuff.

That's a pretty intellegent design in itself. Right?

Are we just going to ignore the forces of magnetism and everything?

I don't give a crap about evolution, because, even if it did happen, it still isn't the "spark" that is "us." Man isn't a product of his environment, he is a product, well, of whatever he decides. I have a poor family and poor background, that doesn't mean I must now be a poor depressed man, just like my family.

Our fixation on evolution one reason why we have such a hard time thinking outside this small rock we live on in this universe.

I'm still waiting on that Monkey who runs for president, oh, oops, we do have a monkey in the White House.


Ok, enough for now. Not trying to make enemies, just taking my stand.

Troy





new topics
top topics
 
9
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join