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/IDists, admit your defeat

page: 11
9
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 16 2008 @ 02:05 PM
link   
reply to post by Methuselah
 




if your theory didnt have a huge hole in it, I would believe it.


you've yet to point out where the hole is. so far you've pointed at an area where the science is quite solid and said there's a hole.



but since its not scientific and its based off of many flawed assumptions im not going to believe in it.


you've yet to demonstrate which flawed assumptions it's based off of



you can show me 2+2=4 you are trying to say 2+2=22 when it does not.


you have things backwards.



the logic of evolution is based on its own imaginitive process. yes if you add 2 to 2 you get the number 22. but in real life if you have 2 of something and you add an additional 2 of the same thing, you are not going to have 22. you are going to have 4.


you really don't get it. you don't have any science here. you've yet to provide a single piece of evidence while i've provided ample evidence (all of which you've just outright ignored)



I hope this helps your understand. I know its hard to let go of what you wish to be true. but true denial of ignorance only comes when you look at all sides and learn them.


i'll just reply by quoting you




I know its hard to let go of what you wish to be true. but true denial of ignorance only comes when you look at all sides and learn them.


the evidence is clearly on my side. i've displayed knowledge of the subject and concrete facts
you've displayed ignorance and misunderstanding of scientific concepts while providing absolutely no evidence.




posted on Apr, 17 2008 @ 01:11 PM
link   
Dawkins, Great Prophet of Evolution and his Water-tight Book, 'The God Delusion' is under discussion here:
www.belowtopsecret.com...

His attitudes and arguments with regard to the reality of God have been coming under some pretty heavy scrutiny. MIMS has recently somewhat tilted the discussion in the direction of the creation vs. evolution debate, and the issues raised have a direct bearing on the subject under discussion here.

Tip - be sure not to miss out on the analyses of dr_strangecraft on p.4...



posted on Apr, 17 2008 @ 01:28 PM
link   
reply to post by Dock6
 


Scientific history is hilariously tragic:



the nutty professors aren't they faaaabulous?




posted on Apr, 17 2008 @ 03:57 PM
link   
reply to post by pause4thought
 


hooray for grossly off topic posts.

i didn't title it as creation vs evolution, i was just looking for responses to the arguments from people of the christian persuasion, you made it about science.



posted on Apr, 18 2008 @ 12:03 PM
link   
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
 


No, as a Christian I was responding to one of his arguments, and even quoted the page number in the book. I wasn't even focussing on the creation/evolution debate - I was specifically pointing out Dawkins' astounding ignorance of post-grad level scientific literature which has been presenting the evidence for creation over recent decades.



posted on Apr, 18 2008 @ 12:27 PM
link   
reply to post by pause4thought
 


"Evidence for creation"? Did you actually write that with a straight face, or is this part of some delicious farce yet to play out?

I know it's en vogue to bash on Dawkins' vociferous atheism, and fair enough - but you have to realise the person and the message are not the same thing. Even if he is a bat-poop-crazy god-hater, his logic about evolution, and his reasoning behind not wanting creationism taught as science, is water-tight indeed.

So, if you want to topple The Great Antichrist's position, I'd suggest attacking his arguments. Otherwise it looks like you're clutching at straws.



posted on Apr, 18 2008 @ 12:38 PM
link   


creationists/IDists, admit your defeat


LOL! And you guys wonder why the Christians bash you!

I don't see how that's "asking for responses for neutral discussion." Looks more like, "I'm right, you're wrong, but let me laugh at your replies anyway."

Science has yet to explain how things showed up, I'm sorry but I thought "it just was there", is "anti-scientific" ain't it?


I'm gonna go read something scary before I split my side open from laughing so hard.

[edit on 18.4.2008 by Shugo]



posted on Apr, 18 2008 @ 12:45 PM
link   
reply to post by Shugo
 


Evolution has NOTHING to do with how things started. It has only to do with things we can see, measure, and predict. On those fronts, it's yet to be found wrong.

And you wonder why people don't take creationism and ID seriously



posted on Apr, 18 2008 @ 12:49 PM
link   
reply to post by dave420
 


Evolution hasn't been scientifically proven on many levels either if you take a look at what some scientists have said. It all does go back to the same topic, in which case my statement still stands.

I don't have any problems dragging this out for you as long and as boring as you'd like...but at the end of the day, you still haven't answered my question...decisions decisions...

I will add, I refuse to attack a religion, or "speak on behalf" either...I just found the title rather humerous...so if anyone was offended, I do apologize, but you have to see it from the ironic perspective.
I have nothing against atheists...I just don't necessarily agree with them.

[edit on 18.4.2008 by Shugo]



posted on Apr, 19 2008 @ 03:10 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Apr, 19 2008 @ 03:29 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Apr, 19 2008 @ 07:37 AM
link   
reply to post by dave420
 



"Evidence for creation"? Did you actually write that with a straight face...

Look again. I said:


...post-grad level scientific literature which has been presenting the evidence for creation over recent decades.


creationontheweb.com... (scroll down for sample articles)

www.answersingenesis.org... (also with sample articles)

Your derogatory remark only serves to emphasize your ignorance.

So far Dawkins and MIMS have revealed their ignorance. Now that makes three...



posted on Apr, 20 2008 @ 05:08 AM
link   
reply to post by Shugo
 


a christian doesn't have to be a creationist. i know many, many christians who completely disagree with the idea of creationism

you're also demonstrating a myth that's repeated ad nauseum by creationists, that evolutionary theory has to explain "how things showed up"
it really doesn't. all it deals with is what happened exactly after life showed up, regardless of how it showed up

"it was just there" actually does work so far as matter and energy are concerned, at least with what we know about them (conservation of matter and energy et al)


Evolution hasn't been scientifically proven on many levels either if you take a look at what some scientists have said. It all does go back to the same topic, in which case my statement still stands.


...what levels?

your statement regarding "how things showed up" doesn't apply to evolutionary theory at all.
not one bit
that would be the realm of chemical abiogenesis which isn't a completely established science because we don't know what the exact conditions were at the time that life arose.



I don't have any problems dragging this out for you as long and as boring as you'd like...but at the end of the day, you still haven't answered my question...decisions decisions...


...what question?

reply to post by pause4thought
 



www.answersingenesis.org...


none of the articles actually tackle how the theory of evolution is incorrect...
you kind of have to prove that one before you assert that another hypothesis needs to be taken into account... now, why do i say it's a hypothesis?
well, i think i've mentioned it before (if not here than on other threads) that it's not a scientific theory

a theory is falsifiable
and it makes prediction
creation "theory" doesn't fit in there.
you'd have to entirely change the definition of a scientific theory to allow it to be one

www.answersingenesis.org...

Proceedings of the Microbe Forum, June 2007


clearly doesn't tackle the theory of evolution

www.answersingenesis.org...

Microbes and the Days of Creation


doesn't tackle evolution either

also, forgets that there are two separate accounts of creation, each with a different order of events...the paper only takes genesis 1 into account.

www.answersingenesis.org...

An Apology and Unification Theory for the Reconciliation of Physical Matter and Metaphysical Cognizance


...apologetics don't belong in a scientific journal
though you could technically classify this as philosophy
...which also doesn't belong in a scientific journal

www.answersingenesis.org...

Louis Pasteur’s Views on Creation, Evolution, and the Genesis of Germs


screw what Pasteur thought. seriously. at best that is the argument from authority (a logical fallacy). at worst, it's just filler.
seriously, that doesn't belong in a scientific journal either.

www.answersingenesis.org...

Toward a Practical Theology of Peer Review


um...another thing that doesn't belong in a scientific journal

something i found that's ridiculous from the source:

Creationists complain that we are excluded from the peer-reviewed literature (Anderson 2002; Kulikovsky 2008; see also Tipler 2004) and are therefore required to publish in our own peer reviewed-literature (Morris 2003).


i can tell you why they're excluded...they don't submit to them and, when they do, they're denied on the basis of being unscientific.

ok, so one source down.


so far as the "Journal of Creation" goes...
well, it also doesn't tackle any of the issues of evolutionary biology.




So far Dawkins and MIMS have revealed their ignorance. Now that makes three...


...no, you're the only one displaying ignorance here. none of the literature you provided does anything to prove creation or disprove evolution.

the entire "theory" is tautology to begin with....



posted on Apr, 20 2008 @ 05:21 AM
link   
this thread is long as hell and im not going to read it in it's entirety because it starts with such a distastefully haughty post to begin with . . .

I will say this however. Until a fully operational time machine is presented for us to use. Creationism will never be proven wrong and evolution will never be proven right. So stop the nonsense.

[edit on 4/20/2008 by JPhish]



posted on Apr, 20 2008 @ 09:39 AM
link   
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
 

Hi MIMS.

I'll start with your final comment:


none of the literature you provided does anything to prove creation or disprove evolution.

As I keep saying, here and in the other thread, the literature provides evidence for creation, not proof. How can I say that more clearly?

Secondly, I wasn't pointing to those particular articles, rather I was simply demonstrating that articles that address the issues at this level have been available for decades.

The breadth of subjects that have been covered is better indicated by the online archive of The Journal of Creation, going back to 1984:

creationontheweb.com...


none of the articles actually tackle how the theory of evolution is incorrect...

Keep reading, and you'll find plenty of thought-provoking challenges in that direction.


i think i've mentioned it before (if not here than on other threads) that it's not a scientific theory

I will correspondingly provide my previously-mentioned response:


Does absence of a human theory impact on whether something actually happened? Some people don't need such boxes in order to think...



also, forgets that there are two separate accounts of creation, each with a different order of events...the paper only takes genesis 1 into account.

This is a Sunday School-level objection. One account is sequential, the other thematic.

As to your objections to the particular selection of articles: I agree - not the best. Fair enough, MIMS. Don't be too harsh though - scientific journals often contain articles that introduce a novel slant on a theme related to pure science (or, if I can use the 'P' word, actually have practical implications for real world research and application).


i can tell you why they're excluded...they don't submit to them and, when they do, they're denied on the basis of being unscientific.

You would say that, wouldn't you? Another interpretation is that peer review is used to stop the boat being rocked by data that challenge evolution to the core. It also needs to be said that you are factually incorrect: very many articles are submitted and published by creationists who are sometimes leaders in their field - although some are rejected as a result of what can only be termed 'prejudice'. The information is then just disseminated via other means.


ok, so one source down.

Danger of a Type II error yet again MIMS (readers may refer to p. 4 of the other thread):
www.belowtopsecret.com...

If you tend to develop such firm views so quickly you must miss a lot of evidence.

Having said all that I do regret having to use the word 'ignorant'. It is meant as a strong rebuttal of the claim there is no scientific evidence for creation. People can look through the archive I linked to above and see for themselves.

As I pointed out in the other thread:


I count hospital consultants, doctors, PhD and research scientists, a research mathemetician, lawyers, etc., among my personal friends who have also concluded that the evidence favours special creation. Among my former acquaintances who have reached the same conclusion are a world-renowned professor of archeology, a not-world renowned professor of archeology, a top-level engineer, etc., etc. Around the world countless thousands of people of the same calibre have examined the evidence and come to the same conclusion. This does not prove that they are right, but it does show that Dawkins is staggeringly ignorant.

...i.e. he is unaware (as he states on p.19 of the book in question) of scientific evidence in favour of creation (-but which has, in fact, proved sufficient to convince thousands/millions of people of the calibre I mention that creation, not evolution reflects reality).



posted on Apr, 20 2008 @ 01:43 PM
link   
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
 


I was not speaking to you.
There is no proof or evidence (I believe a poster noted this) that the idea of evolution is right, but there's no proof creationism is wrong. Why should I admit defeat when I haven't been defeated?



posted on Apr, 22 2008 @ 07:04 AM
link   
lets focus on something that evolution needs in order to "sound" feasible.
----------time-----------
evolutoin needs lots of time in order to occur. for example, in order for a frog to turn into a prince, you need millions of years to call it science... if the frog turns into a prince instantly (ie kiss of love) then we call it a fairytale and put it in childrens bedtime stories.

also lets define what type of evolution we are talking about. since most evolutionists want to ignore the fact that you need cosmic, stellar, chemical and organic evolution. lets just focus on the one they do care about. Macro evolution. we already know that micro evolution happens. we have seen it and it is in no way violating what the bible teaches.

ok, so now we discuss evolution (macro) and time and how macro evoution needs lots of time on order to occur.
well first off your honor, I would like to point out that so far this theory cannot be proven. just because you throw lots of time in there does not make it science. just because you cant prove it on the spot does not give you the right to use an excuse (time) with no scientific evidence to support it.

ok about this time thing. since evolutoin needs time (ie millions of years) to occur lets determine some facts. for instance, the age of the earth. because we all know that if the age of the earth were too young, evolution could not occur and the theory would get thrown out the window.
ok so lets look at a few things that evolutionists use as evidence to support their theory that the earth is millions of years old.
Magnetic reversal and the so-called evidences.
well I happen to know a little bit about electromagnetic energy. and I know about induction (what generates our magnetic field). in order to get the poles to switch, you have to reverse the direction of the inductor. the liquid core spinning around the solid core would have to change directions in order for the poles to switch. now I will point out that the earth does wobble about its axis, and its tilted at 23.5 degrees.
now if you have a solid object spinning with a wobble and liquid spinning inside the solid object, you will get a fluctuation of magnetic strength in different parts of the globe. but you will not get magnetic reversals. unless you change the direction of the inductor causing it to spin in the opposite direection.
the earths magnetic field does shift a little due to the earths wobble, but this evidence is stretched to a sense that tricks people into believing that the earths magnetic field has shifted and changed polarity once to twice every millions years, this is used to cover up what is really going on.

fact, magnets lose strength over time. either their magnetic materials lose strength or in this case, the earth is slowing down and the earth is also cooling causing the strength of the magnetic field to decay.

do the math and its been estimated that earth cannot be any older than 30,000 years old due to the heat the magnetic field would have generated. earths magnetic field would have been too strong and life would not survive. this also means that carbon dating cannot work. look up how carbon dating works. its a great theory but they forget to factor in a few facts.

the earths magnetic field proves earth cannot be millions of years old, it proves it cant even be 50,000 years old. just by this theory alone, evolution is out of the question.

and if you want references you can look on google. I pieced a bunch of knowledge together, used some common sense and some info from the internet and came up with this theory. took about a week piece it together, and the theory actually does make sense once you let go of your religious beliefs (ie Evolution).

saee evolution is assumed to happen because its the only explanation there is without including God. evolution does not happen and there is no proof to show that it happens. stating that it takes millions of years for one creature to evolve into another is something you believe, not something you see and its definately not something that can be demonstrated. evolution is not fact, its not even a good theory. its a set of ideas that are smuggled into the science textbooks and presented as fact with bulit in assumptions to get kids believing something that isnt even true.
"we share a common ancestar with modern apes" get the kids to believe that and tell me what society will look like within the next 20 years. now get the kids to believe that they were created and are accountable not only to their earthly parents but to their creator. now tell me how society will turn out within the next 20 years.
the bible is our standard, our way to live life. the athiests always try to bash it some how and misquote scripture and twist it to make it sound like its some sort of witch guide. no the stories are true and they are in there for a reason. so we can learn from, so the bad things dont repeat themselves, so we can learn how to live, and so we can learn what to expect when the end comes.

evolutoin is not only a flawed theory, its also a flawed phylosophy. people believe in the thoery which then changes their way of thinking which then changes the world in a bad way.
High school shootings like collumbine high school. the boys were wearing shirts that said things like "natural selection" or said things like "he doesnt deserve the jaw evolution gave him, look for his jaw it wont be on his body"

they shot a girl just because she was a christian. evolutions fault? not 100% but I will agree that they were greatly influenced by its phylosophy it implies.

thats my all in one summary of evolution and its flaws, both inside and outside of science.



posted on Apr, 22 2008 @ 07:12 AM
link   
GOD created science, it is man who is ignorant of its meaning. Evoultion theory does not account for "when did life come from" to evolve into something else.

Evolution is like watching a train pass thru and intersection then telling the world its origin and its destination. By watching a few minutes of something speeding past the observer who is standing in one place simply observing. When in fact the train was put together by "someone" from many different sources all for a specific purpose.

The observer has no idea who the creator was, or what the desination of the train is, nor the purpose.



posted on Apr, 22 2008 @ 07:59 AM
link   
reply to post by heliosprime
 


No, evolution is like watching this train repeatedly, to the extent that it can predict when the train will arrive. It will also study the track, both backwards and forwards, and from that arrive at a logical conclusion as to the origin and destination of the train.

Creationists would just strip naked and dance around screaming, happy that their new train messiah has arrived to carry them off into the great train yard in the sky.

Or something along those lines.



posted on Apr, 22 2008 @ 08:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
where are the voices of objection raising questions that show scientific literacy?

That was what you really hoped for in starting this thread, wasn't it, MiMS.

I guess it just wasn't going to happen.

I think you can take eleven pages of scientifically illiterate attempts at refutation as a tacit admission of defeat. that's all you're going to get. As I said in another thread, creationists are a bit like Monty Python's Black Knight.




top topics



 
9
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join