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: 25
9
<< 22  23  24    26  27  28 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 24 2011 @ 08:14 AM
link   
reply to post by john_bmth
 


Yeah, that seems pretty reasonable. Better then the universe appearing for no reason and no matter to make it from.

Now you're just insisting on insulting people until they give up and you can boast a victory.




posted on May, 24 2011 @ 08:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by dbates
The Phylum that humans are in also contains buzzards, catfish, and even hippos. Still there are no fossil records or any ties that can show an intermediate state or a common state between a buzzard and a catfish. The differences between other phyla are even more extreme. There is no macro evolution, only mico changes within a species.

Sudden appearance and stasis. That is the essence of the fossil record that we have. These creatures appear, and they stay basically the same.The only natural selection is in the selection of fossils that scientist place side by side to try to prove this philosophy called evolution.
Does making things up qualify as a valid argument nowadays?



posted on May, 24 2011 @ 08:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by melatonin

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.


I'll one up you. Science only works BECAUSE it makes mistakes. That's what science is. Learning from failure.



posted on May, 24 2011 @ 08:16 AM
link   
reply to post by randyvs
 


IMO the reason science cant duplicate human body & Soul is because we are a continuance of our gene pool everything that we have at birth was being formed inside a person ..

The only way I can think of it ever being done were to figure out a way to lets say go back only a certain umber of generations like back to your grand parents and that’s if you have saved the DNA .. JUST my thought ..



posted on May, 24 2011 @ 08:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by Cuppy
reply to post by john_bmth
 


Yeah, that seems pretty reasonable. Better then the universe appearing for no reason and no matter to make it from.

Now you're just insisting on insulting people until they give up and you can boast a victory.


Insulting? If my phrasing sounds ridiculous, that's because it is. People who rise from the dead are called 'zombies'. Christians believe they drink the blood and eat the flesh of their Zombie Lord. Don't be insulted by my words, take it up with the Bible.

But in any case... no, I do not find the idea of Pappa Zombie Lord magicking the universe into existence to be in any way plausible.



posted on May, 24 2011 @ 08:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by Cuppy

Originally posted by dbates
The Phylum that humans are in also contains buzzards, catfish, and even hippos. Still there are no fossil records or any ties that can show an intermediate state or a common state between a buzzard and a catfish. The differences between other phyla are even more extreme. There is no macro evolution, only mico changes within a species.

Sudden appearance and stasis. That is the essence of the fossil record that we have. These creatures appear, and they stay basically the same.The only natural selection is in the selection of fossils that scientist place side by side to try to prove this philosophy called evolution.


Wow. Best way to put it I've seen yet.

No argument has been put forth to explain why these creatures have not changed in any way except for passing of small bits of knowledge, such as chimpanzees making spears. Any one want to shed some light on this?
edit on 24-5-2011 by Cuppy because: (no reason given)

You cold actually try bothering to read up on evolution before dismissing it out of hand.



posted on May, 24 2011 @ 08:20 AM
link   
reply to post by gift0fpr0phecy
 

Life is the culmination of the differential aggregation of Hydrogen over 15 billion years. So the creation of Hydrogen requires a force infinitely more complex than the universe? Seems rather superfluous, and contradicts the evidence.



posted on May, 24 2011 @ 08:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by john_bmth
reply to post by gift0fpr0phecy
 


Do you believe the Zombie Lord's dad (Pappa Zombie Lord) instead created the universe?


I believe a higher power (external outside force) initiated the creation of the Universe which in turn initiated the creation of all you see.

B.T.W. thanks for ignoring my questions. I see you are not here to debate but mock... So I will be ignoring you until you grow up.



posted on May, 24 2011 @ 08:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by gift0fpr0phecy

Originally posted by john_bmth
reply to post by gift0fpr0phecy
 


Do you believe the Zombie Lord's dad (Pappa Zombie Lord) instead created the universe?


I believe a higher power (external outside force) initiated the creation of the Universe which in turn initiated the creation of all you see.

B.T.W. thanks for ignoring my questions. I see you are not here to debate but mock... So I will be ignoring you until you grow up.

Ok, I'll humour you:

Q: You believe that the entire universe just appeared out of thin air (figure of speech), from absolute nothingness for no reason at all?

A: Reason is a very human phenomenon. I do not believe there is a "reason" for existence in any shape or form, I believe you are anthropomorphizing the nature of the universe.

Q: You believe in magic, but not a magician.... You believe absolute nothingness can pull a non-existent rabbit out of a hat made of nothingness....

A: Your analogy is ridiculous as your argument is circular. "The universe was created, you are therefore stupid for not believing in a creator. My proof of the creator is the fact that the universe was clearly created".



posted on May, 24 2011 @ 08:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by uva3021
reply to post by gift0fpr0phecy
 

Life is the culmination of the differential aggregation of Hydrogen over 15 billion years.


Really? It took 15 billion years? How do you know? Were you alive to see it 15 billion years ago? Nope you were not.

This one time, I built this really complex computer program, and I showed it to one of my friends. He said, "Wow I have been going over this code and estimated that it took you at least a month to finish!". He really had good reason to believe it took a month... Supporting observations and all.... but really, it only took me a day to finish. Nothing is as it seems...

I wonder when science will figure out that not everything is linear, or constant.


Originally posted by uva3021
So the creation of Hydrogen requires a force infinitely more complex than the universe?


It required a force to create Hydrogen... That much is true.


Originally posted by uva3021
Seems rather superfluous, and contradicts the evidence.


What evidence? You mean erroneous observations and theories?



posted on May, 24 2011 @ 08:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by gift0fpr0phecy
What evidence? You mean erroneous observations and theories?
Erroneous observations and theories would be ignoring science because of personal disbelief. You are just making grand assumptions. Again, everything is Hydrogen. There is no reason to think anything existed before Hydrogen, otherwise, and you have probably heard this argument many many times, you reach an infinite regress of creation. Which is unnecessary and superfluous.
edit on 24-5-2011 by uva3021 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 24 2011 @ 08:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by john_bmth
Q: You believe that the entire universe just appeared out of thin air (figure of speech), from absolute nothingness for no reason at all?

A: Reason is a very human phenomenon. I do not believe there is a "reason" for existence in any shape or form, I believe you are anthropomorphizing the nature of the universe.


Really... so what is the reason magnets attract and repel? What is the reason light travels so fast? Oh wait, I guess I am anthropomorphizing the nature of the universe now.. forgive me....




Originally posted by john_bmth
Q: You believe in magic, but not a magician.... You believe absolute nothingness can pull a non-existent rabbit out of a hat made of nothingness....

A: Your analogy is ridiculous as your argument is circular. "The universe was created, you are therefore stupid for not believing in a creator. My proof of the creator is the fact that the universe was clearly created".


No YOUR analogy of a bearded man in the sky snapping his fingers was ridiculous... My analogy, which was mocking your ridiculousness, was the ultimate question of the entire Universe and science, which is a paradox and inherently circular by nature.... You should know this... it's a shame you do not...

You seriously believe that something came from nothing... and that is beyond ridiculous and much more ridiculous than thinking a higher force or power was involved (conscious or not).

I never once said "you are therefore stupid for not believing in a creator", nor did I say "my proof of a creator is the fact that the universe was clearly created" ... What you just did was completely make up a false and highly prejudice assumption of my beliefs and my argument from thin air, similar to how you think the universe came into existence.

If you want to even try to debate me I suggest you don't make up things from thin air and accuse me of saying them.

Yes, I will now continue to ignore you as I see a debate with you is not going to end well.

Good day.



posted on May, 24 2011 @ 08:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by john_bmth

Originally posted by Cuppy
reply to post by john_bmth
 


Yeah, that seems pretty reasonable. Better then the universe appearing for no reason and no matter to make it from.

Now you're just insisting on insulting people until they give up and you can boast a victory.


Insulting? If my phrasing sounds ridiculous, that's because it is. People who rise from the dead are called 'zombies'. Christians believe they drink the blood and eat the flesh of their Zombie Lord. Don't be insulted by my words, take it up with the Bible.

But in any case... no, I do not find the idea of Pappa Zombie Lord magicking the universe into existence to be in any way plausible.


See John you are to busy thinking of ways to be insulting and disrespectful. To think about wheather you're right or wrong.

Zombie - The walking dead

Jesus Christ- Resurrected - Was dead as because of being hung on the cross. Dead for three days. Resurrected
back to life and is alive to this day.

Hardly a zombie Want proof wait for it . Like everyone else.
edit on 24-5-2011 by randyvs because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 24 2011 @ 09:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by uva3021
Erroneous observations and theories would be ignoring science because of personal disbelief.


I agree, that is why I don't ignore science because of personal disbelief. In fact, I don't ignore science at all. Science is the study of God in my belief system... So I think you have me confused for someone else.

What I do is not put so much faith in flawed theories which are created from flawed experiments which were created by limited and highly blinded perspectives... but I do entertain those flawed theories for fun.

Science erroneously thinks the universe is 15 billions years old because they erroneously concluded the entire creation of the universe happened at a constant rate... with ZERO proof, only faith.



Originally posted by uva3021
You are just making grand assumptions.


Oh really? What assumption did I make? Why is it so grand?


Originally posted by uva3021
Again, everything is Hydrogen.


Um... no.... try again. Next time, with less faith.


Originally posted by uva3021
There is no reason to think anything existed before Hydrogen, otherwise, and you have probably heard this argument many many times, you reach an infinite regress of creation.


There is no reason to think that light existed before Hydrogen? There is no reason to think that something beyond our imagination existed before Hydrogen? There is no reason to think that a paradox is actually the prime cause of continued existence?

Why do you limit your self to only what the human mind can imagine, and ignore that which the mind can't imagine?

I often say... science is like someone trying to figure out how a computer works by staring at the computer screen.... Do you see the inherent flaw of science now?



posted on May, 24 2011 @ 09:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by gift0fpr0phecy

Really... so what is the reason magnets attract and repel? What is the reason light travels so fast? Oh wait, I guess I am anthropomorphizing the nature of the universe now.. forgive me....

There doesn't need to be a "reason" for anything. "Reason" derived from a very human desire to understand and to make sense of the universe. There doesn't need to be "reason" for the universe's existence, we are a by-product of the universe, no need for some great "master plan".



Originally posted by john_bmth
No YOUR analogy of a bearded man in the sky snapping his fingers was ridiculous... My analogy, which was mocking your ridiculousness, was the ultimate question of the entire Universe and science, which is a paradox and inherently circular by nature.... You should know this... it's a shame you do not...

Ok, so snapping fingers is ridiculous (I was being "figurative", like you), but making the world in 7 days isn't? Sorry, they're both as ridiculous as each other.



You seriously believe that something came from nothing... and that is beyond ridiculous and much more ridiculous than thinking a higher force or power was involved (conscious or not).

There is NO EVIDENCE WHAT SO EVER of any "higher power".


I never once said "you are therefore stupid for not believing in a creator", nor did I say "my proof of a creator is the fact that the universe was clearly created" ... What you just did was completely make up a false and highly prejudice assumption of my beliefs and my argument from thin air, similar to how you think the universe came into existence.


You said: "You believe in magic, but not a magician.... You believe absolute nothingness can pull a non-existent rabbit out of a hat made of nothingness.... "

You start with the presumption that for this figurative rabbit to exist, there has to be a magician (creator) by using the analogy to explain the origins of the universe. That becomes your entire premise. It is a circular argument.


If you want to even try to debate me I suggest you don't make up things from thin air and accuse me of saying them.

What is there to debate? "God dunnit.", "there is no evidence of any form of higher power. let alone one that is responsible for the creation of this universe", "GOD DUNNIT!"


Yes, I will now continue to ignore you as I see a debate with you is not going to end well.

Exactly!



posted on May, 24 2011 @ 09:13 AM
link   
reply to post by randyvs
 


Ok, ok, how about Our Undead Overlord? Still sound ridiculous? I'm sorry, I'm doing the best that I can with the source material



posted on May, 24 2011 @ 09:14 AM
link   
reply to post by dbates
 



Originally posted by dbates
The Phylum that humans are in also contains buzzards, catfish, and even hippos.


You mean chordata, the vertebrate phylum.

Oh, and queue clear misunderstanding of phylogeny in 3....2....1....



Still there are no fossil records or any ties that can show an intermediate state or a common state between a buzzard and a catfish.


That's not what that would imply. It would mean that the common ancestor is found in the step above that classification of the phylogenetic tree. There is a common ancestor, it would be an early vertebrate...of course, you'd have to go damn far back to get there.



The differences between other phyla are even more extreme. There is no macro evolution, only mico changes within a species.


No, there is outright speciation. I even made a thread about it. You can find it here. We've observed it happening.



Sudden appearance and stasis. That is the essence of the fossil record that we have. These creatures appear, and they stay basically the same.The only natural selection is in the selection of fossils that scientist place side by side to try to prove this philosophy called evolution.


Nope. You clearly don't understand evolution, you've demonstrate that. You also don't understand the fossil record. So...please, don't talk about it. Heed Mark Twain's words well.



posted on May, 24 2011 @ 09:17 AM
link   
reply to post by randyvs
 


He did still have a wound...which is indicative of zombification rather than simple resurrection. There is no evidence that he healed that wound. He was dead, then he was animated once more. He's undead. Not dead.



posted on May, 24 2011 @ 09:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by john_bmth
Christians believe they drink the blood and eat the flesh of their Zombie Lord. Don't be insulted by my words, take it up with the Bible.


You interpretation of the Bible is ridiculous, and you show a complete lack of knowledge of the subject...

You do know that Jesus claimed that "All is One" and the entire universe is his body, right? So when you eat bread you are eating Jesus' flesh, and when you drink water or wine or any liquid for that matter, you are drinking his blood.... It's called an analogy....

To bad you just don't understand... maybe because you are too busy mocking it.


Originally posted by john_bmth
But in any case... no, I do not find the idea of Pappa Zombie Lord magicking the universe into existence to be in any way plausible.


Oh no.... a higher force of some unknown type is just too complex for you.... You would rather believe that the "magicking" happened all on it's own from nothingness, with no external force, which contradicts the very science you put faith in.



posted on May, 24 2011 @ 09:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
That's not what that would imply. It would mean that the common ancestor is found in the step above that classification of the phylogenetic tree. There is a common ancestor, it would be an early vertebrate...of course, you'd have to go damn far back to get there.

If there is a common ancestor between buzzards and catfish we can't see it. I mean you can point to something and say it was a common ancestor but do we really have the intermediate stages. Not just in theory or in a made up scenario. I would really like to see the fossils that document the change from species X into species Y (Sort of buzzard but like species X) and species Z (Sort of catfish but like species X).

I'm not just trying to be difficult. I just honestly don't see examples like that and I have looked for them. All I ever hear is the routine, "Well conditions are not always good for the creation of fossils."
edit on 24-5-2011 by dbates because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
9
<< 22  23  24    26  27  28 >>

log in

join