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.

 

Creationist arguements are illogical and scientificly lacking.

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 23 2007 @ 06:26 PM
link   
All arguements i have seen regarding the idea of creation "theory" are mostly lacking in any scientific thought at all. how can there even be a debate on its validity when it has almost not empirical evidence. is this just a ploy to push religion in to schools?
However, i must keep an open mind, show me your arguments and i will see if they have a chance by attempting to counter them, i will not voice my opinion on said arguments to try and eliminate bias( i realize anyone with a brain can see i am slightly bias, but i will do my best to see it from your perspective. thanks




posted on Aug, 23 2007 @ 06:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by superevoman
All arguements i have seen regarding the idea of creation "theory" are mostly lacking in any scientific thought at all. how can there even be a debate on its validity when it has almost not empirical evidence. is this just a ploy to push religion in to schools?


Actually, yes. The founder of the Intelligent Design movement said at a conference in 2000 that it (the showdown between ID and science) isn't about science at all, but about faith and philosophy.

ID/creationism is a blatant attempt to teach religion in public schools under the guise of science.

Quotes of Johnson's that should make this clear:



* "We are taking an intuition most people have (the belief in God) and making it a scientific and academic enterprise. We are removing the most important cultural roadblock to accepting the role of God as creator." Johnson, Enlisting Science to Find the Fingerprints of a Creator. The Los Angeles Times. March, 2001.

* "Our strategy has been to change the subject a bit so that we can get the issue of intelligent design, which really means the reality of God, before the academic world and into the schools."

* "This isn't really, and never has been a debate about science. It's about religion and philosophy."

* "So the question is: "How to win?" That’s when I began to develop what you now see full-fledged in the "wedge" strategy: "Stick with the most important thing" —the mechanism and the building up of information. Get the Bible and the Book of Genesis out of the debate because you do not want to raise the so-called Bible-science dichotomy. Phrase the argument in such a way that you can get it heard in the secular academy and in a way that tends to unify the religious dissenters. That means concentrating on, "Do you need a Creator to do the creating, or can nature do it on its own?" and refusing to get sidetracked onto other issues, which people are always trying to do."

* The objective [of the Wedge Strategy] is to convince people that Darwinism is inherently atheistic, thus shifting the debate from creationism vs. evolution to the existence of God vs. the non-existence of God. From there people are introduced to 'the truth' of the Bible and then 'the question of sin' and finally 'introduced to Jesus.'

Entire article and footnotes here




Straight from the horse's mouth. ID is NOT science. It is a way of getting the word of "god" to people.

Nothing annoys and disgusts me more than when a cultist whose religion requires he not lie, does exactly that to try to get more converts. If you have to bait and switch to get people to sign on board, there is something very wrong.



posted on Aug, 23 2007 @ 06:46 PM
link   
reply to post by MajorMalfunction
 


thanks for the info, i think that i live in the boonies with no tv or comp back then so thanks for filling in a gap in my knowlege



posted on Aug, 23 2007 @ 06:58 PM
link   
You're welcome for what it's worth.

There will be others who come on later with differing opinions no doubt.



posted on Aug, 24 2007 @ 04:16 AM
link   
shouldn't this be on the religion board?

whatever,i've tried to post there and had my topics moved so i guess you started in the right place.

inc: fantasy



posted on Aug, 24 2007 @ 10:21 AM
link   
It was moved here from the Conspiracies in Religion board on ATS by a mod yesterday. I guess they thought it fit in the rant category best.



posted on Aug, 24 2007 @ 10:48 AM
link   
Hmmm, i thought there would be more debate going on, is it just me or has creationist resistance died down some what?



posted on Aug, 24 2007 @ 11:09 AM
link   
No, it most certainly hasn't. I don't think they have anything they can say against their intrepid leader's actual words is all.



posted on Aug, 24 2007 @ 11:33 AM
link   
reply to post by MajorMalfunction
 


its not that i mean they arent her to defend the illogical ideas they cling to so... well illogicly, i supose they are to far above th lowly rant
lol



posted on Aug, 25 2007 @ 05:21 PM
link   
I have another question, why arent there many " chanel 6" type newws reperts on this aargument?



posted on Aug, 27 2007 @ 10:58 PM
link   
i am tellin yah the thread is dead, not so much as a peep from pro-creationists. i am disapointed.



posted on Aug, 27 2007 @ 10:59 PM
link   
Ah, don't worry, you've probably not made enough of them uncomfortable with atheistic posts. Give it time. I know people line up to smite me sometimes.



posted on Aug, 30 2007 @ 02:58 AM
link   
Their arguments are very effective on christians though, since most believers will cling on very easily to any argument that kinda looks scientific from 500m away if it seems as evidence for god.



posted on Nov, 16 2007 @ 11:51 PM
link   
reply to post by DarkSide
 


yah its almost sad. i mean if your that desterate for evidence to "prove" your faith then maby you dont have faith at all.



posted on Nov, 17 2007 @ 12:02 AM
link   
reply to post by superevoman
 


There will always be a side to individuals that will latch on faith.

I suppose it is up to you folks to decifer what is truth, and what is not.

I could keep your thread 'running' for time-immoral to keep yours and my brain stimulated with evidence/non-evidence.

But see?

I used a key word. Evidence

This is the deciding factor, the crux if you will.



posted on Nov, 17 2007 @ 12:05 AM
link   
I'm glad you guys are up and running!

Haven't seen you in awhile.

Was beginning to wonder what happened to you.



posted on Nov, 17 2007 @ 12:10 AM
link   
reply to post by TheDuckster
 


me? hhmm didnt know people noticed me that much well thaks i gues, just have gotten a little board with the site for a spell ( damn ADD century!) well i am back and gunna try and keep my posts recent though no promises



posted on Nov, 17 2007 @ 12:16 AM
link   
reply to post by superevoman
 


Well then GOOD!

It's all good.

Quite frankly, I miss when people challenge me.

You have a good mind about ya - I miss the challenges.

Nice to see you posting again supervoman!

Bout time?!??!



posted on Nov, 17 2007 @ 12:27 AM
link   
It's 1:20am here. (Ontario, Canada)

I'm going to bed soon.

Supervoman...don't hesitate to come into my threads.

Like I said before: I miss the challenges. They keep me on my feet, on my heart, on my head.

I love talking with ya...really do!

YOU and I have things to discuss....

Anyways, keep yer thread open, cus I'll be back.

Til then, 'keep a civil tongue', respect one another, and don't do what I'd do (um...we'll talk bout that later.lolol)

nite nite!

~Ducky~



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join