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.

 

Creation is a Scientific Fact

page: 12
11
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 11 2008 @ 12:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by maria_stardust

as its "evidence" is less than scientific to begin with. Hence, creationism is not a scientific fact.


Oh but I say it IS, hence creationism is a scietific fact.

- Con
PS: pretty much says it to you just like hers did to me.

[edit on 11-7-2008 by Conspiriology]




posted on Jul, 11 2008 @ 01:29 AM
link   
reply to post by JPhish
 


You sounded upset, I am sorry. You seems unable to comprehend my reply to Ms AshleyD's request, I am again sorry. But at ATS you are entitled to your opinion. You may not respect mine but I do respect yours. My request is next time, at the very least, you should allow Ms AshleyD the benefit to reply to me first, and not force yourself to cut in abruptly.

You have made a lot of very “persuasive” points against me. Well done, I shan't rebut them because I don't believe in responding to insinuations. And since you denied the videos I have attached in total, what more is there for me to say? I have only this to add, try watching all the videos and do a little bit of research before making comments. You aren't doing yourself a favour by jumping into conclusion and being judgmental.

I had watched all the OP's videos, read all his threads and posts, and did hours of research out of respect for the OP. I only enter into debates when I know facts are manipulated. Perhaps next time you should just ignore me when you feel I am irrelevant, or you haven't got time to watch the videos fully, or haven't done any research.

And seeing that you brushed off all the videos out right and not supporting Ray Comfort and Kirk Cameron with their Banana analogy, you should at the very least respect that my post is meant for other ATS members, who are interested and capable of understanding that Ray Comfort (TV Evengelist) and Kirk Cameron (TV and movie star), staunch supporters of Intelligent Design and Creationism, were misusing, misquoting, misrepresenting and manipulating mainstream science and the good name of Albert Einsteins to advance their agenda. I see the OP's videos as doing the same, but I leave it to ATS members to decide. You also have to appreciate there are also other ATS members who have ability to grasp the humour and tongue in check rebuttal of Nick Bisburne against Ray Comfort and Kirk Cameron.

Why don't we just let ATS members decide on their own? Agree?

I am giving you a star right now for your effort, but serious do take my aforesaid advice. Thank you and God bless you.



[edit on 11-7-2008 by Gigantopithecus]



posted on Jul, 11 2008 @ 01:37 AM
link   
reply to post by Clearskies
 


But, you had just got through insulting BigWhammy.
My point was that I didn't think you actually watched the whole thing.
It's VERY compelling.


Why would you automatically jump to an assumption like that? Because I don't happen to agree with BW premise, doesn't mean I'm being insulting. I simply presented an honest opinion.

Like I previously stated, he did a very good production job on that video, and even though BW and others like you would like to believe it to be a scientific fact, we all are smart enough to know that's not the case.



posted on Jul, 11 2008 @ 01:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by maria_stardust
reply to post by JPhish
 


The videos are a lazy form of ad hominem by the poster.

You're kidding, right? The OP's claims are baseless from square one. So, technically OP's video is ad hominem in and of itself, as its "evidence" is less than scientific to begin with. Hence, creationism is not a scientific fact.


OP's claims are baseless? So the Cosmic Background Explorer and the Hubble Telescope along with all the people who envisioned, designed and operated them are unscientific? And the OP's video is Ad hominem toward whom exactly???



posted on Jul, 11 2008 @ 02:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by Bigwhammy

Where we are today.



It is pretty well established that most scientists are indeed creationists because they believe in a moment of creation. To date the only valid objections presented have been. "The Big Bang is just a theory" (fair enough) which the very same ones arguing that point wet themselves if you say "Evolution is just a theory." The next valid objection is 1 in 10 ^40 is not impossible. Hilariously true... but don't bet the farm on it.

...

Creation stands.


[edit on 7/10/2008 by Bigwhammy]


This could be just semantics... but I've got to ask. Do scientists actually and specifically term the beginning of the universe "creation"? I usually see the word "formation" used, and it might be me, but I would say there is something of a difference.

By using the term creation, they would be introducing an unknown variable. You know which it is. You claim that you are not talking about "creationism" in this post, but it is painfully obvious that that is what you are referring to. Creation, as you call it, implicates a creator, and God is the foremost candidate to fulfil this role. Thus "creationism".



posted on Jul, 11 2008 @ 02:21 AM
link   


ad hominem against the steady state cosmology I guess? Hilarious. Sorry I didn't make any personal attacks you need to learn the definitions of big words before you start trying to impress your friends.

I dare say the Big Bang cosmology has more observable evidence ( like background radiation, red shift, hydrogen to helium content ) than the precious atheist religion of Darwinism has. Zero observed evidence for macro evolution, yet it gets puffed up and propagandized as a scientific fact. It is really sad the lengths atheist materialists will go to prop up primitive fairy tales.



posted on Jul, 11 2008 @ 02:29 AM
link   
reply to post by Anomander
 


It is semantics. But Creation is getting painted as meaning you believe the world is 6000 years old and not even the bible claims that. Creation mens there was a beginning.

The inference that things with a beginning have a cause... is that what bothers you. Gee wonder why?

Because they do?

Creation is defined as" the event that occurred at the beginning of something; "from its creation the plan was doomed to failure" by the Princeton dictionary.n (Linked on previous page)

So the Atheist attempt to marginalize the word "creation" is a cheap propaganda attempt to discredit honorable scientists like Edwin Hubble, Albert Einstein, and many others who have contributed to the Big Bang Creation Cosmology. As well as people who believe in a creator God. Which is most of the world.

I'm just taking the word back. Creation is mainstream. Get over it.

[edit on 7/11/2008 by Bigwhammy]



posted on Jul, 11 2008 @ 02:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by Gigantopithecus
reply to post by JPhish
 

You sounded upset, I am sorry. You seems unable to comprehend my reply to Ms AshleyD's request, I am again sorry. But at ATS you are entitled to your opinion. You may not respect mine but I do respect yours. My request is next time, at the very least, you should allow Ms AshleyD the benefit to reply to me first, and not force yourself to cut in abruptly.

I understood your reply to Ash; because you insisted that you are trying to better yourself, I posted constructive criticisms. If you want to talk to Ash without myself or anyone else being able to interject; send her a U2U?

And since you denied the videos I have attached in total, what more is there for me to say?

Denied both the videos? No, I think that they’re irrelevant in context. I watched both of those videos in their entirety months ago and even left the critic a positive comment about his comedic form. I find the man very funny. But to use his jokes as some sort of tool, for anything other than comedy is ridiculous.

I have only this to add, try watching all the videos and do a little bit of research before making comments. You aren't doing yourself a favour by jumping into conclusion and being judgmental.

Like I said, I watched all of this mans videos months ago. I don’t jump to conclusions. In my opinion, your posts were in bad taste; I thought I’d let you know my reasons why.

I had watched all the OP's videos, read all his threads and posts, and did hours of research out of respect for the OP. I only enter into debates when I know facts are manipulated. Perhaps next time you should just ignore me when you feel I am irrelevant, or you haven't got time to watch the videos fully, or haven't done any research.

Which facts were being manipulated exactly? Try a little bit of minimalism in your response please. Also . . . please don’t insinuate that I am not well learned on the subjects at hand.

And seeing that you brushed off all the videos out right and not supporting Ray Comfort and Kirk Cameron with their Banana analogy, you should at the very least respect that my post is meant for other ATS members, who are interested and capable of understanding that Ray Comfort (TV Evengelist) and Kirk Cameron (TV and movie star), staunch supporters of Intelligent Design and Creationism, were misusing, misquoting, misrepresenting and manipulating mainstream science and the good name of Albert Einsteins to advance their agenda. I see the OP's videos as doing the same, but I leave it to ATS members to decide. You also have to appreciate there are also other ATS members who have ability to grasp the humour and tongue in check rebuttal of Nick Bisburne against Ray Comfort and Kirk Cameron.

Do you still not realize that these videos were completely irrelevant within the threads you posted them in? They have nothing to do with the OP. The OP is none of these people. Nick Bisburne is a slapstick comedian . . . making fun of creationists (most of which are clowns themselves) . . . If you see problems with the OP’s video, than make your own relevant critiques.

Why don't we just let ATS members decide on their own? Agree?

Again . . . like Ashley suggested. Make your own thread, instead of trying to hijack the five or six other threads you posted your videos in.

I am giving you a star right now for your effort, but serious do take my aforesaid advice. Thank you and God bless you.

Never trust the advice of a man in difficulties.Aesop

I think I’ll pass on your advise.

Oh, and may Falkor the flying dragon grace you with his luck!~


[edit on 7/11/2008 by JPhish]



posted on Jul, 11 2008 @ 02:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by Conspiriology

Originally posted by maria_stardust

as its "evidence" is less than scientific to begin with. Hence, creationism is not a scientific fact.


Oh but I say it IS, hence creationism is a scietific fact.

- Con
PS: pretty much says it to you just like hers did to me.

[edit on 11-7-2008 by Conspiriology]


Hey Conspiriology and maria_stardust,

In the context of this thread, the OP would say both of you are wrong, it should be "Creation is a Scientific Fact", Creation without "ism". For obvious reasons I don't think the OP would want to clarify my queries.

Maybe one of you guys can ask him to clarify if he meant Creation as in Formation or Creation as in Creationism. I want to know which one he supports, Creation=Formation as in no involvement of God, or Creation=Creationism as God's work.


Conspiriology, I think you should put in more effort defending AshleyD. Her threads are always more genuine and sincere, no matter how controversy. She don't need science to justify her faith or tries to hijack science for her purpose. Shows she is a true believer. I have great admiration and respect for the lady. Actually you two (Conspiriolopy and maria_stardust) are super cool too.
Always admire people who fight tooth and nail to defence their beliefs and principles, without manipulation and misinterpreting facts to support their agenda.



posted on Jul, 11 2008 @ 02:56 AM
link   
reply to post by JPhish
 


Well, thanks for your many clarifications and advice.
Perhaps in all these mess, you didn't realise Ms AsheyD posted an open query. I always answer open queries with open replies, U2U to U2U.
Forgive me again for feeling that you are still a wee tat judgmental. I really hope you can give me a break and allow me a 1 percent space that you give others, for me to express my opinions in my own way? I didn't complain about your replies, did I? But hey, maybe I am a bit sensitive, so forgive me ok? U2U me your reply ok?

I respect and will take your advice. I'll take any good advice from anyone, eg, if a convicted murderer told me not to kill, I will listen, and if a priest told me to kill, I will refuse. Sad to see that you won't reciprocate.

Ah Falkor the flying dragon, its good to have you grace me with your luck.




[edit on 11-7-2008 by Gigantopithecus]



posted on Jul, 11 2008 @ 04:05 AM
link   
Hi everyone. This is really an interesting thread, although somewhat confusing, vague and frustrating at times.

Now, I just want to set the record straight. I have posted some videos of a guy called Nick Gisburne. Supporters of Creation=Creationism had called Nick Gisburne a doofus, a clown and a slapstick comedian. Don't ask me why people looked down on him, gave him little credit, hoping to sweep him under the carpet and never give you ATS members a chance to know the real Nick Gisburne. I don't have the answer to their action.

Nick Gisburne's website is at www.gisburne.com... do visit and look around. He has a lot of videos commenting on Intelligent Design, Creationists, Formation of Universe, Big Bang Theory, Atheism etc etc. Some serious, some funny and some fouled. Everything that is raised in this thread is discussed in his website. If you don't see the relation, I am sorry, I don't have an answer. I can't make you see what you can't see. But many of us do see the relation. We are educated, entertained and grossed out by Gisburne at the same time.

Nick Gisburne is best known for being banned by Youtube for taking on Islam at the height of 911, unfortunately he had also took on all religions before 911. He inspire people to see things through observation and evidence, scientifically. He teaches morality as between right and wrong, good and evil, not who you believe in. As ATS members you are obliged to google "nick gisburne", read what the man is all about and find out whether he is really a doofus, a clown and a slapstick comedian as claimed by some. You have nothing to lost by doing a little research. You don't know me so you don't want to trust me, do you? You want to find out for yourself.

My final comment is this: Atheists will love him, Agnostics will find him educational, quick witted and entertaining. Creationists, don't ever ever ever ever go there, you have been warned. For those who ventured to Gisburne's website, you will see this thread in perspective.

Good luck and have fun.


[edit on 11-7-2008 by Gigantopithecus]



posted on Jul, 11 2008 @ 07:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by Bigwhammy
It is focused on the fact that the Big Bang has proven the creation event and dispelled the eternal universe ideas like the steady state theory that many materialists clung to until recently. As well as the fine tuning of the universe and the cosmological argument for the existence of a supernatural Creator.



Originally posted by Bigwhammy
The creation event is established by einsteins relativity, the 2nd law of thermodynamics, hubbles red shift and the background radiation found by the COBE satelire in space. You need to advance your thinking.

Just because you WANT to deny God doesn't make it so bigbert.



Originally posted by Bigwhammy
Fair enough. I am not claiming this proves the Christian God specifically.
But a Supernatural (which you conceded) cause of the universe meets the broad definition of God pretty well. I still make the claim it is a very reasonable inference. My extrapolation to Chritianity is based on other factors - I concede that.

My main goal here was to establish the case for a creator in broad terms.



Originally posted by Bigwhammy
That's a canard as well. The creator created the fourth dimension as well as the other 3. The fourth is time. He created time so he is not bound by it, i.e. eternal.



Originally posted by Bigwhammy
I really made this video to demonstrate that materialist science ridiculed the Bibles bold contention that the universe was created. Until just recently the evidence forced them to concede a creation event. And as a scientific consensus they have. Scripture was vindicated after centuries of eternal universe ideas. So the Bible is not being disproved by science at all. That's the point.


The equivocating disingenuity of these posts is clear.

"But the creation event is a proven scientific fact' (not), 'provides evidence for the existence for a supernatural creator' (rofl). "Big Bang Creation Cosmology" - no such thing in science.

How sad.

So, in sum, we have a thread equivocating over the word 'creation' - silly shell-gaming, well-known specious arguments for creator/designer/pink unicorns, and then a later admission of evangelism.

Lets say a double 'whammy' of dishonesty and logical fallacy.

I bet you fail to see the issue with the example you presented:


Creation is defined as" the event that occurred at the beginning of something; "from its creation the plan was doomed to failure" by the Princeton dictionary.n (Linked on previous page)


Cookie for anyone who can pick it up. Although it can be overcome with a better example, it just shows how you are equivocating.

(next whine is predictable...)

[edit on 11-7-2008 by melatonin]



posted on Jul, 11 2008 @ 09:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by melatonin

The equivocating disingenuity of these posts is clear.

"But the creation event is a proven scientific fact' (not), 'provides evidence for the existence for a supernatural creator' (rofl).

How sad.

So, in sum, we have a thread equivocating over the word 'creation' - silly shell-gaming, well-known specious arguments for creator/designer/pink unicorns, and then a later admission of evangelism.

Lets say a double 'whammy' of dishonesty and logical fallacy.

I bet you fail to see the issue with the example you presented:


Creation is defined as" the event that occurred at the beginning of something; "from its creation the plan was doomed to failure" by the Princeton dictionary.n (Linked on previous page)


Cookie for anyone who can pick it up. Although it can be overcome with a better example, it just shows how you are equivocating.

(next whine is predictable...)

[edit on 11-7-2008 by melatonin]


you would be right Mel if he was using creation to mean one thing to one person and substantiating his claim with another "type" of creation to the same person in every quote. He isn't doing that here. You are attempting deception here Mel.

You will have to break the equivocation apart with a brief discription that exploits the equivocation rather than have us believe you already know it.

I don't think so and I'm calling your bluff on the "Cookie for anyone who can pick it up. "

How bout you just show us Mel,, then I got something you can call my bluff on regarding this equivocation. You want to see a real good example of someone doing that, I give you Horza and Sly but Horza does it CONSTANTLY. I don't see the same thing here

- Con



posted on Jul, 11 2008 @ 10:04 AM
link   



Originally posted by Gigantopithecus

Originally posted by Conspiriology

Originally posted by maria_stardust

as its "evidence" is less than scientific to begin with. Hence, creationism is not a scientific fact.


Oh but I say it IS, hence creationism is a scietific fact.

- Con
PS: pretty much says it to you just like hers did to me.

[edit on 11-7-2008 by Conspiriology]


Hey Conspiriology and maria_stardust,

In the context of this thread, the OP would say both of you are wrong, it should be "Creation is a Scientific Fact", Creation without "ism". For obvious reasons I don't think the OP would want to clarify my queries.

Maybe one of you guys can ask him to clarify if he meant Creation as in Formation or Creation as in Creationism. I want to know which one he supports, Creation=Formation as in no involvement of God, or Creation=Creationism as God's work.







Conspiriology, I think you should put in more effort defending AshleyD. Her threads are always more genuine and sincere, no matter how controversy. She don't need science to justify her faith or tries to hijack science for her purpose. Shows she is a true believer. I have great admiration and respect for the lady. Actually you two (Conspiriolopy and maria_stardust) are super cool too.
Always admire people who fight tooth and nail to defence their beliefs and principles, without manipulation and misinterpreting facts to support their agenda.


Well.,, I can't say I blame ya and I can't say I disagree. You are absolutely correct. Ashley is a class act no doubt about it. She is a helluva a lot smarter than I am and a much better debater. She will most likely deny it though, she is self effacing like that.

I do defend her probably more than most but in this case I think she was beating your arguments like a step child. I sure wouldn't want to go up against her. As for your statements about the OP? Whammy and I don't always agree to the same things and just because we are Christians doesn't mean I am going to parrot everything he says.

Personally I never try to prove God and i think Christians who do that are asking for trouble. The day I think I can prove God any better than he has proven himself to me,, is the day he isn't my God anymore. If that makes any sense. See I see Gods work and divine providence being revealed all the time. God proving he is with us here now unequivocally is the kind of supernatural proof only God can offer to those willing to come as a child, without any pre-conceived notions and a genuine sincere interest to know him and accept it.

If you do that,, these arguments don't mean jack squat, I know God IS REAL as sure as I am sitting here sharing a seat with my butt.

It isn't because I am afraid to die or need a crutch or any of that crap I hear other suggest as the reason we believe. I believe because I have experienced that which is supernaturally revealed to me and when I really concentrate on letting go and letting God,, he enters my thoughts not unlike that alien did the Presidents in the Movie "Independence Day" with will smith.

I don't mind sharing an intimate aspect of my life that most would consider me schizoid or off the lithium so to speak but I also know WHY you are as you are and I understand why unsaved people act and think like unsaved people. Christians on the other hand, they may disagree with my interpretation of genesis or what ever but I doubt you'll find many that do not know that symbiotic flesh God host relationship I have described to you. Until we have similarly expanded the range of our shared experience knowing the lord Gig,, I am afraid I am just going to have to settle for your secular finite awareness of Gods obvious , immense and powerful real-time existence..


It really is a shame though,,

If you knew him,,,

you'd like him

- Con








[edit on 11-7-2008 by Conspiriology]



posted on Jul, 11 2008 @ 10:07 AM
link   
reply to post by Bigwhammy and JPhish
 


Ah, yes. Fair enough.


There was a bit of scarcasm streaming through my mind when I initially made that post. The "whom" to which the ad hominem remark was directed would be towards everyone (scientists and supporters of evolution), who don't agree with the premise of creationism or intelligent design.

Next time I'm feeling a little bit sarcastic, I'll be a little more clear on the intent.



posted on Jul, 11 2008 @ 10:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by Conspiriology
you would be right Mel if he was using creation to mean one thing to one person and substantiating his claim with another "type" of creation to the same person in every quote. He isn't doing that here. You are attempting deception here Mel.

You will have to break the equivocation apart with a brief discription that exploits the equivocation rather than have us believe you already know it.


Con, the examples I gave clearly show he is equivocating. Creation has some very clear meanings. It can mean for something to come into existence from a prior cause - this can be teleological (as in his example - creation of a plan) or the result of natural (e.g., the hurricane created mayhem).

It also means creation as in theological teleology, and we are in a forum about creationism and evolution, and the theological theme of the posts is very transparent. Then he keeps suggesting that all the scientists believe in 'big bang creation', there is no such thing in science. Just more equivocation by trying to associate the teleological meaning with the science.

All through his posts he is attempting to suggest the teleological, but then hide behind the more ambiguous defintion. Otherwise, what is the point?

He might as well say 'it is a scientific fact the universe came into existence'? Which isn't true actually, it's a result of a theory and therefore theoretical, not scientific fact. I tried to point this out earlier.


I don't think so and I'm calling your bluff on the "Cookie for anyone who can pick it up. "


I just did outline for his definition example. He is attempting shell-game by giving the illusion of using 'create' in the potentially non-teleological sense, then presented a teleological example (create a plan). I gave a non-teleological example above. You can give me the cookie, as I can't give myself one.

From the very first posts. All the blah about materialism, god/creator, supernatural, evangelism. It's pure equivocation. Take a potential ambiguous definition and use to to bolster the theological.


The creation event is established by einsteins relativity, the 2nd law of thermodynamics, hubbles red shift and the background radiation found by the COBE satelire in space. You need to advance your thinking.

Just because you WANT to deny God doesn't make it so bigbert.


So obvious - start with 'the creation event' which is suggested to be science, denying this is equivalent to 'deny[ing] god'. BS, con. Deception and equivocation.

Same BS here:


Big Bang Creation is the consensus and has the evidence to back it up. The other so called theories I've seen have no evidence. They amount to desperate attempts by materialists to escape the philosophical implications of the creation event.


If he wants to say that the universe was 'created', and that this could be both natural or supernatural. Then fine, we could argue what this means. But he isn't. If he is using the ambiguous defintion, then what philosophical implications? That the universe might have a beginning from a prior cause? How trivial. And we both know that's not what he meant.

He again made it clear here:


It is focused on the fact that the Big Bang has proven the creation event and dispelled the eternal universe ideas like the steady state theory that many materialists clung to until recently.


Why bring in 'materialists' in the same sentence? If he means the more ambiguous definition then it means nada, as in that sense it doesn't rule out natural causes and invoke magic. Later he starts arguing about 'universe' and its meaning, if it does mean 'the whole', then an 'eternal' whole isn't ruled out at all and a 'beginning' means little as far as his gap-puppy, as this area of space would be part of the 'whole' and the science speaks to only this part.

And finally, the very same paragraph ends with this...


As well as the fine tuning of the universe and the cosmological argument for the existence of a supernatural Creator.


Conflating the theological teleology (creator) with the more ambiguous in the science realm 'creation event'. Two apparent different meanings of a word in one paragraph - equivocation.

It's playing games. He even admitted he was playing semantics.


Obviously Gods word is not that way "for me" or I wouldn;t be quoting it. So are you really asking me a question? No... your trying to avoid the point he made. Einstein was a deist. But he believed in a Creator - and that is the topic.


Believing in 'Creator' (note the big 'C', heh) was the topic? I thought it was something to do with science and scientific fact.

Give it up con, whammy's ballcock is showing. Was it Luther or Augustine who was big on overlooking deception in an attempt to spread your meme?

[edit on 11-7-2008 by melatonin]



posted on Jul, 11 2008 @ 11:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by melatonin


There's a trend in there methinks. None of which irrefutably falsify the god hypothesis as a whole. But, for example, we can be almost certain the god of the YECers is false.

We appear to have a tendency stick magic in areas of ignorance about nature. Indeed, some like to see god and miracles in the most mundane circumstances.

So, my suggestion to believers, don't make your belief in god dependent on gaps in real-world evidence. It will very likely just lead you to be in a position contradictory to the real-world and aversive cognitive dissonance. Apparently, you just need faith. Use nature to interpret your god, and not some book to interpret nature.




. Indeed, some like to see god and miracles in the most mundane circumstances.


yeah like horza sees getting a sun tan as a "startling phenomenon"
The fact is Mel,, you're damn lucky to be alive at all. That in and of itself is a miracle. I always thought it rather strange when Dawkins would describe evolution, the theory, he would say things like "it is elegant like a sinewy bridge" and hold what HE believes is the way nature works in such reverence but ONLY in the context of evolutions theory. We on the other hand look as creation (nature) with the same reverence in the context of the splendor and beauty its majesty etc;.

The gaps are in BOTH camps, where you say magic is used to fill in the gaps Dawkins uses "time" to fill in the gaps. Both answers have put both in a bit of a quagmire where it seems ok for Science to excuse itself with sayings like Science isn't infallible which is admitting human interpretation of it isn't or when they screw up they say "Science is self correcting" where If I said religion is self correcting about Galileo, I'd be told it's a cop out. I see so many similarities with Science and Religion it is hard to understand where both think they have a right to criticize.

The only area I see that Creationists have a disadvantage is that THEY (creationists) don't allow themselves to forgive their positions when they are or have been wrong and hehe evolutionists won't let them forget it either. The fact is, like Science, Religion has many areas of ancient texts we would like to find out more about them. Their has been many things found to be said in the Bible that were thought to be myths and Science has discovered are true.

I think the postulate that ANYTHING which points to evidence looking anything like a calling card or planned a specific way to so that it can do just what it does, that it would have an inventor is NOT out of the realm of possibility. I understand what you are suggesting with whammy's post but without saying he is or isn't playi8ng a shell game,, I find it very difficult to share affinity with your attempt to shame him for it without doing same for more obvious attempts already proven beyond any doubt what so ever. Wraoth was a master at catching madness doing it and JFISH stripped Horza naked to the truth of his wordsmithing semantics. So acceptable a practice is this shell game as you call it, they don't even care they are doing it anymore.

They just says it is what most Scientists believe whether they are honest or not and MOST are NOT Drop Dead Honest ESPECIALLY when these terminology meanings can in large degree alleviate the standard arguments given so often about macro evolution.

Do you realize if Jesus was doing the same exact things today he did back then SCIENTISTS would be all over that guy. You can't say a thing is off limits to Scientific research Mel. I think it is a type of segregationist discrimination that simply doesn't make a lick of sense. If God left a way for us to find him as he states in scriptures which happen to jive with the geo column bunny's or no bunny's , WHY NOT LET SCIENTISTS DO IT?
You say because it's creationist, it is a philosophical argument and I don't disagree,, it is also one that can be made scientifically and HAS BEEN.

Now I think you and I have had some of the most civil dialogues in recent weeks and I think it is because we TRY to make a connection with what I may know or not know and vice versa. I will give you the benefit of doubt in most cases where I think you have an intellectual advantage so I have to rely on your being honest with yourself as well as impartially unbiased when I ask you this.

Certainly, scientists are correct in one respect. If an all-powerful God wished to hide from us, he most certainly could do that - no doubt. However, what if God wished to reveal himself through the physical world?
Do you believe because something or someone may have a theory about that which may prove a GOD exists, Science should just turn a blind eye to it? I mean damn that is like the most idiotic sign of arrogance and Scientific discrimination where Science can just get selectively deaf dumb and blind like that.

I think you saying it is philosophical or what ever is obviously an attempt to create an impasse where God like study or research done by equally educated Scientists is re-assigned regardless of its evidence merely because Science has issues with it. This is true whether the Evidence is real or not because they simply won't accept any on those grounds alone Mel, I have seen so many counter bytes where the same line or same argument being put forth to defend evolution can just as easily be used for creation or ID.

I mean they are BOTH so similar in that regard.

I just don't see what the big deal is. It isn't God saying he is religion it was US but that isn't fair to what he may NOT be about. He may be all about Science and so far in my opinion most of the scientific inventions we have come up with we COPIED from creation or nature but that is all dumb luck?

How the hell do we know?

Why call it Dumb luck if nature makes it and if man does well LA DEE FRICKEN DA! It's mans Genius then!

Why can it be recognized as the product of intelligence when man copies such things as Birds evolving into an airplane. Ya know what it was that made the wright brothers wake up and smell the coffee was when they realized that birds were intelligently designed to fly and for them to quit trying to reinvent the wheel and copy what Birds were obviously designed to do. Thier had to be an intent behind it. I mean look at the dino to bird theory MY GOD it is to totally revamp the entire biological structure just to support the kind of metabolism, air, lungs and hehe we know no one ever sees a bird take a leak so that had to go too.

If not designed that way,, then birds were ACCIDENTALLY made to fly,,

like the Wright brothers accidentally,,

made an airplane.

- Con



posted on Jul, 11 2008 @ 12:13 PM
link   
Why fallback to evolution? I'm pretty bored of it, tbh. Oh well...


Originally posted by Conspiriology
The fact is Mel,, you're damn lucky to be alive at all. That in and of itself is a miracle. I always thought it rather strange when Dawkins would describe evolution, the theory, he would say things like "it is elegant like a sinewy bridge" and hold what HE believes is the way nature works in such reverence but ONLY in the context of evolutions theory. We on the other hand look as creation (nature) with the same reverence in the context of the splendor and beauty its majesty etc;.


OK.


The gaps are in BOTH camps, where you say magic is used to fill in the gaps Dawkins uses "time" to fill in the gaps.


Time is a feature of the universe. Your gap filler is a unsupported theological assertion.


that it would have an inventor is NOT out of the realm of possibility.


I can agree, it is not impossible.


I understand what you are suggesting with whammy's post but without saying he is or isn't playi8ng a shell game,, I find it very difficult to share affinity with your attempt to shame him for it without doing same for more obvious attempts already proven beyond any doubt what so ever. Wraoth was a master at catching madness doing it and JFISH stripped Horza naked to the truth of his wordsmithing semantics. So acceptable a practice is this shell game as you call it, they don't even care they are doing it anymore.


So because you claim other people do it, then that means it's OK to do it? I think the attempt to hide evangelism as a discussion on science is actually more deceptive (but I wasn't surprised, tbh).


Do you realize if Jesus was doing the same exact things today he did back then SCIENTISTS would be all over that guy. You can't say a thing is off limits to Scientific research Mel. I think it is a type of segregationist discrimination that simply doesn't make a lick of sense. If God left a way for us to find him as he states in scriptures which happen to jive with the geo column bunny's or no bunny's , WHY NOT LET SCIENTISTS DO IT?
You say because it's creationist, it is a philosophical argument and I don't disagree,, it is also one that can be made scientifically and HAS BEEN.


Science does sometimes attempt to test supernatural claims. Indeed, it is pretty easy to see Genesis as a claim/prediction about the natural world and in a testable way.

Yet whammy wants to make a big thing about a potential beginning which is supposedly congruent with the bible, but ignore all the other clearly false claims in genesis.

Why should anyone give special weight to one simple claim about a universe coming into existence? If we do eventually find multiverses to be well-supported, would you become hindu?


Certainly, scientists are correct in one respect. If an all-powerful God wished to hide from us, he most certainly could do that - no doubt. However, what if God wished to reveal himself through the physical world?
Do you believe because something or someone may have a theory about that which may prove a GOD exists, Science should just turn a blind eye to it? I mean damn that is like the most idiotic sign of arrogance and Scientific discrimination where Science can just get selectively deaf dumb and blind like that.


If anyone can find a way to test any logically consistent hypothesis which is observable, testable and falsifiable, then fine, that's science. Scientists do test supernatural claims when they have potential real-world effects, hence we have prayer & health studies.


I think you saying it is philosophical or what ever is obviously an attempt to create an impasse where God like study or research done by equally educated Scientists is re-assigned regardless of its evidence merely because Science has issues with it. This is true whether the Evidence is real or not because they simply won't accept any on those grounds alone Mel, I have seen so many counter bytes where the same line or same argument being put forth to defend evolution can just as easily be used for creation or ID.


OK, lets take the prayer studies. This is one component of some theistic worldviews, lets say we have done numerous studies and the evidence is clear. People praying for individuals in hospitals does alter their health outcomes.

What would this mean? Would it necessarily mean god exists?


I just don't see what the big deal is. It isn't God saying he is religion it was US but that isn't fair to what he may NOT be about. He may be all about Science and so far in my opinion most of the scientific inventions we have come up with we COPIED from creation or nature but that is all dumb luck?

How the hell do we know?


Ultimately, it comes down to philosophy and the individual, con. Lets say in 50 years we have irrefutable evidence of evolution, we even have a rat that evolved into a bat in the lab. The world and his dog accept evolutionary theory.

Lets for fun say it is an absolute truth that some god-man-ghost did fiddle with genomes to 'create' a group of intelligent conscious homonids. How would we know? Does us having a very good natural account necessarily rule out a supernatural god-man fiddling with genomes to create humans. Just humans? We can see that natural mechanisms can readily account for everything else, but how would we know we wuz wrong in this single abnormal case?

It will come down to philosophy unless you have a good way to test it. Even then, can we truly rule out natural causes? It's like saying that little blue invisible magic-men in a parallel but impinging dimension push the planets in their orbits. We have good reasonable natural explanations and we see no reason for interdimensional magic smurfs, but how do we show that little blue magic-men do not push the planets?

Another example I like to use sometimes is lets say that we did evolve naturally from abiogenesis through to evolution (there might be some god or not, not relevant here). In the future with our amazing scientific abilities, we can design organisms. We even have the ability to create wormholes and FTL drives. We go to some planet safe for life in a far off galaxy and seed it with very basic bacteria.

2 billion years later, all humans are actually dead, we are extinct throughout the universe, and so is life on earth (sun went boom eventually). Some wacky religionists wiped us all out with some designed virus to bring on the 'Capture', where their fantasy Spooks supposedly took all souls to their supernatural Devon to eat Scones and Fresh Cream with Doris and Her Holy Poodle.

However, on this seeded planet life is thriving. A couple more billion years later intelligent conscious life evolves. They form religions etc to explain their world, but eventually some guy called 'Marwin' develops a scientific theory that accounts for the diversity of life. The evidence is clear, no telic designers required for evolution. Eventually they clearly show how abiogenesis can occur naturally (just as it did on the hypothetical earth). They assume no telic designer required, and the evidence fits.

They are wrong, however. How would they know?


Why can it be recognized as the product of intelligence when man copies such things as Birds evolving into an airplane. Ya know what it was that made the wright brothers wake up and smell the coffee was when they realized that birds were intelligently designed to fly and for them to quit trying to reinvent the wheel and copy what Birds were obviously designed to do. Thier had to be an intent behind it. I mean look at the dino to bird theory MY GOD it is to totally revamp the entire biological structure just to support the kind of metabolism, air, lungs and hehe we know no one ever sees a bird take a leak so that had to go too.

If not designed that way,, then birds were ACCIDENTALLY made to fly,,


Nope, they appear to have evolved the ability. Ken Miller & Dawkins have essentially accepted the idea that we see design in nature, just non-teleological.

Your designer is a supernatural telic agent. Mine is evolution. One can be verified, one is a supernatural assertion. One makes useful testable predictions, one is an intellectual dead-end for science - no fertile hypotheses, no predictions, no science.

Humans designing planes and the design we see in nature is rather different. If the planes could reproduce and undergo variation and selection, then it might fit.

[edit on 11-7-2008 by melatonin]



posted on Jul, 11 2008 @ 03:14 PM
link   
reply to post by Bigwhammy
 



I was going to post some lengthy reply, but Mel has already said what I had in mind far more eloquently than I could ever manage.

You seem convinced that "the inference that things with a beginning have a cause is that what bothers me". How on earth did you get that from my words?
And why would that bother me?

It boils down to you being intentionally vague. The word "creation" can take different meanings, but in the context of this thread, it's very specific.

You contend that God created the universe, and man by extension. Whether it's 6000 years ago or a few billions years, God did it.



Creationism is a religious belief that humanity, life, the Earth, and the universe were created in their original form by a deity (often the Abrahamic God of Judaism, Christianity and Islam) or deities, whose existence is presupposed. In relation to the creation-evolution controversy the term creationism (or strict creationism) is commonly used to refer to religiously-motivated rejection of evolution.


Wiki

How exactly does your assertion differ from the above? Not religious? You already made it clear that you were talking about the Christian God.

But in case I am missing something, please provide a clear definition of the word creation as used in this thread. Saying that creation means "the event that occurred at the beginning of something" (which is correct in itself) is kinda vague.

I could take that and run with it in a different direction. Say, an utterly indifferent life-force from a previous and unimaginably different universe "created" this universe and then left it to its own devices. That's most emphatically not how the Christian God is seen, but it is a correct use of the word as you defined it above. Be specific.

I thought science follows facts to whatever conclusion they take it to. In your case, you already have the conclusion (essentially God did it), and now you are fitting the facts to your conclusion. Not science.



Big Bang Creation Cosmology


This deserves mention, it made me laugh. Should be up for 'Misleading phrase of the week' or something.


[edit on 11/7/08 by Anomander]



posted on Jul, 11 2008 @ 07:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by Anomander
reply to post by Bigwhammy
 

I thought science follows facts to whatever conclusion they take it to. In your case, you already have the conclusion (essentially God did it), and now you are fitting the facts to your conclusion. Not science.


Science does not necessarily follow facts. It follows what we can consistently observe. Facts are not necessarily observable, and what is observed are not necessarily facts. In BW's case, he had a hypothesis (which he felt was quite obvious); based on that hypothesis, he has considered others' relevant experimentations and conclusions, and through inference, has come to his conclusion. BW may be correct, but because his scientific conclusion is ground and consequent; he will only be so, by luck.

Fitting facts to justify a hypothesis and arrive at a conclusion is called coherentism. It's what evolutionary theory is heavily based on. So if you believe that BW is not being scientific, then you should believe that evolutionary theory is not scientific.

[edit on 7/11/2008 by JPhish]



new topics

top topics



 
11
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join