An open letter to Creationists, page 3
Pages: <<  1    2    3    4    5    6  >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 7 times


reply posted on 20-11-2008 @ 10:25 PM by Demandred

Negative... look up the definition. It becomes a Law when it satisfies ALL Factual Data... this means it has been tested and is deemed to never be incorrect.

You are also mistaken that Theories can become fact. This is backwards. Theories attempt to draw conclusions from facts. when those conclusions are proven to be correct beyond a shadow of a doubt, it becomes law.

Darwin applied what is called the scientific method... meaning as he discovered new facts he modified his theory to correctly incorporate those facts.

name the last time the bible was edited, or that religion changed it's dogma to accept new facts.


yes it does become law when it satisfies all factual data, thats why evolution is still a theory sheesh !

to establish a fact it usually always starts as a theory its the nature of facts and theories, if you already have an established fact there is no need for a theory as the fact doesnt need theorising about

darwin did indeed apply scientific method however he couldnt answer all the questions just with his model which irritated him no end and motivated him to keep asking questions.

its against gods law to change the word of the bible. (cheap shot )

Newtons laws? you have to be joking.

Newtons Laws of motion have never been, and probably will never be proven wrong... ever.

you do know Newtons Laws right?

newtons laws only apply to motion on the planet earth or possibly a planet exactly like earth


I think what you meant is they do have all known variables... its the unknown that causes errors... but, as new information becomes available, science textbooks are modified to reflect these discoveries.

I'm sure the Bible gets revised when proven inaccurate too right?


in a way once upon a time the OT was taken as gospel truth now most people are pragmatic enough to accept that it was mostly symbolic in meaning


Did you just admit that your deity isn't Omnipotent?

I guess he isn't as "all powerful" as religion would want us to believe...


presumption again

why create laws within a universe if your going to step outside them and render them void kinda defeats the purpose, what god does is for his own reasons and if i understood them id be very well off

gotta log off for the day now, will be back monday if this debate is still going, its been fun and i look forward to your counter points when i get back

-Peace-


reply posted on 20-11-2008 @ 10:47 PM by The Matrix Traveller
reply to post by FSBlueApocalypse


Hi FSBlueApocalypse,

I would definitely agree with this, your statement, and no one can deny this is the case......

"" 1. Why don't we accept "evidence" for Creationism? The main source is a 2000 year old book that has been translated from whatever local languages the stories were written in, to Greek, to Latin, then probably German, to English, with a natural corruption of information and content with each translation, and the current King James Bible. Scientific Evidence? I've yet to see any. Any process I've seen creationists to describe anything involves "And then God did something" which immediately discounts it. When a paper comes out giving an actual scientific way the Noahian Flood Story could've happened, I'll read it, see if it has merit, and if it does, I might even go to church for the first time in forever. ""



But there is work going on right now, that can also show that humankind's understanding about his existence, and what he is experiencing, is in fact completely different, than what religions dictate and also what the Scientific world are suggesting!

When new radical knowledge is found it usually takes 15 to 20 years before this surfaces in public circles that is if it is permitted to be exposed.

The development of humankind is a very delicate achievement and is controlled by a minority in this world as well as many from outside your world, that are to some degree in cooperation with governing powers on earth, having treaties that govern the the content of development.

If humankind new the whole truth, there would be a complete breakdown in society.

People really, at this stage need to understand, that there has been mass interbreeding with external species, and they need to come to terms with this now.

You can find this in ancient writings and rock drawings.

Many have tried to inform the public, but have been silenced and I can understand this, as the welfare of humankind is paramount.

You simply can't break a peanut with a sledge hammer, if you want to eat its contents.

The time is coming where the Earth's populations are going to have to make radical changes within their understanding as they are brought into the Galactic family as to say.

But right now this can not happen and it will take much longer yet for this to come about.

Tentatively the human species are divide against its self into various groups of peoples all arguing against each other.

Most of the information used is not able to prove either way and in time all are going to have to review everything on all sides if society is going to mature or evolve to closer understanding, of what all this is really about!




[edit on 20-11-2008 by The Matrix Traveller]


reply posted on 20-11-2008 @ 11:58 PM by FSBlueApocalypse
reply to post by amazing


1. Sure, we currently don't know what caused the origin of the Big Bang so it could be possible.

2. In a nutshell, at the moment of the Big Bang, space time rapidly expanded. Currently, we can go back to about .00000000000000000000000001 seconds after the Big bang when the 4 fundamental forces of nature appear(Strong,Weak,Gravity, and Electromagnetical).

3. It's bashed because people want it taught in schools yet it has no evidence what so ever to back it up. Not to mention it violates Seperation of Church and State.

4. I agree

5. Did he ever talk to us in the first place?


reply posted on 21-11-2008 @ 12:07 AM by nj2day
reply to post by amazing


Just because something is difficult to understand doesn't mean we can't represent it mathimatically. Math is the universal language

We can pretty much go backwards all the way to the instant barely following the big bang...

but how do you go about researching how the universe began, when all the evidence we could ever possibly find is in said universe?

To see how the big bang happened, you'd have to go back to evidence just before the event happened...

I think I just paradoxed myself...


reply posted on 21-11-2008 @ 12:44 AM by AshleyD
Originally posted by amazing
3. Creationism is usually bashed, not because that it states that god created the universe, but because of all the other weird little claims about the actual age of the earth, and that dinasours never existed etc.


Hey. I feel a bit compelled to respond to this since my comment about this forum being hostile towards creationists is one of the things that inspired this thread.

MOST, and I do mean the vast majority of 'creationists' on ATS who participate in this forum, are not of the 'uber fundie creationist' variety. Most of us do believe in an older earth and universe, accept aspects of evolution, believe the dinosaurs existed, are unsure about a literal six day creation, etc. When we get flamed on this forum, it generally has to do with us acknowledging the existence of a creator (hence 'creationists' although not the term as the controversy defines it) and our criticism of evolution and flaws within the theory.

Yes, there are some creationists who adhere to the strict definition. However, they are in the minority. Basically it would often come down to just believing in God in this forum would make you worthy of the idiot label. I could even probably find dozens of examples where religious members who fully admitted they believed in evolution completely (including macro) would still get flamed.

Again, it's a long story, a lot of drama, and I try to avoid this forum until I see a thread where I can't help myself. Some of the evolutionists on this forum are damn arrogant fools who aren't even worth the time. Then there are those who are highly intelligent and it's a pleasure to discuss things with them. I'm obviously referring to the first group as the ones who ruined this forum for many with their hostility.

Oh, and edit to add: Even though I am not a 'fundie' creationist, I will still respect their right to put forth their beliefs and will come to their defense when they get flamed. Just wanted to add this in because it may have come across that I was bashing young earth creationists in the above paragraphs but that's not my intention.

[edit on 11/21/2008 by AshleyD]


reply posted on 21-11-2008 @ 01:33 AM by AshleyD
Originally posted by FSBlueApocalypse
Ashley, its not so that you believe in God or a creator that gets people's blood boiling. It's when people throw out scientific facts or "Theres no monkey in my family" argument. Perhaps I've spent abit too much time dealing with the fundies who hang on the words of the Hovinds, Ken Ham's, and Ray Comforts of the world.


Absolutely. That definitely happens here and elsewhere. However, those are not even the incidents I am referring to at the moment. I'm specifically referring to the many incidents I have seen on this forum where the flaming point comes strictly due to the fact one believes in God.

Again, like I said, there are even religious evolutionist members who have been flamed on here. They fully accept the theory of evolution, don't interject 'monkey family' comments into their posts, pay no attention to the names you mention above, and have no dog in the fight regarding what is taught in schools. Yet they have still been ridiculed on here due to the fact they personally believe in an intelligent creative force.

I suppose if we're trying to find a meeting point in all of this it goes back to what you said: evolutionists take out their frustration of the fundamental creationist variety onto everyone who believes in a creative force. And that is one of the contributing factors in the 'hostility.' Yet even still, this is a message board. We're not scientists. We're not professionals. We're not lobbying the education system to teach literal creationism in schools. Even the 'uber fundies' have every right to a friendly atmosphere.

Also, lastly, like I mention above, another one of the major sources of hostility comes from the those defensive of evolution being questioned in any form. There have even been atheists who have had questions or skepticism regarding evolution and they are immediately shot down by the arrogant crowd. Even when aspects of evolution are questioned or criticized and not the entire theory, people get flamed.

Anyways, that's all I have to say.


reply posted on 21-11-2008 @ 02:32 AM by SamuraiDrifter
Originally posted by AshleyD
MOST, and I do mean the vast majority of 'creationists' on ATS who participate in this forum, are not of the 'uber fundie creationist' variety. Most of us do believe in an older earth and universe, accept aspects of evolution, believe the dinosaurs existed, are unsure about a literal six day creation, etc. When we get flamed on this forum, it generally has to do with us acknowledging the existence of a creator (hence 'creationists' although not the term as the controversy defines it) and our criticism of evolution and flaws within the theory.

I would say normally the hostility arises because the so-called "criticisms" of evolutionary theory are often rooted in ignorance, and frequently creationists refuse to respond to the points raised with anything resembling logic or evidence.

I try never to be hostile, but rather to attempt to point out inaccuracies many people appear to be unaware of. For instance, members here frequently:

-Confuse evolution with abiogenesis
-Confuse evolution with the big bang theory
-Claim evolution has never been observed
-Claim there are no transitional forms in the fossil record, and
-Claim that apes shouldn't be around if humans evolved from them.

All of these claims are false, and my purpose in responding to threads is usually to attempt to educate people about the issue at hand, not to be insulting. I think everyone should have a basic knowledge of science, because it's so important to our world.

[edit on 21-11-2008 by SamuraiDrifter]


reply posted on 21-11-2008 @ 03:10 AM by AshleyD
reply to post by SamuraiDrifter


I do understand- truly. At least I try. I've seen the very things you mention in your above list happen repeatedly, especially the abiogensis one. Although that is probably the most understandble in my opion. It's not technically a part of evolutionary theory but, in their defense, I can agree with them that abiogenesis is extremely important in relation to the evolution vs. creationism debate. Figuring out the spark that made evolution possible in the first place can be relevant, even if it is not officially included. I personally feel the nitpicking on the abiogenesis issue when people bring it up is somewhat silly. Anyways, I get the point you are trying to make. It's the repeated errors you feel like you have to constantly correct.

Your situation is probably very similar to the plight of many Christians on here in the fact our faith is constantly attacked in the other forums and we have to refute some very, very basic errors over and over again. Then two threads later we are refuting and discussing the same thing again to minds that will most likely never be changed. Anyways, I'm not lecturing anyone because I have been very guilty of this myself. Seriously- I understand your frustration and deal with the same thing on religious subjects in other forums and realize how easy it is to talk down to people and 'snap.' This usually results in feeling remorse and is soon followed by some type of apology, either public or via U2U.

Again, I'm not singling anyone out and can't point the finger but I did want to get my thoughts out on this and explain to the OP what I meant by 'hostile' in the other thread. Sometimes we all have to stop and realize we are talking with actual people who have feelings.


reply posted on 21-11-2008 @ 05:01 AM by deepred
Originally posted by FSBlueApocalypse
reply to post by Demandred


Uhh no. We don't think Evolution explains the origins of life. Evolution picks up once life evolves. Abiogenesis is what deals with the creation of life. While we haven't gotten a full blown artifical cell yet, we're quite close. Scientists have created artificial DNA and artificial lipid layer already.


So you believe that only modern scientists can create? and if so are you not proving that it must first be created before it can evolve?

The artificial cell, DNA and lipid layer you mention all have there origin in an "ID" or "creationism".

It may be easier for some to accept creationism if the term "great and advanced scientist" is used in place of "God" when discussing this topic.



[edit on 21-11-2008 by deepred]
Pages: <<  1    2    3    4    5    6  >>    ^^TOP^^



EVOLUTION - Did YOU Know?
  Posted 17 days ago with 24 member flags
"I was raised an atheist"- Professor František Vyskočil
  Posted 7 days ago with 6 member flags
Evolution. Not a theory, but a fact!
  Posted 19 days ago with 4 member flags
Evolutionary theory: Gaps and not yet understood phenonemon
  Posted 19 days ago with 3 member flags