Intellectual Terrorism - The Evolution of Science and Directed Panspermia - Intelligent Design

page: 1
2
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 16 2009 @ 01:53 AM
link   
I made this thread to open the eyes of those who think that Science is open to new ideas. Actually they are open to ANY idea as long as this idea doesn't lead back to a God. There is a wall in Science with believers of a Creator on one side, and Atheists on the other. I'm not even talking about Intelligent Design, because some Atheist Scientists believe in Intelligent Design.

Science has run out of answers to explain the Origin of Life to the point that they will come up with ANY theory as long as God isn't involved. Some people say Creationists are irrational, worshiping the God that isn't. How about Scientists, Nobel Prize Winning Scientists that come up with theories that claim there are "seeds" of life floating around the galaxy.

I introduce you to Dr. Francis Crick - A hero for Evolutionary Theory, Nobel Prize Winning, molecular biologist, physicist, and neuroscientist who came up with the Panspermia Hypotheses stating that there are "seeds" or "spores" of life floating around in space. This is how life started on earth he claimed. No proof, no evidence, not one shred, but this is what he believed. Sound crazy? Wait it gets better....

I introduce you to Dr. Richard Dawkins - Evolutionary Biologist, Ethologist, and author. Dr. Dawkins takes the Panspermia Hypotheses to a whole other level. First, let me say that Dr. Dawkins wrote a book called "The God Delusion", he thinks that anyone who believes in God is irrational, stupid, believing in fairytales, etc. Dr. Dawkins has had such a hard time finding an Origin of Life that he pretty much gave up and now believes in Directed Panspermia Hypotheses, which is the belief that Extra Terrestrials "seeded" the Earth with life. That's right, he believes that Aliens seeded the earth with life. Although if you mention the possibility that God may be responsible for life on Earth he would not only scoff at you, he would call you a complete irrational idiot, moron. Again, no proof, no evidence, no observations, nothing, he just believes this.

Now, when a Scientist that is also a believer in the Creator mentions ANYTHING about a Creator he is immediately blacklisted and will lose his tenure, reputation, and probably all his research grants. Yet, if a Scientist says "Alien's did it", then there is no problem. Just don't mention a Creator and you'll do just fine here ole' boy.

Does this sound like the spirit of Science? Shouldn't we beware of hearing only one side of things to the exclusion of all others? Shouldn't we beware of the sound of one hand clapping? Why is Science so afraid to even talk about a Creator. I'm not talking about Noah rescuing every animal on earth or nothing, I'm talking about even mentioning a Creator. They will instantly close their mind. They'd rather believe Alien's are responsible for life on Earth, rather than even consider that a Creator may be responsible. They won't even consider it! The conversation ends at the word Creator. Unless of course the Creator was an Alien, then no problem.

This is a religious war being fought by Mainstream Science, this is the end of freedom, this is the end of free thought, this is the end of Academia.

When Darwin came up with The Theory of Evolution he was up against Mainstream Science, he was up against every concensus at the time. If they wouldn't have opened their minds up to his ideas, we wouldn't even have Evolutionary Theory. People scoffed at him, called him an idiot, said he was irrational. Sound familiar?

Before mankind can move forward and embrace new ideas we have to admit our bias, admit our beliefs, admit what motivates us. Science has become the tool of atheism, politics, mainstream media, and world views.

There is no more free thought. Believe what we believe or hit the highway, lose your grants, lose your tenure, be blacklisted, and be censored.

Most of our greatest discoveries would NEVER have happened if it wasn't for people that had different ideas, different then the status quo, different than what we "thought" was right.

We are in an age of molecular biology like never before. Technology is enabling us to look at just how complex cells are, just how intricate and full of information they are is becoming apparent to us. Scientists no longer have the answers for what they observe in the cell. SHouldn't they be open to ANY new idea that may lead to answers? Of course.

I hope everybody can put their beliefs and bias aside and be open to new ideas. When Science puts up a wall and says if you have this idea we won't even discuss it, that's a dangerous thing. That's Intellectual Terrorism.




Here's a list of Credible Scientists that don't believe Evolutionary Theory and/or Abiogenesis can explain what we observe: www.abovetopsecret.com...




B.A.C.

God Bless



[edit on 16-3-2009 by B.A.C.]




posted on Mar, 16 2009 @ 03:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by B.A.C.
I made this thread to open the eyes of those who think that Science is open to new ideas. Actually they are open to ANY idea as long as this idea doesn't lead back to a God.


Of course.
God is the 'get out of jail free' card.
Why would science embrace something that claims all the answers and yet gives none.



Originally posted by B.A.C.
Science has run out of answers to explain the Origin of Life to the point that they will come up with ANY theory as long as God isn't involved.


God, Zeus, Apollo, the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
Again, why embrace something which gives all the answers and yet gives no answers?



Originally posted by B.A.C.
Some people say Creationists are irrational, worshiping the God that isn't. How about Scientists, Nobel Prize Winning Scientists that come up with theories that claim there are "seeds" of life floating around the galaxy.


Ahh, but they do not worship those seeds, nor do they hold them outside the laws of our Universe.



Originally posted by B.A.C.
I introduce you to Dr. Richard Dawkins - Evolutionary Biologist, Ethologist, and author. Dr. Dawkins takes the Panspermia Hypotheses to a whole other level. First, let me say that Dr. Dawkins wrote a book called "The God Delusion", he thinks that anyone who believes in God is irrational, stupid, believing in fairytales, etc.


Lol, you never read the God Delusion.



Originally posted by B.A.C.
Dr. Dawkins has had such a hard time finding an Origin of Life that he pretty much gave up and now believes in Directed Panspermia Hypotheses, which is the belief that Extra Terrestrials "seeded" the Earth with life. That's right, he believes that Aliens seeded the earth with life.


LOL.
If you're going to take a quote out of context, at least provide the quote.
Yes, I know what you are referring to, and you are false.
But I am not false in my assessment that Creationists love taking things out of context
.

Richard Dawkins:
"Toward the end of his interview with me, Stein asked whether I could think of any circumstances whatsoever under which intelligent design might have occurred. It's the kind of challenge I relish, and I set myself the task of imagining the most plausible scenario I could...

Like Michael Ruse (as I surmise) I still hadn't rumbled Stein, and I was charitable enough to think he was an honestly stupid man, sincerely seeking enlightenment from a scientist.

I patiently explained to him that life could conceivably have been seeded on Earth by an alien intelligence from another planet (Francis Crick and Leslie Orgel suggested something similar — semi tongue-in-cheek). The conclusion I was heading towards was that, even in the highly unlikely event that some such 'Directed Panspermia' was responsible for designing life on this planet, the alien beings would THEMSELVES have to have evolved, if not by Darwinian selection, by some equivalent 'crane' (to quote Dan Dennett). My point here was that design can never be an ULTIMATE explanation for organized complexity... "




Originally posted by B.A.C.
Although if you mention the possibility that God may be responsible for life on Earth he would not only scoff at you, he would call you a complete irrational idiot, moron. Again, no proof, no evidence, no observations, nothing, he just believes this.


No, he doesn't believe this.
But it's quite obvious that you believe that he believes this.
But even if he did believe Directed Panspermia, it's obvious that he would still believe that some form of evolution was responsible for them.
The reason your assertion is so ridiculous, even if he believed in Directed Panspermia, is that God would not have evolved but the aliens would have.



Originally posted by B.A.C.
Now, when a Scientist that is also a believer in the Creator mentions ANYTHING about a Creator he is immediately blacklisted and will lose his tenure, reputation, and probably all his research grants. Yet, if a Scientist says "Alien's did it", then there is no problem. Just don't mention a Creator and you'll do just fine here ole' boy.


Again you're completely mistaken on several fronts.
Aliens: may be explained by evolution (a cause to the reaction)
God: may not be explained by evolution (no cause to the reaction. anti-science)

And Richard Dawkins believes in neither.



Originally posted by B.A.C.
Does this sound like the spirit of Science? Shouldn't we beware of hearing only one side of things to the exclusion of all others? Shouldn't we beware of the sound of one hand clapping? Why is Science so afraid to even talk about a Creator. I'm not talking about Noah rescuing every animal on earth or nothing, I'm talking about even mentioning a Creator. They will instantly close their mind. They'd rather believe Alien's are responsible for life on Earth, rather than even consider that a Creator may be responsible. They won't even consider it! The conversation ends at the word Creator. Unless of course the Creator was an Alien, then no problem.


Again, because the belief in a deity is that there is no cause to it's existence.
This goes against science.
Saying "God simply exists" and "God simply did it" goes against science.
If you see God as an alien who himself evolved, then science is less likely to frown upon that, because there is then a cause (evolution) for his existence.



Originally posted by B.A.C.
This is a religious war being fought by Mainstream Science, this is the end of freedom, this is the end of free thought, this is the end of Academia.


Most scientists don't mention God.
That does not mean they are warring against religion.
Many agnostic scientists such as Einstein make it a point to not bring religion into science. They are two different things.



Originally posted by B.A.C.
Before mankind can move forward and embrace new ideas we have to admit our bias, admit our beliefs, admit what motivates us. Science has become the tool of atheism, politics, mainstream media, and world views.


I'd say we should admit our bias, but that includes you.
Why would you make all these anti evolution/abiogenesis threads unless you are a biased creationist?
A good scientist doesn't care which side of the fence the truth lies as long as there is a logical explanation which is falsifiable with verifiable evidence.
Religion doesn't possess these traits.



Originally posted by B.A.C.
There is no more free thought. Believe what we believe or hit the highway, lose your grants, lose your tenure, be blacklisted, and be censored.


That's not how it works.
If you aren't a good scientist, you won't make it far.
The idea of God is not even falsifiable.



Originally posted by B.A.C.
Most of our greatest discoveries would NEVER have happened if it wasn't for people that had different ideas, different then the status quo, different than what we "thought" was right.


Exactly.
Creationism has wobbled on for hundreds of years.
It's time everyone knows that religion and science are two different things.



Originally posted by B.A.C.
I hope everybody can put their beliefs and bias aside and be open to new ideas. When Science puts up a wall and says if you have this idea we won't even discuss it, that's a dangerous thing. That's Intellectual Terrorism.


No.
Religion is not scientific.
It's that simple.

"but it's not religion, it's creationism".
No, it's a non-falsifiable belief without evidence. It's a religion.



Originally posted by B.A.C.
Here's a list of Credible Scientists that don't believe Evolutionary Theory and/or Abiogenesis can explain what we observe: www.abovetopsecret.com...


Oh geez...
Good for them.
If I gave you a 'list' of Scientists who DO believe Evolutionary Theory can explain what we observe, your computer would crash.



posted on Mar, 16 2009 @ 03:53 PM
link   
reply to post by TruthParadox
 



You should read more books about God before you claim that there is no science explained. Here is a good place to start: www.eternal-productions.org...

If you know how a mathematical equation is built you should right of the bat see that there is a intelligence beyond our imagination out there.

Don’t mathematical symbols in a equation mean:

Symbol of Energy(matter) separated by the symbols of Power(cause) separated By the symbol of equality.

Now just shuffle that equation around a bit and try to figure out how its possible not to have a God.

Life as you know it is controlled by a very intelligent mathematician.

PS. What symbol is the intelligent one in a equation ?





[edit on 27.06.08 by spy66]

[edit on 27.06.08 by spy66]



posted on Mar, 16 2009 @ 03:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by TruthParadox
Of course.
God is the 'get out of jail free' card.
Why would science embrace something that claims all the answers and yet gives none.


Science does the same thing. The "Common Ancestor" theory isn't falsifiable. Common Ancestor is Science's God.




God, Zeus, Apollo, the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
Again, why embrace something which gives all the answers and yet gives no answers?


You forgot to mention Aliens. They give all the answers right? You know how ridiculous this sounds. Stretching much?




Ahh, but they do not worship those seeds, nor do they hold them outside the laws of our Universe.


Who said anyone has to worship God? Is that what you're scared of? It's your choice. Worship no one if you want. ID doesn't label the Intelligence. The Intelligence could be labeled "Alien" if you want





Lol, you never read the God Delusion.


I don't have to read that rubbish, I heard it from his mouth. The guys a maggot.



LOL.
If you're going to take a quote out of context, at least provide the quote.
Yes, I know what you are referring to, and you are false.
But I am not false in my assessment that Creationists love taking things out of context
.


I'm not taking anything out of context. When confronted to give an answer for how he thought life formed on our planet, this is what he came up with. Some scientist, he really does believe in spaghetti monsters.


Richard Dawkins:
"Toward the end of his interview with me, Stein asked whether I could think of any circumstances whatsoever under which intelligent design might have occurred. It's the kind of challenge I relish, and I set myself the task of imagining the most plausible scenario I could...

Like Michael Ruse (as I surmise) I still hadn't rumbled Stein, and I was charitable enough to think he was an honestly stupid man, sincerely seeking enlightenment from a scientist.

I patiently explained to him that life could conceivably have been seeded on Earth by an alien intelligence from another planet (Francis Crick and Leslie Orgel suggested something similar — semi tongue-in-cheek). The conclusion I was heading towards was that, even in the highly unlikely event that some such 'Directed Panspermia' was responsible for designing life on this planet, the alien beings would THEMSELVES have to have evolved, if not by Darwinian selection, by some equivalent 'crane' (to quote Dan Dennett). My point here was that design can never be an ULTIMATE explanation for organized complexity... "


This is pure rubbish. I'm sure you watched Expelled No Intelligence yourself, why lie to yourself. He says what he says in complete context. He looks like a babbling idiot as well.





No, he doesn't believe this.
But it's quite obvious that you believe that he believes this.
But even if he did believe Directed Panspermia, it's obvious that he would still believe that some form of evolution was responsible for them.
The reason your assertion is so ridiculous, even if he believed in Directed Panspermia, is that God would not have evolved but the aliens would have.


Yea that sounds like Scientific reasoning for sure. We can't explain where we came from, but Alien's planted life here, so THEY must have evolved according to Evolutionary Theory. OMG give me a break. Again, he looked like he was completely baffled. Which he is.




Again you're completely mistaken on several fronts.
Aliens: may be explained by evolution (a cause to the reaction)
God: may not be explained by evolution (no cause to the reaction. anti-science)

And Richard Dawkins believes in neither.


He believes it and supports the theory. So did Crick, I see you don't make any mention of him? Why not? He only helped discover DNA. Alien is no different than God, are they not both Extra Terrestrial? Tell me about Aliens, what do you know about them? pffft...




Again, because the belief in a deity is that there is no cause to it's existence.
This goes against science.
Saying "God simply exists" and "God simply did it" goes against science.
If you see God as an alien who himself evolved, then science is less likely to frown upon that, because there is then a cause (evolution) for his existence.


You keep getting God mixed up with a Deity in Intelligent Design. Who say's you have to worship him? Who say's you have to pray to him? Who say's you have to pray to the Aliens? See, thats where you are going astray, your making this into a religious war, when it's not.




Most scientists don't mention God.
That does not mean they are warring against religion.
Many agnostic scientists such as Einstein make it a point to not bring religion into science. They are two different things.


No kidding, religion has no place in science. Who said it did? That's your assumption automatically.




I'd say we should admit our bias, but that includes you.
Why would you make all these anti evolution/abiogenesis threads unless you are a biased creationist?
A good scientist doesn't care which side of the fence the truth lies as long as there is a logical explanation which is falsifiable with verifiable evidence.
Religion doesn't possess these traits.


This is the Creationism section of the forum, no? Why are you here if you aren't bias? Just to rail on Creationists? Where's the verifiable evidence of "Common Ancestor"? How is "Common Ancestor" falsifiable? It's not, any more than God is. DoubleSpeak.




That's not how it works.
If you aren't a good scientist, you won't make it far.
The idea of God is not even falsifiable.


Are you really that naive? Any Scientist that questions it is blacklisted. The idea of a "Common Ancestor" isn't falsifiable either. Again, DoubleSpeak.



Exactly.
Creationism has wobbled on for hundreds of years.
It's time everyone knows that religion and science are two different things.


So has Evolutionary Theory and with every new discovery it seems that it explains less and less. Who said religion and science are the same? Where did you see that?




No.
Religion is not scientific.
It's that simple.


There you go again. ID is just as credible as the "Common Ancestor", neither are falsifiable yet, but you won't accept the idea of ID because of your beliefs, not anything else.



No, it's a non-falsifiable belief without evidence. It's a religion.


So the "Common Ancestor" is a religion? Way to use logic against yourself. Wow.



posted on Mar, 16 2009 @ 05:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by B.A.C.
Science does the same thing. The "Common Ancestor" theory isn't falsifiable. Common Ancestor is Science's God.


Are you referring to abiogenesis?
Science and our Universe: Cause/reaction.
God: No cause

If there is a cause within the laws of our Universe, it is falsifiable. If it is outside of our Universe and not bound by our laws, it is not falsifiable.

A thing can not be proven false (regardless of any evidence) if it doesn't even follow the same laws as our Universe.

Abiogenesis has not yet been proven false. That does not mean that it is impossible to prove it false, just that it hasn't been done.
But with God, no matter we do - travel to the furthest reaches of our Universe, travel back in time, etc, the argument could always be made that God exists outside our Universe - just beyond our reach.



Originally posted by B.A.C.


God, Zeus, Apollo, the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
Again, why embrace something which gives all the answers and yet gives no answers?


You forgot to mention Aliens. They give all the answers right? You know how ridiculous this sounds. Stretching much?


It depends what you mean by 'aliens'. Are they bound by our Universal laws or are they outside our Universal laws? You can call God an alien or you can call an alien God - it doesn't matter. What matters is if that creature has an explanation for himself (such as evolution), because otherwise, you aren't really answering any questions are you?



Originally posted by B.A.C.


Ahh, but they do not worship those seeds, nor do they hold them outside the laws of our Universe.


Who said anyone has to worship God? Is that what you're scared of? It's your choice. Worship no one if you want. ID doesn't label the Intelligence. The Intelligence could be labeled "Alien" if you want


No, lol I was replying to you saying how we call such worship irrational, and you comparing it to believing in alien seeds.
I said it jokingly (for the most part) - at least they don't worship the seeds
.



Originally posted by B.A.C.
I don't have to read that rubbish, I heard it from his mouth. The guys a maggot.


You should read it. It would answer many of the questions/fallacies I've seen you raise.



Originally posted by B.A.C.
I'm not taking anything out of context. When confronted to give an answer for how he thought life formed on our planet, this is what he came up with. Some scientist, he really does believe in spaghetti monsters.


Sigh. It was taken out of context.
Just do a slight amount of research and you will learn that Richard Dawkins doesn't really believe in that, just that he believes it's the best argument ID has...



Originally posted by B.A.C.
This is pure rubbish. I'm sure you watched Expelled No Intelligence yourself, why lie to yourself. He says what he says in complete context. He looks like a babbling idiot as well.


Pure rubbish?! I gave you a quote from Dawkins himself explaining the context! And you, holding true to your lie, call it 'pure rubbish'? Are you serious? Are you even concerned with knowing the truth? No. Of course not. You just used him to make an argument, but you didn't realize that you were in error to begin with. And now you continue your dishonesty by not doing a simple check to see that I am right.
Dawkins does not believe in Directed Panspermia. Fact.

And no, I have not seen "Expelled", but I've heard of this specific allegation before and know that it is false.

I find it funny that your post goes on to discuss bias, and yet you are so biased that you won't even consider the words of the very person you accuse of believing something he doesn't...



Originally posted by B.A.C.
Yea that sounds like Scientific reasoning for sure. We can't explain where we came from, but Alien's planted life here, so THEY must have evolved according to Evolutionary Theory. OMG give me a break. Again, he looked like he was completely baffled. Which he is.


I never said it's Scientific reasoning or supported by science, just that stating that there is a possibility that we were designed by beings who evolved is a far cry from saying there is an all powerful, all knowing, ultimate perfect Deity who exists without a cause.




Originally posted by B.A.C.


Again you're completely mistaken on several fronts.
Aliens: may be explained by evolution (a cause to the reaction)
God: may not be explained by evolution (no cause to the reaction. anti-science)

And Richard Dawkins believes in neither.


He believes it and supports the theory.


You have no clue what you are talking about...
Seems to be a trend.
Do two seconds of research on google and tell me that Dawkins believes aliens planted us here. You might want to consider the words of the person who knows his beliefs rather than a biased and edited movie made by a creationist
.



Originally posted by B.A.C.
So did Crick, I see you don't make any mention of him? Why not? He only helped discover DNA. Alien is no different than God, are they not both Extra Terrestrial? Tell me about Aliens, what do you know about them? pffft...


What do I know about them?
The general view is that they are not outside of our Universe, omnipotent, omniscient, perfect, or omnipresent.
The general view is that they also live in a Universe in which a reaction must have a cause, and so some form of evolution or natural selection would be a good explanation.

What do I know about God?
He is not subject to our laws.
He's a get out of jail free card.
Use it wisely, you only get one
.



Originally posted by B.A.C.
You keep getting God mixed up with a Deity in Intelligent Design. Who say's you have to worship him? Who say's you have to pray to him? Who say's you have to pray to the Aliens? See, thats where you are going astray, your making this into a religious war, when it's not.


Oh common... you know what this is about.
Call it religion or don't - the reality is the same.



Originally posted by B.A.C.
No kidding, religion has no place in science. Who said it did? That's your assumption automatically.


And here we go:


Originally posted by B.A.C.
I made this thread to open the eyes of those who think that Science is open to new ideas. Actually they are open to ANY idea as long as this idea doesn't lead back to a God. There is a wall in Science with believers of a Creator on one side, and Atheists on the other. I'm not even talking about Intelligent Design, because some Atheist Scientists believe in Intelligent Design.


So it seems you did not only say it, but it's the main point of your thread - that science should be open to new ideas which, of course, includes God.
That is religion, whether you choose to call it religion or not.



Originally posted by B.A.C.
This is the Creationism section of the forum, no? Why are you here if you aren't bias? Just to rail on Creationists?


I am biased. I'll readily admit that.
I'm biased towards what I believe is the most probable scenario explaining our existence.
I'm biased towards the truth - whichever side of the fence has the most evidence.
God: 0
Evolution: 192740959091812

As for abiogenesis, it really doesn't matter to me either way.
The way I see it, either some form of abiogenesis occurred, or else life has always existed in some form in our Universe.
We'll know eventually.



Originally posted by B.A.C.
There you go again. ID is just as credible as the "Common Ancestor", neither are falsifiable yet, but you won't accept the idea of ID because of your beliefs, not anything else.


That's all your opinion.
Abiogenesis is falsifiable, it just hasn't yet been proven false.
God, on the other hand, can never be proven false. He's always just beyond our reach.



posted on Mar, 16 2009 @ 05:39 PM
link   
reply to post by TruthParadox
 


After you asked me if "Common Ancestor" refers to Abiogenesis, I didn't read the rest of your wall of text.


Go look up Evolutionary Theory if you want to argue about it. You don't even know the first step in the theory, yet you're gonna argue about it?

That speaks volumes about your intentions.

[edit on 16-3-2009 by B.A.C.]



posted on Mar, 16 2009 @ 05:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by B.A.C.
After you asked me if "Common Ancestor" refers to Abiogenesis, I didn't read the rest of your wall of text.


Go look up Evolutionary Theory if you want to argue about it. You don't even know the first step in the theory, yet you're gonna argue about it?

That speaks volumes about your intentions.

[edit on 16-3-2009 by B.A.C.]



I asked that because in a previous thread we were arguing and you were making the claim that abiogenesis and evolution are tied together, and you said that evolution talks about a common ancestor and you said something to the effect of "does that not refer to abiogenesis".
Do I have to find the exact quote of you saying that, or are you going to make me look like the stupid one here?
sigh...
Either way, evolution would either be connected to an organism brought on by abiogenesis, or a life form which has always, in some form, existed (perhaps caused by the big bang).


Edit to add: By the way, nice way of dodging all the points I made which you can not refute
.

[edit on 16-3-2009 by TruthParadox]



posted on Mar, 16 2009 @ 05:52 PM
link   
I just love how science explain with about a 100+ different theories on how the moon came to be in orbit around earth.

Well it gives them a lot of different theories to argue with and that's about all.



posted on Mar, 16 2009 @ 06:00 PM
link   
reply to post by TruthParadox
 


Look, you're arguing about Evolutionary Theory, yet you have to ask what I mean by "Common Ancestor"?

Yes, in my thread about Abiogenesis I said they are related, because Evolutionary Theory picks up where Abiogenesis left off.

Most of your points were made with this mistaken belief. So why respond to them? Not to mention that obviously you aren't arguing about Evolution (since you don't even know what step 1 is), you are arguing against someones beliefs. I have better things to do than argue beliefs, I respect peoples beliefs, so why would I argue with you? I'm not going to stoop to your level sorry.

[edit on 16-3-2009 by B.A.C.]



posted on Mar, 16 2009 @ 06:03 PM
link   
reply to post by spy66
 


Yup for sure. Their arguments aren't really about Science anyway, they are about hating us for our beliefs. Just goes to show how ignorant they are.

God Bless Them



posted on Mar, 16 2009 @ 06:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by B.A.C.
Look, you're arguing about Evolutionary Theory, yet you have to ask what I mean by "Common Ancestor"?


No, this topic is obviously about science in general, not just evolution.
And yes, I had to ask because you got it wrong before.
Words mean nothing, it's the meaning that matters.


Originally posted by B.A.C.
Yes, in my thread about Abiogenesis I said they are related, because Evolutionary Theory picks up where Abiogenesis left off.


Not just that they are related, you said that "common ancestor" refers to abiogenesis.



Originally posted by B.A.C.
Most of your points were made with this mistaken belief. So why respond to them? Not to mention that obviously you aren't arguing about Evolution (since you don't even know what step 1 is), you are arguing against someones beliefs.


I'm arguing against your arguments...
Again, you didn't say we were discussing evolution, just accepted theories of science.



Originally posted by B.A.C.
I have better things to do than argue beliefs, I respect peoples beliefs, so why would I argue with you? I'm not going to stoop to your level sorry.


lol... You are arguing beliefs.
Of course, just take the moral high ground to ignore the points I made - well done.
But it doesn't change the fact that you lied about Dawkins beliefs - that's not very moral of you...
At least do a small amount of research and correct your opening post - just looking out for you, because others will see that mistake as well.



posted on Mar, 16 2009 @ 06:23 PM
link   
reply to post by TruthParadox
 


That thread was about my theory that Abiogenesis and Evolution ARE related. Yet Science conspires to keep them separate. Keep it in context. We are speaking about Evolution not my conspiracy theory now.

The points I made about Dawkin's can be watched coming from his mouth for anyone who wants to go and rent Ben Stein's Expelled No Intelligence.

Yea, I'm sure you were just looking out for me



posted on Mar, 16 2009 @ 06:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by B.A.C.
That thread was about my theory that Abiogenesis and Evolution ARE related. Yet Science conspires to keep them separate. Keep it in context. We are speaking about Evolution not my conspiracy theory now.


We weren't talking about evolution.
We were talking about scientific theories and how they differ from "God Did It".

Again, one has a cause which can eventually be explained.
The other has no cause.

That alone pretty much answers/corrects most of your concerns about science.



Originally posted by B.A.C.
The points I made about Dawkin's can be watched coming from his mouth for anyone who wants to go and rent Ben Stein's Expelled No Intelligence.



What is his exact quote?
Can you at least give me that?

The difference between you and me is that I'm looking for the truth while you are only looking to substantiate your beliefs.
If you were really looking for the truth, you would do a small amount of research and realize that it was taken out of context.
Seriously man... I'm not trying to trick you or anything - just friggin' google it for Christ' sake.

You shouldn't enjoy your lie any more than I do...



Originally posted by B.A.C.
Yea, I'm sure you were just looking out for me


Pretty much...
I don't like to see a creationist lying anymore than I like to see an evolutionist lying.
A lie is a lie.
lying for Jesus is still lying...



posted on Mar, 16 2009 @ 06:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by TruthParadox
We weren't talking about evolution.
We were talking about scientific theories and how they differ from "God Did It".


We're talking about Evolutionary Theory now aren't we? And "God did it" is my belief.



Again, one has a cause which can eventually be explained.
The other has no cause.


So you say, that's your opinion, which means 0 in Science. Maybe it will never be explained.



What is his exact quote?
Can you at least give me that?


Why would I go and do your homework for you. Go rent the movie and transcribe his quote yourself.



The difference between you and me is that I'm looking for the truth while you are only looking to substantiate your beliefs.
If you were really looking for the truth, you would do a small amount of research and realize that it was taken out of context.
Seriously man... I'm not trying to trick you or anything - just friggin' google it for Christ' sake.


My beliefs are as solid as Obsidian. I don't need to substantiate them.

Google what? Of course he tried to cover it all over afterwords. He sounded like a baffled kid giving an oral presentation. He did a poor job of covering it up too.

What about Dr. Crick, I suppose I'm lying about him too?

I'm not lying about anything. Have you watched the movie? If not, you better tread lightly before you accuse someone of lying. It's clear he said what he said. Now he makes excuses, he's lying not me.



posted on Mar, 16 2009 @ 06:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by B.A.C.
reply to post by spy66
 


Yup for sure. Their arguments aren't really about Science anyway, they are about hating us for our beliefs. Just goes to show how ignorant they are.

God Bless Them


I can agree with that to.

Science can only make a copy theory of the original if you know what i mean. A copy theory of what creation really did. And that copy would never be as valid as a original.


And if they knew math they would know that.

They would know that if nature makes a equation. And create.

The product can never be what it used to be again. On this side of space time.

5+5 = 10

10 can never be 5+5 again. only 5=5 if you divide it by 2. This is what is called a random processes because you have just divided 10 by 2 to get two dimensions of 5. Something that just looks like the original. And you had to add the force of 2 to divide the the dimension 10.

But you dont know for sure what force created the 5+5 before it was created. You wouldn't even know what the dimensions might have looked like. It could have been 1+1 + 4 + 4.





[edit on 27.06.08 by spy66]



posted on Mar, 16 2009 @ 07:16 PM
link   
Here is one that might get yall saying "Wat". If Other species of intelligent beings exist that did not originate on Earth, and if given a long enough time line of evolution, than what is to prevent that being from evolving to a state that is "Godlike". In theory there is no limit to how far or how much a species can evolve. We are at the threshold where the only limit on our evolution is ourselves. If we are willing to genetically manipulate our own DNA.

It is beautiful because it combines Evolution and Creationism into one disastrous cluster fook. Of course it still presents the problem of what created the god.

For creationists that believe that humans came "as is" how do you feel about humans using technology to genetically enhance ourselves, to evolve?
Does it go against your religious beliefs to enhance gods creation? Do you feel that god would be mad if we messed with his creation? Or do you think that we would be punished, much like the devil for attempting to be like the most high.



posted on Mar, 16 2009 @ 07:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by TurkeyBurgers
Here is one that might get yall saying "Wat". If Other species of intelligent beings exist that did not originate on Earth, and if given a long enough time line of evolution, than what is to prevent that being from evolving to a state that is "Godlike". In theory there is no limit to how far or how much a species can evolve. We are at the threshold where the only limit on our evolution is ourselves. If we are willing to genetically manipulate our own DNA.

It is beautiful because it combines Evolution and Creationism into one disastrous cluster fook. Of course it still presents the problem of what created the god.

For creationists that believe that humans came "as is" how do you feel about humans using technology to genetically enhance ourselves, to evolve?
Does it go against your religious beliefs to enhance gods creation? Do you feel that god would be mad if we messed with his creation? Or do you think that we would be punished, much like the devil for attempting to be like the most high.


You make a good point. Although anything that would support the belief in a Intelligent Designer will be immediately snuffed by Science.

I think Science is here for us to use. It's our intentions I think that matters.



posted on Mar, 16 2009 @ 08:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by B.A.C.


Again, one has a cause which can eventually be explained.
The other has no cause.


So you say, that's your opinion, which means 0 in Science. Maybe it will never be explained.


What - Evolution?
It's already explained, for the most part.
No one can explain something to you if you are intent on not listening.



Originally posted by B.A.C.


What is his exact quote?
Can you at least give me that?


Why would I go and do your homework for you. Go rent the movie and transcribe his quote yourself.



Because you are the one making the false claim!
The least you could do is provide some evidence that he believes that.
But I suppose lying would make that difficult...


Fine, I found the quote myself
(you're not gonna wiggle your way out of this one):

Ben Stein: "What do you think is the possibility that ID might turn out the be the answer to some issues in genetics or evolution?"

Richard Dawkins: "It could come about in the following way, it could be that in some earlier time somewhere in the Universe, a civilization evolved by probably some kind of darwinian means to a very very high level of technology and designed a form of life that they seeded onto, perhaps this planet."

Ben Stein (later recording): "Wait a second! Richard Dawkins thought ID might be a legitimate pursuit?"


He is talking about the best possibility for ID.
NOWHERE does he even come close to saying that he believes that.
Even Ben Stein understood that much - saying only that Dawkins thinks ID might be a 'legitimate pursuit'.
Not that he personally believes in any form of ID.

You really must start checking facts, it only makes you look incredibly dishonest once someone corrects you...



Originally posted by B.A.C.
My beliefs are as solid as Obsidian. I don't need to substantiate them.


Yes you do, because your claim turned out to be a bold faced lie - as I just proved.



Originally posted by B.A.C.
Google what? Of course he tried to cover it all over afterwords. He sounded like a baffled kid giving an oral presentation. He did a poor job of covering it up too.


He never even said he believed in it in the first place!
He was explaining the context, which to me was obvious from the get go.
In fact, I don't even understand how anyone could mistake a person saying "it's possible that this may have happened" to "I believe in this!".
It's dishonest to say the least.



Originally posted by B.A.C.
What about Dr. Crick, I suppose I'm lying about him too?


Probably not.
I point out what lies/misquotes I notice.



Originally posted by B.A.C.
I'm not lying about anything. Have you watched the movie? If not, you better tread lightly before you accuse someone of lying. It's clear he said what he said. Now he makes excuses, he's lying not me.


I just saw the clip where he talks about aliens, and yes you are very much mistaken.

Yes, he 'said what he said'.
But what's important is what he didn't say.
He didn't say that he believed that aliens seeded us.
He said it was a possibility.

I can't possibly believe that you are ignorant enough to mistake the words, so I'll assume you are being dishonest about it (which is much worse).
And the very fact that you wouldn't even check google confirms this.

Either admit your mistake or at least stop spreading lies about someone you don't even know...



posted on Mar, 16 2009 @ 08:41 PM
link   
reply to post by TruthParadox
 


Evolution has been explained? Someone must have forgot to explain it to you, because you don't even know what "Common Ancestor" is.

No lies, he would rather believe Alien's seeded the Earth than even acknowledge the ID idea. Which is really along the same lines. Legitimate pursuit? LOL he's full of it. He fight against ID at every turn. Did you read the book?

This isn't the only place he talks about Panspermia either, go look for more videos, he does believe this, only because he'll say anything to deny a Creator. He even speaks of multiverses and such, and he isn't a physicist by any means. He'll say anything, he's completely against religion and he lets it affect his work. Brutally Bias. He's the type of guy that would fudge the results of an experiment just so it supported his views.

When do you insult my beliefs again, next post? You forgot this time, thought I'd remind you.




[edit on 16-3-2009 by B.A.C.]



posted on Mar, 16 2009 @ 08:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by B.A.C.
Evolution has been explained? Someone must have forgot to explain it to you, because you don't even know what "Common Ancestor" is.


More dishonesty?

Read above for the explanation which I thought you understood the first two times.
Or must I do your work for you again and find your exact quote in the other thread...


Originally posted by B.A.C.
No lies, he would rather believe Alien's seeded the Earth than even acknowledge the ID idea. Which is really along the same lines.


lol!!
No lies?!

Saying "he would rather believe" and "he believes this" are two different things.

And he DID acknowledge 'the ID idea' - by saying that it would be a possibility that aliens intelligently designed us!

You're slipping...



Originally posted by B.A.C.
Dr. Dawkins has had such a hard time finding an Origin of Life that he pretty much gave up and now believes in Directed Panspermia Hypotheses, which is the belief that Extra Terrestrials "seeded" the Earth with life. That's right, he believes that Aliens seeded the earth with life.



There is not an ounce of truth in your above quote.
You are being extremely dishonest and evasive.
"hard time finding an Origin of Life" is ridiculous in and of itself, because even in the movie 'expelled' you are referring to, he said that those aliens would have evolved - meaning that either direct or indirect, he believes that evolution explains our existence.



Originally posted by B.A.C.
This isn't the only place he talks about Panspermia either, go look for more videos, he does believe this, only because he'll say anything to deny a Creator.


No, he doesn't believe this.
You have provided no evidence whatsoever.
I had to personally hunt down the evidence you thought you had, and it was evidence of nothing but Dawkins explaining a possibility, not a personal belief.

"He does believe" just doesn't cut it.



Originally posted by B.A.C.
He even speaks of multiverses and such, and he isn't a physicist by any means. He'll say anything, he's completely against religion and he lets it affect his work. Brutally Bias. He's the type of guy that would fudge the results of an experiment just so it supported his views.


So does that cover up the lie you still haven't corrected?



Originally posted by B.A.C.
When do you insult my beliefs again, next post? You forgot this time, thought I'd remind you.


I'd rather bring up the fact that you lied, were corrected, and yet were too proud to admit that you lied.






top topics



 
2
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join