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

page: 2
2
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 16 2009 @ 09:08 PM
link   
For now, I'm done with this thread.
I can respect someone having a different belief, but I can't respect someone lying about someone else's.
That's just too much...


A little something to keep in mind:

Exod. 20:16 - "you shall not bear false witness against your neighbor"
Exod. 23:1 - "you shall not carry a false rumor"
Exod. 23:7 - "keep far from a false charge"
Prov. 6:12 - "a worthless person, a wicked man, is the one who walks with a false mouth"
Prov. 6:19 - "things which the Lord hates...a false witness who utters lies"
Prov. 12:17 - "He who speaks truth tells what is right, but a false witness, deceit"
Prov. 12:22 - "lying lips are an abomination to the Lord"
Prov. 13:5 - "a righteous man hates falsehood"
Prov. 14:5 - "A faithful witness will not lie, but a false witness speaks lies"
Prov. 19:5,9 - "a false witness will not go unpunished"
Prov. 25:18 - "like a club and a sword and a sharp arrow is a man who bears false witness
against his neighbor"
Matt. 15:19 - "out of the heart come evil thoughts...false witness, slanders..."




posted on Mar, 16 2009 @ 09:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by TruthParadox
For now, I'm done with this thread.
I can respect someone having a different belief, but I can't respect someone lying about someone else's.
That's just too much...


You're gonna quote scripture to me now? That takes the cake.

Nice tactic to call me a liar now. Run out of ideas? Doesn't change the facts though. He believes that this is a possibility just like any other theory. Just like he believes it's a possibility all life evolved from a "Common Ancestor".

My statement stands.




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



posted on Mar, 16 2009 @ 10:23 PM
link   
Here's some interesting videos that show just how Evolutionary Theorists will skew information to fit their argument.













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



posted on Mar, 16 2009 @ 11:03 PM
link   

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...


Generally, I stay out of these threads. Don't get me wrong, I enjoy reading them. I find the debate fascinating personally but I have no interest in participating in it.

Saying that though, this is the third or fourth time I have seen you post this list, in an attempt at an appeal to authority. To show the futility of it, this statement...


Evolution is a vital, well-supported, unifying principle of the biological sciences, and the scientific evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of the idea that all living things share a common ancestry. Although there are legitimate debates about the patterns and processes of evolution, there is no serious scientific doubt that evolution occurred or that natural selection is a major mechanism in its occurrence. It is scientifically inappropriate and pedagogically irresponsible for creationist pseudoscience, including but not limited to "intelligent design," to be introduced into the science curricula of our nation's public schools.
source


has been signed by 1072 scientists named Steve as of March 13/09. Most(if not all) of the Steve's hold PH.D.'s.

You seem like an intelligent person,there isn't a need for the logical fallacies.



posted on Mar, 17 2009 @ 12:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by GAOTU789

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...


Generally, I stay out of these threads. Don't get me wrong, I enjoy reading them. I find the debate fascinating personally but I have no interest in participating in it.

Saying that though, this is the third or fourth time I have seen you post this list, in an attempt at an appeal to authority. To show the futility of it, this statement...


Evolution is a vital, well-supported, unifying principle of the biological sciences, and the scientific evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of the idea that all living things share a common ancestry. Although there are legitimate debates about the patterns and processes of evolution, there is no serious scientific doubt that evolution occurred or that natural selection is a major mechanism in its occurrence. It is scientifically inappropriate and pedagogically irresponsible for creationist pseudoscience, including but not limited to "intelligent design," to be introduced into the science curricula of our nation's public schools.
source


has been signed by 1072 scientists named Steve as of March 13/09. Most(if not all) of the Steve's hold PH.D.'s.

You seem like an intelligent person,there isn't a need for the logical fallacies.


Well, actually I linked to that list as a response to somebody. It was an edit added later. I also pointed out to that person that numbers don't matter. It's quality of science and not quantity. It is in response to all the Evolutionists who say that every scientist agrees with Evolutionary Theory, which simply isn't true.

I find it kind of funny you would point out my logical fallacy. Have you ever done this with an Evolutionist's argument?


Anyway, I like ATS and I kind of enjoy arguing with Evolutionists (bah who I'm I kidding I get a kick out of it), I find it fascinating how mad they get with just a belief (a belief that billions believe in). So I'll keep on making threads and stirring the pot.

The day has almost come when being a Christian means people hate you (especially if you express your beliefs), just goes to show the de-evolution of society. Just makes me yell louder that's all.


I've said it many times "I'll gladly be a fool for Christ"

God Bless

Signed,

Steve


[edit on 17-3-2009 by B.A.C.]



posted on Mar, 25 2009 @ 07:27 AM
link   
reply to post by B.A.C.
 


"It's quality of science and not quantity."

So for 150 years the sharpest minds on earth have been studying evolution with the most advanced technology and techniques and in all that time, not 1 of them has managed to disprove Darwin's theory. And all this hard, thankless work is somehow less scientifically valid than a 2000 year old story book written/copied from older myths by uneducated middle eastern shepherds and hippies with no technological advancements?


"The day has almost come when being a Christian means people hate you (especially if you express your beliefs), just goes to show the de-evolution of society."

No, the day has come where people hate you for being a creationist. I know loads of Christians and they all laugh at creationists and their attempts to drag humanity back to the dark ages too.

"Just makes me yell louder that's all."

The louder you yell, the crazier you sound and the more people can see how wrong you are so go for it. You only undermine Christianity further (which is a damn shame. The mainstream might take them more seriously if they could distance themselves from creationists).

"I've said it many times "I'll gladly be a fool for Christ""

Be a fool for whoever you want, just stop trying to force normal rational people (especially impressionable young kids) to be fools too.



posted on Mar, 25 2009 @ 02:58 PM
link   
reply to post by stooge247
 


I'm not forcing ANYTHING. Where do you see me forcing anything? My belief in Creationism isn't exactly fundamental. I believe in Evolution the fact, I don't think the 7 days is literal, etc, etc.

Where did I say any different? I respect peoples beliefs no matter what they believe, it's their choice, not your choice.

You seem to just lump everyone in one group like they all believe the same thing.

BTW the mainstream is Christian, where have you been, under a rock?


[edit on 25-3-2009 by B.A.C.]



posted on Mar, 25 2009 @ 03:22 PM
link   
Putting gods, of human understanding and human based Science aside, for just a moment and look at a few basics....

Why is Humankind so obsessed with the argument over ID ?

Is humankind either in support for or against the existence of Intelligence in anything including human beings?

(But just pure "Intelligence" whether in Humankind or any other Species or environment of Physics or Chemistry or anything else you may wish to think of.....)


The rules "governing" The Laws of Physics are unchangeable and I don't see humankind developing new Laws, or adding them to the Universal Structure.

Our Laws (of Physics etc) we trust in are the result of our observations of our Environment only!

Humankind is also desperately trying to produce "AI" yet can't!

Can humankind produce consciousness?

Or anything From Nothing?

I believe that "The Laws of Physics" are of Intelligent Origin or been constructed from Intelligence in Consciousness!

If this were Not the Case, why can't Humankind, Produce another Universe of their own making ???

Or even a single atom of Hydrogen from Nothing at all?

Or make something/anything entirely new from Nothing...

Nothing at all can happen anywhere, unless there is something, that makes it happen, or it will simply Not happen.

You can look at nothing endlessly, but if something does Not cause this Nothing to change, it will never change.

Perhaps we should be looking at what Nothing actually is, and Not just take half the component (Nothing) and base our beliefs, on assumptions taken for granted!

Perhaps "Nothing" is "Something" in its self ???

We can Identify the existence of Nothing, and to be able to Identify "Nothing", and even relate to the concept of "Nothing", then it has to be "Something" in its self, or we would not even have the word "Nothing" in our Dictionaries!


(This is where Humankind comes against a wall in being able to reach beyond and grasp this Concept and I believe this is where Humankind's Greatest difficulty in Understand Lays)


Or is the whole Argument around "ID", just the Result of Humankind, Not having the Mental capacity or ability to understand....

But at the end of the day, no matter how we look at things, there is indisputably an underlying state of Rules or Laws, in Existence whether of a god or Not.... or whether we accept it or Not....


[edit on 25-3-2009 by The Matrix Traveller]



posted on Mar, 25 2009 @ 03:35 PM
link   
reply to post by The Matrix Traveller
 


I agree, it's so obvious and easy to see with simple logic. It has no bearing on what religion or belief system we use. As we look closer and closer at the "simple" cell with molecular technology we are coming up with more questions than answers.



posted on Mar, 25 2009 @ 04:32 PM
link   
reply to post by B.A.C.
 

Questions have never been a hurdle for science. Without questions, we wouldn't have all the technology we have today (and I don't just mean electronics, I mean EVERYTHING).
Questions further science. Just having the answers solves/advances NOTHING.



posted on Mar, 25 2009 @ 05:29 PM
link   

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

Questions have never been a hurdle for science. Without questions, we wouldn't have all the technology we have today (and I don't just mean electronics, I mean EVERYTHING).
Questions further science. Just having the answers solves/advances NOTHING.


Of course. Why would questions be a hurdle for science instead of something to be embraced? Not sure where you got the idea I said different...



posted on Mar, 25 2009 @ 07:23 PM
link   
reply to post by B.A.C.
 

So you're saying we know little of what we already THINK we know?
(that question didn't really make any sense, but I hope you understand)

If so, I agree with you.

Are you saying "science" has already found evidence of "god" (which I'm pretty sure you've said, but not shown), or will in the future, so we must be open to it and not pass it off as foolish?

If the latter, sure.
I could be arrogant and say "Oh, there's no evidence for a god (creator/powerful thinking being without brain) and there NEVER will be."

If there was honest evidence for a deity, I would like to think I would believe it.

I have not been shown any compelling proof. Show me, or find a way to get it. Otherwise, I have no reason to believe in one.



posted on Mar, 25 2009 @ 07:42 PM
link   

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

So you're saying we know little of what we already THINK we know?
(that question didn't really make any sense, but I hope you understand)

If so, I agree with you.

Are you saying "science" has already found evidence of "god" (which I'm pretty sure you've said, but not shown), or will in the future, so we must be open to it and not pass it off as foolish?

If the latter, sure.
I could be arrogant and say "Oh, there's no evidence for a god (creator/powerful thinking being without brain) and there NEVER will be."

If there was honest evidence for a deity, I would like to think I would believe it.

I have not been shown any compelling proof. Show me, or find a way to get it. Otherwise, I have no reason to believe in one.


Yes, I agree I don't think we know as much as we think. Mankind I mean.

No, there is no scientific evidence of God, I've never said there was, it's impossible because God isn't falsifiable. What constitutes evidence to believers isn't evidence according to the scientific method.

I have to say that I don't think it's arrogant to say that there's no evidence of God and never will be, you could possible be right. People's faith doesn't depend on evidence in a scientific way.



posted on Mar, 25 2009 @ 08:08 PM
link   
reply to post by B.A.C.
 

What do you think god judges people by? What they believe, or what they do?
One of those things is a choice; the other, not so much.



posted on Mar, 25 2009 @ 08:32 PM
link   

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

What do you think god judges people by? What they believe, or what they do?
One of those things is a choice; the other, not so much.


I think they are both clear cut choices, why aren't they? You choose to believe in something, you choose to do what you do. Both choices. You may have different reasons, but they are still freewill choices.



posted on Mar, 25 2009 @ 09:08 PM
link   
reply to post by B.A.C.
 

This maybe nothing more than my opinion, but it is the way I feel (something I don't think is a choice as well).

I don't think anybody chooses to believe in something. I can't just choose to believe in a god, it just (kind of) happens or not. Just because something changes, doesn't mean it's a choice.

It can be brought about through choices, like choosing to go to church or choosing to read a scientific journal, but actually believing isn't a choice.

It's like choosing your favourite drink. Someone can ask "What is your favourite out of this selection?" You can choose to SAY what you FEEL is your favourite drink, but you're not actually choosing your favourite.
I feel the same way about beliefs.



posted on Mar, 25 2009 @ 09:23 PM
link   

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

This maybe nothing more than my opinion, but it is the way I feel (something I don't think is a choice as well).

I don't think anybody chooses to believe in something. I can't just choose to believe in a god, it just (kind of) happens or not. Just because something changes, doesn't mean it's a choice.

It can be brought about through choices, like choosing to go to church or choosing to read a scientific journal, but actually believing isn't a choice.

It's like choosing your favourite drink. Someone can ask "What is your favourite out of this selection?" You can choose to SAY what you FEEL is your favourite drink, but you're not actually choosing your favourite.
I feel the same way about beliefs.


Yes you are choosing your favorite, because of what your senses told you you ARE making a choice.

Same as belief/disbelief in God, as I said earlier there is no acceptable scientific evidence for a God, yet I CHOOSE to believe in him. You may CHOOSE to not believe in him because of this lack of scientific evidence. It's still a choice, either way.

[edit on 25-3-2009 by B.A.C.]



posted on Mar, 26 2009 @ 06:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by B.A.C.
Yes you are choosing your favorite, because of what your senses told you you ARE making a choice.

Ah, but you can't choose how our senses perceive things.
Can you agree with that?



Same as belief/disbelief in God, as I said earlier there is no acceptable scientific evidence for a God, yet I CHOOSE to believe in him. You may CHOOSE to not believe in him because of this lack of scientific evidence. It's still a choice, either way.

Have you tried not believing in god? Do it now, just for a second.
What about people who tried to believe in god, but couldn't?
Do they have a choice?

You say you chose, but maybe we're different.
Literally, one day I REALIZED I didn't believe in a god.
I didn't go "I'm not going to believe in god today" and it stuck, I just realized it. Realization is not a choice (of course, you and others may think differently, but I won't hold it against you: it's the way your brain is made up).

You believe STRONGLY in the concept of freewill, don't you?

I really wish we could get others to discuss this with us, but it seems to be just you and me here now.



posted on Mar, 26 2009 @ 07:54 AM
link   
reply to post by B.A.C.
 


"I'm not forcing ANYTHING. Where do you see me forcing anything? My belief in Creationism isn't exactly fundamental. I believe in Evolution the fact, I don't think the 7 days is literal, etc, etc."

I didn't say you were but when you say things like " I'll only yell louder" that says to me you are forcing your beliefs on other people. Creationists going to court to try and force school boards to teach creationism is DEFINATELY forcing their viewpoint.

"Where did I say any different? I respect peoples beliefs no matter what they believe, it's their choice, not your choice."

Exactly. Evolution in science and creationism in church. Then its down to the individual to decide where to go and what to listen to.

"You seem to just lump everyone in one group like they all believe the same thing."

It doesn't really matter to me which form of creationism you subscribe to. They are all just as stupid as each other.

"BTW the mainstream is Christian, where have you been, under a rock?"

If its so mainstream why is abortion legal? Why is same sex marriage legal? Why isn't adultery illegal? Only 1/3rd of the planet would describe themselves as christian. That means there are twice as many people that don't follow it so while it may well be the most mainstream religion, it is not the most mainstream belief system.



posted on Mar, 26 2009 @ 11:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by B.A.C.
I think they are both clear cut choices, why aren't they? You choose to believe in something, you choose to do what you do. Both choices. You may have different reasons, but they are still freewill choices.


It's still ridiculous to judge based on personal beliefs rather than action.

Which one did Hitler do? Hmmm...

Obviously people have beliefs based on what they believe is true, from evidence, past experiences, indoctrination, etc...
It would be ludicrous to deny those feelings and punish someone for it.
But hey, what else is new...


I hope someday we can get past that sort of barbaric thinking...





new topics

top topics



 
2
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join