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.

 

Charles Darwin film 'too controversial for religious America'

page: 12
29
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 16 2009 @ 08:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
reply to post by Jezus
 

Regarding the video debunking the planet Mercury claims. I agree it comes off as a little insulting. However when one makes claims that the density of Mercury is impossible and scientists know exactly how that density IS indeed possible but someone has chosen to ignore or disregard that explanation without explaining why he's doing so, then yes one opens oneself up to ridicule and insults, as do those who blindly follow pseudoscientific beliefs that have major holes in them.



Is it not possible when he made the video there was no reasonable explanation known amongst his peers?



[edit on 16/9/09 by John Matrix]




posted on Sep, 16 2009 @ 08:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by Stylez

Don't use homosexuals posing as priests to blame the Christian Church for their wanting to molest little boys. Blame that on their homosexual depravity. The Church job is only a method to have access to children and has nothing to do with "what they are"

[edit on 16-9-2009 by Stylez]


How about instead of questioning the faith of said priests (You can judge other peoples faith? How?) we blame celibacy? In case you didn't know: If you look at catholics roughly half of the 2000 years they have existed their priests were allowed to marry in one form or another, the other half they obviously were not. It's a different story with protestants and orthodox of course.
Despise the sin, not the sinner stylez...

[edit on 16-9-2009 by debunky]



posted on Sep, 16 2009 @ 08:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by Jezus
Arguing complexity proves the need for a creator is completely illogical.


Evolutionists argue that increases in the complexity are the result of natural processes, adaptations, mutations, and mythical events like punctuated equilibrium. But it's ok for evolutionists to say complexity is the result of evolution, but when creationists say it's the result of creation it's illogical? That, my dear friend, is illogical.

Punctuated equilibrium is some one's delusion turned into an assumption and turned again into a hypothesis.

If you beleive that, you might as well believe the tooth fairy will bring you a Red Ferrari for the next baby tooth you loose.



posted on Sep, 16 2009 @ 08:16 AM
link   
Well, I finally got ATS mobile working long enough to read the last 2 pages. Nobody did take the logic challenge I see, just ignored it to keep repeating what failure to rise to it debunks. Oh well, once more into the breach...

Originally posted by John Matrix
With all your degrees, why do you find the term scientific creationism so difficult to accept?
It may surprise you that I'm currently informally studying in prep for another degree: an Mphil, possibly starting research next year. It will be based around my current hypothesis that there is a "symbiotic" relationship between spirituality, psycho-acoustics & musical inspiration, beginning with a "chicken & egg" argument, my thesis will then present the research before I conclude. I may discover I'm wrong. Whatever, as long as I stick to logic & the scientific method, I'll have more letters to not bother putting after my name.
So you see, I accept that spirituality & religious belief can be studied by science, but such belief can only be called science itself if it also adheres to logic & the scientific method.

The term refers to scientists who use scientific methods (just like you defined for me) and apply those scientific methods to examine and interpret data, and demonstrate how their findings validates their hypothesis which is:

"In the beginning GOD created......."
No it does not. You can repeat their claims until you are blue in the face, until a creationist can answer why, if evolution is wrong, creationism must be right, then all the scientific method in the world disagreeing with the interpretations supporting evolution do not amount to a science of creation. Its a fundamental matter of logic. Can you answer? I think maybe you just dont understand the jargon?
For eg, the statement "In the beginning GOD created..." is not a hypothesis, its a premise, because it cannot be tested & thus, if supported by verifiable data, lose the "hypo" & become a valid "thesis".
(Easy analogy below)



posted on Sep, 16 2009 @ 08:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by John Matrix

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Originally posted by John Matrix
It's impossible for even one branch of evolution, let alone the thousands of parallel evolutions that would have had to take place for us to have the thousands of so called evolved species.


Pray tell why this is impossible. You seem so confident stating this. When you are at it, explain prenatal development of human fetus featuring many features of predecessors of humans, as they stand in the evolutionary chain. Gills, tails and all.


The theory that the stages of human development is observed in the womb has been debunked long ago.


Really? Have you seen pics of fetuses with tails (and surely you had one yourself, by the way)?


For instance, the Eustachian Tube, that connection from the throat to the middle ear, is the remnant of the first of the pharyngeal slits. Rarely, when the second one doesn't close all the way, newborns can be seen to have an opening on their neck


It's impossible to "debunk" a physical fact such as presence of certain features on a fetus, which then morph into human form.





I learned that in science classes back in the early sixties. Never believed it then, and still don't.


It appears that you possess the talent to not believe plain facts presented to you in broad daylight.


Why am I so sure of what I speak of? I had a white light mystical experience 27 years ago, and at the same time I had a visit from a messenger(angel), a very large and powerful angel in the Divine Spiritual Kingdom.



I rest my case. Say hello to the messenger next time he swings by for a beer.



posted on Sep, 16 2009 @ 08:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by Bunken Drum
Its not suprising since christianity in particular is heavily based on duality. De good vs de evil; flesh vs spirit; divine vs human; human vs animal etc.


It's not just Christianity that shows us dualities. Law and order vs. chaos and confusion, right vs. wrong, good vs. bad, conscious vs. unconscious, awake vs. asleep, life vs. death....etc.
Duality exists because we exists. Stop belittling Christians to make you argument....it makes you look bias and not objective.



John Matrix, are you ignoring me the old fashioned way, or people, did he say he put me on ignore? Come on, if there is such a thing as creation science, then its tenets must be composed of ideas that follow logically on from each to other. However, if the basic premises is inherently illogical, then ipso facto, the whole thing is unscientific.


I'm not ignoring you, I explained the existence of creation science. It involves scientists using all the methods that scientists use to observe and tell us how the evidences supports their Theory.

[edit on 16/9/09 by John Matrix]



posted on Sep, 16 2009 @ 08:29 AM
link   
reply to post by John Matrix
 


Well, explain this:

www.abovetopsecret.com...
__________________________________________________________

oops....transcription error corrected.

HEY!! That's how mutations and evolution happens, too!!!




[edit on 16 September 2009 by weedwhacker]



posted on Sep, 16 2009 @ 08:30 AM
link   
reply to post by buddhasystem
 


Believe what you want.

Believe the egg came before the chicken if you want.

Believe that you were a fish in the womb, then became a chicken, then became....bla...bla...bla.

Believe in the tooth fairy if you want. Whatever floats your boat.

But don't expect me to take part in your faith and religion.



posted on Sep, 16 2009 @ 08:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by John Matrix
Believe that you were a fish in the womb, then became a chicken, then became....bla...bla...bla.


So you are saying that all those pictures of fetuses published in print or on the Web are fakes? Interesting...



posted on Sep, 16 2009 @ 08:35 AM
link   
reply to post by John Matrix
 



Believe that you were a fish in the womb, then became a chicken, then became....bla...bla...bla.


"blah...blah...blah".???

That isn't what he was saying.

The evolutionary heritage is IN our DNA, as displayed in the embryonic stages.

The chromosomes making up the Human genome activate during fetal development, thus forming us eventually.

LOOK at he gestation of other mammals too. There will be striking similarities, but of course differences too, along the way, because of THEIR genomes being activated as they mature.



posted on Sep, 16 2009 @ 08:40 AM
link   
(Easy analogy as promised above)
I could call myself a ninja-turtle scientist. I could use the scientific method to find fault with all kinds of theories advanced by marine biologists. As long as my papers merely did that, what I called myself would not preclude my work being peer reviewed for publication in scientific journals, even if it raised a few giggles. However, the moment I say, "See, you're wrong about turtles, so ninja-turtles must exist!" I have forfeited the right to call the paper in which I make such a claim scientific &, people being what they are, any chance @being taken seriously ever again. Not because my claim is outlandish, but because evidence against 1 theory is not evidence for another, unless there can only be either/or, which I would also have to demonstrate.
The polite word for such illogical statements apeing science is pseudoscience. It may be believed by billions; sell all sorts of media; influence lawmakers etc. but it will never be science.



posted on Sep, 16 2009 @ 08:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by John Matrix
I'm not ignoring you, I explained the existence of creation science. It involves scientists using all the methods that scientists use to observe and tell us how the evidences supports their Theory.


The difference between the "scientists" you mention and real scientists is that real scientists don't start knowing what the answer is going to be.



posted on Sep, 16 2009 @ 09:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Originally posted by John Matrix
Believe that you were a fish in the womb, then became a chicken, then became....bla...bla...bla.


So you are saying that all those pictures of fetuses published in print or on the Web are fakes? Interesting...



This recapitulation theory you are using to support your argument is weak. People think they see all kinds of things when they observe cloud formations and tea leaves too. What someone thinks they see inside the womb at various times of the human developement is not a good argument to support your theory of evolution.

There is no fish stage, chicken stage, no wings, no gills, no tail:
You have been led to believe in a fraudulent theory:
www.geocities.com...
www.icr.org...
www.christiananswers.net...

I cannot believe that such an old theory, revealed as a fraud ages ago, is still held as proof for evolution. This demonstrates to me that Evolutionists are irresponsible for not correcting these past frauds that were perpetrated on the world.

[edit on 16/9/09 by John Matrix]

[edit on 16/9/09 by John Matrix]



posted on Sep, 16 2009 @ 09:17 AM
link   
Can i have one source for an abortion being justified with the argument "It's just a fish"?



posted on Sep, 16 2009 @ 09:17 AM
link   
reply to post by John Matrix
 


I'm sorry but quoting the site "christiananswers" in this debate is preposterous. They post a picture of a fetus with a clearly visible tail, and then put the word tail in double quotes. That's some scientific argument...

It's almost like they posted an artist's concept of the atomic nucleus and then started making fun of all these "neutrons" and "protons" because surely Creator didn't indulge in such silly things. You know what this reminds me of? The movie "Waterworld" and the stone-age beliefs of some of it's inhabitants (and the Deacon portrayed by Dennis Hopper).



posted on Sep, 16 2009 @ 09:19 AM
link   
reply to post by John Matrix
 

It's not just Christianity that shows us dualities. Law and order vs. chaos and confusion, right vs. wrong, good vs. bad, conscious vs. unconscious, awake vs. asleep, life vs. death....etc.
Duality exists because we exists.
There are many philosophies & even religions which either dispute or take a much less rigid approach to many of the dualities you or I mentioned. For whatever good or ill, Western civilisation is heavily influenced by the christian approach to them, which is rigid, & pervasive. That you yourself believe such are a matter of existance not perspective just shows how pervasive.
Ofcourse, it could also show a lack of education, imagination, or both.

I explained the existence of creation science. It involves scientists using all the methods that scientists use to observe and tell us how the evidences supports their Theory
No John, you repeated their claims, thats all. Until the logic hurdle is overcome, they are spurious claims.
To recap: why must it only be evolution or intelligent design?
Without that answer, all jumps from interpretation of evidence suggesting evolution didn't happen to saying ID did are illogical.



posted on Sep, 16 2009 @ 09:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by John Matrix
 


Well, explain this:

www.abovetopsecret.com...
__________________________________________________________
Good find weedwhacker! I've never seen that before, but it seems consistent with evolution, and it reminds me of the vestigal limbs found in some whales. The article says that two-headed snakes are a more common mutation but they don't last long because the 2 heads end up attacking each other, so I guess snakes aren't too bright. At least the Hensel sisters haven't had that same problem: www.bluemoonnews.com... This seems to be pretty strong support for mutations (part of the theory of evolution), but I've never seen how creation science explains these types of mutations.



posted on Sep, 16 2009 @ 09:50 AM
link   
Hi Bunkem et al

Why are you wasting your time arguing? No matter what evidence you produce to support evolution will not change the view of someone who doesn't want to accept overwhelming evidence.

I made this post www.abovetopsecret.com.. and actually received a decent post from a creationist. I was expecting the usual "here is a list of scientists that once used the word 'God'", "look at this website religiousnutjob.org where a 'real scientist' says the whole of recorded science is wrong" etc.

While I love America and its people I am sure glad I'm British! We grew out of this religous thing a generation ago.

[edit on 16/9/2009 by LightFantastic]



posted on Sep, 16 2009 @ 09:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by LightFantastic

Originally posted by John Matrix
I'm not ignoring you, I explained the existence of creation science. It involves scientists using all the methods that scientists use to observe and tell us how the evidences supports their Theory.


The difference between the "scientists" you mention and real scientists is that real scientists don't start knowing what the answer is going to be.


You discredit creation science out of a need to protect your foundational belief system.

You ignore what you do not understand and pretend it does not exists.

Evolution Science starts with the hypothesis that natural processes are responsible for the Universe, our planet, and all life.

Creation Science starts with the hypothesis that an intelligent Creator (having a purpose) is responsible for the Universe, our planet, and all life.

Both collect, observe, and interpret the evidence. Both conduct experiments. Both explain how the evidence supports their Theory.

Both groups have well educated scientists on board and both use scientific methods.

Sure, there are more evolution scientists, but that does not mean they are correct. Take a cross section of any part of the world's population and you will find the majority are greedy fools. It's no different for the scientists on the government money train.



posted on Sep, 16 2009 @ 10:07 AM
link   
WeedWacker:

1. It's still a snake.
2. It's a photo manupulation.
3. If it's real, how does this mutation benefit the species or prepare it for a tranformation to another species?
4. It's still a snake.


Not a stonge argument weedwacker.



new topics

top topics



 
29
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join