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: 18
29
<< 15  16  17    19  20  21 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 17 2009 @ 09:15 AM
link   

Life is the product of intelligent contrivance. Thus, apparent design in biology would constitute evidence for a Designer. It is a self-evident and universally recognized truth: concept and design require an intelligent designer. So, while recognizing design in biology is not based upon religious premise (but upon empirical observation and logic), it certainly has theological implications [1]. Do we find apparent design in biology? Yes. In fact, apparent design pervades the biologic realm [2, 3]. When we apply the general principles of detecting design to living creatures, we find it reasonable to infer the existence of a Creator.


Source: www.allaboutcreation.org...
Also: www.allaboutcreation.org...




posted on Sep, 17 2009 @ 09:20 AM
link   
reply to post by John Matrix
 

It is you that needs to sharpen your debating skills.
I never attempted to solve your logic problem
You cant remember what you wrote? Debate this:

Originally posted by John Matrix
If evidence does not support evolution, what other alternative is there? Evolution = Natural processe creating life, and thousands of new species of life. Creation = Supernatural creation of life. In all the Universe of THINGS, I see but two states for ALL: 1. Nature left to itself and it's own internal workings, and; 2. The Supernatural manisfested in nature.
 
Originally posted by Bunken Drum
Just because you, or billions of people, cannot imagine that there is any other explanation does not mean that there isn't 1, or several...
...but it doesn't matter what you or I can imagine: the greatest scientific breakthroughs are made by intellectual giants precisely because they can imagine things the rest of us cant. Thus, to ignore the possibilities is illogical & therefore unscientific. Remember, "logical" in scientific jargon doesn't mean "makes sense to me": it means that a statement must be irrefutable before it can be trusted to form a step to the next idea. Creation as the only option to evolution is not, thus creationism is illogical.
There you go. You attempted to answer the problem & I refuted your argument. Or was that "my logic problem" more of that smartarsery that you haven't engaged in?



posted on Sep, 17 2009 @ 10:02 AM
link   
reply to post by Bunken Drum
 


That was not an attempt to answer your logic problem. I simply gave you something to think about in the hope that you would be inspired to answer it for yourself.

If I wanted to give you the answer you are looking for, I would have spent a few hours doing some research first, and provide you with my sources.

I've already spent a lot of time attempting to provide you with logic, reason, evidences, and sources, but you ignore it, you spin it to suite your religious beliefs in evolution, and to hang on to your faith in it.



posted on Sep, 17 2009 @ 10:10 AM
link   
reply to post by John Matrix
 

Like most evolutionists, you are quite a spin master.....I'll give you that.
Why do you come across as so self arrogating and attacking?
It is you that needs to sharpen your debating skills
So I'm a "spin master" but I need to "sharpen my debating skills"? Which is it John? Btw, the word you're looking for is:

rhetorician
• noun 1 an expert in formal rhetoric. 2 a speaker whose words are intended to impress or persuade.
www.askoxford.com...
Yes, a good education often leads to above average written communication skills, but I'm not trying to impress you, John. What I am doing ties in with the arrogance: you appear not to have noticed that several times I've said I'm not arguing for evolution, but against the oxymoron "creation science". Perhaps you did notice that I consider religion poking its nose into non-spiritual matters to be 1 of societies foremost ills? Thus, arrogance is a debating style. It is not enough to refute your argument, my purpose is to crush it into a greasy smear & urinate on the remains.
I suspect you dont even realise just how offensive some of your statements have been. For eg, just the word "evolutionist" & to then go on to conflate the sum total of the various disciplines that have contributed to the theory of evolution with religion... Have you any idea how much effort it takes to train the mind to apply the scientific method rigorously, to 2nd & 3rd guess yourself for bias & the effects of variables, to collate results accurately & finally, to present book-length arguments not just logically but in a way that the reader doesn't become overwhelmed by too many concepts needing to be held in the mind all @once? I'm frankly flabbergasted that you'd have the gall, so I'll confess, there's also pleasure in goading you into making even more oafish statements.



posted on Sep, 17 2009 @ 10:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by John Matrix
I've already spent a lot of time attempting to provide you with logic, reason, evidences, and sources, but you ignore it, you spin it to suite your religious beliefs in evolution, and to hang on to your faith in it.


This is getting really hilarious! You inform us that you had a "white light" spiritual experience and a visit from a spiritual being from higher dimensions, and that you base your faith on these experiences of yours and hence feel free to just discard science facts in favor of such faith. Then you have the chutzpah to complain about other people ignoring your so-called "logic and reason". Just unreal.



posted on Sep, 17 2009 @ 10:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Originally posted by John Matrix
I've already spent a lot of time attempting to provide you with logic, reason, evidences, and sources, but you ignore it, you spin it to suite your religious beliefs in evolution, and to hang on to your faith in it.


This is getting really hilarious! You inform us that you had a "white light" spiritual experience and a visit from a spiritual being from higher dimensions, and that you base your faith on these experiences of yours and hence feel free to just discard science facts in favor of such faith. Then you have the chutzpah to complain about other people ignoring your so-called "logic and reason". Just unreal.


Not that he needs my defense, but John does not discard science facts in favor of faith. Your post is quite insulting. I am hoping that a mod will see what is going on here.



posted on Sep, 17 2009 @ 10:26 AM
link   
reply to post by John Matrix
 



...your religious beliefs in evolution, and to hang on to your faith in it.


The irony, and depth of misunderstanding here is simply amazing.

Evolution needs NO "religious belief". Evolution is a SCIENCE. As a scientific theory, it also is adjusted as new scientific discoveries are made, to ADD to the wealth of evidence, to further refine and explain details that are still sometimes in need of fleshing out.

creation "theory" on the other hand, qualifies as neither a 'theory', nor a 'science'. It is an argument that begins from a "belief", then back-pedals in any way it can to find something, ANYTHING, no matter how much of a reach it may be, to attempt to justify their pre-conceived starting premise.

Real science, when starting from a premise (or, hypothesis) knows that if the facts, from observation or experimentation, don't support the premise, then either the premise is entirely wrong, and should be discarded. or if there's a glimmer of something there, then it can be modified and refined.

creation has never withstood the level of scrutiny that real science endures. Except in the twisted minds of those who make websites devoted (for the devoted) to promoting falsehoods, and junk "interpretations" of facts, that get twisted to suit their purposes.

A shame, really, that those "devout" fall for it.



posted on Sep, 17 2009 @ 10:28 AM
link   
If the movie sucks then who would want to produce it? I wouldn’t put money into a rust bucket why would I do the same with a poor production. I’m Canadian and I’ve seen so many disturbing things come from the U.S. that I don’t believe the hype about the creationist agenda against this movie or we would never have seen all the other BS they call cinema that comes from Hollywood.

Also I keep hearing a lot of BS about racism on the part of Darwin, we have to keep in mind the times that these people lived in. There was no meaning of racism, they called it how they saw it, and the environment they were raised in, is the reflection we see. In my studies of Lincoln I came to discover that he was a huge racist stating that he believed that Negros were a subservient race and that they should never have any power over white people. But in his time he was taking great steps to improve the lives of minorities, and true to this day he has cause a great movement that we can all acknowledge, he is the first civil rights activist, yet his rant are incredibly racist.

Take the information these great thinkers gave us and exclude the crap environment they were the products of.

On the topic of evolution and creationism, I take this approach. Those that wish to take religion from you wish to cast the first stone, those that preach creationism cannot come to grasps with the rapid pace of science.

Today everything that moves is propaganda, it’s the turn of the century and if you look through the past you will see great upheaval of our thinking, ways of life, and the outlook of the future at every turn of the century.

I agree with the many posts here that say both should and could go hand in hand. A Christian believes his maker will judge him, while the atheist believes he only has one life and must do as much good as he/she can for there isn’t another chance to make change for the better.

My question to the creationist, where have the gods of old that evolved into this "god" gone? We didn’t always believe and where you come from changes your belief. If im from a small tribe in south America that never knew god are we sinned and damned to hell for not believing?

My question to atheist is why is it so hard for you to let people be happy believing what they believe, for it all...all of life is theory we have no definite answer.....guess what we never will.

Thus the meaning of life is to LIVE, the universe is to DISCOVER, and we are here to comfort and support one another along the way.



posted on Sep, 17 2009 @ 10:29 AM
link   
reply to post by Stylez
 
I'd be interested to see a link to the lungfish article you quoted from. Off the top of my head, I'd say its possible that the beast didn't evolve from a fish, but may have re-expressed fish genes in an amphibian. Still, IDK. However, that the lungfish may not be understood is still not evidence for creationism, it is merely a strange creature which may contradict evolution.
Always chasing... er, no not chasing: running from that logical fallacy @the heart of creationism's claims to scientific legitimacy...



posted on Sep, 17 2009 @ 10:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by Bunken Drum
So I'm a "spin master" but I need to "sharpen my debating skills"? Which is it John?


You seem to be implying that being a good "spin master" makes a good debater.

Logic and reason tells me that being a good spin master does not make one a good debater. In fact, being a good spin master demonstrates a lack of good debating skills.

Can you comprehend the answer to your question from my response to it?

I have began a list of resources(links to web sites) for people to use in this arena of debate: Creation vs. Evolution, or Evolution vs. Creation....however way you wish to look at it.

The list is on my profile page. In the coming weeks and months, I hope to add a lot more to my arsenal of resources which feature scientific observations and evidences put forth by creation scientists.



posted on Sep, 17 2009 @ 10:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by novacs4me
Your post is quite insulting. I am hoping that a mod will see what is going on here.


First of, I did not "insult" anybody. Grow up. Second, please take time to review the thread to see how John says how his mystical experience weighs on this interpretation of fact.



posted on Sep, 17 2009 @ 10:45 AM
link   
Text Maroon well thats what we can expect from the same country that somehow hides all there mistakes with no shame what so ever, great post none the less, hope it opens some peoples eyes. X



posted on Sep, 17 2009 @ 11:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by Bunken Drum
Yes, a good education often leads to above average written communication skills, but I'm not trying to impress you, John.


You cannot impress me Bunken Drum.....because I believe intelligent people express themselves in relatively simple and profound terms without any desire to impress people. In other words, break down the complex into the simple and present it as simply as possible.

I have no desire to impress you with rhetoric, spin, my level of intelligence, etc. I use plain language.

That the language I use is beneath what you like to hear and use yourself, is no reason to discredit me, question my intelligence, or to think yourself as wiser.



I've said I'm not arguing for evolution, but against the oxymoron "creation science".


Creation science is not an oxymoron anymore than evolution science is an oxymoron.

The term is used to describe scientists who use scientific methods to examine evidence, observe phenomena, test evidence against other evidences, make predictions based on the evidences, interpret evidence and explain how the evidence supports their theory.

That the bible, or religious groups support creation science, does not make belief in creation a religion.



Perhaps you did notice that I consider religion poking its nose into non-spiritual matters to be 1 of societies foremost ills? Thus, arrogance is a debating style.


But it is still arrogant and offensive to reasonable thinking people.



It is not enough to refute your argument, my purpose is to crush it into a greasy smear & urinate on the remains.


I can see that being arrogant and also visceral is important to your style of debating....good job demonstrating it.




I suspect you dont even realise just how offensive some of your statements have been. For eg, just the word "evolutionist" & to then go on to conflate the sum total of the various disciplines that have contributed to the theory of evolution with religion... Have you any idea how much effort it takes to train the mind to apply the scientific method rigorously, to 2nd & 3rd guess yourself for bias & the effects of variables, to collate results accurately & finally, to present book-length arguments not just logically but in a way that the reader doesn't become overwhelmed by too many concepts needing to be held in the mind all @once? I'm frankly flabbergasted that you'd have the gall, so I'll confess, there's also pleasure in goading you into making even more oafish statements.


Look in the mirror my friend. What you wrote in your last paragraph above applies to you because you mock creation science which is contributed to by all kinds of brilliant well educated, well trained scientists such as biologists, physicians, philosophers, physicists, geneticists, archaeologists, geologists, cosmologists. etc. etc.


[edit on 17/9/09 by John Matrix]



posted on Sep, 17 2009 @ 11:13 AM
link   
reply to post by John Matrix
 

The argument that have been presented by the evolutionists is that evolution is science and creation is theology. The implication being that creation science is not science. Yet, creation science uses all the same scientific methods to study evidence, observe phenomena, conduct experiments, and provide explanations as to why the evidence supports their theory.
Here you go again. There is no "implication", its a demonstrated fact. You have had the scientific method explained to you numerous times. I even quoted a dictionary for you. How can you not understand that the scientific method requires that the investigation begin with a hypothesis, which by definition must be capable of being tested? The premise that an intelligent designer created stuff is not able to be tested, therefore it is unscientific. That isn't an opinion John, that is the way science works for every scientist, as can be discovered in the other dictionary definitions I provided for you. Add to that the logical fallacy that evidence against 1 thing must support only 1 other conclusion, which I also demonstrated to you, & what have we got?
Here you are, ignoring the knowledge thats been set before you to keep repeating what you know to be false. Like I said earlier, its a T&C Violation &, like someone else said, trolling.
I know you just showed that you dont remember back in the thread, but I'll ask anyway: do you recall when I likened creationism to a barking dog that just wont shut up, because it hasn't the brains to realise that the cars that keep passing are not the sheep it was bred to herd? You John, have become that dog. Attempting to herd sheep by repeating the lie regardless, in the mistaken belief that people will eventually believe it. But here we are, in our cars, pulling up to throw empty cans @your fence, just to watch you perform, so that your position is shown as ridiculous.



posted on Sep, 17 2009 @ 11:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Originally posted by novacs4me
Your post is quite insulting. I am hoping that a mod will see what is going on here.


First of, I did not "insult" anybody. Grow up. Second, please take time to review the thread to see how John says how his mystical experience weighs on this interpretation of fact.


I mentioned my mystical experience to answer the question,

"why do you sound so sure of what you speak of?"

....or something like that....I'm paraphrasing the question as I don't recall it exactly and I don't have time to look it up.

It was put to me after some debate...so I answered the person with an honest reply.

I know the evidences for creation supports my mystical experience, and I also know my mystical experience does nothing to advance my argument for creation science, however, my mystical experience provides the impetus to expose the fraud, lies, and deceptions of evolution.



posted on Sep, 17 2009 @ 11:45 AM
link   
The honesty of the Christian who speaks of the central event of his/her life to explain how their worldview began to change, is never appreciated for what it is. But we must continue to speak the truth, regardless (not irregardless, see, Bunken Drum?) of how it is perceived. This leaves us, regardless of our education, and of our eagerness to learn more in any and all fields, open to the quick discrediting from all who have not experienced that event. Thankfully, the scientists who continue to study their chosen fields of endeavor after becoming Christians, do not give up in the face of adversity. I don't think there is any other field where one's livelihood can so quickly be destroyed just for believing in a universe created by God.



posted on Sep, 17 2009 @ 11:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by John Matrix
I know the evidences for creation supports my mystical experience, and I also know my mystical experience does nothing to advance my argument for creation science, however, my mystical experience provides the impetus to expose the fraud, lies, and deceptions of evolution.


Do you believe all the scientific evidence for evolution has been fabricated?



posted on Sep, 17 2009 @ 11:54 AM
link   
Well I think some people here are arguing over evolution vs creation.
Ever think that both are in play?

For life to start up on it's own on Earth as a single cell organism it would have to have a minimum of 250 proteins to provide minimum life functions.
The chances of that happening are pretty low.



The argument around the movie is not evolution, it's the Survival of the Fittest theory which is totally wrong and out dated by this primitive thinking Darwin character.

I believe thing can evolve naturally, and Intelligent Design is in play with it.

Now that we know about the cell, you would have to be really out of touch to think there was no Intelligent Design involved.

Watch this animation of the cell.



[edit on 17-9-2009 by buds84]



posted on Sep, 17 2009 @ 12:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bunken Drum
Here you go again. There is no "implication", its a demonstrated fact.


It may be in your mind, but it's narcistic to think everyone should believe, see, and be just like you.



You have had the scientific method explained to you numerous times. I even quoted a dictionary for you.


Yes, I recall you quoting the dictionary for me. Thank you. It was very condescending of you to do that....presumptuous on your part as well.



How can you not understand that the scientific method requires that the investigation begin with a hypothesis, which by definition must be capable of being tested?


I understand it quite well thank you very much.



The premise that an intelligent designer created stuff is not able to be tested, therefore it is unscientific.


The premise that natural processes are responsible for life coming out of non living matter cannot be tested. That is not an opinion Bunken, it's a fact.



Add to that the logical fallacy that evidence against 1 thing must support only 1 other conclusion, which I also demonstrated to you, & what have we got?


This argument does nothing to advance the evolutionist position. You are stooping to knit picking.



Here you are, ignoring the knowledge thats been set before you to keep repeating what you know to be false. Like I said earlier, its a T&C Violation &, like someone else said, trolling.


I have tried to answer all responses and even attacks in a respectful manner.

I have tried to stay on topic even though others have attempted to derail me.

I have posted several good links to sources.

I was even given an applause by a super mod for one of my posts.

Therefore, I find these accusation personally, attacking, insuting and unwarranted.

You are losing the debate. It's upsetting you, but try to stay cool.



I know you just showed that you dont remember back in the thread, but I'll ask anyway: do you recall when I likened creationism to a barking dog that just wont shut up, because it hasn't the brains to realise that the cars that keep passing are not the sheep it was bred to herd? You John, have become that dog. Attempting to herd sheep by repeating the lie regardless, in the mistaken belief that people will eventually believe it. But here we are, in our cars, pulling up to throw empty cans @your fence, just to watch you perform, so that your position is shown as ridiculous.



Sorry but I missed that gem you wrote, but now that you repeated it and inserted a personal attack and insult into it that is aimed at me....I get your point.


Obviously you know you are losing this debate and you are turning to personal attacks and insults.

Since I am out numbered by you and your allies in this debate, I find your personal attacks overtly offensive.


[edit on 17/9/09 by John Matrix]



posted on Sep, 17 2009 @ 12:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jezus

Originally posted by John Matrix
I know the evidences for creation supports my mystical experience, and I also know my mystical experience does nothing to advance my argument for creation science, however, my mystical experience provides the impetus to expose the fraud, lies, and deceptions of evolution.


Do you believe all the scientific evidence for evolution has been fabricated?


No Jezus, I do not believe the evidence is fabricated. The evidence is what it is, and both sides have access to the same evidences.

It is the explanation of the evidences by evolutionists that I am at odds with, because I believe it is more logical and reasonable that the design inherent in all of nature is scientific evidence for an Intelligent Designer.




top topics



 
29
<< 15  16  17    19  20  21 >>

log in

join