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: 19
29
<< 16  17  18    20  21  22 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 17 2009 @ 01:20 PM
link   
reply to post by John Matrix
 

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.
ROFL! See how he twists & turns like a twisty-turny thing! Or indeed a snake with a corkscrew up the rectum. I told you straight, on page 14:

Be in no doubt that your inability or unwillingness to answer speaks volumes.
If you reply, I'll respond. If not, by all means have the last word, but also be in no doubt that you have been defeated comprehensively &, since this question goes to the very heart of the creationism vs science debate, your entire ideology along with you.
Your very next reply to me, on the same page, was to quote the problem & after some preamble, answer:

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.
I don't believe that number one above is responsible for all life on earth because it is illogical and unreasonable.
I believe that life is the result of the Supernatural being manifested in nature through special creation.
Make fun of me all you want. Be condescending all you want. Get cute all you want. Insult creationists all you want. It changes nothing.
It is what it is

John, this latest post of yours was a terrible faux pas. Can we believe that you really were just tossing off some thoughts for my consideration? Why didn't you say so on the occasions that I've already called you on your failure to solve the problem? Consider also that I've accused you of deliberately peddling falsehood a few times. Then what do you do?
Get yourself caught out in a childishly transparent LIE.[/B]
Your lack of rhetorical skill is simply astounding!
Worse tho is that you will just carry on spouting rubbish woof woof woof ad nauseam. Still, now @least everyone knows you're dishonest.




posted on Sep, 17 2009 @ 01:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by Stylez
 



....still being used by self admitted fraudster ernst haekel.


Well, perhaps an example of ACTUAL textbooks still being used in the U.S. school systems that still are using a discredited work by the 'fraudster'??

Kansas???








posted on Sep, 17 2009 @ 02:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker


Instead, some people find it far easier to think of an over-simplified version of "GOD DID IT" or something like that....and I happen to think that a person who actually BELIEVES in the 'creator' and/or a 'supreme being' is deliberately abusing his/her privilege as a Human with a brain that exceeds the capacity of any other creature on this planet (that we know of...) by not excersing the intellectual capacity that is "designed in" according to their stated beliefs.

See the irony???

Weed weed, slow down guy, I'm not an idiot and I'm not asking you to explain every single so called discovery by Darwinists, I didn't even ask that at all. Read my post. I asked you to explain how you would prove it using the "scientific method" in other words, weed, give me an example just one and BE advised: I have demonstrated this with countless Darwinists giving them a chance to back up their bravado by offering one little experiment that I can see if we can falsify.



Here is another question; I see you have invalidated me as someone not serious enough or not intelligent enough to debate this with you or anyone else by suggesting our typical answer is "God did it".

Now I know that is said a LOT by do you know who it is that says it 99.999999 % of the time? Evolutionists and atheist's

Weed, I'd be the first one to admit that isn't an answer, and to date since I have been alive, I have NEVER seen that answer given by a Christian who was a scientist. Can you quote any for me? I sure would like to see that and all the other programmed responses removed from any dialogue between us. It only makes the side using such silly tawdry little taunts look rather, well, immature. Especially for people allegedly so educated.



[edit on 17-9-2009 by Stylez]



posted on Sep, 17 2009 @ 02:49 PM
link   
reply to post by John Matrix
 

I can see that being arrogant and also visceral is important to your style of debating....good job demonstrating it.
Well, lets consider arrogance shall we? When novacs4me actually engaged me in debate, I was quite impressed with her argument, said so, gave a star, conceded to part of her argument & re-engaged positively with hers. We also had a giggle about a spelling mistake of mine.
In your case however, you simply would not listen to anything being said to you right up until I told you I'd had enough, using arrogance to sting you into a response. Even after you've had the scientific method explained to you plenty of times & your misconceptions corrected & despite failing to show any logic to creation pseudoscience, even tho I set up the problem in the simplest terms for you several times, you still persist with your repetitious ignorance-mongering. How arrogant is that, John?
My arrogance has a purpose, as I will now demonstrate. I knew that sooner or later, a person who will not debate but will not quit would eventually trip themselves up, if goaded. I even told you I was doing it, in advance of this post, as I could feel the moment approaching, just so it would sting some more. I couldn't know that you'd actually go so far as lying about what you've posted tho!

Then there was the visceral metaphor... to set up this statement: your position was shown to be without merit pages ago, ever since I have been leisurely putting forth a stream of gold where all else is dark

So John, considering that you have been anticipated & set up, you are dishonestly trolling & thus I expect this to be my final reply to you, what do you think of my debating skills now?



posted on Sep, 17 2009 @ 03:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

Originally posted by Stylez

Originally posted by weedwhacker


But, to see BIG changes?? Humans don't live long enough, individually. I've pointed that out already, I'd think intellectually honest people would understand that aspect.....


Then how do we know they happen at all?


I know you didn't ask me, but I think the evidence can speak for itself in this case, showing transitional forms of land mammals evolving into whales in the fossil record:



If you watch that with an open mind it might be quite illuminating, but if you don't have an open mind, then there's really not much point in looking at any evidence.


No but the interpreter of the evidence can speak for it but that video assumes the consequent moreover, DNA has ruled out such polymorphisms with the discovery of the genetic template which is already hard coded and digital too by the way, into the whales DNA. in other words, whales don't need evolution and never did. Their DNA is relatively the same for many millions of years.

For something like a cow to change into a whale,would require a COMPLETE structural and bioengineering makeover while in the meantime it has to survive with this millions of years of very gradual changes where they get to a certain point and the entire system must be put on life support for some of these changes to take place as every single change must happen at pretty much the same damn time because they are all interdependant on each other. It is not unlike a Doctor doing surgery on say a heart or lungs while the patient must be connected to a replacement heart (mechanical) while the change to his own takes place.

Fast or slow, doesn't matter their would have to be temporary mechanism in place for this kind of change to take place that with each change getting more critical to sustain life once it has made the change, it must discard the temporary body parts organs and glands that were required to keep the creature alive during this process.

The only benefit to the darwinist for saying time time time time is it gives us the excuse we need to say "well maybe it could have happened"

That isn't science any more than saying have an open mind isn't trying to give me a reputation to live up to for allowing imagination to take the place of honest and accurate objectivity.

another area where recent discoveries regarding DNA proving unequivocally evolution needs a new mechanism to replace mutation, is the extraordinary alility DNA has to communicate using telepathy. Yes I'm serious but don't let that diminish the argument as something supernatural, I'm certain they will figure out how it does it if they haven't by now. More than that though is the recent discovery for DNA to revert back to it's default "factory condition" like a computer when it gets to corrupted, DNA will only allow a few mutations, each one becoming exponentially more rare to happen again then the first one and actually slows down the rate mutations take place taking to long for the diverse species we see today. Then what the DNA does is like a complet format and reboots to the original template for that creature.

All living things are made with DNA and all creatures can be made with it. Thwese latest discoveries have put such a damper on evolutionist's the top 15 evolutionary scientist are, and have been in meetings to revamp the entire theory and are desperate for creating a new mechanism with a plausible hypothesis to test as the new theory.

I have been alive since Kennedy, and have seen them do this about every 10-15 years. This time however, DNA has pretty much marginalized the importance of natural selection as a non issue now that we know most of the adaptive changes all creatures undergo are already inherent in their DNA. The whale idea and what they have sold this idea on is complete and utter nonsense. The kinds of transitional fossil we would be seeing would most definatly show such stages to have happended.

Like most, of them however, we see the whale just sort of POP UP in the fossil record. Many years ago they had always complained that their were never any transitional fossils found. Then the NAS got realo clever and decided to insinuate transitional fossil are their by merely assuming they all are and this again assumes evolution happened when that isn't how science works. They had done this with many constructs of evolution always using highly embellised adject discriptions for tons of evidence to support it or it is the most tested most proven most stable theory in all history! Or mountains of evidence when I can prove that mountain is a long overdo for leveling pile of pilt down frauds and hoaxes evolutionists seem deliberately reluctant to update or discard as junk science.

In the mean time, we see the opposite extreme for adjectives describing creationsism and by the way anything OTHER than darwininian evolution is creationism which has ZERO evidence. ZERO! it isn't even a science! which is another item of contention I am going to clear up is the idea God ( if there is one) belongs to some religion. Even if he did, so what, science is science and has a way of getting to the truth using the scientific method. One does not have to know who the designer is, just that there was one and in that regard, The God Model looks a hell of lot more compelling and hold all your pre conceived ideas running through your head right now because no one is saying anything about religion. Religion is a philosophy Evolution is not science it is a theory but a very weak theory if that. Science can test it but Science is Science Biology is a Science the idea someone came up with to attache evolution to it's coat tails to borrow from its legitimacy is clever but it never gets past the distinctions for what real science is about .

You can research creationism scientifically also.

My discent from the TOE paradigm implies no alternative theory and justifies the continued waste of time and money using the excuse it is the best thing we have when studying junk science for so many generations teachng this theory has dumbed American students in science down to pathetic levels.

[edit on 17-9-2009 by Stylez]



posted on Sep, 17 2009 @ 03:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bunken Drum
So John, considering that you have been anticipated & set up, you are dishonestly trolling & thus I expect this to be my final reply to you, what do you think of my debating skills now?


Once John proved in the following dialog that creation science is not science because it's not falsifiable with any imaginable observational evidence, that was the end of my debate with him.


Originally posted by Arbitrageur
I asked this question:

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
if we suddenly started discovering huge deposits of human fossils in the same layers of sedimentary rock as dinosaur fossils, such a finding would falsify current scientific theories. But that's how the scientific method works, theories are adjusted based on observational evidence. Can you give an example of how observational evidence might be found that could similarly disprove the theories in creation science?


To which you replied:

Originally posted by John Matrix
Unfortunately I cannot satisfy your need for such evidence because none exists.
Which makes the creation model that much more reasonable, logical, sound, and believable.


Please allow me to clarify.
I didn't ask you to provide evidence of how creation science is false.
I asked you to provide an example of what type of evidence WOULD prove creation science false, if we were to discover it tomorrow.
For example, we haven't found human bones in the same sedimentary layer as dinosaur bones either, but I can give you that example of evidence that COULD BE found tomorrow that would disprove our current theories on evolution. I'm asking you if you can provide a similar example of what type of evidence, not found yet, COULD disprove creation science if it were to be found tomorrow.



posted on Sep, 17 2009 @ 03:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by Stylez
Like most, of them however, we see the whale just sort of POP UP in the fossil record. Many years ago they had always complained that their were never any transitional fossils found. Then the NAS got realo clever and decided to insinuate transitional fossil are their by merely assuming they all are and this again assumes evolution happened when that isn't how science works.


Thanks for the detailed and thoughtful reply my friend, Since that video was about the whale evolution I'll focus on that.

You're right that for a long time scientists believed whales evolved from land mammals, and creationists pointed out that such theories were sorely lacking in proof. The evolutionary scientists had to admit that the fossil record was incomplete (and still is by the way).

However now that scientists have discovered the very evidence that creationists have complained was missing from the fossil record, they now want to state that that's not proof either?

In any case people of intelligence can look at that evidence and make their own decisions regarding what it demonstrates. We have apparently come to different conclusions about the meaning of that evidence. So if that doesn't convince you, I'm afraid there's not much more I can say that will, we will just have to agree to disagree I guess.

Regards.



posted on Sep, 17 2009 @ 03:34 PM
link   
reply to post by John Matrix
 
Ok, just this 1 more...

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.
No John, it isn't. The hypothesis is being tested right now. I suppose you must have missed this link when I posted it earlier, but here's an extract:

In a conference for alumni today at Harvard, Church described how his team assembled a reconstituted ribosome, the first artificial version of the structure capable of remaking itself.
Harvard Scientists’ Discovery Opens Door to Synthetic Life - Bloomberg.com
The scientists who are doing this research aren't actually interested in making synthetic life, but the article mentions many who are & this recent breakthrough may help them.
Who knows, they may fail, but the scientific method will be @work testing the hypothesis that life can spring from non-life & whatever they do discover will have an impact on the theories of those researching how it may (notice may not did - science works like that) have happened spontaneously.
Btw, I couldn't care less how many applause you get, John. They will not alter the definition of "logic" or "scientific method". As for "losing the debate", how is that possible? You lost it on page 14. The rest has just been waiting for you to show your true colours.
You did, bye bye.



posted on Sep, 17 2009 @ 03:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by novacs4me
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.


You can believe in a Universe created by God in a variety of ways. What honestly bugs me is that typically it is the most dumbed-down version of such beliefs that is being promoted by most "creationists". Sure, fossils are devil's handywork.



posted on Sep, 17 2009 @ 04:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Originally posted by novacs4me
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.


You can believe in a Universe created by God in a variety of ways. What honestly bugs me is that typically it is the most dumbed-down version of such beliefs that is being promoted by most "creationists". Sure, fossils are devil's handywork.


Neither I nor my husband have ever heard of fossils referred to as the devil's handiwork. Do you have a reference for that? Thanks!



posted on Sep, 17 2009 @ 04:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by novacs4me
Neither I nor my husband have ever heard of fossils referred to as the devil's handiwork. Do you have a reference for that? Thanks!


Here you go: richarddawkins.net...

But the video was removed from youtube for copyright violation. Apparently it was an HBO special, and a comedy so apparently not serious, I didn't see it.

But seriously, it was actually Horus that was the devil's handiwork: www.religioustolerance.org...

I don't think the devil had much to do with fossils personally.



posted on Sep, 17 2009 @ 04:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

Originally posted by novacs4me
Neither I nor my husband have ever heard of fossils referred to as the devil's handiwork. Do you have a reference for that? Thanks!


Here you go: richarddawkins.net...

But the video was removed from youtube for copyright violation. Apparently it was an HBO special, and a comedy so apparently not serious, I didn't see it.

But seriously, it was actually Horus that was the devil's handiwork: www.religioustolerance.org...

I don't think the devil had much to do with fossils personally.

Thanks for explaining this to me. If devil-fossils and Horus are what this thread has degenerated to, then it is probably time to bid adieu. Thanks, folks! I'm taking this one off my favorites. C U around!



posted on Sep, 17 2009 @ 04:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bunken Drum
reply to post by John Matrix
 

I can see that being arrogant and also visceral is important to your style of debating....good job demonstrating it.
Well, lets consider arrogance shall we? When novacs4me actually engaged me in debate, I was quite impressed with her argument, said so, gave a star, conceded to part of her argument & re-engaged positively with hers. We also had a giggle about a spelling mistake of mine.
In your case however, you simply would not listen to anything being said to you right up until I told you I'd had enough, using arrogance to sting you into a response. Even after you've had the scientific method explained to you plenty of times & your misconceptions corrected & despite failing to show any logic to creation pseudoscience, even tho I set up the problem in the simplest terms for you several times, you still persist with your repetitious ignorance-mongering. How arrogant is that, John?
My arrogance has a purpose, as I will now demonstrate. I knew that sooner or later, a person who will not debate but will not quit would eventually trip themselves up, if goaded. I even told you I was doing it, in advance of this post, as I could feel the moment approaching, just so it would sting some more. I couldn't know that you'd actually go so far as lying about what you've posted tho!

Then there was the visceral metaphor... to set up this statement: your position was shown to be without merit pages ago, ever since I have been leisurely putting forth a stream of gold where all else is dark

So John, considering that you have been anticipated & set up, you are dishonestly trolling & thus I expect this to be my final reply to you, what do you think of my debating skills now?


You are not debating you are harassing me. You started out telling that creation science does not exist. I explained to you that it does, and told you that just because you don't think it exists, does not make it so.

But you would not listen to me, and you claimed the term is an oxymoron. You said I insulted those who work for an education in various fields of science....and I explained to you that you do the very same thing by denying the existence of creation science.

You claimed evolution is based on science, and creation isn't. That's your opinion, fallacy and your denial of the facts.

The reason someone as brilliant, educated, intelligent, and sophisticated as you are has taken so much time to be little me is because you have a inferiority complex. You see Bunken Drum, you put me down to elevate yourself. I don't see you putting down others quite like you do me. So I am honored that you picked me to put down in order to boost your ego and self image.


I posted text and gave the source at the top of the previous page. This is called a contribution to the discussion and you would do well to review that information which has science behind it.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Now if you could contribute something to the topic other than insulting and harassing me, I would be greatful.



posted on Sep, 17 2009 @ 04:51 PM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 

Once John proved in the following dialog that creation science is not science because it's not falsifiable with any imaginable observational evidence, that was the end of my debate with him.
Yeah, fully. There was just something about his style. IDK, ignorance is 1 thing, & willful, stubborn ignorance another, but there was something about the way he went about it that got my goat. I kind of had to stay until he was hoist on his own petard. Still, you missed out the classic @the end of your exchange:

Originally posted by John Matrix
Oh, I get it.....it's not science unless it's falsifiable!
That is halarious.
I mean WTF? In an actual serious debate about science? Boggles the flipping mind...



posted on Sep, 17 2009 @ 05:02 PM
link   
Big sigh. O.K. It's like trying to walk away from a train wreck. I can't do it. Forget I said I was leaving. I'm in for the long haul. Guys, let's go back to the logic question. Forget C - Z. I know the first bit of the book of John by heart. "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. Through Him all things were made. Without him, nothing was made that has been made. In him was the life, the life that is the light of men. The light shines in the darkness, but the darkness has not understood it." I didn't have to go find my Bible for that. These are the most profound words in the Bible, in my humble opinion. Jesus was there, he created it ALL, and this thread IS part of the darkness. So we're going to keep shining the light of the Gospel in here. Y'all can stay or go. I'm staying.



posted on Sep, 17 2009 @ 05:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bunken Drum
Still, you missed out the classic @the end of your exchange:

Originally posted by John Matrix
Oh, I get it.....it's not science unless it's falsifiable!
That is halarious.
I mean WTF? In an actual serious debate about science? Boggles the flipping mind...


Thanks for making sure I saw that.

But no I didn't miss it.

I didn't know of any way to reply to that without the reply coming off as some kind of ad hominem attack, so I chose to let that comment speak for itself, and speak volumes it does, to anyone who knows what science is.



posted on Sep, 17 2009 @ 05:09 PM
link   
reply to post by Bunken Drum
 


With regard to Your post to me here: www.abovetopsecret.com...

That article has nothing to do with Natural Processes producing life from non living matter. The term "synthetic cells" gives it away and defuses your point. So does this:
www.allaboutscience.org...



posted on Sep, 17 2009 @ 05:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Originally posted by novacs4me 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.
You can believe in a Universe created by God in a variety of ways. What honestly bugs me is that typically it is the most dumbed-down version of such beliefs that is being promoted by most "creationists". Sure, fossils are devil's handywork.
What bugs me is the spurious legitimacy the religious claim from supposedly undertaking scientific research to back up their particular mythos. It lends their POV more weight when it comes to things like stem cell research or cloning.
Still, there is a job that you'll lose faster than a scientist for owning up to being religious: UK Prime Minister
Tony Blair avoided talking about his religious views while in office for fear of being labelled "a nutter", the former prime minister has revealed.



posted on Sep, 17 2009 @ 05:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bunken Drum

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Originally posted by novacs4me 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.
You can believe in a Universe created by God in a variety of ways. What honestly bugs me is that typically it is the most dumbed-down version of such beliefs that is being promoted by most "creationists". Sure, fossils are devil's handywork.
What bugs me is the spurious legitimacy the religious claim from supposedly undertaking scientific research to back up their particular mythos. It lends their POV more weight when it comes to things like stem cell research or cloning.
Still, there is a job that you'll lose faster than a scientist for owning up to being religious: UK Prime Minister
Tony Blair avoided talking about his religious views while in office for fear of being labelled "a nutter", the former prime minister has revealed.

I am never sure of the faith of a politician anymore. But if Tony Blair was afraid of being called a 'nutter', then he missed out on a great blessing. I would be honored to be considered a 'nutter' for Christ.



posted on Sep, 17 2009 @ 05:36 PM
link   
reply to post by Bunken Drum
 


That I find a statement that says "It's not science unless it's falsifiable" funny seems to have become your favorite point of criticism.

My Source: creation.com...

Many attempts to define ‘science’ are circular. The point that a theory must be acceptable to contemporary scientists to be acceptable, basically defines science as ‘what scientists do’! In fact, under this definition, economic theories would be acceptable scientific theories, if ‘contemporary scientists’ accepted them as such.



In many cases, these so-called definitions of science are blatantly self-serving and contradictory. A number of evolutionary propagandists have claimed that creation is not scientific because it is supposedly untestable. But in the same paragraph they claim, ‘scientists have carefully examined the claims of creation science, and found that ideas such as the young Earth and global Flood are incompatible with the evidence.’ But obviously creation cannot have been examined (tested!) and found to be false if it’s ‘untestable’.



The definition of ‘science’ has haunted philosophers of science in the 20th century. The earlier approach of Bacon, who is considered the founder of the scientific method, was pretty straightforward:



observation → induction → hypothesis → test hypothesis by experiment → proof/disproof → knowledge.



Of course this, and the whole approach to modern science, depends on two major assumptions: causality and induction. The philosopher Hume made it clear that these are believed by ‘blind faith’ (Bertrand Russell’s words). Kant and Whitehead claimed to have solved the problem, but Russell recognized that Hume was right. Actually, these assumptions arose from faith in the Creator-God of the Bible, as historians of science like Loren Eiseley have recognized. Many scientists are so philosophically and theologically ignorant that they don’t even realize that they have these (and other) metaphysical assumptions. Being like a frog in the warming water, many do not even notice that there are philosophical assumptions at the root of much that passes as ‘science’. It’s part of their own worldview, so they don’t even notice. We at CMI are ‘up front’ about our acceptance of revelation (the Bible). Unlike many atheists, we recognize that a philosophy of life does not come from the data, but rather the philosophy is brought to the data and used in interpreting it.


SOURCE: creation.com...



new topics

top topics



 
29
<< 16  17  18    20  21  22 >>

log in

join