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.

 

Why People are STILL Laughing at Creationists (and ID'ers)

page: 17
30
<< 14  15  16    18 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 2 2010 @ 03:58 AM
link   
reply to post by 13579
 



Originally posted by 13579
still think people dont understand function and creation..





it would be ielogical because who made god? we can go on for ever an ever asking who who who made what what what


Which is why it would make sense that god is either a product of our universe or a product of a universe that can either interact with ours or is able to exist in other dimensions within our universe


when we know we are here is a fact and we know life has a system "everything has a system" even water falling from the sky has a cycle


Again it would make sense for a creator to design a system that would require as little input as possible. For example if i wanted to make a CGI cartoon of a rabbit i would have to either write it with code from scratch or use a piece of software that automatically writes the code for me as i create (like Adobe Dreamweaver or 3DSMAX.)


what makes you think you are just not ONE part of a bigger cycle??


But that is the thing many religions and faiths argue, that we are but one cog in the gear works of our universe. We had been given intelligence, the ability to think, in order to understand our role and interact with the universe. It is a very simple concept.


noting intelligent about it.. it WORKS


Are you kidding me? Do you even know HOW DNA works? It is absolutely AMAZING how it works. DNA is essentially a highly complex programming language that interacts with and rearranges matter.

When an egg and sperm met to form the first cell that was to become you, you were given the complete genetic code that all of your cells will use for the rest of your life.

The first cell divided and became two cells, these divided to become four, then eight then 16 and so on. there are cells in your body that are still dividing to produce new skin or blood cells. Most of the time a cell divides perfectly and each of the DNA molecules is copied exactly, with one copy going to each of the new cells. If mistakes are made they are fixed or the cell is marked for destruction.

If a problem occurs in this process the new cells often die, but on rare occasions the faulty cells survive and can cause a wide range of problems. However, sometimes these faults (mutations) can be beneficial for the organism: this is the basis for evolution.

It is a self replicating self correcting system. It is like a video game engine that not only updates it's graphics and gameplay but can go back and remedy its programming errors. This is completely possible as well, in fact AI research relies heavily on self correcting and self modifying programming

It makes 100% sense that a creator would use DNA and genetic evolution in order to create life.




posted on Jan, 2 2010 @ 04:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by brarew
If "god's will" and "God's purpose" allow children to be abused and killed then by all means shove your head right back up your butt. I personally am a free thinker who comes to my own conclusions based on facts and eyewitness events.

There is more evidence of aliens than God and yet when they are spoken of there is always a sigma attached to the speaker.

Stay in the dark flat worlders....I chose to move forward instead of clinging to myths and stories.

Peace and Love,
brarew


Dude seriously? That is the best argument you could come up with? Blatant ad hominem? Excuse me princess but a lot of us creationists ARE free thinkers (at least as free as one can be without having to rely on others for information). The reason i say we are freethinkers is because we refuse to follow science blindly and think and understand that the scientific method is A CONSTRUCT OF MAN. You can argue about peer review and the inherent objectivity and self modifying and correcting nature of scientific method but it doesn't change the fact that a person or groups of people can work together in order to fabricate evidence or theories. Both sides of the creationist debate are subject to this. If you honestly think that because you do not believe in god you are free thinker then i have some painful news for you.

You are not a free thinker. You rely on the words and observations of other people in order to confirm your suspicions and conjectures. Unless you have access to every science lab and verified every experiment ever donein the world you will have to rely on the words of others as some point. Religion is not immune to this and neither is science, to think otherwise is hopelessly naive and goes to show just how much independence you actually posess in your thought. The same exact thing applies to me. When i read about how tetravalent bonds result in carbon based life forms i have to trust that the scientist publishing the article and the scientists who subject it to peer review are actually going back, checking the work done, replicating the experiments or re-doing the math and that the majority of them have arrived at a unanimous conclusion and investigated contradicting conclusions instead of just saying they agree with it because it conforms to an a priori or bias of some sort. And let's say that you arrived to the "there is no god" conclusion on your own. Are you so bold to say that you are the first person to think of it?

I am NOT the first old earth creationist
I am NOT the first person to accept evolution as a valid theory.
I am NOT a blind follower.



posted on Jan, 2 2010 @ 04:25 AM
link   
Reply to post by brarew
 


Perhaps more critical thinking is required in your "free" thinking consideration there budro. Considering the amount of pigeon holing and stereotyping assumed by you to be fact you are perpetrating against your chosen opponents *since when does "free thinking" consist of parroting the party line anyway?*. But I know the ego seldom requires honest effort when the illusion suffices.


 
Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com
 



posted on Jan, 2 2010 @ 04:39 AM
link   
Reply to post by malcr
 


Perhaps via a evolutionary mechanism which includes reproduction/offspring? Except on the scale of universes? Hope you are getting what I mean, you know a "organic" progression or approach to the Many Worlds Theory. Basically universes "spawning" universes.


 
Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com
 



posted on Jan, 2 2010 @ 04:45 AM
link   
reply to post by moocowman
 



Originally posted by moocowman

Originally posted by DeathShield
reply to post by moocowman
 



Have you ever thought that perhaps all religions were simply putting their own personal interpretation of the same entity or entities? Did you know that Judaism was originally a polytheistic faith?

It would appear to be nothing more than a descendant of an Egyptian cult and it could be argued that the Hebrews were one and the same exiled Akhetatanians. This would appear far more likely than an exodus of 2 million nonexistent protojews.

You either wilfully ignored (which i am guessing is the case because i've ran into your type before, people who hate christianity so much that they refuse to spell out the word christ and think that somehow using the letter X makes them all edgy and defiant) or flat out missed the point i was making.

You assume that because ancient judaism shares qualities with other ancient monotheistic and polytheistic faiths that it is directly based on another faith. This IS possible and is a valid argument but it is not verifiable without having been there to witness it happen. What you are ignoring is that it may mean that because there are similarities they may be referring to the same force or higher being.

So here are a few questions i have for you?

What proof do you have that the jews came from Amarna? If you have said proof what makes you sure that this proof is historically accurate?

How do you know that it is more likely than the exodus? Where you there to witness all of this? And again if you have said proof what makes you so sure it is accurate.

Now should you turn these questions back onto me and my beliefs i will flat out tell you, i am not 100% sure of anything ( like any true skeptic) and i am not cocky enough nor do i harbor a huge desire to be "right" in order to say that my beliefs and my learned history is the correct or most likely history. All of my knowledge is third hand and i certainly was not around to witness my supposed history take place. What i DO know is that it is completely possible for me to be completely wrong or right and that it is possible for BOTH OF US to be wrong or right.



posted on Jan, 2 2010 @ 05:02 AM
link   
reply to post by SuperFlyingZombies
 


This may shock some of us, but hold on.

Most Christians I know don't believe in the young earth theory.

The creations declare His glory, so people who really love God seek Him out,
and they find Him, in space, in microbes, everywhere. His fingerprints are all over everything.

The biggest conspiracy is against the truth about Him. It's sad that so many want the answer, as long as it isn't Him.

I haven't seen many Christians on here bashing others, but trying to share the information they have.
These people are open-minded enough to be here, contribute, consider, and add to the conversation.

It's the haters of Christianity who cause the very problems they try to accuse Christians of.

Unless there is some kind of private harassment going on, I'm just not seeing all this persecution and filth and hatred that some posters speak of, but I will certainly take this time to apologize for all that people have suffered in their lives.
As a Christian, I don't hate gay people. My mind doesn't belong in anyone's bedroom but mine, so that is not the least bit difficult.
I love science, and refuse to talk with people who refuse to consider more than the dirt under their feet, because that's not really human anyway;
and as far as hatred, and other crimes against humanity, it wasn't me, and surely the other Christians here who read the rants against their faith are showing much more restraint and patience than some who throw mud at people they don't really even know.

Sorry there's so much baggage, but when can we get back to trying to figure out who is lying and for what reason?

Why use religion as a reason to lose focus on what evidence we DO have access to?
Ridiculous.



posted on Jan, 2 2010 @ 05:15 AM
link   
reply to post by moocowman
 


I am truly sorry that someone assaulted your children. That person was not a Christian.

There are other groups, however, who do practice child abuse, murder, kidnapping and other things I cannot bear to mention, but we all have been forced to know about.

Why not come out against them? You can't be serious that Christians are responsible for all the evils in the world, or even most of them.

People go to a lot of trouble to refute them, so it's not like anyone's listening, therefore they are not in control of anything being complained about here.

Also, since many believe they are able to become God or discover God within, we should definitely be blaming THEM for not fixing the world, allowing starvation, bigotry, racism, war, hatred, etc.

Right? Can't have it both ways.



posted on Jan, 2 2010 @ 05:27 AM
link   
reply to post by SuperFlyingZombies
 

Originally posted by SuperFlyingZombies

The difference between real scientists, and Creationist "science" is real scientists look at the data first and then determine if their hypotheses will fit in. "Scientific" creationists begin with biblical
"truths" which "may not be questioned"
.
You obviously have no understanding of judeo-christianity. One of the very basic concepts of understanding or unveiling meaning in the bible is by questioning every single word in it. In judaism you are encouraged to question the written word.

Scientific creationism relies on a few key concepts.

*the bible was not meant to be a scientific work or descriptor of the world. You can extrapolate scientific meaning and data from it but it is not a 100% accurate depiction of what actually happened. For example try explain Abiogenesis to an ancient israeli, they would not understand a single word you said because the concept was not known to man at the time.

*the bible was written and translated by MAN, it is safer to assume that the bible is an analysis and interpretation on how man interacted with god than it is to assume it is the word of god himself.

* What god once held true 2000 years ago, may no longer apply today, because the bible is a snapshot of history, a collection of thoughts and words god once held. what god may think today may be completely different from what he thought 1,000 years ago.


* Scientific understanding is how we can interpret and interact with the universe. If science says man evolved from ape then we must accept that as a possible way in which god chose to bring us into being. To spit in the face of science is to spit in the face of god and to forsake our ability to better understand him.


Scientific creationists start out with science and look at the bible to see if there are scriptures that can correspond with the data. If there is no verse or scripture that supports the data it is assumed that the observed data was not known by man at the time or was not relevant to the bible and was therefore left out. It is understood by scientific creationists that the bible does not hold all of the scientific answers.


That is not science!


Actually that IS science. When contradictory data to the hypothesis or theory is found the theory or hypothesis is either modified or discarded. This is a very common practice. Spontaneous generation would be an example of a theory that was discarded in favor of genetic evolution. When it was discovered that animals of different species shared DNA with eachother the theory of evolution was modified to accommodate inter-species evolution.


The shocking truth, unknown to much of the public, is that the arguments advanced by the "scientific" creationists are not only bad, but shockingly bad. Arguments based solely on obsolete data are by no means rare. Misrepresentation of the data are commonplace! (It is usually a case of bad data being passed along or wishful thinking rather than out- and-out dishonesty.) Thus, the question as to how good the young-earth arguments are takes on a new meaning.

Creationists have an agenda. (Most)Scientists do not.



The shocking truth is that people like you purposely pick the creationists who use obsolete data, data misrepresentations and overall bad arguments for the purpose of stigmatizing the group as a whole. In turn legitimate arguments and legitimate data are automatically dismissed or not subject to peer review from other reputable sources because of judgments based on one groups presentation. There is a reason people like richard dawkins does not argue with old earth creationists.

ALL SCIENTISTS have an agenda. They either want to prove or disprove something, the way they go about it can either be honest or dishonest. Only a fool would think otherwise.



posted on Jan, 2 2010 @ 05:33 AM
link   
reply to post by moocowman
 


I do not know of any school in the USA that presents creationism as scientific fact. In fact when i attended catholic school we were taught that secular evolutionary science was a valid and respectable field despite what some christians believe. My teachers were not allowed to even discuss it with the students privately because of separation of church and state laws.



posted on Jan, 2 2010 @ 05:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by Copperflower
reply to post by SuperFlyingZombies
 



Why use religion as a reason to lose focus on what evidence we DO have access to?
Ridiculous.


See this is the problem. Atheists make very valid points in regards to religions role with science. The problem is that you have anti-theists who hi-jack science and atheism and use it as an excuse to justify their hatred. The problem isn't that there is bad science in creationism ( and i am man enough to admit that there IS a LOT of bad science in creationism, specifically young earth) the problem is that there are people who think that science and religion can intertwine with eachother and peacefully co-exist. They do not want this and they will go to any lengths necessary to immediately dismiss an argument or evidence that suggests a creator of some sort was involved.

The fact is half of the people arguing that creationism as a whole is bad science are practically scientifically illiterate themselves, they don't even have the most basic understanding of the scientific method and how it applies to the argument let alone the most basic of . Any reasonable creationist arguments is not presented as fact and they flat out ignore this and claim that we are calling it fact. They misrepresent arguments and remain willfully ignorant in order to shut down scientific inquiry to god.

You know never once have i claimed that creation is fact, i only ever make the claim that i personally think it is true due to my own reasoning, not because of scientific consensus. THERE IS NO CONSENSUS AMONG ALL CREATIONISTS.



posted on Jan, 2 2010 @ 07:47 AM
link   
reply to post by DeathShield
 


I have read through some of moocowman's posts.I agree with him(don't
get used to this)he should have been informed on what his children were
being taught in school.Any parent would be furious if their parental
rights were denied and their authority ignored.
In my church,almost all the children are in private schools.Most of my
grandchildren have been homeschooled.We don't want evolution taught
as fact, just as you don't want creationism taught as fact.



posted on Jan, 2 2010 @ 11:41 AM
link   
reply to post by DeathShield
 





What proof do you have that the jews came from Amarna? If you have said proof what makes you sure that this proof is historically accurate?


I did not at anytime make any claim that the "jews" came from Armana. I have however indicated the "greater likelihood" of the protojews/hebrews being one and the same peoples that occupied Armana ie Egyptians.

As you may recall I indicated that there is absolutely no evidence at all of over 2 million (including 600000 armed fighting men) hebrews being held captive in Egypt.

What is striking is that there indeed was an appearance of a monotheistic cult in Egypt ie the cult of the Aten. This is the first incident in history of Monotheism documented.

Noteworthy is that the Armanians were exiled and the city subsequently left in ruins over a period of time there was indeed an exodus of Monotheists . A mixed bunch of priests armed men and the regulars of the population left the city over a period of time along with their wealth and livestock.

This is just the tip of the iceberg as far as I can see and I'm of the "opinion" that the biblical account of the exodus is a somewhat garbled or encrypted (perhaps because of the Babylonian captivity) account of the Monotheists of the Aten making their new homeland in Canaan.

In a nutshell if we look at the story of the exodus and for a moment think of the peoples involved as Egyptians leaving Egypt we have a far more plausible scenario.

Everything about the exodus story, from the golden calf and squabbling over gods to the Arks to the symbolism. I would like to go further and discuss the apparent similarities between the Hebrew language and hieroglyphics but unfortunately I'm not versed in languages .



posted on Jan, 2 2010 @ 12:00 PM
link   
reply to post by DeathShield
 





What i DO know is that it is completely possible for me to be completely wrong or right and that it is possible for BOTH OF US to be wrong or right.


Here you make the most important point of all and it is unfortunate more religious types don't take this view.

We would probably not be having this discussion if it were not for the overwhelming majority of believers that absolutely insist their are right.

And it is utter arrogance of the "I am right"mob that rubs people up the wrong way, to be fair science does not often share this arrogance but demands of itself continuous scrutiny.



posted on Jan, 2 2010 @ 03:51 PM
link   
reply to post by JaxonRoberts
 

First, God no longer commands us to kill gays. He's ok with letting them live, and we are supposed to love them. New thought after Jesus came.

Second, looks like some anger issues. You will never prove to Christians like me that their faith is misplaced in the Bible, as it is not a scientific proof thing. It's faith. It's not a repeatable experiment to prove there is a God.

That being said, the Bible is the most historically accurate ancient book on Earth. If it's wrong, you can believe they are all "wronger".

I suggest you focus on a religion of hate: Islam (which ironically means religion of peace). You live in a Christian country and you can bash Christians all you want. Try bashing Muslims in a Muslim country, and you will die. So, thank God for freedom-loving Christians that founded the US so you could believe and say darn near whatever you want.

I was reading the Constitution of Afghanistan yesterday. First Article is how Islam is the state religion. Ironic how we are fighting and dying for them, isn't it?

PS: Hi Moocowman. I don't hate people who hate Christians, I just hate how they keep trying to prove God scientifically. A man is tallest when he is on his knees to God. Ever wonder why the first man on the Moon was coincidentally named "Neil" "Armstrong"? Or the first black man to receive the Mormon priesthood was named "Joseph" "Freeman"? etc.


[edit on 1/2/2010 by Jim Scott]

[edit on 1/2/2010 by Jim Scott]



posted on Jan, 3 2010 @ 01:04 AM
link   
I'm proud to call you my friend.

Intelligent design doesn't exist - only INTELLIGENCE, in us human beings, that was DERIVED after EONS (really, millions of years) of trial and error.

Let's not squander that intelligence that we've worked so hard to achieve by being... well, stupid.

And not just about religion, about religious FANATICISM, and about financial meltdowns, and about unnecessary hatred... okay, but that belongs in another thread altogether.



posted on Jan, 3 2010 @ 01:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by Jim Scott
reply to post by JaxonRoberts
 

First, God no longer commands us to kill gays. He's ok with letting them live, and we are supposed to love them. New thought after Jesus came.

Second, looks like some anger issues. You will never prove to Christians like me that their faith is misplaced in the Bible, as it is not a scientific proof thing. It's faith. It's not a repeatable experiment to prove there is a God.

That being said, the Bible is the most historically accurate ancient book on Earth. If it's wrong, you can believe they are all "wronger".

I suggest you focus on a religion of hate: Islam (which ironically means religion of peace). You live in a Christian country and you can bash Christians all you want. Try bashing Muslims in a Muslim country, and you will die. So, thank God for freedom-loving Christians that founded the US so you could believe and say darn near whatever you want.

I was reading the Constitution of Afghanistan yesterday. First Article is how Islam is the state religion. Ironic how we are fighting and dying for them, isn't it?

PS: Hi Moocowman. I don't hate people who hate Christians, I just hate how they keep trying to prove God scientifically. A man is tallest when he is on his knees to God. Ever wonder why the first man on the Moon was coincidentally named "Neil" "Armstrong"? Or the first black man to receive the Mormon priesthood was named "Joseph" "Freeman"? etc.


[edit on 1/2/2010 by Jim Scott]

[edit on 1/2/2010 by Jim Scott]


1) Why in the world do so many Christians believe gays should die then? Do you know I recently talked to a Christian who insists that the Bible claims that gay people will burn in hell? He told me that many Christians cannot allow such sinners, or such "burners", to exist on Earth.

Maybe you're the only one, Jim.

2) I'm not even going to touch the "most-historically-accurate Book" claim with a ten-foot pole.

If the Bible is AS OLD as it is claimed to be, then there is bound to be a LOT of historical inaccuracy. It's in the human nature of storytelling and folklore. No matter how much you record it down, discrepancies WILL exist between fact and what is on paper. The OLDER the printing date of the book and the time it is read, the MORE differences there will be as people continue to add to it and remove other stuff.

3) I agree mad-Muslim countries are much worse. But that is why America is so great. Because we are FREE TO SPEAK, and LOVE, and CHOOSE YOUR FAITH.

I am OKAY with you being Christian AS LONG AS you don't bring it up in front of me, preach endlessly to my face, decide I can't drink tea because Mormonism says you're not allowed to (even when I'm not Mormon myself) and ask me to repent and go to church because I'm gay.

When you do all that... I'm sorry but I will have to equate you with one of those mad-devout Muslims who impose Islam onto others. Both of your religions have clear similarities anyway - belief in ONE GREAT MALE BEING. The prudence of women. The building of sacred places where people gather together to read and pray AS ONE.

(On a sidenote, I'm not a feminist, but it's ridiculous how your religions worship one dominant MAN, suppress WOMEN, and believe only in MEN as pastors, priests and people in power. If you were to study the history of Christianity, which truly flourished in Britain in the 1500s-1600s, you would learn that the men needed to exert force and control over the women who were planning to become a powerful political force.)

The only difference between Christianity and Islam is that Christians in America are so open. America is a beautiful, gracious place... and Afghanistan is not.

So, please, NO ONE cross that line.


[edit on 3-1-2010 by KarlG]



posted on Jan, 3 2010 @ 12:09 PM
link   
First time posting on ATS i really appreciate everyone who engages with thoughtful speech and open minded discussion here, as a starter.
1) i do not see the "evidence" or reason for laughing at creationists in these videos. It seems more like a breakfast club of like minded people laughing at cheap jokes. Eugene whats her face makes several chide remarks such as "...other theories... anyone.. going once... going twice.." this seems a little 'attackish' just a passing thought.

2) With all of the scientific data available -do your research- it appears that both creationism and evolution take faith. We should have a plethora of transitional fossils.... but we don't. We should see evolution TAKING PLACE TODAY. We have no concrete evidence. We should find meteors in the lower strata but we don't.

3) The 'theology' of evolution states that it is the weak who die and the strong who survive. Yet i constantly hear people talking about how 'sad' it is when we see children starving or how good they feel for donating to a 'charitable' organization.

4) Hitler was DRIVEN by belief in a superior species. Communism is DRIVEN by "humanistic" ideals. Loosely translated 'GOD is dead' hence there is no morality, There is no right or wrong- only adders or detractors.

5) Alester Crowley self proclaimed 'the wickedest man on earth' summed it up like this "the whole of the law shall be do what thou wilt' funny(not haha) how this is now taken as do whatever makes you feel good just don't hurt anybody.

If you have brains in your head and use them... telling people there is no moral absolute and that to 'grow' and 'evolve' one must be stronger and dismissive of the weak... sounds like a ramp up to genocide and racism. So we are taught to seize hold of power for survivals sake. With no moral backdrop why can i Not kill my family? why can i not speed up the process of my ailing grandparents? Why should we help the starving? Why do we have soup kitchens? Heck why do we have prisons? Kill them all and evolve the species right..... ?
Why do we have a consciousness, why do we "feel bad" what is the purpose?
Life becomes pretty darn meaningless without a creator- challenge that!



posted on Jan, 3 2010 @ 03:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by freedomintruth
2) With all of the scientific data available -do your research- it appears that both creationism and evolution take faith. We should have a plethora of transitional fossils.... but we don't. We should see evolution TAKING PLACE TODAY. We have no concrete evidence. We should find meteors in the lower strata but we don't.


We do see evolution today in various fish species. It is witnessed. What you seem to be failing to forget in your rush to poke holes in evolution is that you have nothing to defend creationism with. There is evidence for evolution as well as holes in it. Creationism has nothing but holes.



posted on Jan, 3 2010 @ 09:24 PM
link   
Well then let's discuss holes I'll begin with some examples then I will be 'schooled' and this will be a lot of fun and educating for BOTH if not at least one of us


Let's start with THE BIG BANG:
How did matter... or wait..(The nothingness that was.. condense into 'something' ? What was the catalyst that caused that big explosion? What caused this bundle of hydrogen and helium to STOP and condense? Exactly how did these light gases produce planets, (and jump the mass 5 and 8 gap)filled with heavier 'material' . After achieving these great 'law-bending' feats why did they start orbiting?
I ask only for theories that fit the facts not the other way around - the just cause. answer is a cheap answer with devastating consequences.

In regards to fish evolving of which do you speak? Lake Victoria?

In love and humility



posted on Jan, 4 2010 @ 01:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by freedomintruth
Well then let's discuss holes I'll begin with some examples then I will be 'schooled' and this will be a lot of fun and educating for BOTH if not at least one of us


Let's start with THE BIG BANG:
How did matter... or wait..(The nothingness that was.. condense into 'something' ? What was the catalyst that caused that big explosion? What caused this bundle of hydrogen and helium to STOP and condense? Exactly how did these light gases produce planets, (and jump the mass 5 and 8 gap)filled with heavier 'material' . After achieving these great 'law-bending' feats why did they start orbiting?
I ask only for theories that fit the facts not the other way around - the just cause. answer is a cheap answer with devastating consequences.

In regards to fish evolving of which do you speak? Lake Victoria?

In love and humility


The Big Bang has absolutely NOTHING to do with evolution... Therefore it cannot contribute in anyway to the holes of which you refer to... Evolution only deals with the diversity of life after the creation of the universe and after the begining of life here on Earth...



new topics

top topics



 
30
<< 14  15  16    18 >>

log in

join