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.

 

PLZ READ OP FIRST! The Atheist Delusion

page: 21
8
<< 18  19  20    22 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 2 2010 @ 09:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
I agree with most of what you stated in the OP, however I'm particularly perplexed to this statement. First of all, it's an appeal to numbers fallacy. Secondly, I have an extremely high IQ and have been taught the evolution side of things from schooling and have also read numerous books on creation science and happen to agree that the creationists have better arguments for the universe we see today than the secular scientists.

You must understand that secular scientists and creation scientists both come from very esteemed university programs and are both highly educated. Both secular scientists and creation scientists have the EXACT same data to form opinions on, but their differing presuppositions lead them to differing conclusions for the data they are observing.



Hold on a second here. If you are a "creation scientist" you are approaching the data with an inherent bias. This is not a proper method for evaluation of data. Even if you approached the data unbiased and then formed a conclusion for "creationism", you still lack confirmatory, falsifiable evidence to support that conclusion.

This isn't an issue of "secular scientists vs. creation scientists" anyway. What we have are scientists and then people with religious agendas attempting to use scientific processes to rubber stamp a preconceived notion. The latter is not scientific in any way.




posted on Aug, 2 2010 @ 10:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by NOTurTypical

I agree with most of what you stated in the OP, however I'm particularly perplexed to this statement. First of all, it's an appeal to numbers fallacy. Secondly, I have an extremely high IQ and have been taught the evolution side of things from schooling and have also read numerous books on creation science and happen to agree that the creationists have better arguments for the universe we see today than the secular scientists.

You must understand that secular scientists and creation scientists both come from very esteemed university programs and are both highly educated. Both secular scientists and creation scientists have the EXACT same data to form opinions on, but their differing presuppositions lead them to differing conclusions for the data they are observing.


"Creation science" ?
Is it something American?

The Vatican has admitted that Charles Darwin was on the right track when he claimed that Man descended from apes.
A leading official declared yesterday that Darwin’s theory of evolution was compatible with Christian faith.

The Vatican also dealt the final blow to speculation that Pope Benedict XVI might be prepared to endorse the theory of Intelligent Design, whose advocates credit a “higher power” for the complexities of life.


From here:
www.timesonline.co.uk...

What do you think?



posted on Aug, 2 2010 @ 10:11 AM
link   
reply to post by Ersatz
 


What do I think?

I'm not catholic, I think the pope and the RCC needs to get the teachings of CHRIST and the apostles correct first before they begin to tackle the creation VS evolution debate. My process of coming to the conclusion that creation was the logical choice had nothing to do with the RCC, so why would their endorsement of Darwin have any bearings on that?



posted on Aug, 2 2010 @ 10:16 AM
link   
reply to post by traditionaldrummer
 


Bullocks, creation scientists have the exact same degrees from the exact same schools secular scientists have them from. They two groups have the exact same data to work with to form their differing conclusions. The difference is the two groups have different presuppositions.

The secular scientists have a metaphysical naturalism presupposition and the creation scientists have a biblical presupposition. The data used is the same for both. Anyone who doesn't know that has never heard/read arguments the creation scientists use.


you still lack confirmatory, falsifiable evidence to support that conclusion.


You mean like conclusive fossil evidence of Evolution being true?? Like I said, the different sides have the same data but different starting presuppositions. The secular scientists use Darwin and Evolution, the Creationists use God and His Word.



[edit on 2-8-2010 by NOTurTypical]



posted on Aug, 2 2010 @ 10:21 AM
link   
Whom are these creation "scientists"? Never heard this was an actual science.



posted on Aug, 2 2010 @ 10:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by -PLB-
Whom are these creation "scientists"? Never heard this was an actual science.



Here's a small list...


" * Gerald E. Aardsma (physicist and radiocarbon dating)

* Louis Agassiz (helped develop the study of glacial geology and of ichthyology)

* Alexander Arndt (analytical chemist, etc.) [more info]

* Steven A. Austin (geologist and coal formation expert) [more info]

* Charles Babbage (helped develop science of computers / developed actuarial tables and the calculating machine)

* Francis Bacon (developed the Scientific Method)

* Thomas G. Barnes (physicist) [more info]

* Robert Boyle (helped develop sciences of chemistry and gas dynamics)

* Wernher von Braun (pioneer of rocketry and space exploration)

* David Brewster (helped develop science of optical mineralogy)

* Arthur V. Chadwick (geologist) [more info]

* Melvin Alonzo Cook (physical chemist, Nobel Prize nominee) [more info]

* Georges Cuvier (helped develop sciences of comparative anatomy and vertebrate paleontology)

* Humphry Davy (helped develop science of thermokinetics)

* Donald B. DeYoung (physicist, specializing in solid-state, nuclear science and astronomy) [more info]

* Henri Fabre (helped develop science of insect entomology)

* Michael Faraday (helped develop science of electromagnetics / developed the Field Theory / invented the electric generator)

* Danny R. Faulkner (astronomer) [more info]

* Ambrose Fleming (helped develop science of electronics / invented thermionic valve)

* Robert V. Gentry (physicist and chemist) [more info]

* Duane T. Gish (biochemist) [more info]

* John Grebe (chemist) [more info]

* Joseph Henry (invented the electric motor and the galvanometer / discovered self-induction)

* William Herschel (helped develop science of galactic astronomy / discovered double stars / developed the Global Star Catalog)

* George F. Howe (botanist) [more info]

* D. Russell Humphreys (award-winning physicist) [more info]

* James P. Joule (developed reversible thermodynamics)

* Johann Kepler (helped develop science of physical astronomy / developed the Ephemeris Tables)

* John W. Klotz (geneticist and biologist) [more info]

* Leonid Korochkin (geneticist) [more info]

* Lane P. Lester (geneticist and biologist) [more info]

* Carolus Linnaeus (helped develop sciences of taxonomy and systematic biology / developed the Classification System)

* Joseph Lister (helped develop science of antiseptic surgery)

* Frank L. Marsh (biologist) [more info]

* Matthew Maury (helped develop science of oceanography/hydrography)

* James Clerk Maxwell (helped develop the science of electrodynamics)

* Gregor Mendel (founded the modern science of genetics)

* Samuel F. B. Morse (invented the telegraph)

* Isaac Newton (helped develop science of dynamics and the discipline of calculus / father of the Law of Gravity / invented the reflecting telescope)

* Gary E. Parker (biologist and paleontologist) [more info]

* Blaise Pascal (helped develop science of hydrostatics / invented the barometer)

* Louis Pasteur (helped develop science of bacteriology / discovered the Law of Biogenesis / invented fermentation control / developed vaccinations and immunizations)

* William Ramsay (helped develop the science of isotopic chemistry / discovered inert gases)

* John Ray (helped develop science of biology and natural science)

* Lord Rayleigh (helped develop science of dimensional analysis)

* Bernhard Riemann (helped develop non-Euclidean geometry)

* James Simpson (helped develop the field of gynecology / developed the use of chloroform)

* Nicholas Steno (helped develop the science of stratigraphy)

* George Stokes (helped develop science of fluid mechanics)

* Charles B. Thaxton (chemist) [more info]

* William Thompson (Lord Kelvin) (helped develop sciences of thermodynamics and energetics / invented the Absolute Temperature Scale / developed the Trans-Atlantic Cable)

* Larry Vardiman (astrophysicist and geophysicist) [more info]

* Leonardo da Vinci (helped develop science of hydraulics)

* Rudolf Virchow (helped develop science of pathology)

* A.J. (Monty) White (chemist) [more info]

* A.E. Wilder-Smith (chemist and pharmacology expert) [more info]

* John Woodward (helped develop the science of paleontology)

A more thorough list of current (and past) Creationist scientists is not provided for two reasons: (1) A complete list would be extremely lengthy, and (2) Some scientists would rather not have their name made public due to justified fear of job discrimination and persecution in today's atmosphere of limited academic freedom in Evolutionist-controlled institutions."

HERE



posted on Aug, 2 2010 @ 10:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by traditionaldrummer
 


Bullocks, creation scientists have the exact same degrees from the exact same schools secular scientists have them from. They two groups have the exact same data to work with to form their differing conclusions. The difference is the two groups have different presuppositions.

The secular scientists have a metaphysical naturalism presupposition and the creation scientists have a biblical presupposition. The data used is the same for both. Anyone who doesn't know that has never heard/read arguments the creation scientists use.


"Secular scientists" may lean towards naturalistic explanations since nature is the medium in which the laws of physics reside - but metaphysical? I don't think that's part of the equation.

Whether "creation scientists" have the same degrees as other scientists and/or the same data is irrelevant. The fact that they approach the data with the preconceived idea of creationism is unscientific in every way.


You mean like conclusive fossil evidence of Evolution being true?? Like I said, the different sides have the same data but different starting presuppositions. The secular scientists use Darwin and Evolution, the Creationists use God and His Word.


I hope you, while claiming a high IQ, aren't suggesting that there is not conclusive fossil evidence in support of the theory of evolution. If so, any trip to a museum of natural history should clear that up.

Again, I assert quite strongly that "creation scientists" who use "god and his word" are not only employing unscientific methodology but are basing their presuppositions on textual claims which are untestable and not falsifiable. Furthermore, if they are intentionally excluding the theory of evolution they remain willfully ignorant of the most thoroughly established theory in science, one supported by a myriad of branches of science.



posted on Aug, 2 2010 @ 10:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by NOTurTypical

Originally posted by -PLB-
Whom are these creation "scientists"? Never heard this was an actual science.



Here's a small list...




Blaise Pascal was not a "creationist scientist" and the same could be said for much of this list. Believing in god is not a qualifier for being a "creation scientist". Even Newton believed in god and inserted one into areas beyond his knowledge (the god of the gaps).

If you're going to provide a list of "creation scientists" could you at least be intellectually honest about it?



posted on Aug, 2 2010 @ 10:41 AM
link   
Correct me if I'm wrong (I only checked a couple of names) but aren't those just scientists who believe in creationism? What makes them creation scientists?

I just did a very quick checkup on the subject (where I live we do not have such a thing as creation science), and I guess this says enough:


The United States National Academy of Sciences states that "creation science is in fact not science and should not be presented as such."



posted on Aug, 2 2010 @ 10:46 AM
link   
reply to post by traditionaldrummer
 

I'm rather dumbfounded. Why hasn't anyone yet reported that the missing link fossil has been found?? And which natural history museum is it in? The fact remains, Darwin said his theory would be supported by the fossil record, and after 150 years we have yet to find any fossils which show macro-evolution to be fact.



posted on Aug, 2 2010 @ 10:50 AM
link   
reply to post by traditionaldrummer
 


All those scientists believed God created the world and the known universe. Secondly, have you even read what Issac Newton had to say about creation? Correct me if I'm wrong, but it appears you have no idea what the man said as regards to the beginning of the universe or the creation of the world.



posted on Aug, 2 2010 @ 10:51 AM
link   
reply to post by -PLB-
 


I hate seeing you be so confused, would "creationist scientist" be a term that you could grasp effectively?



posted on Aug, 2 2010 @ 10:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by traditionaldrummer
 

I'm rather dumbfounded. Why hasn't anyone yet reported that the missing link fossil has been found?? And which natural history museum is it in? The fact remains, Darwin said his theory would be supported by the fossil record, and after 150 years we have yet to find any fossils which show macro-evolution to be fact.



Oh, I see. You didn't say anything about a "missing link", what you said was:


You mean like conclusive fossil evidence of Evolution being true??


And of course there are tons of fossil evidence that support the theory of evolution. If we reserve it to simply hominids and the human species we have tons of transitional fossils detailing a wide branch of hominids going back to approximately 4 million years.

If you're going to rest your evolution denial on the "missing link" you shouldn't say such factually incorrect things as "fossil evidence [doesn't] support evolution", and by resting your argument on the "missing link" you ignore the vast amount of evidence, fossil or otherwise, that supports the theory. I'm also going to go ahead and challenge your self-congratulatory claim that you have a high IQ.



posted on Aug, 2 2010 @ 10:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by traditionaldrummer
 


All those scientists believed God created the world and the known universe. Secondly, have you even read what Issac Newton had to say about creation? Correct me if I'm wrong, but it appears you have no idea what the man said as regards to the beginning of the universe or the creation of the world.



Believing that god created the universe does not make one a "creation scientist", that is, attempting to use science to rubber stamp a religious belief. Your list is intentionally misleading and blatantly attempts to invoke the argument from authority by falsely listing luminary scientists as being devoted to such a cause. Nobody will ever take you seriously if you're intentionally dishonest up front.



posted on Aug, 2 2010 @ 10:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by traditionaldrummer
 

I'm rather dumbfounded. Why hasn't anyone yet reported that the missing link fossil has been found?? And which natural history museum is it in? The fact remains, Darwin said his theory would be supported by the fossil record, and after 150 years we have yet to find any fossils which show macro-evolution to be fact.



I am a bit puzzled by this post. What do you mean by fossils that show macro evolution? Do you mean that we do not have enough transitional fossils between two different species? We even have this kind of record for humans. Or do you call that micro evolution? But if micro evolution is possible, what would you call a thousand micro evolutions? What force is preventing a species to evolve into another species through thousands of micro evolutions?



posted on Aug, 2 2010 @ 10:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by -PLB-
 


I hate seeing you be so confused, would "creationist scientist" be a term that you could grasp effectively?



It would meaning something different, but if that is what you mean I prefer that you use the correct words yes.



posted on Aug, 2 2010 @ 11:23 AM
link   
reply to post by -PLB-
 


I don't think you know what the Bible has to say that I get my foundation from. It says everything God made will produce after it's "kind", and I believe there is GREAT variations in the DNA codes of these different species as we call them today. I think all the variations of dog-like kinds we see today, (Dogs, coyotes, wolves, dingos et cetra) had a common dog-like ancestor. nevertheless, the ancestor was a "dog" for lack of a better term. Same thing said for horses, et cetra, et cetra on down the list. I have seen no evidence of one kind changing into a different kind. There are NUMEROUS examples of variations within species or kinds which is micro-evolution, but it's highly illogical to use those particular examples of micro-evolution and claim macro-evolution as fact.

Secondly, we are beginning to go completely off the topic of the thread. My post on the last page was an objection to the argumentum ad populum argument the OP used in the beginning of the thread. And also his/her erroneous assumption that scientists who believe in the biblical creation account are not "real" scientists, which is absurd.



posted on Aug, 2 2010 @ 11:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by -PLB-

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by -PLB-
 


I hate seeing you be so confused, would "creationist scientist" be a term that you could grasp effectively?



It would meaning something different, but if that is what you mean I prefer that you use the correct words yes.


Fair enough.

Point noted.



posted on Aug, 2 2010 @ 11:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by -PLB-
 


I don't think you know what the Bible has to say that I get my foundation from. It says everything God made will produce after it's "kind", and I believe there is GREAT variations in the DNA codes of these different species as we call them today. I think all the variations of dog-like kinds we see today, (Dogs, coyotes, wolves, dingos et cetra) had a common dog-like ancestor. nevertheless, the ancestor was a "dog" for lack of a better term. Same thing said for horses, et cetra, et cetra on down the list. I have seen no evidence of one kind changing into a different kind. There are NUMEROUS examples of variations within species or kinds which is micro-evolution, but it's highly illogical to use those particular examples of micro-evolution and claim macro-evolution as fact.


Why is that highly illogical? Isn't that just extrapolation of known data? Isn't is less logical to assume that it is not possible, without giving a mechanism that prevents large changes from happening? Anyhow, I think the fosil recored is complete enough to show macro evolution, there are plenty of example for that. Just not every step is available, but that is to be expected.

As for the theory from the bible, where is the fossil evidence for it? As far as I know there isn't a single fossil that is out of place and can not be explained by evolution. If all species were created, we should have plenty of these kind of examples right? Or were all species created in such a chronological order that is looks like they evolved like that?


Secondly, we are beginning to go completely off the topic of the thread. My post on the last page was an objection to the argumentum ad populum argument the OP used in the beginning of the thread. And also his/her erroneous assumption that scientists who believe in the biblical creation account are not "real" scientists, which is absurd.


Well, maybe a bit off topic, but not totally. We are still discussing a viewpoint widely accepted among atheist. It actually fits quite well in the debate if atheism is a believe or not.



posted on Aug, 2 2010 @ 12:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
I have seen no evidence of one kind changing into a different kind.


Probably because if you understood evolutionary theory you would not ask such a question. Apparently you need to brush up a bit on your education. THIS LINK addresses your problem in the question above and includes some other basic fun facts about evolutionary theory.







 
8
<< 18  19  20    22 >>

log in

join