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.

 

The Ignorance of Creationists

page: 12
35
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 9 2011 @ 08:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheWill
reply to post by mrvdreamknight
 


No, I'm not changing what I'm saying.

Abiogenesis has not been performed by scientists.

However, it is perfectly plausible that it occurred naturally.


If you had written:

"FACT#1 Scientists have never created life through abiogenesis or biopoesis"

Then you would have had a fact. All the evidence that you have suggested would support this statement.

As it was, you said that abiogenesis had never created life. You have no evidence to support this.


There is no evidence pertaining to God's involvement. As such, there are no facts pertaining to God's involvement.


Three times.



LMFAO

You are too funny.

Thanks for finally admitting I was right.

Geesh. It took us that long to clarify my fact? lol

From now on, I will word the statement exactly as you have written it.

Just to avoid this type of confusion in the future.

Although I have never ran in to it before because all other members always know exactly what we were both talking about.

I'm pretty sure you knew that too, but that's fine. I'll accept your admission that science has not created life.







posted on Jan, 9 2011 @ 08:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by ProfEmeritus
Regardless of the theory you choose to adhere to, none of them have been able to explain how something came out of nothing, and test that theory by creating something out of nothing. In fact, no one knows for sure whether there ever was "nothing", or even if we are seeing the entire universe in all of its dimensions. A Neanderthal would have a better chance of recreating a 747 by examining a paper coffee cup from it, than mankind has of explaining the universe(s), life and "nothingness".



"It is much easier to recognize error than to find truth; for error lies on the surface and may be overcome; but truth lies in the depths, and to search for it is not given to everyone."

Goethe had it right.
edit on 9-1-2011 by ProfEmeritus because: (no reason given)


100% agreed.

So why this then: The Ignorance of Creationists?

So why not this: The Ignorance of Scientists who have never created life through abiogenesis or biopoesis?

Or how about this then: The Ignorance of Creationists and The Ignorance of Scientists who have never created life through abiogenesis or biopoesis?

I'm just asking, why pick on one and not the other or all the others?. Since no theory has explained it.



posted on Jan, 9 2011 @ 09:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by ProfEmeritus
Regardless of the theory you choose to adhere to, none of them have been able to explain how something came out of nothing, and test that theory by creating something out of nothing. In fact, no one knows for sure whether there ever was "nothing", or even if we are seeing the entire universe in all of its dimensions. A Neanderthal would have a better chance of recreating a 747 by examining a paper coffee cup from it, than mankind has of explaining the universe(s), life and "nothingness".



"It is much easier to recognize error than to find truth; for error lies on the surface and may be overcome; but truth lies in the depths, and to search for it is not given to everyone."

Goethe had it right.
edit on 9-1-2011 by ProfEmeritus because: (no reason given)


All I know is my friggen head was spinning trying to keep up with you guys til this came a popp'in.

Some great minds right here right now. All the way around. So interesting to follow . I'm lov'in it.

My dream


The Ignorance of Creationists?


I was pretty much under the impression this was more or less to point out the ignorance of a previous thread Mon. From what I understand it was refuting ignorance with ignorance. In this case seems rather justified from what I can tell.



edit on 9-1-2011 by randyvs because: (no reason given)

edit on 9-1-2011 by randyvs because: (no reason given)

edit on 9-1-2011 by randyvs because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 9 2011 @ 09:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by mrvdreamknight


I'm just asking, why pick on one and not the other or all the others?. Since no theory has explained it.


Mostly because scientists don't claim to have the answers when they don't...stuff is clearly labeled as "hypothesis" or "theory" depending on the amount and quality of evidence behind it.

Religion on the other hand claims hypotheses as facts, and that's just plain wrong. Yet so many (gullible) people blindly believe...it's stunning. I mean, we have people on here who claim the earth is only 10k years old. Or that "no way we have common ancestors with apes"....or that the worldwide flood really happened. They're clearly wrong beyond any doubt. Yet because religion tells them so, they still refuse to accept reality and continue to live in their little fantasy world.

Which is FINE as long as they don't try to influence other people's lives with their nonsense claiming they have the facts.

A scientist will come up with some crazy hypothesis and will test it...tons of times he'll be wrong and the hypothesis will lead nowhere. But sometimes, they are successful and can develop a theory. Other scientists then add to the theory or expand it. But they won't claim something to be proven until it is.



posted on Jan, 9 2011 @ 09:29 PM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 





A scientist will come up with some crazy hypothesis and will test it...tons of times he'll be wrong and the hypothesis will lead nowhere. But sometimes, they are successful and can develop a theory. Other scientists then add to the theory or expand it. But they won't claim something to be proven until it is.


This is the thing right here that I, of limited knowledge admitedly, do appreciate. All the testing and starting over,
back to the drawing board so to speaks. I can't help but wonder, how far science would be along, if mankind still had a relationship with the, "God of the gaps". Instead of all this hypothesis, trial and error. What if scientists had a source they could go to with all the questions they have. "The God of the gaps". This is what we lack and what I wish more academics would realise. We once had access to all the information we now seek.
edit on 9-1-2011 by randyvs because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 9 2011 @ 09:53 PM
link   
reply to post by mrvdreamknight
 


I don't believe that I've showed you any disrespect in my posts. I've been concise and to the point. You, however, have ridiculed everyone who responds to you. I will not be responding to you further.



posted on Jan, 9 2011 @ 10:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by PieKeeper
reply to post by mrvdreamknight
 


I don't believe that I've showed you any disrespect in my posts. I've been concise and to the point. You, however, have ridiculed everyone who responds to you. I will not be responding to you further.



Originally posted by PieKeeper
reply to post by mrvdreamknight
 


I don't believe that I've showed you any disrespect in my posts. I've been concise and to the point. You, however, have ridiculed everyone who responds to you. I will not be responding to you further.


Sweet.

Don't.

If you can't defend your positions then don't bother bringing them up.

Just to clarify, you are not responding to me any more not because I ridiculed you but because I proved you wrong and you had trouble admitting it.

Don't go projecting your faults on me.

Next time someone shows you your mistakes, man up, admit it, and move on. No biggie.

It's only when you keep defending a defenseless position that you get in to trouble.



posted on Jan, 10 2011 @ 05:37 AM
link   
reply to post by randyvs
 


Well, for one, we'd still believe the earth is flat if we went back to asking deities for information



posted on Jan, 10 2011 @ 06:55 AM
link   
Some of you may say misinformed isn't stupidity but i can't agree, because you have to be stupid enough to be misinformed in the first place to believe evolution's false. You have to be stupid enough to be misinformed of the science that contradicts god.

If your personal belief says a scientific theory is wrong - your personal belief is wrong.



posted on Jan, 10 2011 @ 07:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by andre18
Some of you may say misinformed isn't stupidity but i can't agree, because you have to be stupid enough to be misinformed in the first place to believe evolution's false. You have to be stupid enough to be misinformed of the science that contradicts god.

If your personal belief says a scientific theory is wrong - your personal belief is wrong.


As randy said, they don't care about objective evidence...they only care about their SUBJECTIVE belief. Which makes it pretty clear that if you do that, while criticizing scientific theories like evolution, purely based on your belief...well...you're being ignorant



posted on Jan, 10 2011 @ 08:12 AM
link   
reply to post by ProfEmeritus
 



Originally posted by ProfEmeritus
Regardless of the theory you choose to adhere to, none of them have been able to explain how something came out of nothing, and test that theory by creating something out of nothing.


Le sigh...show me a scientific theory that actually says that something came from nothing.

Oh, and we have observed something coming out of nothing.



In fact, no one knows for sure whether there ever was "nothing", or even if we are seeing the entire universe in all of its dimensions.


So? I don't get the point of this. Uncertainty doesn't lead to fatalism.



A Neanderthal would have a better chance of recreating a 747 by examining a paper coffee cup from it, than mankind has of explaining the universe(s), life and "nothingness".


Silly analogy.



"It is much easier to recognize error than to find truth; for error lies on the surface and may be overcome; but truth lies in the depths, and to search for it is not given to everyone."

Goethe had it right.


Or Goethe was making a simple philosophical point. Truth is actually quite easy to see, especially when it's science.

reply to post by mrvdreamknight
 



Originally posted by mrvdreamknight
So why this then: The Ignorance of Creationists?


And once more, because Creationists, such as yourself, demonstrate a massive lack of understanding of the physical and life sciences.



So why not this: The Ignorance of Scientists who have never created life through abiogenesis or biopoesis?


How are they ignorant? What are they ignorant of? Just because we haven't done it in a lab doesn't mean it can't be done in nature. We've never formed a solar system, but that doesn't mean cosmology is ignorant. You're simply demonstrating your lack of understanding of science.



Or how about this then: The Ignorance of Creationists and The Ignorance of Scientists who have never created life through abiogenesis or biopoesis?




I'm just asking, why pick on one and not the other or all the others?. Since no theory has explained it.


Not doing it in a lab doesn't mean you've not explained it. Now, creationists take an unsupported hypothesis, they throw science out the window, and then hold the hypothesis up as absolute truth. Scientists actually do research and don't proclaim their ideas as absolute unless there's an insane burden of evidence met.

reply to post by mrvdreamknight
 



Originally posted by mrvdreamknight
Sweet.

Don't.

If you can't defend your positions then don't bother bringing them up.


PieKeeper did defend his/her positions, you just kept ridiculing individuals for no reason. Hell, you didn't bother responding to the points.




Just to clarify, you are not responding to me any more not because I ridiculed you but because I proved you wrong and you had trouble admitting it.


I'm sorry, but point out to me exactly where you proved anyone wrong. Hell, point out an instance where you proved anything.



Don't go projecting your faults on me.

Next time someone shows you your mistakes, man up, admit it, and move on. No biggie.


You've not shown anyone their mistakes. Actually, the mistake you've shown them is to participate in discussion with you. This entire post is insulting and false.



It's only when you keep defending a defenseless position that you get in to trouble.


If evolution is so defenseless, can you please show me how? Look down, there's a little link to "Evolution: FALSIFY IT!" in my signature.



posted on Jan, 11 2011 @ 12:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
reply to post by ProfEmeritus
 



Originally posted by ProfEmeritus
Regardless of the theory you choose to adhere to, none of them have been able to explain how something came out of nothing, and test that theory by creating something out of nothing.


Le sigh...show me a scientific theory that actually says that something came from nothing.

Oh, and we have observed something coming out of nothing.



In fact, no one knows for sure whether there ever was "nothing", or even if we are seeing the entire universe in all of its dimensions.


So? I don't get the point of this. Uncertainty doesn't lead to fatalism.



A Neanderthal would have a better chance of recreating a 747 by examining a paper coffee cup from it, than mankind has of explaining the universe(s), life and "nothingness".


Silly analogy.



"It is much easier to recognize error than to find truth; for error lies on the surface and may be overcome; but truth lies in the depths, and to search for it is not given to everyone."

Goethe had it right.


Or Goethe was making a simple philosophical point. Truth is actually quite easy to see, especially when it's science.

reply to post by mrvdreamknight
 



Originally posted by mrvdreamknight
So why this then: The Ignorance of Creationists?


And once more, because Creationists, such as yourself, demonstrate a massive lack of understanding of the physical and life sciences.



So why not this: The Ignorance of Scientists who have never created life through abiogenesis or biopoesis?


How are they ignorant? What are they ignorant of? Just because we haven't done it in a lab doesn't mean it can't be done in nature. We've never formed a solar system, but that doesn't mean cosmology is ignorant. You're simply demonstrating your lack of understanding of science.



Or how about this then: The Ignorance of Creationists and The Ignorance of Scientists who have never created life through abiogenesis or biopoesis?




I'm just asking, why pick on one and not the other or all the others?. Since no theory has explained it.


Not doing it in a lab doesn't mean you've not explained it. Now, creationists take an unsupported hypothesis, they throw science out the window, and then hold the hypothesis up as absolute truth. Scientists actually do research and don't proclaim their ideas as absolute unless there's an insane burden of evidence met.

reply to post by mrvdreamknight
 



Originally posted by mrvdreamknight
Sweet.

Don't.

If you can't defend your positions then don't bother bringing them up.


PieKeeper did defend his/her positions, you just kept ridiculing individuals for no reason. Hell, you didn't bother responding to the points.




Just to clarify, you are not responding to me any more not because I ridiculed you but because I proved you wrong and you had trouble admitting it.


I'm sorry, but point out to me exactly where you proved anyone wrong. Hell, point out an instance where you proved anything.



Don't go projecting your faults on me.

Next time someone shows you your mistakes, man up, admit it, and move on. No biggie.


You've not shown anyone their mistakes. Actually, the mistake you've shown them is to participate in discussion with you. This entire post is insulting and false.



It's only when you keep defending a defenseless position that you get in to trouble.


If evolution is so defenseless, can you please show me how? Look down, there's a little link to "Evolution: FALSIFY IT!" in my signature.


Here goes nothing:

You said:

"And once more, because Creationists, such as yourself, demonstrate a massive lack of understanding of the physical and life sciences."

What's ironic about what you just said is that I was making factual statements that even you would have to agree with. How does that make me ignorant?

Here's the three facts:

FACT#1 Scientists have never created life through abiogenesis or biopoesis.
FACT #2: The theory of evolution does not try and explain how life began.
FACT# 3: No science at all has ever created life.

Do you disagree with these?

I only stated them because you and others here throw around your beliefs as facts.

I will refrain from attacking you personally even though you have done it several times in the past and are still doing it in this post.



posted on Jan, 11 2011 @ 02:21 AM
link   
reply to post by mrvdreamknight
 


Once again, scientists don't claim to know how life started, they are merely examining different hypotheses. And they're labeling them clearly as such by saying they're not sure and further tests/examinations/experiments are necessary to figure it all out...

Religion on the other hand claims to KNOW the answer...which is of course mere belief rather than true knowledge as they fail at providing even the slightest bit of evidence. But like has been said before, they don't even require evidence as blind belief is required from followers....



posted on Jan, 11 2011 @ 08:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by MrXYZ
reply to post by mrvdreamknight
 


Once again, scientists don't claim to know how life started, they are merely examining different hypotheses. And they're labeling them clearly as such by saying they're not sure and further tests/examinations/experiments are necessary to figure it all out...

Religion on the other hand claims to KNOW the answer...which is of course mere belief rather than true knowledge as they fail at providing even the slightest bit of evidence. But like has been said before, they don't even require evidence as blind belief is required from followers....


What you wrote seems reasonable enough.

But you know what's weird?

Everytime I debate with you or any other evolutionit here, and it turns to how life began, you always throw out the word abiogenesis. As if it's a fact. Using your belief that abiogenesis has figured out how life began when in fact it has not.

Isn't that true?

At least now you are admitting it is indeed not even close to a fact.

You're other point:

"Religion on the other hand claims to KNOW the answer" - so you're condeming all religions then?

Not just Christianity and creationism? So scientology, yes I can't believe it either but I think it's still classified as a religion, believes little tiny aliens created us- which may in fact turn out to be true, is 100% wrong too?

Or how about some creationists view that when God spoke for the first time that that was the big bang - is the big bang wrong too?

Obviosuly there are thousands of different faiths in the world and you mean to tell me that science has proved 100% of them 100% wrong?

Please, even you are not that arrogant.



posted on Jan, 11 2011 @ 08:36 AM
link   
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
 

From the dictionary:

ignorance [ˈɪgnərəns]. n. lack of knowledge, information, or education;

www.thefreedictionary.com...

Your quote:


Le sigh...show me a scientific theory that actually says that something came from nothing.


So by your very own words, you admit that scientists are IGNORANT when it comes to explaining the origins of life.

QED



posted on Jan, 11 2011 @ 09:03 AM
link   
reply to post by ProfEmeritus
 


Not necessarily, we have evidence pointing to how it probably occurred and know how certain parts of primitive life can arise. I wouldn't say that science is ignorant of the origin of life, but I wouldn't say that it has all of the answers at this point in time either. For instance, we know that phospholipid bilayers (cell membranes) form naturally, and so do a lot of amino acids and other organic molecules. This points to the possibility, and increases the likelihood, of the origin of life through natural processes.



posted on Jan, 11 2011 @ 09:06 AM
link   
reply to post by mrvdreamknight
 


Yes, those claiming the big bang was god speaking are using the god of the gaps argument too. They have ZERO proof that the big bang was god's voice, so they just state a belief, and not a fact or anything that's backed up by evidence.

Has nothing to do with ignorance or arrogance, it's simply a matter of backing up your claims (religious/scientific) with evidence. When it comes to evolution, we have overwhelming evidence...when it comes to abiogenesis (the study of how life started) they are still examining several different hypotheses...and when it comes to religion, well, they just make stuff up without backing it up with even the slightest bit of evidence.



posted on Jan, 11 2011 @ 09:50 AM
link   
reply to post by mrvdreamknight
 



Originally posted by mrvdreamknight
What you wrote seems reasonable enough.

But you know what's weird?

Everytime I debate with you or any other evolutionit here, and it turns to how life began, you always throw out the word abiogenesis. As if it's a fact. Using your belief that abiogenesis has figured out how life began when in fact it has not.


No, it's not a fact, but it's the prevailing hypothesis. It's the best answer we have so far and it's backed up by quite a bit of evidence. Unlike creationism, which is based on assumptions from a book that has been shown to be repeatedly unscientific.



Isn't that true?


Nope, we don't assume that modern abiogenesis theory is 100% correct. We think it's got a point and that more research into the subject is required. The other crazy thing is that creationists always go on about how it must be less valuable because we're not certain....well, it's more valuable to be uncertain with some evidence than entirely certain with no evidence.

And creationists always bring it up in discussions of evolution, even though it's not really an evolutionary issue. Evolution would happen no matter how life came into being.



At least now you are admitting it is indeed not even close to a fact.


No, it is close to a fact. It's closer than most hypotheses, as it has support in experimentation and observations.



You're other point:

"Religion on the other hand claims to KNOW the answer" - so you're condeming all religions then?


Why, yes we are. At least when they claim scientific knowledge without following the scientific method.



Not just Christianity and creationism? So scientology, yes I can't believe it either but I think it's still classified as a religion, believes little tiny aliens created us- which may in fact turn out to be true, is 100% wrong too?


Well, technically any religious story of creating life and the world is creationism...and that's not really what Scientology believes, it's a longer story. Of course all creationism is equally wrong. Islamic, Hindu, Christian, etc.



Or how about some creationists view that when God spoke for the first time that that was the big bang - is the big bang wrong too?


No...the part about God is improperly inserted without evidence, the rest of the theory stands alone from that. A theory isn't immediately made ridiculous because people think God is behind that theory. There are also individuals who think evolution is the mechanism by which God creates biodiversity, doesn't make them entirely wrong, it just means they're making unproven claims.



Obviosuly there are thousands of different faiths in the world and you mean to tell me that science has proved 100% of them 100% wrong?


Nobody is saying science has proven all religious claims wrong. Some of them are unfalsifiable, unable to be proven wrong due to their nebulous nature but also unable to be proven correct. Nobody can say one way or another if a deity created the Big Bang, but we also can't claim that it wasn't an omnipotent space-goat farting.



Please, even you are not that arrogant.


No, but you seem to be. As a religious individual of creationist leaning, you have to believe that not only is science wrong, but so is every other religion.



posted on Jan, 11 2011 @ 09:50 AM
link   
reply to post by ProfEmeritus
 


I'm sorry, but I'm not. At no point in any scientific theory on the origins of life is there a claim that something comes from nothing. There is a claim that life arises from nonlife, but that is not something coming from nothing.

What's odd is that you took the "underpants gnome" mode of declaring me ignorant:

Step 1: I say something
Step 2: ?????
Step 3: Define ignorance, I'm ignorant!

You didn't show me a single scientific theory that says something came from nothing in the origin of life. Now, if there is such a theory, I am ignorant of it. Your inability to demonstrate such a theory leads me to the conclusion that there is no such theory or that you're lazy. I'd rather assume the former, as I like to think the best of people unless I have reason not to.



posted on Jan, 11 2011 @ 09:53 AM
link   
reply to post by mrvdreamknight
 


You are distorting the implications of facts. That is ignorant to the nth degree. You are in effect quote mining reality. Scientists do not claim that the hypothesis of abiogenesis relies on their ability to create life in a lab. Nobody claims that evolution has any responsibility to explain the origin of life, so that's a phrase that might as well been replaced with "Circuit theory doesn't claim to explain the origin of life", and it doesn't matter whether or not science has created life.

Ignorance is more than just not knowing facts, it's not knowing the application of facts.



new topics

top topics



 
35
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join