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.

 

Difference in Definitions

page: 1
3

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 8 2011 @ 11:10 AM
link   
As a self studied Creation Scientist I have learned that the words used by each side have different meanings or meanings that apply to their belief.

I must state I do study with as much as possible a non bias opinion when looking into evolutionary belief.
I own and purchase school science text books to see the faith based statements and there are many (more than 50 in every book)

You see when I say it ""could have"", that means there is a great chance that it did not, but when it is said by a non-believer scientist it means that is the way it happened unless I find another way that God did not do it, that involves happenstance and wishful thinking.

When I say I believe in God why that is a blind faith statement......When a NBS says we believe that the universe came into existence from nothing that is taken by the uneducated non believing masses as fact, because why would a man lie to you about such a subject. The governmental indoctrination centers are there for you higher learning and critical thinking.

When I say adaption and variation of a dog, the NBS says see proof of evolution, yet he can not make the dog give birth to an animal different than it self. And if you say they can do it in a lab, I will say that proves only that it takes intelligence to force the product, yet left alone it will never happen.

When I say similar I mean looks or acts kind of the same, but the NBS will say see since the bone structure is alike that means they are related. Yet the masses of non-believers believe this without ever looking into the fact that things like lizards and birds have completely different systems and for it to change over slow periods is impossible and for it to happen quickly, where are the lickens or chizards now.

When I say wow that is a cool fossil, the NBS says look this 1 bone we can extrapolate that it was a transitional form of this 1 bone. Why we can determine what it ate, what it looked like, what it thought about.
Yet dead bones are just that no one can determine anything about its ancestors, or descendants, that is except for artists.

When I say critical thinking I mean looking at all the evidence from all points, doing any experiments or studies your self and coming up with an answer or hypothesis from the evidence.
The NBS is told the one side of information, told how the other sides information is based upon facts but with God as the foundation, and they come up with the answer that Was programmed into them by the indoctrination center.

There are so many here and all over the world that have a point of view that is based upon others opinions. (Yes believing in God is also yet through science, facts can show the existence of God) Many believe (faith) that what they know about the origins of life to be true because it is published in books and preached in schools as fact. Never questioning that the so called facts do not chain together, why they even require imagination to except. (This imagination step is in many areas of science that deal with evolution)
So many except happenstance and random chaos as the governing factors of life.
Yet they also know that hand grenades in a junk yard do not produce organizations.

So to the non believer remember you believe as I do. You believe in chaos and chance creates through long processes of time, so since it is not testable and is only extrapolated through a presupposition that God does not exist so evidence that does not fit the hypothesis is discarded or put away as unexplained so that it does not cloud the minds of the masses.

I believe that God whose name is Jesus created as stated in the Bible with out any macro evolution around 6000 years ago. And that is right I can not test the origins any more than you can so we both live on

Blind faith that our origin belief is the truth.




posted on Sep, 8 2011 @ 11:18 AM
link   
'could have' means the person did not do the thing but thought he had the capability to.
evolution does not mean a sudden change.



posted on Sep, 8 2011 @ 11:25 AM
link   
reply to post by DoctorSatan
 


As I said long periods of time are required in the evolutionary belief.

It is a two fold sword for the evolutionist.

One through time random chance and chaos can create.

Through long periods of time evidence is washed away to actually SUBSTANTIATE the hypothesis.

Micro evolution or better defined adaptation and variation are not proofs of macro evolution.



posted on Sep, 8 2011 @ 11:45 AM
link   
reply to post by ACTS 2:38
 





When I say adaption and variation of a dog, the NBS says see proof of evolution, yet he can not make the dog give birth to an animal different than it self. And if you say they can do it in a lab, I will say that proves only that it takes intelligence to force the product, yet left alone it will never happen.


Ahh but right there you show that you have studied this for approximately ZERO seconds.

Animal hybrids DO happen in nature. They are obviously rare, but they do happen. It's called a chimera. You would have known this if you actually did any of the studying you claimed in your first sentence.




I believe that God whose name is Jesus created as stated in the Bible with out any macro evolution around 6000 years ago. And that is right I can not test the origins any more than you can so we both live on


Wasn't Jesus the son of god? I'm pretty sure he was the son of god. Anyways....

We can carbon date things well beyond 6000 years ago. We can test this, and have. All you can provide is what is written in a book. Science can never prove the absence of god. what it can do is prove that what YOU say god did, we show nature did.

Why on earth creationists would be so against evolution is beyond me. How else would a "creator" ensure a biologically diverse planet without it? Evolution takes place over LONG periods of time. Much longer than 6000 years my friend.

Religion says god did it end of discussion.
Science asks, what are the mechanics of this, then goes about proving it.

The two "fields" are diametrically opposed. Science is willing to be wrong and that's the cornerstone of the scientific method. formulating a hypothesis, then testing it, and adjusting. We don't adjust reality to fit the theory, that's what religion does.




Yet the masses of non-believers believe this without ever looking into the fact that things like lizards and birds have completely different systems and for it to change over slow periods is impossible and for it to happen quickly, where are the lickens or chizards now.



Again, evolution takes place over millions of years, as life adapts to it's surroundings and as the environment changes. This is why we have various species of the same animal, each one designed for their specific environment.




Never questioning that the so called facts do not chain together, why they even require imagination to except. (This imagination step is in many areas of science that deal with evolution)


The facts DO chain together, and we ARE checking them using SCIENCE. just because it completely blasts your 6000 year old earth theory out the window doesn't mean it's wrong. It means YOU are blindly following what OTHERS have written completely IGNORING the evidence around you.




When I say wow that is a cool fossil, the NBS says look this 1 bone we can extrapolate that it was a transitional form of this 1 bone. Why we can determine what it ate, what it looked like, what it thought about. Yet dead bones are just that no one can determine anything about its ancestors, or descendants, that is except for artists.


Again your flawed logic highlights your lack of knowledge on any of this.

We can't take 1 bone we've never scene and tell you what animal it is, what it was thinking, or any of that. What we CAN do is look at OTHER animals we know about and see what we can't find. Beyond that, using bone samples and, GASP, science, we can tell you the composition of the bone.

Teeth for example. You can tell exactly where on earth (roughly, not down to the city) a person is from by the make up of their teeth, and it will also give you clues about their diet.

See, what you've done is said you researched this stuff, but didn't, then set out to debunk a bunch of things that only you are claiming. It's called a strawman, and it's not a very good one.

Don't get me wrong, I appreciate your right to believe whatever you want, but I'm not going to let you make crap up to prove your point.



edit on 8-9-2011 by phishyblankwaters because: (no reason given)

edit on 8-9-2011 by phishyblankwaters because: (no reason given)

edit on 8-9-2011 by phishyblankwaters because: (no reason given)

edit on 8-9-2011 by phishyblankwaters because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics
 
3

log in

join