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.
A REAL scientist would hear the opposing argument and form a proper rebuttal, because they know evolution isn't known with absolute certainty.
“Do so because my people have committed a double wrong: they have rejected me, the fountain of life-giving water, and they have dug cisterns for themselves, cracked cisterns which cannot even hold water.” - Jer. 2:13
This is a statement from the Bible, among others, that prove water is a symbol or mechanism of God. An any language I can get a Bible, look at the verse and it will read the same. You don't even know what objective evidence mean. It doesn't mean repeatable or quantifiable, it means can I look at something impartially. But I'm sure you wouldn't have asked for objective evidence if Peter Pan was the book in question.
Yes it is...
Of course I will keep on repeating that objective evidence is crucial in science, you flat out refuse to present objective evidence.
And once again you pretend the bible is objective evidence
A STATEMENT IS A FACT/EVIDENCE YOU MORON. It's verifiable in and out of the text. And before you default to your favorite phrase, take the time to LOOK UP the actual definition of objective evidence.
Wow, thanks for exposing yourself as a hypocrite with that strikingly UNscientific statement. Should I just end this argument because of that? I mean, that's what YOU do when someone says "God, did it".
The Bible is part history book, it's objective evidence and historically verifiable.
I base my claim on OBJECTIVE evidence and science...two concepts you simply can't seem to grasp.
Yes, it's verifiable...and that's how we know it's in many cases HISTORICALLY WRONG.
That's why it isn't objective evidence...
By the way, nice "moron" ad hominem attack...you can add that to your long list of argumentative fallacies...just like "god of the gaps" and "argument from ignorance"
“Based on evidence, what we do have is, unequivocally, the conditions for the emergence of life were present on Mars — period, end of story,” - Michael Mumma NASA official
Absolute certainty is a fallacy.
Says the guy who doesn't even know what objective evidence means...
Therefore it's objective evidence, now shut up.
...You're an awesome scientist...
Thanks, I'll be straight forward with it unlike you. You're posts are chock full of condescending smilies and I can imagine you behind your computer pantomiming like a little school girl. I wouldn't be surprised if you had a plaque for "pretending to know what you're talking about" next to your computer, but it's cool everybody does now and then... I stand behind my belief that you're a moron and a hypocrite.
A court works differently than science...which explains why so many innocent people end up in jail based on "witness accounts"
This particular one is about the personal testimony of professors and scientists who have been removed from their careers and black-listed NOT for presenting Creationism, but FOR challenging Darwin.
Only a small fraction of Intelligent Design proponents are Biblical Creationists. Most are non-Christians and just see Darwin as wrong, they just don't have idea who or what the intelligent designer is, they just know Darwin was wrong.
You asked for examples, there are no better examples than for the people themselves to tell you their stories.
That's what eye-witness testimony is, someone telling you their story/experience. Mostly today the only folks still clinging to Dariwn are Evolutionary Biologists and HS Biology teachers that's pretty much it. and you expect everyone to believe all scientists believe Darwin, that's absurd. Read some books by Microbiologists, they left Darwin LONG ago, about the time we discovered DNA.
Thank you for explaining to people why Adam and Eve isn't settled scientifically, yet. This is exactly what I've been saying all along. Yet, people keep pretending Adam and Eve weren't real, as if it's a scientific fact.
Originally posted by MrXYZ
The only objective answer is: We don't know (yet).
Every other answer is guessing...it's basically filling a gap in knowledge with magic. Just like ancient people have done with plagues and floods they attributed to god instead of admitting they simply didn't understand what caused them.
I'd think we in the 21st century don't have to think like cavemen and people from the Middle Ages.
Originally posted by NOTurTypical
Originally posted by Garfee
reply to post by addygrace
It doesn't take much to unravel christianity when all I have to do is ask for proof.
The resurrection is the most indisputable fact in human history, and the most documented.
Originally posted by Jordan River
The athesit always concerned about our orgin fail to see the complete understanding of a simple notion, where are we going. This is what concerns the theist rather than the atheist.
But what atheist claim as proof, which is evidance enough for me is simply that evolution has occured in the past, this notion does not dismiss God nor the idea of Paradise, or adam and eve, which is an element of magic, that the theist believes viable and factual as faith.
Science has failed to answer where do we go when we die, this is why science is not considered too fruitful. No salvation in science. The question for the theist, where do I go when I die, the question of the atheist where did i come from. The two commonalities of both is "where am I" and where am I now? But its like two arguing travelers going left and the other rightedit on 19-4-2012 by Jordan River because: (no reason given)edit on 19-4-2012 by Jordan River because: (no reason given)edit on 19-4-2012 by Jordan River because: (no reason given)edit on 19-4-2012 by Jordan River because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by addygrace
Thank you for explaining to people why Adam and Eve isn't settled scientifically, yet. This is exactly what I've been saying all along. Yet, people keep pretending Adam and Eve weren't real, as if it's a scientific fact.
Originally posted by MrXYZ
The only objective answer is: We don't know (yet).
Every other answer is guessing...it's basically filling a gap in knowledge with magic. Just like ancient people have done with plagues and floods they attributed to god instead of admitting they simply didn't understand what caused them.
I'd think we in the 21st century don't have to think like cavemen and people from the Middle Ages.
Originally posted by MrXYZ
Originally posted by Jordan River
The fact is, science does not know what happens when you die, I keep saying that over and over and over.
They hurt their careers because they didn't back up their attacks with objective evidence.
99.9% of scientists believe in the theory according to latest polls.
Originally posted by Garfee
Originally posted by NOTurTypical
Originally posted by Garfee
reply to post by addygrace
It doesn't take much to unravel christianity when all I have to do is ask for proof.
The resurrection is the most indisputable fact in human history, and the most documented.
The fact that it is the exact opposite shakes my confidence in the validity of every one on your posts - ever.
Originally posted by NOTurTypical
Originally posted by Garfee
Originally posted by NOTurTypical
Originally posted by Garfee
reply to post by addygrace
It doesn't take much to unravel christianity when all I have to do is ask for proof.
The resurrection is the most indisputable fact in human history, and the most documented.
The fact that it is the exact opposite shakes my confidence in the validity of every one on your posts - ever.
Not sure what I'll do with that piece of information, you're in a LONG line of folks who scoff at me, better pack several lunches and a sleeping bag, I can't even see the end of the line.
Originally posted by MrXYZ
reply to post by Jordan River
Oh, I agree with you...there's tons of stuff science doesn't answer (yet). But science is at least humble enough to admit to "we don't know".
Religion on the other hand has always been prone to filling gaps in knowledge with magic (aka god). Tell me, how is someone saying "god created everything" different from someone who lived 2000 years ago claiming a comet is a sign of god...or plagues the result of god being angry. Those people back then simply didn't have the capabilities and scientific knowledge to understand what caused plagues and comets. So they filled this gap in knowledge with magic...which is pretty much the same thing people do when they say "god created everything".
The comet guys didn't have any objective evidence to back up their "god did it" claim, and neither do creationists. Is it a possibility? Sure? Well...at least the "god created first life" part...after that we know evolution took over. But until someone provides OBJECTIVE evidence to prove that god "did it", I won't believe in it. The "god did it" track record is pretty abysmal. I play a lot of poker, and betting on 72o is stupid...even on the off chance that 72o actually might win. Unless I know three 7s or something like that will come until the river (which I can't know), I won't bet on a losing hand that has horrible odds.edit on 19-4-2012 by MrXYZ because: (no reason given)