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.

 

Creationist Confusion

page: 9
0
<< 6  7  8    10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 29 2005 @ 01:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aeon10101110
But you missed the entire context, if the Bible is inerrant as ID and CS claim, then there should no contradiction.


From what I understand ID does not equal Christian necessarily, though if you are Christian, then ID is easier to comprehend. CS? Is that Christian Science? I dunno what's being said there, sorry. I was a studying scientist who is Christian, but not a Christian Science (which doesn't seem to employ either from what I've read so far).


Originally posted by Aeon10101110
Instead, there are those confusing passages, mere fodder for the apologists. (Those were a small sampling, actually.)


I don't apologize, nor know what apologists have to do with us. Here at ATS, we discuss what we know, the truth, and investigate what we don't know...at least that's what seems to be written as the foundation of the site.


Originally posted by Aeon10101110
And there would not be the two (2) accounts of creation in Genesis. There is no confusion?!?


*looks in Genesis* I don't see two accounts of creation. What are you referring to here?




posted on Aug, 29 2005 @ 10:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by saint4God
From what I understand ID does not equal Christian necessarily, though if you are Christian, then ID is easier to comprehend. CS? Is that Christian Science? I dunno what's being said there, sorry. I was a studying scientist who is Christian, but not a Christian Science (which doesn't seem to employ either from what I've read so far).


Why would being a Christian make it easier to comprehend? Is there some special gnosis only for the adepts?
CS - what? where have you been Saint?

And as you "proved" (merely stated) in a previous post, Christianity is apparently mutually exclusive with respect to CS. But that is not the case in my abundant experience. Being Christian in belief myself, am I just somehow impaired in that "flyingspaghettimonsterism" is beyond my ken?

Or do you want to drive me entirely away from the faith?



Originally posted by saint4God
I don't apologize, nor know what apologists have to do with us. Here at ATS, we discuss what we know, the truth, and investigate what we don't know...at least that's what seems to be written as the foundation of the site.


Apologists of Christianity have been very busy since the first centuries of the Common Era. You don't even know the history of your faith?!? In this context, the term means essentially "explanation." Besides, what does it have to do with the founding principles of ATS?


Originally posted by saint4God
*looks in Genesis* I don't see two accounts of creation. What are you referring to here?


Wow, honest to God?!? You don't see it?!? Such dual narratives are so common in the Bible that they have been known for centuries as "couplets." This is a revelation of the abyssmal depths of the definition of "blind faith."



posted on Aug, 29 2005 @ 11:01 PM
link   
.
A very well-written article entirely refutes creationism.
Excerpts:

"To formulate a competing hypothesis, you have to get down in the trenches and offer details that have testable implications. So far, intelligent design proponents have conveniently sidestepped that requirement, claiming that they have no specifics in mind about who or what the intelligent designer might be...

"It's worth pointing out that there are plenty of substantive scientific controversies in biology that are not yet in the textbooks or the classrooms. The scientific participants in these arguments vie for acceptance among the relevant expert communities in peer-reviewed journals, and the writers and editors of textbooks grapple with judgments about which findings have risen to the level of acceptance - not yet truth - to make them worth serious consideration by undergraduates and high school students.

"SO get in line, intelligent designers. Get in line behind the hypothesis that life started on Mars and was blown here by a cosmic impact. Get in line behind the aquatic ape hypothesis, the gestural origin of language hypothesis and the theory that singing came before language, to mention just a few of the enticing hypotheses that are actively defended but still insufficiently supported by hard facts...

"For now, though, the theory they are promoting is exactly what George Gilder, a long-time affiliate of the Discovery Institute, has said it is: "Intelligent design itself does not have any content.""





posted on Aug, 30 2005 @ 08:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by Aeon10101110
Why would being a Christian make it easier to comprehend? Is there some special gnosis only for the adepts?


Nope. If you accept fundamental truths however, it's easier to build upon them. Building a house on rock is easier than on sand.


Originally posted by Aeon10101110
CS - what? where have you been Saint?


Apparently not the same places you have.


Originally posted by Aeon10101110
And as you "proved" (merely stated) in a previous post, Christianity is apparently mutually exclusive with respect to CS.





Originally posted by Aeon10101110
But that is not the case in my abundant experience. Being Christian in belief myself, am I just somehow impaired in that "flyingspaghettimonsterism" is beyond my ken?





Originally posted by Aeon10101110
Or do you want to drive me entirely away from the faith?


There should be nothing I can say that could possibly negatively impact your relationship with God.


Originally posted by Aeon10101110
Apologists of Christianity have been very busy since the first centuries of the Common Era.


You mean Anno Domini? Something wrong with "In the year of our Lord" my fellow Christian?


Originally posted by Aeon10101110
You don't even know the history of your faith?!?


By definition, I would have to live the history of my faith.


Originally posted by Aeon10101110
In this context, the term means essentially "explanation." Besides, what does it have to do with the founding principles of ATS?


I like the founding principles of ATS and think we should ask, not discourage questions. However, when there are many threads already where these are addressed at length, it's probably wise to go to them to discuss.


Originally posted by Aeon10101110
Wow, honest to God?!?


The Bible asks me not to swear upon his name or anything in heaven.


Originally posted by Aeon10101110
You don't see it?!? Such dual narratives are so common in the Bible that they have been known for centuries as "couplets." This is a revelation of the abyssmal depths of the definition of "blind faith."


Enlighten me.



posted on Aug, 31 2005 @ 12:06 AM
link   
I almost provided an answer to each part of your pointless miasma. How far from the topic can you digress?

Instead I started over completely in response.

You're merely providing more evidence for Creationist Confusion by confusing the issue in a morass of digressive questions. Basically, it's just what I've encountered so often - you try to frame the argument in only your own terms. You're not clever, you're splitting hairs.

Instead, answer something that is perfectly germane to the topic. If creationism is actually science, what is its testable hypothesis? What intelligent design hypothesis has even been ventured as a rival explanation of any biological or geological phenomenon?

.



posted on Aug, 31 2005 @ 09:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by Aeon10101110
I almost provided an answer to each part of your pointless miasma. How far from the topic can you digress?

Instead I started over completely in response.


Whatever floats your boat, but don't say I'm the one digressing then. To say "the details are unimportant" is neither scientific or adherent to research in my mind.


Originally posted by Aeon10101110
You're merely providing more evidence for Creationist Confusion by confusing the issue in a morass of digressive questions. Basically, it's just what I've encountered so often - you try to frame the argument in only your own terms. You're not clever, you're splitting hairs.


It's important to have clear definitions, foundations, and understanding before building upon them I think. If you want us to build a tower destined to fall then that's fine, but neither of us should act or look surprised when it does and I don't think no sound conclussions/discoveries will be reached other than gravity works.


Originally posted by Aeon10101110
Instead, answer something that is perfectly germane to the topic. If creationism is actually science, what is its testable hypothesis?


Welcome to my problem. In the 5 years I've worked with and for the university, they have refused to provide or the ability to explore a testable hypothesis short of my knowledge outside the university and the spoon-fed ideas of evolution. Instead of providing facts and asking students to arrive at conclussion, they've said "here's your conclusion from this fact, here's your conclusion with that fact", etc. My contention is by providing their own conclusions, when things don't fit the testable data or seem outside the parameters of the evolution hypothesis, that then there is in fact confusion from evolution. When I raise my hand and ask about why a piece of data doesn't fit, there's that knee-jerk reaction of, "well how do you explain it, God did it? LOL!" with the class singing in chorus to it. So, instead of that reaction, why not explore why this phenomena exists rather than trying to jam a square peg into a round whole. Also, instead of accepting, "God did it", ask "how did God do it" and "why did God do it" and more importantly "what can we learn from what occurred here".

What's my testable Creation Hypothesis? I don't have one, rather, I ask for the liberty to explore the thought. The university is useless and online they want you to buy books. In other words, it's a pioneering work.

I believe this statement sums up what I'm talking about:
"EVIDENCE concerning origins and DESIGN comes from many avenues of science. If this also brings us back to consider the Genesis account, so be it. But the point here is that science, not belief systems (neither religious nor scientific), is in view. Be aware, many scientists have slipped into believing certain assumptions instead of what the evidence reveals."
www.windowview.org...

When going beyond tangible evidence, it becomes belief. The flaw in science is holding onto a belief that is not consistent, untestable, and considered to be the only one possible.


Originally posted by Aeon10101110
What intelligent design hypothesis has even been ventured as a rival explanation of any biological or geological phenomenon?
.


First off, biology and geology are two separate sciences. One cannot template inorganic errosion, with biological growth, respiration and reproduction. This is a perceivable flaw in Darwin's work when reading about how he formulated his ideas.

My personal hypothesis (which is untested, not a rival, and not more than a summation of biological studies) is that biodiversity is a necessary and the integral part of a successful ecosystem. So much so, that in fact if there were eliminations of components of the ecosystem, then there would be a complete collapse. It stands to reason that even in the food chain, if the smallest organism was entirely removed and equivalents thereof, that everything dependent above it would surely see distruction within a matter of a few months, if that long. Our much hailed "ability to adapt through evolution" would save nothing. If this is true, then our ecosystem could not have been "grown", but was rather put together as a whole at a point in time as a network. We've witnessed many extinctions, which would not exist if evolution proved itself true.

Kudos on both questions. I think they're entirely relevant. My purpose for being here though is to assert the following: There is no confusion when it comes to creation when the creationist is accepting the Bible as a reliable source.

Beyond that, I'm a member of the audience who will "boooo" whenever someone on stage says evolution is the only possibility and is comprehensive or cohesive.

[edit on 31-8-2005 by saint4God]



posted on Sep, 1 2005 @ 11:24 PM
link   
Thank you for your thoughtful response.

The details you queried were highly digressive. In my experience, I've found people doing that only as a debating technique. Certainly, the debate may be important, however no inconclusive result is ascertained by bandying about with words. Of course, observations, hypotheses and repeated testing are used to reach conclusions. But they are not reached by simple acceptance a priori.

If creationism has merit, do the science, prove it. Period.

I choose to believe that God created the universe and that we are discovering how it was done. And we are endowed with God-given reason in that course of discovery. How great is the sin of not using the means we have of thinking?

Thought and reason are among the finest attributes of humans. Hopefully, that is a reflection of the Creator. But the sciences are indicative of origins that diverge widely from Genesis. Perhaps that is a function of the writers and editors of the Bible, in that scientific thought was alien to them. With certainty, however, science based upon careful observations and reasoning simply does not confirm the Biblical creation narrative.

Science can not prove God. If it could, that would be anathema to religion, which emphasizes belief and faith, not proof. And saying that "God did it" is not an explanation. You might as well assert "It's because I say so."

One science that, IMHO, could provide evidence of Divine structuring is quantum physics (QP). Presently, the incomprehensibilty of its tenets are reminiscent of attributes ascribed to the ultimate Godhead. Otherwise, it appears that QP describes "ordered chaos" that permeates every stretch of the universe. Even space-time itself seems to be somehow impressed with an order. After all, we know that mass does warp space-time, so can energy.

Without offending God in any way, we may use reason, which led inexorably to science. Moreover, it would be an offense not to think, being that it is one of our greatest gifts.



posted on Sep, 2 2005 @ 08:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by Aeon10101110
If creationism has merit, do the science, prove it. Period.


Woot! But I cannot do it alone. I'll need the help of fellow researchers, professors, and students to do so. That would include the introduction of that exploration in college at the very least.


Originally posted by Aeon10101110
I choose to believe that God created the universe and that we are discovering how it was done. And we are endowed with God-given reason in that course of discovery. How great is the sin of not using the means we have of thinking?


I'm down with it.


Originally posted by Aeon10101110
Thought and reason are among the finest attributes of humans. Hopefully, that is a reflection of the Creator. But the sciences are indicative of origins that diverge widely from Genesis. Perhaps that is a function of the writers and editors of the Bible, in that scientific thought was alien to them. With certainty, however, science based upon careful observations and reasoning simply does not confirm the Biblical creation narrative.


...nor does it deny it, so we have more work to do. If we can keep an open mind about it, I don't mind anyone leaning towards any theory but rather think it's foolhardy to close the door on any one of them without conclusive evidence.


Originally posted by Aeon10101110
Science can not prove God. If it could, that would be anathema to religion, which emphasizes belief and faith, not proof. And saying that "God did it" is not an explanation. You might as well assert "It's because I say so."


God has proven himself to many folk according to the Bible and He has proven Himself to me. How then could not our reaching for answers through science not also achieve a similar result? So long as we do not exclude Him from the list of possibilities that should not be a problem nor any reason to fear the exploration of truth.


Originally posted by Aeon10101110
One science that, IMHO, could provide evidence of Divine structuring is quantum physics (QP). Presently, the incomprehensibilty of its tenets are reminiscent of attributes ascribed to the ultimate Godhead. Otherwise, it appears that QP describes "ordered chaos" that permeates every stretch of the universe. Even space-time itself seems to be somehow impressed with an order. After all, we know that mass does warp space-time, so can energy.


You have both my curiosity and attention here. How does quantum physics provide evidence of Divine structuring?


Originally posted by Aeon10101110
Without offending God in any way, we may use reason, which led inexorably to science. Moreover, it would be an offense not to think, being that it is one of our greatest gifts.


Amen to that!

Pray, train, study,
God bless.


[edit on 2-9-2005 by saint4God]



posted on Sep, 6 2005 @ 10:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by saint4God
You have both my curiosity and attention here. How does quantum physics provide evidence of Divine structuring?


Apparently it does at a scale smaller than strings. And additional spatial dimensions are theorized to exist within such tiny realms.

Do some research, it is amazing topic which I've researched for many years. Even in Einstein's day, he called quantum behavior "spooky."

No one truly understands quantum physics completely. But it was said during the mid-20th century that there were 2 people who did. Though Edward Witten is now one of those making headway with the "M" theory. There are a host of others, Stephen Hawking of course and he recently came out with a 3-volume movie on the topic. Again to invoke Einstein, "I want to know the mind of God, the rest is just commentary."



posted on Sep, 7 2005 @ 08:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by Aeon10101110
Apparently it does at a scale smaller than strings. And additional spatial dimensions are theorized to exist within such tiny realms.

Do some research, it is amazing topic which I've researched for many years. Even in Einstein's day, he called quantum behavior "spooky."


I should, definately.


Originally posted by Aeon10101110
No one truly understands quantum physics completely. But it was said during the mid-20th century that there were 2 people who did. Though Edward Witten is now one of those making headway with the "M" theory. There are a host of others, Stephen Hawking of course and he recently came out with a 3-volume movie on the topic. Again to invoke Einstein, "I want to know the mind of God, the rest is just commentary."


I cannot think of no finer study than God.



posted on Sep, 7 2005 @ 08:37 AM
link   
lets not forget that darwins theory is as it says a theory please let me suggest some info about this grate dvd i watched regarding intelligent design its a must see its called Unlocking the Mystery of Life you'll never watch a more interesting film regarding this subject, check it out

www.illustramedia.com...



posted on Sep, 7 2005 @ 08:47 PM
link   
Iamian:

Yes a theory it is, which means that it is well-tested and proven.

Should we throw out the electron theory because the Bible doesn't mention them?

Creationism does not even rate as a theory, it is mere conjecture.

Why should any video convince anyone? If one wants to assert creationism, prove it. Period.

Does the video present a testable hypothesis?



posted on Sep, 8 2005 @ 08:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by Aeon10101110
Yes a theory it is, which means that it is well-tested and proven.


If it has been proven, then how are we discussing it? Never once in my 5 years of university biology did anyone ever say it was proven and even had many professors say "it's just a theory". We need to get on the same page first if we're to get anywhere with it I think. I'd also like to hear about these tests.


Originally posted by Aeon10101110
Should we throw out the electron theory because the Bible doesn't mention them?


Now you're being silly
. That and even in electron theory there's some 'random' events that goes on sometimes without explanation.


Originally posted by Aeon10101110
Creationism does not even rate as a theory, it is mere conjecture.


Entering it into science would be a pioneering work, because before there was so much intentional separation where people placed their hands on their hips and said: "Science or God. Pick one." That's incredibly unfair in my mind to arbitrarily rule out possibilities without just cause.


Originally posted by Aeon10101110
Why should any video convince anyone? If one wants to assert creationism, prove it. Period.


Fair enough. Again, all I need is some labs, researchers and funding and we'll give it a go.


Originally posted by Aeon10101110
Does the video present a testable hypothesis?


I doubt it, in the same way evolution falls short of a testable hypothesis.


[edit on 8-9-2005 by saint4God]



posted on Sep, 8 2005 @ 08:46 AM
link   
Aeon

Is'nt everything a theory? its up to us to hypothesis in what ever way we feel fit neither for nor against but to way up both sides of every argument the theory of evolution is built on unstable foundations as can be said for creationism i wouldnt be so bold to assert one or the other to anybody my belief is my own, and i agree that there is no reason for any video regarding any subject should convince anybody i'm just mearly suggesting that people may find it interesting witch either side of the fence you sit on.

with respect ian



posted on Sep, 8 2005 @ 09:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by iamian
Aeon

Is'nt everything a theory?

There is a huge difference between scientific theory and normal theories. Evolution is both theory and fact.

its up to us to hypothesis in what ever way we feel fit neither for nor against but to way up both sides of every argument the theory of evolution

It is also up to us to make sure we look at ALL the information available.. it is also up to us to accept that scientists know what they are doing and aren't just blindly guessing.

is built on unstable foundations

No it is not. If you educate yourself on all aspects of evolutionary science and not rely on the disinformation spewed by creationalists you would realise this.
BTW. Could you please use more than one fullstop in your posts.. they are difficult to read.



posted on Sep, 8 2005 @ 09:47 AM
link   
I dont wish to get in to a padantic argument and i appolgise for my pronunciation but if u know it to be true then so be it.

ps, thank you for the insults



posted on Sep, 8 2005 @ 10:02 AM
link   
er.. your welcome?

I wasn't trying to be insulting but honest. It is difficult to reply if everything is all in one sentence.. I regret if this point caused offence.



posted on Sep, 8 2005 @ 10:44 AM
link   
lol, i agree on the point of pronunciation but what insults me is your attitude, its as if your right and everybody else is wrong, to be truthfull nobody knows its a theory, creation or evolution decide for yourself but you must respect other ppls opinions.

"No it is not. If you educate yourself on all aspects of evolutionary science and not rely on the disinformation spewed by creationalists you would realise this."

1/ i'm always trying to educate myself on all matters.

2/ disinformation works both ways.

anyway i admire your honesty



posted on Sep, 8 2005 @ 11:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by iamian
lol, i agree on the point of pronunciation but what insults me is your attitude, its as if your right and everybody else is wrong,

Not everybody else.. just those who are.

to be truthfull nobody knows its a theory, creation or evolution decide for yourself but you must respect other ppls opinions.

I can respect other people but if their opinions are wrong there is no reason to pretend they are otherwise.


1/ i'm always trying to educate myself on all matters.

2/ disinformation works both ways.

Your second point would suggest you haven't researched evolution [from non biblical sources] at length.. science has no underlieing motive to give out disinformation as science is based purely on facts and finding them. The thousand of facts collected over the centuries support eviloution so there is no need to make stuff up.. and why would they?

anyway i admire your honesty

Thankyou. Your posts are also much easier to read now.


[edit on 8-9-2005 by riley]



posted on Sep, 8 2005 @ 11:40 AM
link   
I'm 2 classes away from my Bachelor's of Science degree in Biology with a concentration in Genetics. After that, grad school! Now, gotta see how this would work since I also work a full time job.

Still, degree or not, it's not gonna be enough is it?


Nosiree, peeps will now want me to be a PHD. Well not to worry, we had the distinguished honor of having one here on this thread (mattison0922) as well as this one:

Evolution. Where is the evidence, I see none!



[edit on 8-9-2005 by saint4God]



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 6  7  8    10 >>

log in

join