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.

 

Dishonest Creationist Tactics= Bad Religion

page: 5
19
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 16 2013 @ 06:19 PM
link   

MrConspiracy
Ok, i get that. But the original post does say

If you get that then what were you expecting?


"Most all creationist claims have been soundly refuted decades ago, but then new generations of creationists come up, the veritable "suckers born every minute"

Where you able to disprove that?


It just riled me up a bit. I apologise it hurt everyone so much.

I don't think anyone was hurt.




posted on Sep, 16 2013 @ 06:22 PM
link   
reply to post by MrConspiracy
 





i'm sorry for having an opinion that you can't understand/believe. when it comes to faith, especially to do with the origins of life.. i'm going to have a tough time by myself.


So what do you call this other than a cop out?

Almost every time you used the word faith it was as an excuse for not having a good reason for something, but believing it anyway. Aren't you being a little dishonest?
edit on 16-9-2013 by Wertdagf because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 16 2013 @ 06:24 PM
link   
Science is based on what we observe. Does that mean there is nothing influencing the universe we dont know about that could affect what we observe?

If you believe in science and not faith, that means you must personally understand all science!! otherwise you have faith in scientists.
edit on 16-9-2013 by greavsie1971 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 16 2013 @ 06:27 PM
link   
The thread should focus on the dishonesty of their tactics, as the OP outlined, to promote theology over science. I've noticed, as usual, that my post (bottom of page 3) chronicling the movements tactics is once again ignored by creation/ID proponents.

If ID has any merit to it, why can't it stand on it's own merits and research? Research, which is non-existent to this point, by the way. If the concept has evidence to back it up, why can't respondents post such . . . as opposed to clinging to thoroughly refuted criticisms of Evolutionary Theory? Why do those at the leading edge of the movement have to resort to trying to manipulate public opinion, as opposed to publishing their "breakthrough" findings?

From the link titled "Wedge Document" at the bottom of page 3:

The social consequences of materialism have been devastating. As symptoms, those consequences are certainly worth treating. However, we are convinced that in order to defeat materialism, we must cut it off at its source. That source is scientific materialism. This is precisely our strategy. If we view the predominant materialistic science as a giant tree, our strategy is intended to function as a "wedge" that, while relatively small, can split the trunk when applied at its weakest points. The very beginning of this strategy, the "thin edge of the wedge," was Phillip ]ohnson's critique of Darwinism begun in 1991 in Darwinism on Trial, and continued in Reason in the Balance and Defeatng Darwinism by Opening Minds. Michael Behe's highly successful Darwin's Black Box followed Johnson's work. We are building on this momentum, broadening the wedge with a positive scientific alternative to materialistic scientific theories, which has come to be called the theory of intelligent design (ID). Design theory promises to reverse the stifling dominance of the materialist worldview, and to replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions.

Wedge Document

It's clear this entire movement is nothing more than an attempt to promote their theism over modern scientific study and return us to the dark ages, where superstition reigned. This movement is no different than the attitude that science has dealt with for hundreds of years.



posted on Sep, 16 2013 @ 06:27 PM
link   

Wertdagf
reply to post by MrConspiracy
 





i'm sorry for having an opinion that you can't understand/believe. when it comes to faith, especially to do with the origins of life.. i'm going to have a tough time by myself.


So what do you call this other than a cop out?

Almost every time you used the word faith it was as an excuse for not having a good reason for something, but believing it anyway. Aren't you being a little dishonest?
edit on 16-9-2013 by Wertdagf because: (no reason given)


Simply.. No.

Can i ask.. do you think science explains everything?



posted on Sep, 16 2013 @ 06:31 PM
link   

solomons path
The thread should focus on the dishonesty of their tactics, as the OP outlined, to promote theology over science. I've noticed, as usual, that my post (bottom of page 3) chronicling the movements tactics is once again ignored by creation/ID proponents.

If ID has any merit to it, why can't it stand on it's own merits and research? Research, which is non-existent to this point, by the way. If the concept has evidence to back it up, why can't respondents post such . . . as opposed to clinging to thoroughly refuted criticisms of Evolutionary Theory? Why do those at the leading edge of the movement have to resort to trying to manipulate public opinion, as opposed to publishing their "breakthrough" findings?

From the link titled "Wedge Document" at the bottom of page 3:

The social consequences of materialism have been devastating. As symptoms, those consequences are certainly worth treating. However, we are convinced that in order to defeat materialism, we must cut it off at its source. That source is scientific materialism. This is precisely our strategy. If we view the predominant materialistic science as a giant tree, our strategy is intended to function as a "wedge" that, while relatively small, can split the trunk when applied at its weakest points. The very beginning of this strategy, the "thin edge of the wedge," was Phillip ]ohnson's critique of Darwinism begun in 1991 in Darwinism on Trial, and continued in Reason in the Balance and Defeatng Darwinism by Opening Minds. Michael Behe's highly successful Darwin's Black Box followed Johnson's work. We are building on this momentum, broadening the wedge with a positive scientific alternative to materialistic scientific theories, which has come to be called the theory of intelligent design (ID). Design theory promises to reverse the stifling dominance of the materialist worldview, and to replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions.

Wedge Document

It's clear this entire movement is nothing more than an attempt to promote their theism over modern scientific study and return us to the dark ages, where superstition reigned. This movement is no different than the attitude that science has dealt with for hundreds of years.


But some science is the same. Why just point out ID? A lot of scientisis rule out creationism without even studying it. It's the same thing. You make out this just happens in ID, when it happens in all walks of life like politics for example. People from all ideologies do this. (Not all people obviously but it happens everywhere). Just learn to ignore it like the rest of us, Use your judgment and come to your own beliefs.
edit on 16-9-2013 by greavsie1971 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 16 2013 @ 06:32 PM
link   

daskakik

MrConspiracy
Ok, i get that. But the original post does say

If you get that then what were you expecting?


"Most all creationist claims have been soundly refuted decades ago, but then new generations of creationists come up, the veritable "suckers born every minute"

Where you able to disprove that?

Did you really expect me to disprove this? they've been soundly refuted? So are you stating that ID is definitely false then? That it's been completely disproved?


It just riled me up a bit. I apologize it hurt everyone so much.

I don't think anyone was hurt.


Oh.. i'm glad nobody was hurt. Just seems people get a bit touchy when someone has an opinion against there's on this post!



posted on Sep, 16 2013 @ 06:32 PM
link   

MrConspiracy

Wertdagf
reply to post by MrConspiracy
 





i'm sorry for having an opinion that you can't understand/believe. when it comes to faith, especially to do with the origins of life.. i'm going to have a tough time by myself.


So what do you call this other than a cop out?

Almost every time you used the word faith it was as an excuse for not having a good reason for something, but believing it anyway. Aren't you being a little dishonest?
edit on 16-9-2013 by Wertdagf because: (no reason given)


Simply.. No.

Can i ask.. do you think science explains everything?


Not Wert, but to answer you . . .

No.

The difference is science just says "we don't know". There is no need to fill the gaps with gods, aliens, giant computer programmers, or any other supernatural or other-worldly explanations.



posted on Sep, 16 2013 @ 06:33 PM
link   

solomons path

MrConspiracy

Wertdagf
reply to post by MrConspiracy
 





i'm sorry for having an opinion that you can't understand/believe. when it comes to faith, especially to do with the origins of life.. i'm going to have a tough time by myself.


So what do you call this other than a cop out?

Almost every time you used the word faith it was as an excuse for not having a good reason for something, but believing it anyway. Aren't you being a little dishonest?
edit on 16-9-2013 by Wertdagf because: (no reason given)


Simply.. No.

Can i ask.. do you think science explains everything?


Not Wert, but to answer you . . .

No.

The difference is science just says "we don't know". There is no need to fill the gaps with gods, aliens, giant computer programmers, or any other supernatural or other-worldly explanations.


Well then what do you fill it with? Nothing?......:S

Surely the mind must wonder if there's the "we don't know" floating around... where does yours wonder to?



posted on Sep, 16 2013 @ 06:34 PM
link   

greavsie1971

solomons path
The thread should focus on the dishonesty of their tactics, as the OP outlined, to promote theology over science. I've noticed, as usual, that my post (bottom of page 3) chronicling the movements tactics is once again ignored by creation/ID proponents.

If ID has any merit to it, why can't it stand on it's own merits and research? Research, which is non-existent to this point, by the way. If the concept has evidence to back it up, why can't respondents post such . . . as opposed to clinging to thoroughly refuted criticisms of Evolutionary Theory? Why do those at the leading edge of the movement have to resort to trying to manipulate public opinion, as opposed to publishing their "breakthrough" findings?

From the link titled "Wedge Document" at the bottom of page 3:

The social consequences of materialism have been devastating. As symptoms, those consequences are certainly worth treating. However, we are convinced that in order to defeat materialism, we must cut it off at its source. That source is scientific materialism. This is precisely our strategy. If we view the predominant materialistic science as a giant tree, our strategy is intended to function as a "wedge" that, while relatively small, can split the trunk when applied at its weakest points. The very beginning of this strategy, the "thin edge of the wedge," was Phillip ]ohnson's critique of Darwinism begun in 1991 in Darwinism on Trial, and continued in Reason in the Balance and Defeatng Darwinism by Opening Minds. Michael Behe's highly successful Darwin's Black Box followed Johnson's work. We are building on this momentum, broadening the wedge with a positive scientific alternative to materialistic scientific theories, which has come to be called the theory of intelligent design (ID). Design theory promises to reverse the stifling dominance of the materialist worldview, and to replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions.

Wedge Document

It's clear this entire movement is nothing more than an attempt to promote their theism over modern scientific study and return us to the dark ages, where superstition reigned. This movement is no different than the attitude that science has dealt with for hundreds of years.


But some science is the same. Why just point out ID? A lot of scientisis rule out creationism without even studying it. It's the same thing. You make out this just happens in ID, when it happens in all walks of life like politics for example.


That's absolutely false . . .

Science dismisses creationism because there is nothing to study.

If you disagree, please post said evidence of creationism that is being ignored. Empirical evidence.



posted on Sep, 16 2013 @ 06:38 PM
link   
reply to post by solomons path
 


What caused the big bang. Never heard a scientist propose it could be created. That avenue never gets mentioned. Yet we have something from nothing.


It is not false at all.



posted on Sep, 16 2013 @ 06:38 PM
link   

MrConspiracy

solomons path

MrConspiracy

Wertdagf
reply to post by MrConspiracy
 





i'm sorry for having an opinion that you can't understand/believe. when it comes to faith, especially to do with the origins of life.. i'm going to have a tough time by myself.


So what do you call this other than a cop out?

Almost every time you used the word faith it was as an excuse for not having a good reason for something, but believing it anyway. Aren't you being a little dishonest?
edit on 16-9-2013 by Wertdagf because: (no reason given)


Simply.. No.

Can i ask.. do you think science explains everything?


Not Wert, but to answer you . . .

No.

The difference is science just says "we don't know". There is no need to fill the gaps with gods, aliens, giant computer programmers, or any other supernatural or other-worldly explanations.


Well then what do you fill it with? Nothing?......:S

Surely the mind must wonder if there's the "we don't know" floating around... where does yours wonder to?


Yes the mind wonders . . . but, without empirical evidence to support the "wondering" there is nothing to study scientifically. You seem to want to blur the lines between philosophy and science, or not understand where that line is drawn.

To borrow a quote from Indiana Jones (Last Crusade) and replacing "archeology" with the word "science" . . .
"Science is the search for facts, not "truth" . . . If you are looking for "truth", philosophy and theology are down the hall."



posted on Sep, 16 2013 @ 06:41 PM
link   

greavsie1971
reply to post by solomons path
 


What caused the big bang. Never heard a scientist propose it could be created. That avenue never gets mentioned. Yet we have something from nothing.


It is not false at all.



Absolutely false. And, you don't seem to be that familiar with big bang theory, if you believe it states what caused it. The theory states it happened and follows the events after. Not what, if anything, came before or what the cause was. There is ample evidence (background radiation, expansion, etc.) to say that it happened, though. The same is true of Evolutionary Theory. Life happened, evolution took hold and ran with it.

So the answer to your question is "we don't know". That fact that there are still unknowns doesn't discount what can be observed and predicted all around us.

Your reasoning is a classic creationist tactic because you think bronze age mythology explains the "why" and therefore the "how, with no empirical evidence to back your claims.
edit on 9/16/13 by solomons path because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 16 2013 @ 06:43 PM
link   

solomons path

MrConspiracy

solomons path

MrConspiracy

Wertdagf
reply to post by MrConspiracy
 





i'm sorry for having an opinion that you can't understand/believe. when it comes to faith, especially to do with the origins of life.. i'm going to have a tough time by myself.


So what do you call this other than a cop out?

Almost every time you used the word faith it was as an excuse for not having a good reason for something, but believing it anyway. Aren't you being a little dishonest?
edit on 16-9-2013 by Wertdagf because: (no reason given)


Simply.. No.

Can i ask.. do you think science explains everything?


Not Wert, but to answer you . . .

No.

The difference is science just says "we don't know". There is no need to fill the gaps with gods, aliens, giant computer programmers, or any other supernatural or other-worldly explanations.


Well then what do you fill it with? Nothing?......:S

Surely the mind must wonder if there's the "we don't know" floating around... where does yours wonder to?


Yes the mind wonders . . . but, without empirical evidence to support the "wondering" there is nothing to study scientifically. You seem to want to blur the lines between philosophy and science, or not understand where that line is drawn.

To borrow a quote from Indiana Jones (Last Crusade) and replacing "archeology" with the word "science" . . .
"Science is the search for facts, not "truth" . . . If you are looking for "truth", philosophy and theology are down the hall."


Somethings science cannot prove at its current state. Creationism is one of them. Science is not able to prove everything. doesnt mean it cannot be true. We are not that knowlegable. Science itself has no answers for how it all started so why is creationism ruled out. It's still theory. They even suggest the big bang may not be the answer. Science does not know everything, therefore cannot rule out anything of this nature.



posted on Sep, 16 2013 @ 06:43 PM
link   
reply to post by greavsie1971
 


So now creation scientists aren't even really scientists?

Most of the scientific community would probably agree with you, but i think in your dishonest over generalization you just made a mistake.



posted on Sep, 16 2013 @ 06:45 PM
link   

solomons path
The thread should focus on the dishonesty of their tactics, as the OP outlined, to promote theology over science. I've noticed, as usual, that my post (bottom of page 3) chronicling the movements tactics is once again ignored by creation/ID proponents.

If ID has any merit to it, why can't it stand on it's own merits and research? Research, which is non-existent to this point, by the way. If the concept has evidence to back it up, why can't respondents post such . . . as opposed to clinging to thoroughly refuted criticisms of Evolutionary Theory? Why do those at the leading edge of the movement have to resort to trying to manipulate public opinion, as opposed to publishing their "breakthrough" findings?

From the link titled "Wedge Document" at the bottom of page 3:

The social consequences of materialism have been devastating. As symptoms, those consequences are certainly worth treating. However, we are convinced that in order to defeat materialism, we must cut it off at its source. That source is scientific materialism. This is precisely our strategy. If we view the predominant materialistic science as a giant tree, our strategy is intended to function as a "wedge" that, while relatively small, can split the trunk when applied at its weakest points. The very beginning of this strategy, the "thin edge of the wedge," was Phillip ]ohnson's critique of Darwinism begun in 1991 in Darwinism on Trial, and continued in Reason in the Balance and Defeatng Darwinism by Opening Minds. Michael Behe's highly successful Darwin's Black Box followed Johnson's work. We are building on this momentum, broadening the wedge with a positive scientific alternative to materialistic scientific theories, which has come to be called the theory of intelligent design (ID). Design theory promises to reverse the stifling dominance of the materialist worldview, and to replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions.

Wedge Document

It's clear this entire movement is nothing more than an attempt to promote their theism over modern scientific study and return us to the dark ages, where superstition reigned. This movement is no different than the attitude that science has dealt with for hundreds of years.


How has science delt with the 2nd law of phyics that says all thing decay from order to disorder? You take a car and set it out in the weather and come back in 10 years is that car going to look brand new? In the same sense how can simplicity become complexity? This is a question that science has dodged for hundreds of years.



posted on Sep, 16 2013 @ 06:45 PM
link   

solomons path

greavsie1971
reply to post by solomons path
 


What caused the big bang. Never heard a scientist propose it could be created. That avenue never gets mentioned. Yet we have something from nothing.


It is not false at all.



Absolutely false and you don't seem to be that familiar with big bang theory, if you believe it states what caused it. The theory states it happened. Not what, if anything, came before or what the cause was. There is ample evidence (background radiation, expansion, etc.) to say that it happened, though.

So the answer to your question is "we don't know".



Exactly, 'we dont know' but creation is not an option?

I never suggested science stated what caused it, That was my point. Science does NOT know.
edit on 16-9-2013 by greavsie1971 because: (no reason given)

edit on 16-9-2013 by greavsie1971 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 16 2013 @ 06:48 PM
link   
reply to post by guitarplayer
 


First off . . . it's not the "2nd Law of Physics", it's "Thermodynamics".

Feel free to read about your misunderstandings regarding this principle here:
Creationist claims agains Thermodynamics



posted on Sep, 16 2013 @ 06:51 PM
link   

greavsie1971

solomons path

greavsie1971
reply to post by solomons path
 


What caused the big bang. Never heard a scientist propose it could be created. That avenue never gets mentioned. Yet we have something from nothing.


It is not false at all.



Absolutely false and you don't seem to be that familiar with big bang theory, if you believe it states what caused it. The theory states it happened. Not what, if anything, came before or what the cause was. There is ample evidence (background radiation, expansion, etc.) to say that it happened, though.

So the answer to your question is "we don't know".



Exactly, 'we dont know' but creation is not an option?

I never suggested science stated what caused it, That was my point. Science does NOT know.
edit on 16-9-2013 by greavsie1971 because: (no reason given)

edit on 16-9-2013 by greavsie1971 because: (no reason given)


Well, until you (or anyone else) can provide empirical evidence that a creator (or any supernatural entity) exists, then science has nothing to say on the subject. Again, science deals in evidence. Not superstition and conjecture.

If strong (independently verifiable and falsifiable) evidence is found of a supernatural creator, then science, as always, will correct itself.



posted on Sep, 16 2013 @ 06:52 PM
link   
reply to post by solomons path
 


I dont think that is the point.



new topics

top topics



 
19
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join