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.
borntowatch
Ghost147
Lucid Lunacy
reply to post by borntowatch
You seem to have misunderstood my intention. I wasn't inviting this debate to take place between you and I. I'm not qualified. My "cut and paste" was only to show they are doing something you said they were not. Which is….using science…using math…
You seem quite confident so again, if you would, dedicate a thread to this. Sounds like you think no one will muster any evidence.
Here is the forum: Science & Technology
Do you know how science is done, what constitutes science
No idea. I primarily bang sticks together.edit on 28-1-2014 by Lucid Lunacy because: (no reason given)
I'll join in on this. Awaiting the thread, eagerly! please post a link to it here so we can find it
Seriously???
Do you think ats needs another thread that will just turn into petty little arguments about religion
I cant be bothered,the dancing cat is your man, its what he does best
I am not looking for a fight, just not worth it.
...
Your model and theory has many holes as has been pointed out. Thats enough for me.
When it comes down to it, this is the reason why atheists/secularists/evolutionists only have a serious bone to pick with Biblical Christianity, because its the only religion in the world that isn't compatible with their beliefs about the origins of life.
Seriously???
Do you think ats needs another thread that will just turn into petty little arguments about religion
I cant be bothered,the dancing cat is your man, its what he does best
BlackManINC
how about they prove that there ever was a big bang in the first place. They weren't there from the beginning of this so called big bang, so how could they possibly know what the temperature was?
ReturnofTheSonOfNothing
BlackManINC
how about they prove that there ever was a big bang in the first place. They weren't there from the beginning of this so called big bang, so how could they possibly know what the temperature was?
I was there.
You can't prove that I wasn't.
borntowatch
ReturnofTheSonOfNothing
BlackManINC
how about they prove that there ever was a big bang in the first place. They weren't there from the beginning of this so called big bang, so how could they possibly know what the temperature was?
I was there.
You can't prove that I wasn't.
Cool, you were there, now show us the data you collected.
We have a winner
BlackManINC
...Its the reason why even some evolutionary scientists have decided to distance themselves and the theory of evolution itself from the big bang theory altogether.
borntowatch
There is only 1 thing I can prove, no matter how good the explanation or the argument, evolutionists will not agree on creation
borntowatch
Tree ring dating and 200000 year old seagrass as proof. Oh dear me, they believe that stuff is infallible
Ghost147
BlackManINC
...Its the reason why even some evolutionary scientists have decided to distance themselves and the theory of evolution itself from the big bang theory altogether.
I'm not quite sure how you believe you have the credentials to comment on scientific matters such as Evolution, when you are presenting a very elementary grade misunderstanding about it.
The Theory of Evolution has absolutely nothing to do with the cosmos. The way a planet/galaxy/nebula/universe forms deals with astronomy, not biology. There for, it doesn't make any sense to say that "evolutionary scientists are distancing themselves and the Theory of Evolution from the Big Bang" considering they have nothing to do with each other, at all.
You are confusing the definitions of the word "Evolution". Just as I could say "the gravity of this situations is quite extreme", does not mean that I am referring to the Theory of Relativity. The word evolution and the phenomenon of Evolution are also entirely separate things.
While we're on the subject of definitions, the Theory of Evolution and the phenomenon of Evolution are also separate things. Just as the Theory of Relativity (or the 'Theory of Gravity') and Gravity itself are two separate things. The theory merely attempts to explain the phenomenon that clearly exists. Just as the Theory of Evolution is an attempt to explain the phenomenon that also clearly exists.
Biological Evolution, which is what the Theory of Evolution explains, only describes the changes in Allele frequencies (or "gene frequencies") within a species (or "gene pool") through reproduction. That is it. Nothing else at all. It does not explain how life began, only what happens to life once it already exists. It certainly does not relate at all to anything pertaining to cosmology. It is simply an entirely different subject.
borntowatch
There is only 1 thing I can prove, no matter how good the explanation or the argument, evolutionists will not agree on creation
Obviously, considering that creation has nothing to say on how or why life changes once it exists, it only describes how life started. Which evolution does not describe at all, as I stated earlier. If you want to compare Creation to any other form of Abiogenesis (which is a scientific topic on the hypothesis describing the beginning of life), then go right ahead!
In fact, I don't see why creation wouldn't be considered a form of Abiogenesis.
borntowatch
Tree ring dating and 200000 year old seagrass as proof. Oh dear me, they believe that stuff is infallible
No, it absolutely is not. However, it is simplistic enough for your mind to grasp. I could go on for hours attempting to explain the very detailed functions behind the changes in Allele Frequencies and how they relate to the general concept of Evolution, the similarities and differences between Micro and Macro Evolution and so on. However, you cannot even comprehend these unbelievably simple concepts, so why would I bother giving you a reasonably, scientific explanation when you not only would not understand it, but completely ignore it anyway because of your biased view of science in general?
If, by some virtually impossible event, that creation were to produce some form of actual scientific proof that their hypothesis is valid in any way, I assure you that every scientist would accept that hypothesis in an instance. Why? Because they aren't holding some weird bias towards your ideologies as you and all other young earth creationists hold towards science in general. They accepts what is the most valid, evident, and factual description of a specific phenomenon.
Why they do not accept Creation as scientific at all, let alone valid, is because it doesn't follow the scientific method.
The Scientific Method
- Make observations.
- Propose a hypothesis.
- Design and perform an experiment to test the hypothesis.
- Analyze your data to determine whether to accept or reject the hypothesis.
- If necessary, propose and test a new hypothesis.
To have a Scientific Hypothesis in the first place, the hypothesis must be testable and also falsifiable. Which Creationism is neither. It is simply an Ideology.
A Scientific Hypothesis turns into a Scientific Theory when it is repeatedly confirmed through experimentation and observation.
The Theory of Evolution is so widely accepted by the scientific community because it is one of the most observed and experimented theories science has ever produced.
If you'd like to know more about the basics of Science, or even the details, I suggest you make that topic that has already been suggested to you.
‘We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.' - Professor Richard Lewontin
My Christianity is fluid and growing
I have no reason to believe in magical fairy tales.
Lucid Lunacy
My Christianity is fluid and growing
Right your Christianity is. Not your Buddhism. Not your Hinduism. Not your Islam. Your Christianity. Let's break it down. You went from viewing Catholicism as the correct interpretation of Christianity, to viewing the teachings of Calvin as the correct interpretation, to now studying yet a new interpretation of Christianity. You say it's growing; in other words you're still seeking. This is still inline with the whole confirmation bias thing. What is the commonality amongst them? They are all Christianity.
Confirmation Bias: a tendency to search for or interpret information in a way that confirms one's preconceptions.
The preconception here is that Christianity is true (the correct faith). You switching to different interpretations of Christianity is merely you acting out that tendency to search for information that seems to confirm it.edit on 1-2-2014 by Lucid Lunacy because: (no reason given)
Tell me what you think a Christian is and what they must believe. No google searching, honestly and sincerely what a Christian should be to you.
Lucid Lunacy
reply to post by borntowatch
You can't comprehend my argument and you believe I can't understand anything you say. I think we can leave it for now
Tell me what you think a Christian is and what they must believe. No google searching, honestly and sincerely what a Christian should be to you.
Oh that's easy.
Someone who reads Christian canon and calls themselves a Christian.
That's it. You were expecting more?
As for what they should believe...
I don't have faith in this stuff. In order for me to discern 'true Christianity' I would have to have faith to begin with. I leave it you and other Christians to determine who is the 'true Christian' and what denominations, as you said, are the works of devils. People on the outside just see thousands upon thousands of differing denominations and no reason to believe one is more true than the other. I mean I could have a discussion on Christian theology from a historical perspective…if by true we mean most historically accurate…I suppose I could throw my hat in the ring.
Why this discussion is pointless.
You expect me to know everything about evolution and possibly every other religion on earth and you have no concept of Christianity at all
One doesn't need faith to discern Christianity, thats lazy of you
I dont believe evolution is anything more than a fairytail myth, you hold the same towards creation.