Continuing Challenge to Creationists

a reply to: Barcs

You can't prove the bible to be true. But you can't prove what it says didn't happen either.

But I do worry about the current version of the Bible. What has been taken out, put in, changed around an misinterpreted is probably more than people would want to believe.

Either way, nobody can prove intelligent design of some sort (as the bible tells it or otherwise) exists or not.

originally posted by: randyvs
a reply to: TzarChasm

I don't hate anyone all tho you try to be annoying you
barely succeed at that. And debate isn't anything to get
all huffy about. With your whopping 20 flags I hardly expect
you to know so I'm telling you.

I don't try to be anything but true to myself. 20 flags...is that good? And if you aren't huffy, I would humbly request that you compose a case worthy of representing creationism in the court of law. If its worth doing, it's worth doing right.

originally posted by: MrConspiracy
Are we talking about all/any intelligent design or merely the 7 day creationist kinda guys?

We're talking about real science vs pseudo science. It isn't about religions and belief in Intelligent Design. It's about the fraudulent misrepresentation of science by Creationists. You only need to read their "research" papers at icr.org to understand what I'm talking about.

People are certainly free to believe in their religious philosophies. Intelligent Design really comes down to the religious concept that God created the universe and everything in it. That's not what I'm arguing. I respect anyone's belief system. But an honest religious person who believes in God and that he/she created the universe et al will tell you that there is no scientific evidence to back up their beliefs. And that's fine. Scientists don't go into the lab to test the "God" hypothesis. Many outstanding scientists believe in God and Intelligent Design. Francis Collins who was head of the Human Genome Project is a Catholic. He also believed that he saw God in his work every day. And that's a good t hing. But he didn't go into his lab to FIND a God, or prove that there is a GOD. He went into his lab to do his God's work. That's the difference. It's also a rational, intelligent person who understands that there are some things that are the purview of science and some things that are not. A Bible, Torah or Koran doesn't give you the license to commit fraud.

Creationists take other people's work and reconstruct it to fit their pseudo science. That's a bad thing.

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: randyvs
a reply to: TzarChasm

I don't hate anyone all tho you try to be annoying you
barely succeed at that. And debate isn't anything to get
all huffy about. With your whopping 20 flags I hardly expect
you to know so I'm telling you.

I don't try to be anything but true to myself. 20 flags...is that good? And if you aren't huffy, I would humbly request that you compose a case worthy of representing creationism in the court of law. If its worth doing, it's worth doing right.

If its worth doing, it's worth doing right.[/

Excellent comment. Do it right or don't do it at all.

a reply to: UniFinity

The first link's just a Web page. The second is a collection of all sacred texts that are available in English translation.

Again you disappoint me.

Okay, let me make the question clearer. Which ancient sacred texts have you actually read? Out of them which ones impressed you most?

a reply to: Phantom423

I got your point. The thing is, you are assuming that the standard by which the debate will be judged is a rational one.

Faith in rationality is also faith. As should be amply clear from the foregoing, it is not a faith shared by all here.

Randyvs's point deserves more consideration than it has received so far. He didn't articulate it well, but that's randy.

And before you tell me that objective truth trumps all other judgements, consider real life. Is it always, or even most often, the rational argument that convinces?

Did you watch the Republican presidential candidates 'debate' each other a couple of days ago? How rational was that?

originally posted by: Astyanax
a reply to: Phantom423

I got your point. The thing is, you are assuming that the standard by which the debate will be judged is a rational one.

Faith in rationality is also faith. As should be amply clear from the foregoing, it is not a faith shared by all here.

Randyvs's point deserves more consideration than it has received so far. He didn't articulate it well, but that's randy.

And before you tell me that objective truth trumps all other judgements, consider real life. Is it always, or even most often, the rational argument that convinces?

Did you watch the Republican presidential candidates 'debate' each other a couple of days ago? How rational was that?

I understand your position. But science isn't necessarily about truth. It's about discovery. And that can mean new discoveries or old discoveries that are corrected or modified by new discoveries.

Of course, truth and honesty are important in any field, not just science. But in science objectivity means that you make every effort possible to step away from the most popular, or "reasonable", explanation for something, including your own. That's how great discoveries are made. You can't bring prejudices into the discovery process. You can, of course, reference good research and data previously done. But discovery is about questions and how you design a plan to answer those questions. And the questions will never be answered if you go into the lab with the answers lined up in your head before you even start to collect the data.

I just read a post by Arbitrageur over at the Science forum. It's an outstanding description of how science works. Here's the link: www.abovetopsecret.com...
I hope everyone reads it because it's an excellent example of analytical thinking.

As far as Randys is concerned, you're right. I don't understand his position. People tend to criticize "evidence" as though it can be anything and everything. Think Sherlock Holmes. He understood what evidence was and what it wasn't. No self respecting attorney would go into a courtroom just to be flattened by the opposing counsel or the judge because his case was based on flimsy evidence. Not any difference in science. You can't always be entirely right, but you can follow the rules - which is the scientific method. And just keep marching....

a reply to: Phantom423

But science isn't necessarily about truth.

Then there is no debate.

originally posted by: Phantom423

And yes, science can prove pseudo science wrong.

It's a noble endeavor, this.

Science is not meant to disprove pseudo science, although it regularly disproves itself.

a reply to: PhotonEffect

When pseudo science is held to the scientific method then pseudo science fails to have any merit so it can be said real science disproves pseudo science.

originally posted by: Grimpachi
a reply to: Phantom423

A proper debate with rules that apply to both sides is the bane of creationism.


I do not believe any creationists will be up to the task.

What amuses me is that you cannot see that evolutionists are just as far up the creek on this.

"Rules" are the problem, they do not help in explaining those things which are not yet explained.

Stop trying to tell us we have to be one or the other

a reply to: Astyanax

If you would read just a few paragraphs in the first link you would notice that it is a a collection of paragraphs copied from a few of different books from various religious backgrounds - I read a lot of those books and I recommend them all But it seems that does not suit your tastes. But that is your problem...I answered your quires the best I could. Have a nice Sunday!

-----added while editing-----
If you consider for just a moment this truth that there is eternity and infinity, than you can probably imagine a soul which is our vehicle since the beginning of our numerous life's. And we all know that everyone has a free will and can do what ever you desire. So on that note, we are all in a different stages of development and always in a process of learning - the good the bad the ugly. That is why there is so much diversity in our world and I think there is a good fit somewhere for everybody if one wants to get closer to God. And this does not prescribe religion or spirituality, you must find your own path suited for you circumstances and understanding from your life. We are after all ALL different but from the same source by that notion. So all paths leads to the ALL, just as rivers to the ocean. That is also way I dislike mentioning specific books and religious text, because that suits me and it wont probably suit you.

But to anyone curious and pure the way unfolds by itself. This was and is proven to me again and again by wired 'coincidences'.

I am over and out

a reply to: Grimpachi

Sure. But disproving pseudo science is not what the scientific method sets out to do. However as a by product, it can and does relegate what were once considered scientific theories/ hypotheses to pseudo science status.

originally posted by: Phantom423

originally posted by: MrConspiracy
Are we talking about all/any intelligent design or merely the 7 day creationist kinda guys?

We're talking about real science vs pseudo science. It isn't about religions and belief in Intelligent Design. It's about the fraudulent misrepresentation of science by Creationists. You only need to read their "research" papers at icr.org to understand what I'm talking about.

People are certainly free to believe in their religious philosophies. Intelligent Design really comes down to the religious concept that God created the universe and everything in it. That's not what I'm arguing. I respect anyone's belief system. But an honest religious person who believes in God and that he/she created the universe et al will tell you that there is no scientific evidence to back up their beliefs. And that's fine. Scientists don't go into the lab to test the "God" hypothesis. Many outstanding scientists believe in God and Intelligent Design. Francis Collins who was head of the Human Genome Project is a Catholic. He also believed that he saw God in his work every day. And that's a good t hing. But he didn't go into his lab to FIND a God, or prove that there is a GOD. He went into his lab to do his God's work. That's the difference. It's also a rational, intelligent person who understands that there are some things that are the purview of science and some things that are not. A Bible, Torah or Koran doesn't give you the license to commit fraud.

Creationists take other people's work and reconstruct it to fit their pseudo science. That's a bad thing.

Ah, thanks for clarifying. If that's the case. I'm onboard!

a reply to: ParasuvO

you cannot see that evolutionists are just as far up the creek on this.

"Rules" are the problem, they do not help in explaining those things which are not yet explained.

Stop trying to tell us we have to be one or the other

Oh shame that is scientific sacrilege, don't you know you must believe 100% with all your heart, mind and soul in evolution and abiogenesis ?

Otherwise you are stubbornly ignorant of modern science.

originally posted by: ParasuvO

originally posted by: Grimpachi
a reply to: Phantom423

A proper debate with rules that apply to both sides is the bane of creationism.


I do not believe any creationists will be up to the task.

What amuses me is that you cannot see that evolutionists are just as far up the creek on this.

"Rules" are the problem, they do not help in explaining those things which are not yet explained.

Stop trying to tell us we have to be one or the other

Really? There are 156,000+ research papers in peer-reviewed journals that say you're wrong. The "rules" don't define evolution. The rules define the debate - how it's conducted.

You're free to select any number of journal articles on any topic in evolution and bring them here to demonstrate how "far up the creek" they are. I don't expect you to do this any time soon, but it's just something to ponder while you're trying to figure out another excuse.

a reply to: Blue_Jay33

Cool straw man, bro. Also, neat job on erroneously conflating the hypothesis of abiogenesis with the theory of evolution.

What I find amazing in this whole debate is how those that attack both sides of the argument are then in turn attacked almost exclusively by those with there minds totally made up for evolution and abiogenesis.

Whereas I welcome their questions and concerns, when they basically say I haven't made my mind up yet.
The other side attacks them for not making their mind up, and expressing that ?

That IS crazy, and I have seen it happen over and over again on ATS.
I guess intellectual egotism just can't restrain itself in a respectful manner, given the slightest threat.

a reply to: GetHyped

a reply to: Blue_Jay33

Cool straw man, bro. Also, neat job on erroneously conflating the hypothesis of abiogenesis with the theory of evolution.

You guys always want your cake and eat it to.

The OP's link to the:

ATS Library of Scientific Evidence for EVOLUTION

, clearly links Evolution with Abiogenesis.

Abiogenesis is the elephant in the room,

Bro

a reply to: Astyanax

Faith in rationality is an oxymoron. Faith is unjustified cofidence, the opposite of rational. Your question - is the most rational answer the most convincing? To a rational mind, yes.