The Origins Conspiracy, A Master Deception!

originally posted by: TzarChasm
a reply to: Barcs

God started the process, god works through science. Yes, it's still blind faith, it's just way more rational than biblical literalism that causes people to attack science with no justification whatsoever as the "analytical thinking" OP did.

you want to give them an easy out, instead of backing them into a corner and wrenching their golden calf out of their defiant fingers.

...well, nothing else has worked. no point in pushing the issue. its quite possible that in a few thousand years or so, this debate will be a curiosity for our descendants, nothing more. and no one will care that this discussion took place or that this website existed.

time to get on with our lives and quit fussing over what happens after its too late, before its too late.

You are certainly correct. What would really be funny is that if some archived version of this website gets buried somewhere and then somebody finds fragments of it in a few million years after a few cataclysms and certain parts of the ATS fragments become the new bible. Folks will long rejoice over the creationism debates and tall tales that will undoubtedly be taken as fact

The modern bible is not much different from that. Near the beginnings of Christianity there were WAY more scriptures and texts. What we have today is merely a fragment of the stories that existed back then, because most of the other texts were destroyed after the bible got compiled and the stories were hand picked.

originally posted by: Blue_Jay33
a reply to: Barcs

So your only reason for the evolution denial is because the bible say so, exactly like I said above.

Nope, and I have studied the subject critically and scientifically and I conclude something different than you.

BS. You just told me that you denounced evolution because Jesus said something similar (but not the same) in an unverified story, the exact opposite of critical thinking. If there is another reason, by all means, please post it and let's discuss your critical and scientific analysis of evolution. I have never once seen you discuss the evidence in favor of evolution, you have only posted misunderstandings about it. Please demonstrate otherwise.

BTW, Reading a creationist website is not critically and scientifically studying evolution.

originally posted by: Blue_Jay33
a reply to: Barcs

So your only reason for the evolution denial is because the bible say so, exactly like I said above.

Nope, and I have studied the subject critically and scientifically and I conclude something different than you.

so who do we trust more, you or stephen hawking? heres a hint: stephen hawking is a published award-winning scientist with the respect of his entire community, not to mention millions of professionals who have studied his work. you are an anonymous user of a conspiracy forum. the choice is clear. and if you arent satisfied with being compared to professor hawking, there are numerous other examples of experts who have likewise studied the subject "critically and scientifically" and reached an altogether different conclusion than you have. people who are paid for their professional opinion on the subject, unlike yourself.

i accept that your mind will not be changed, but i dont accept that your methodology is flawless as you would seem to imply.

a reply to: Barcs

Already have in about a dozen threads and I am not hitting the replay button on those topics with you.

Waste of both our time.

originally posted by: Blue_Jay33
a reply to: Barcs

Already have in about a dozen threads and I am not hitting the replay button on those topics with you.

Waste of both our time.

To the best of my memory, you have not once, ever, in any thread in O&C, discussed the evidence in favor of evolution and explained why it is wrong. NOT ONCE. I have not ever seen you break down a scientific research paper and explain the faulty methods or conclusions. You have only used straw man definitions, appeals to ignorance, general misunderstandings with the science, and other logical fallacies to attack it.

This is why I did a double take when you posted something about scoring in the top 8% in analytical thinking and talking about how you have critically studied the science of evolution. Is it your analytical thinking that came up with that insane story about the devil hypnotizing Darwin. Blind denial and making up stories is the opposite of critical thinking.

originally posted by: Blue_Jay33
a reply to: Barcs

Already have in about a dozen threads and I am not hitting the replay button on those topics with you.

Waste of both our time.

This statement is patently false. I've asked you very specific questions on multiple occasions and you have failed to address these queries even once. Your typical tactic is to make unsubstantiated claims with no supporting data or citations. Whenever asked to actually support your assertions, the conversation quickly ends and you move on to another poster with the same unsupported and unsubstantiated statements.

originally posted by: peter vlar

originally posted by: Blue_Jay33
a reply to: Barcs

Already have in about a dozen threads and I am not hitting the replay button on those topics with you.

Waste of both our time.

This statement is patently false. I've asked you very specific questions on multiple occasions and you have failed to address these queries even once. Your typical tactic is to make unsubstantiated claims with no supporting data or citations. Whenever asked to actually support your assertions, the conversation quickly ends and you move on to another poster with the same unsupported and unsubstantiated statements.

Because.. actually addressing the question would cause Blue_Jay33 to glimpse reality. This could, in turn, threaten this God delusion.

a reply to: Barcs

To the best of my memory, you have not once, ever, in any thread in O&C, discussed the evidence in favor of evolution and explained why it is wrong. NOT ONCE.

What these 21 threads I authored and all the posts in them weren't good enough, you still want more....you know I could make more too.

ATS THREADS

originally posted by: Blue_Jay33
a reply to: Barcs

To the best of my memory, you have not once, ever, in any thread in O&C, discussed the evidence in favor of evolution and explained why it is wrong. NOT ONCE.

What these 21 threads I authored and all the posts in them weren't good enough, you still want more....you know I could make more too.

ATS THREADS

There are new members; and the time frame changes. The responses will be different suiting such changes and bring more enlightened thought processes expanding your initial ideas (more dialog pinpointed).

a reply to: Barcs

This is why I did a double take when you posted something about scoring in the top 8% in analytical thinking and talking about how you have critically studied the science of evolution.

I want to address this further, research these science topics like I have:

1)The Fermi Paradox
2)The Rare Earth Hypothesis
3)Goldilocks Zone
4)The Great Filter

Now some will say these aren't linked, but they are inextricably so, cosmology aspect of the science even comes before abiogenesis. In a way evolutionists are masters at side stepping the double foundations of cosmology and abiogenesis.

They keep arguing in a singular scientific term, because this is how these choose to define it, and I keep arguing in the much broader concept, this is why we will never convince each other.

Bottom line: Evolution fails because cosmology and abiogenesis can't even get you there.
And that is pure analytical logic.

a reply to: Blue_Jay33

you do realize that none of those things has anything to do with the theory of evolution in itself? lifeforms from another planet, conditions for life on this planet, the apparent accidental nature of life on earth, and life arising from nonlife are all beside the question of what happened after. the theory of evolution isnt intended to answer those questions, and those questions are still being answered by professionals who, when they uncover the solution, will be publishing both their results and all the work behind those results rather than posting anonymously online. one other thing: they actually understand how the theory of evolution works, which is why many of us here tend to trust their opinion more than yours.

On his death bed Darwin admitted there was a God
A theory is all it is nothing more
No facts to support the theory
Science is about observations
Repeat and observe for the same result

What do you call science without observation

A big fat lie

a reply to: piney

talk to us about what he proved and we will have something to discuss.

a reply to: Blue_Jay33

Your reply tells me you don't comprehend the point of that post.

Get back to me once you figure it out.

originally posted by: Blue_Jay33
a reply to: Blue_Jay33

Your reply tells me you don't comprehend the point of that post.

Get back to me once you figure it out.

sure, your point is that evolution fails to address the question of how life first began on planet earth. to keep things simple: the theory of evolution is intended to address the question of how life became what it is today. that question (and the theory) follows todays species all the way back to where the first species began, but thats where the cutoff is. the question of how life first started is another subject entirely. read that again: they are separate lines of inquiry that overlap but are not identical.

a reply to: TzarChasm

Ever build a simpler structure, like a garage ?
You can't put the shingles on the roof before the foundation is even poured.

The concept applies to theories of science as well.

Or mathematics

C=Unknown
A=Unknown
E=A wild guess

CXA=E

originally posted by: Blue_Jay33
a reply to: TzarChasm

Ever build a simpler structure, like a garage ?
You can't put the shingles on the roof before the foundation is even poured.

The concept applies to theories of science as well.

Or mathematics

C=Unknown
A=Unknown
E=A wild guess

CXA=E

Evolution is a biological process. You cannot compare it to building a garage. They are not analogous concepts.

originally posted by: piney
On his death bed Darwin admitted there was a God

No, there was no deathbed conversion never soon or admission of god prior to Darwin's death. Please provide a proper citation supporting your statement if you feel you are correct. And even IF that were the truth, it would have no bearing whatsoever on Modern Evolutionary Synthesis.

A theory is all it is nothing more

You should actually learn the difference between the definition of a scientific theory and the laymans definition of theory. You aren't using the scientific definition in your assessment of MES

No facts to support the theory

Incorrect. Modern Evomutionary Synthesis is the most studied, supported and evidenced theory in the history of science. Evolution is indeed a fact. The theory serves only to explain HOW evolution works

Science is about observations
Repeat and observe for the same result

Then it's a damned good thing that MES meets that criteria then!

What do you call science without observation

A big fat lie.

Around here we usually just call it Young Earth Creationism

a reply to: piney

If you don't mind, I'm going to start at the end of your post.

A big fat lie

Let's see how many "big fat lies" are in your post, shall we?

On his death bed Darwin admitted there was a God

Even Answers In Genesis knows that the story of Darwin's recanting on his deathbed is a big fat lie. Just in case it's not clear to you, one of the biggest most fundamentalist anti-evolution pro-creationist websites in the world says that the story you're trying to propagate here is a big steaming pile of male bovine fecal matter.

A theory is all it is nothing more

Another big fat lie. The word theory when used in a scientific context has a completely different connotation then when used in a colloquial context. Here, this should help clear it up for you a bit:

US National Academy of Sciences:

The formal scientific definition of theory is quite different from the everyday meaning of the word. It refers to a comprehensive explanation of some aspect of nature that is supported by a vast body of evidence. Many scientific theories are so well established that no new evidence is likely to alter them substantially. For example, no new evidence will demonstrate that the Earth does not orbit around the sun (heliocentric theory), or that living things are not made of cells (cell theory), that matter is not composed of atoms, or that the surface of the Earth is not divided into solid plates that have moved over geological timescales (the theory of plate tectonics). One of the most useful properties of scientific theories is that they can be used to make predictions about natural events or phenomena that have not yet been observed.

American Association for the Advancement of Science:

A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment. Such fact-supported theories are not "guesses" but reliable accounts of the real world. The theory of biological evolution is more than "just a theory." It is as factual an explanation of the universe as the atomic theory of matter or the germ theory of disease. Our understanding of gravity is still a work in progress. But the phenomenon of gravity, like evolution, is an accepted fact.

No facts to support the theory

Another big fat lie. That's three in a row! Evolution, the phenomenon, can be defined as a change in allele frequency within a given population over successive generations. It is a regularly observed phenomenon. Are you suggesting that evolution as defined above simply doesn't happen?

Science is about observations
Repeat and observe for the same result

I'm going to give you partial credit on this one. Yes, observations play a key role in science, but science isn't just about observations. Maybe you should brush up on the scientific method a bit.

What do you call science without observation

Since your implication here is that evolution isn't observable, I'm going to go ahead and chalk this up in the big fat lie column. Evolution is patently science as it is observable, testable, and reproducible.

How does it feel knowing that most of your post calling evolution a "big fat lie" is full of big fat lies?

originally posted by: Blue_Jay33
a reply to: TzarChasm

Ever build a simpler structure, like a garage ?
You can't put the shingles on the roof before the foundation is even poured.

The concept applies to theories of science as well.

Or mathematics

C=Unknown
A=Unknown
E=A wild guess

CXA=E

the theory of evolution stands well enough on its own.