The Origins Conspiracy, A Master Deception!

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

Please be more specific. I'm not reading 25 threads that I have already read in the past, when I already know the arguments are fallacious and faulty. Which one critically analyzes the scientific evidence behind evolution or breaks down a research paper and explains why it is wrong without logical fallacies? It's painfully obvious you are lying to save face here. You have posted numerous lies about science and evolution in many of those 25 threads.

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

This is such BS. Way to play right into my hands and commit more logical fallacies that prove you a liar yet again. What you just said can't be proven. What you just said is not analytical logic. There is no logic and you didn't analyze ANYTHING. You don't even understand what analytical thinking means, but you magically scored top 8% in the nation. Ok yeah, I'll buy that. LOL.

Analytical thinking to Blue Jay: Wow I don't believe that, it totally sounds crazy and contradicts my literal interpretation of scriptures so it must be wrong!!!

So about that post where you analyzed evolution? I don't think you have ever done it. You have a chance to redeem yourself if you can link it out of anything you have ever posted on ATS. Show me the post that fairly and honestly breaks down the science. You can't just post strawmans of evolution and expect folks to just go along hook line and sinker.

originally posted by: Blue_Jay33
Ever build a simpler structure, like a garage ?
You can't put the shingles on the roof before the foundation is even poured.

If you think this is analytical thinking, you are beyond help. Logic would suggest that if the garage is already there, then at some point the foundation WAS poured, whether we know how it happened or not.

Does it really matter who poured it or how it got level? It happened and it is level enough to build on, so when people modify the design, they add on to the existing structure, it doesn't need to be created from scratch. The old roof starts to wear out and leak, so they put a new upgraded roof on.

Similarly, since life is already here and we see it evolving (the roof getting its shingles), we can assume that the foundation was poured (or was already naturally level) at some point. The point is the foundation is there, whether it was created or it arose naturally. Evolution does not hinge on life arising naturally. It hinges on life having DNA that changes over time and adapts in the longterm, something that is a common fact of biology.

I still haven't seen you answer my question about why god couldn't use evolution as a tool to create? It doesn't matter whether god create life or arose naturally. Life is here and life changes over time, end of story. You can't address evolution without addressing evolution. Using strawmans and invalid comparisons doesn't help your case. Cosmology and abiogenesis are not related to biological evolution.

originally posted by: Barcs
originally posted by: Blue_Jay33

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

Barcs: Logic would suggest that if the garage is already there, then at some point the foundation WAS poured, whether we know how it happened or not.

No logic, where did this garage or foundation come from or occur in the first place and by whom first implemented?

Barcs: Does it really matter who poured it or how it got level? It happened and it is level enough to build on, so when people modify the design, they add on to the existing structure, it doesn't need to be created from scratch. The old roof starts to wear out and leak, so they put a new upgraded roof on.

Of course it matters; who created the structures and why left abandoned to be eaten by vegetation 100s of years later?

Barcs: Similarly, since life is already here and we see it evolving (the roof getting its shingles), we can assume that the foundation was poured (or was already naturally level) at some point. The point is the foundation is there, whether it was created or it arose naturally. Evolution does not hinge on life arising naturally. It hinges on life having DNA that changes over time and adapts in the longterm, something that is a common fact of biology.

Who leveled the foundation for/before the human to exist. Foundation is not qualified as arising naturally. DNA has not proven life exists; in fact the opposite.

originally posted by: vethumanbeing
No logic, where did this garage or foundation come from or occur in the first place and by whom first implemented?

Don't know, don't care. Ask Bluejay, he was the one who invented this garage and compared it to both abiogenesis AND evolution as if they are one and the same. I was attempting to make his analogy somewhat realistic, although I've obviously failed.

Of course it matters; who created the structures and why left abandoned to be eaten by vegetation 100s of years later?

Not really, because we are talking about putting shingles on the roof, not laying the foundation. They are 2 completely different processes like abiogenesis and evolution. He was suggesting that evolution is negated because abiogenesis is not fully understood or verified yet. Essentially, he is suggesting that evolution relies on an atheistic and materialistic world view, which isn't true in the least.

Who leveled the foundation for/before the human to exist. Foundation is not qualified as arising naturally. DNA has not proven life exists; in fact the opposite.

Obviously, the foundation for a garage is laid by humans. This can be verified and duplicated. How does one argue the same about DNA or abiogenesis? Metaphors and analogies do not really fit the bill here, when he is claiming to be discussing science.

originally posted by: Barcs
Not really, because we are talking about putting shingles on the roof, not laying the foundation. They are 2 completely different processes like abiogenesis and evolution. He was suggesting that evolution is negated because abiogenesis is not fully understood or verified yet. Essentially, he is suggesting that evolution relies on an atheistic and materialistic world view, which isn't true in the least.

So basically what I'm saying here is:

Does the process for building a roof or putting shingles on it change or become invalid because we don't know who built the foundation?

Is building a foundation the same process as building a roof?

The answer to both questions is a big obvious NO. This is why the analogy is illogical and downright ludicrous when talking about evolution. The OP has offered zero critical or analytical thinking and zero logic in his response. It seems like he abandoned this thread as well, just like the myriad of other threads that he created based on fallacies.

originally posted by: Barcs
originally posted by: vethumanbeing

Barcs: Obviously, the foundation for a garage is laid by humans. This can be verified and duplicated. How does one argue the same about DNA or abiogenesis? Metaphors and analogies do not really fit the bill here, when he is claiming to be discussing science.

Someone has to be the monitor/interpreter/recorder of circumstance; *that would be us* as we documented and then defined through R and D the foundations of science.

a reply to: Barcs

I'm glad to see someone else point this out!!! There is no reason "God" (whatever that means to you) couldn't use nature to create. It's absurd to think otherwise. I'm not saying miracles can't happen either. What I am saying is that God is nature. "God" is everything and visa versa.... But "he" is more than that, not only nature, something outside of nature also. " He's" not stuck in our conception of time either what is 13.7 billion years when you exist for eternity?
I seriously can't entertain the thoughts of someone who will only take the bible literally. Anyone who thinks this whole universe was created 6,000 years ago soley for the purposes of both fooling us (which is not Gods M.O.) and glorifying only human beings is just flat out egocentric.... There are more stars in the universe than grains of sand on Earth... Trust me, its a lil bigger than that. Ha-ha

a reply to: Blue_Jay33

This idea of not being able to believe until you experience, is absolutely the truth. I will say that I don't believe the source you quoted, because I am a Christian who is perfectly comfortable with the science of evolution, as it applies to the natural world. I do not believe evolution as it is generally understood accurately describes how humanity came to be as it is, but that is a tale for a different time.

My scientific inclinations were so strong that at the age of nine I decided, whilst bored in Sunday School, that the Bible was bunk - that Adam and Eve couldn't have been the progenitors of the entire human race, this was the fixed point around which my determination revolved. I proceeded to live as an atheist until I was around 17/18, when my mind was suddenly opened to an abundance of negative spiritual events, with a scattering of more positive events, including prophetic dreams of great wonder.

To describe the background a little: I had begun to search for spirituality - anything but Christianity, as I thought it was too restrictive, and rested too heavily on the fallacy of the Eden creation myth. Ultimately, despite many false leads & disappointing wanderings into almost all other spiritual systems, I discovered that the only spiritual power who wanted & accepted me was Christ. I became a Christian, and began an adventure of mystic proportions. Despite being absolutely certain & satisfied with the reality of the Lord, I proceeded to wrestle with God on the intellectual foundations of my faith for the next ten years. At the heart of this process was the acknowledgement that without the experience of spiritual reality, I would not have believed, for my lazy acceptance of certain scientific tenets had utterly blinded me to even looking for a spiritual path. Thus even the negative aspects of my journey, which came first, had a place in teaching me the realities involved - before I could be enlisted on the course of spiritual growth.

These days I have a fairly comprehensive worldview (for another thread), and am satisfied that God has worked things according to the needs of humanity at large. There is permissible room for the evolution of thought within Christianity itself - I believe that changes are coming which will empower us to talk of Christ with fuller scientific & mystical understanding, and hope that I can aid this process in small ways according to the reach of my limited influence.

a reply to: NaughtyLibrarian

I believe God created us in a way not exactly and technically what Genesis writes. If we read the text, God made Adam out of dust. But how when we are taught that God is a pure Spirit and doesn't have hands, etc body parts to "make" the man, and then the woman? Genesis is a symbolic book written thousands of years later after the Flood. How did they know, in first place? Apparently, the words of Genesis serve other purpose, not to tell us HOW EXACTLY TECHNICALLY God made the man, but to speak of other things considered at the time of writing the book more important to be told to the naive population. That doesn't absolve today's theologians from the duty to tell us the full truth, as far as they know it. As St John Paul II already admitted that biologically the man could originate from evolution. That conclusion has its own shortcomings, but anyway it comes to show that the Genesis story is just a story and not giving the exact answer HOW the Man and Woman were made.

Perhaps God, the almighty, used his other servants, creatures, angels, ET, to practically "make" the human predecessors. Humans are so close to animals in terms of organs, DNA etc. Whether genetic manipulation has taken place, or whether the God's servants used already well established human form existing on OTHER PLANETS?

We should not be blind and deaf before the fact there are already discovered thousands planets in our viccinity capable theoretically of sustaining life similar to earth's. Estimated, there should be billions of such planets in our galaxy alone, among another 100 billion galaxies. The human form should not be unique for this planet. Moreover, the civilization on this planet took some 6000 - 12,000 - 20,000 or so years. Earth's own history in geologic time suggests millions of years periods of life on the planet. Therefore, other similar planets could have had their first human civilizations established millions of years ago in our time calculation (let set aside the question of different timeflow on different places,...)

to be continued when opportunity arises. Happy New Year!

a reply to: Blue_Jay33

Erm, what? Satan taught evolution to Darwin? Seriously? You ignore all the evidence that he referred to, you ignore all the evidence that has emerged over the decades since then that supports the theory and instead you go with a theory involving a figure from religious folklore instead?
Good. Grief.

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg
a reply to: Blue_Jay33

Erm, what? Satan taught evolution to Darwin? Seriously? You ignore all the evidence that he referred to, you ignore all the evidence that has emerged over the decades since then that supports the theory and instead you go with a theory involving a figure from religious folklore instead?
Good. Grief.

The kicker is that he claims to have scored in the top 8% in the nation in analytical thinking. If that's the case, America's in trouble.

a reply to: Barcs

Did we ever inquire as to *which* nation?

a reply to: Barcs

The kicker is that he claims to have scored in the top 8%

You have brought this up about a dozen times so I feel compelled to prove my statement that you are making jest of.
Here are the screen caps from 3 pages from the IQ test I took.
I have removed my real name for obvious reasons.










Even if you scored the same as me in that test, which you might, then what......
The bottom line is a difference of opinion between to opposite perspectives of equal analytical intelligence on a human conceptual theory.
My analytical reasoning is sound and intelligent, and has been tested.

And the people taking this test are from all over the world not any one nation.

originally posted by: Blue_Jay33
a reply to: Barcs

The kicker is that he claims to have scored in the top 8%

You have brought this up about a dozen times so I feel compelled to prove my statement that you are making jest of.
Here are the screen caps from 3 pages from the IQ test I took.
I have removed my real name for obvious reasons.

Even if you scored the same as me in that test, which you might, then what......
The bottom line is a difference of opinion between to opposite perspectives of equal analytical intelligence on a human conceptual theory.
My analytical reasoning is sound and intelligent, and has been tested.

And the people taking this test are from all over the world not any one nation.

did any of the questions in that test delve into the topic of origins? or abiogenesis? or evolution?

a reply to: TzarChasm

What do you think ?
I have taken several IQ tests over he years nothing on origins is ever in them, but you knew that already.

originally posted by: Blue_Jay33
a reply to: TzarChasm

What do you think ?
I have taken several IQ tests over he years nothing on origins is ever in them, but you knew that already.

In that case any iq tests anyone has done doesn't have anything to do with origins. Critical thinking, problem solving, maths, all the tests on the iq test doesn't mean you're right or wrong about what's being said about the origins debate.

a reply to: Blue_Jay33

a religious person is blaming Devil & Spirits for promotion of evolution and other factors. not biased at all.
They can say this about anyone

originally posted by: Blue_Jay33
a reply to: TzarChasm

What do you think ?
I have taken several IQ tests over he years nothing on origins is ever in them, but you knew that already.

so your stance on origins has never been tested in terms of critical thinking and analysis.

does this not strike you as something of a plot hole?

originally posted by: TerryDon79

originally posted by: Blue_Jay33
a reply to: TzarChasm

What do you think ?
I have taken several IQ tests over he years nothing on origins is ever in them, but you knew that already.

In that case any iq tests anyone has done doesn't have anything to do with origins. Critical thinking, problem solving, maths, all the tests on the iq test doesn't mean you're right or wrong about what's being said about the origins debate.

Yes but a person with a 144 IQ has more weight to their opinion than a person with 75 IQ, you can't say it doesn't make a difference. And their are a lot of brilliant people with high IQ that believe in evolution, some of them are right here on ATS, they have posted in my threads

But there are some very intelligent people that believe in creation as well, from all walks of life, calling them stupid and ignorant because they have faith in God is pretty arrogant, a difference in opinion should not define our perception of a persons intelligence. But it does for many. I would never call an evolutionist stupid for what they believe, I think the theory is bunk, but I don't think people who believe it are.
Here is why, you can be deceived with even perfect intelligence, as was the very first woman, Eve.

a reply to: Blue_Jay33

Here is why, you can be deceived with even perfect intelligence, as was the very first woman, Eve.

Doesnt the fact that you're putting a fable ahead of the mountains and moutains of evidence for evolution show that a persons claimed I.Q. score can be kinda meaningless?