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.
Life is the product of intelligent contrivance. Thus, apparent design in biology would constitute evidence for a Designer. It is a self-evident and universally recognized truth: concept and design require an intelligent designer. So, while recognizing design in biology is not based upon religious premise (but upon empirical observation and logic), it certainly has theological implications [1]. Do we find apparent design in biology? Yes. In fact, apparent design pervades the biologic realm [2, 3]. When we apply the general principles of detecting design to living creatures, we find it reasonable to infer the existence of a Creator.
You cant remember what you wrote? Debate this:
It is you that needs to sharpen your debating skills.
I never attempted to solve your logic problem
There you go. You attempted to answer the problem & I refuted your argument. Or was that "my logic problem" more of that smartarsery that you haven't engaged in?
Originally posted by John Matrix
If evidence does not support evolution, what other alternative is there? Evolution = Natural processe creating life, and thousands of new species of life. Creation = Supernatural creation of life. In all the Universe of THINGS, I see but two states for ALL: 1. Nature left to itself and it's own internal workings, and; 2. The Supernatural manisfested in nature.Originally posted by Bunken Drum
Just because you, or billions of people, cannot imagine that there is any other explanation does not mean that there isn't 1, or several...
...but it doesn't matter what you or I can imagine: the greatest scientific breakthroughs are made by intellectual giants precisely because they can imagine things the rest of us cant. Thus, to ignore the possibilities is illogical & therefore unscientific. Remember, "logical" in scientific jargon doesn't mean "makes sense to me": it means that a statement must be irrefutable before it can be trusted to form a step to the next idea. Creation as the only option to evolution is not, thus creationism is illogical.
So I'm a "spin master" but I need to "sharpen my debating skills"? Which is it John? Btw, the word you're looking for is:
Like most evolutionists, you are quite a spin master.....I'll give you that.
Why do you come across as so self arrogating and attacking?
It is you that needs to sharpen your debating skills
www.askoxford.com...
rhetorician
• noun 1 an expert in formal rhetoric. 2 a speaker whose words are intended to impress or persuade.
Originally posted by John Matrix
I've already spent a lot of time attempting to provide you with logic, reason, evidences, and sources, but you ignore it, you spin it to suite your religious beliefs in evolution, and to hang on to your faith in it.
Originally posted by buddhasystem
Originally posted by John Matrix
I've already spent a lot of time attempting to provide you with logic, reason, evidences, and sources, but you ignore it, you spin it to suite your religious beliefs in evolution, and to hang on to your faith in it.
This is getting really hilarious! You inform us that you had a "white light" spiritual experience and a visit from a spiritual being from higher dimensions, and that you base your faith on these experiences of yours and hence feel free to just discard science facts in favor of such faith. Then you have the chutzpah to complain about other people ignoring your so-called "logic and reason". Just unreal.
...your religious beliefs in evolution, and to hang on to your faith in it.
Originally posted by Bunken Drum
So I'm a "spin master" but I need to "sharpen my debating skills"? Which is it John?
Originally posted by novacs4me
Your post is quite insulting. I am hoping that a mod will see what is going on here.
Originally posted by Bunken Drum
Yes, a good education often leads to above average written communication skills, but I'm not trying to impress you, John.
I've said I'm not arguing for evolution, but against the oxymoron "creation science".
Perhaps you did notice that I consider religion poking its nose into non-spiritual matters to be 1 of societies foremost ills? Thus, arrogance is a debating style.
It is not enough to refute your argument, my purpose is to crush it into a greasy smear & urinate on the remains.
I suspect you dont even realise just how offensive some of your statements have been. For eg, just the word "evolutionist" & to then go on to conflate the sum total of the various disciplines that have contributed to the theory of evolution with religion... Have you any idea how much effort it takes to train the mind to apply the scientific method rigorously, to 2nd & 3rd guess yourself for bias & the effects of variables, to collate results accurately & finally, to present book-length arguments not just logically but in a way that the reader doesn't become overwhelmed by too many concepts needing to be held in the mind all @once? I'm frankly flabbergasted that you'd have the gall, so I'll confess, there's also pleasure in goading you into making even more oafish statements.
Here you go again. There is no "implication", its a demonstrated fact. You have had the scientific method explained to you numerous times. I even quoted a dictionary for you. How can you not understand that the scientific method requires that the investigation begin with a hypothesis, which by definition must be capable of being tested? The premise that an intelligent designer created stuff is not able to be tested, therefore it is unscientific. That isn't an opinion John, that is the way science works for every scientist, as can be discovered in the other dictionary definitions I provided for you. Add to that the logical fallacy that evidence against 1 thing must support only 1 other conclusion, which I also demonstrated to you, & what have we got?
The argument that have been presented by the evolutionists is that evolution is science and creation is theology. The implication being that creation science is not science. Yet, creation science uses all the same scientific methods to study evidence, observe phenomena, conduct experiments, and provide explanations as to why the evidence supports their theory.
Originally posted by buddhasystem
Originally posted by novacs4me
Your post is quite insulting. I am hoping that a mod will see what is going on here.
First of, I did not "insult" anybody. Grow up. Second, please take time to review the thread to see how John says how his mystical experience weighs on this interpretation of fact.
Originally posted by John Matrix
I know the evidences for creation supports my mystical experience, and I also know my mystical experience does nothing to advance my argument for creation science, however, my mystical experience provides the impetus to expose the fraud, lies, and deceptions of evolution.
Originally posted by Bunken Drum
Here you go again. There is no "implication", its a demonstrated fact.
You have had the scientific method explained to you numerous times. I even quoted a dictionary for you.
How can you not understand that the scientific method requires that the investigation begin with a hypothesis, which by definition must be capable of being tested?
The premise that an intelligent designer created stuff is not able to be tested, therefore it is unscientific.
Add to that the logical fallacy that evidence against 1 thing must support only 1 other conclusion, which I also demonstrated to you, & what have we got?
Here you are, ignoring the knowledge thats been set before you to keep repeating what you know to be false. Like I said earlier, its a T&C Violation &, like someone else said, trolling.
I know you just showed that you dont remember back in the thread, but I'll ask anyway: do you recall when I likened creationism to a barking dog that just wont shut up, because it hasn't the brains to realise that the cars that keep passing are not the sheep it was bred to herd? You John, have become that dog. Attempting to herd sheep by repeating the lie regardless, in the mistaken belief that people will eventually believe it. But here we are, in our cars, pulling up to throw empty cans @your fence, just to watch you perform, so that your position is shown as ridiculous.
Originally posted by Jezus
Originally posted by John Matrix
I know the evidences for creation supports my mystical experience, and I also know my mystical experience does nothing to advance my argument for creation science, however, my mystical experience provides the impetus to expose the fraud, lies, and deceptions of evolution.
Do you believe all the scientific evidence for evolution has been fabricated?