Creation is a Scientific Fact

reply to post by AshleyD


Yes, kind hearted Angelic AshleyD, I will try to explain. But before that, please allow me to take this opportunity to thank you. I hope you still remember me from a few weeks back. You had kindly adviced and set me straight on the importance of arguing fairly and with evidence. You sent me the ATS rules entitled "debate the post not the poster". It really helped me tremendously, so much that it inspire the signature that I wrote to remind myself. The first part in yellow is dedicated to ATS and you, the last part in orange is me being my cheeky self.

I am the luckiest ATS newbie to have two kind ladies guiding me through ATS. You are one of them and the other is Riley, she U2U immediately to point out my debating mistakes, at about the same time you advised me. Funny how things works out, you are a believer, Riley is an atheist and I am in the middle, an agnostic. Well let's not stray too far off topic, hope the moderator indulges me this once.

Coming back to the topic. The videos encompass all the arguments presented in this thread, including but not limited to, creationism, intelligent design, evolution, Big Bang, common sense, ability to judge, respect and accept other people's point of view, Albert Einstein, scientists and psuedoscientists. After viewing the videos, you are free to side which ever party and make your own case. It is your given right, especially in ATS where tolerance, respect, pro choices and pro views are encouraged.

Science doesn't care what you decide. Science is about looking at evidence presented no matter how painful and reporting on the observed law and truth. In the latest two videos, who is the handsome movie star in the video? Who has the least hair? Who has common sense? Who is pretending to be a scientist? Who is misusing, misquoting, misrepresenting and manipulating mainstream science and the good name of Albert Einsteins to advance their agenda?

How each of us decides only reflects directly on us, it tells us who we are, it does not change science. Science changes and self corrects as and when needed. For example, the doofy guy grows more hair than Kirk Cameron, Science will observe and document Mr Doofus as no longer the guy with the least hair. But who is still pretending to be a scientist? Who is misusing, misquoting, misrepresenting and manipulating mainstream science and the good name of Albert Einsteins to advance his agenda? You all decide. It tells me who you are.

I always consider starting a thread is to be on the offensive. I am sure you can see for yourself most threads in ATS are offensive. I am more of a defensive guy, who like to put up good defences, but I will consider your suggestion to start a thread with the videos. I will venture into this idea once I get the hang of being a good ATS debater. I need more experience.



[edit on 10-7-2008 by Gigantopithecus]

I don't think this proves God's existence. Now, it seems very likely that the big bang happened, which is what I believe. But we don't know whether there are hundreds or thousands of other universes outside our own. If there are, there is no reason that this one can't be the one that could keep life, chances are one would eventually. Comparing the big bang to explosions like a bomb on earth and saying that because bombs destroy an explosion cannot create order also doesn't completely work. I don't see why it is so astounding that physics are uniform through our entire universe, I think that pretty much makes sense. And beyond that, I don't see much order. Stars and planets and moons seem to be strewn about pretty randomly, the only reason that the solar systems stay together is because of the central object (our Sun)'s gravity, presumably that is what created them, they were not sent out from the explosion in groups but over time smaller objects got pulled towards the bigger ones. I can see why it is hard to believe an extreme coincedence like that, but it is bound to happen some time, and if it does happen that one can sustain life it has to be ours because we are alive. Anyways, that's just my opinion.

Originally posted by tep200377
reply to post by JPhish

 

They are indeed relevant.

The videos are a lazy form of ad hominem by the poster.

They point out how irrelevant your arguments are of ID.

Your attempting to spotlight irrelevant arguments for ID, by using irrelevant arguments . That makes lots of sense. Especially since i'm not even a proponent of ID.

Its about how you misuse and twist the facts so it fits your _Believes_.

Really? Find somewhere where i did that. You are virtually incapable of doing so. You would have to know what my beliefs are, and you do not. So what you could base that groundless assertion on is beyond me.

The fact of you failing to see that, strengthens our claim of ID people being ignorant.

Well i'm not an ID person. So if highlighting the fact that i'm failing to see something, somehow strengthens your argument against these ID people you speak of; i'd imagine that you really must be up defecation creek without paddle.

But since your saying there's something i'm missing . . . I'm going to take a wild stab in the dark and propose that most of what you just said is baseless speculation and there's not much logic i could have followed in the first place.

Ps: sorry for the bad sentence

don't you mean sorry for bad *post?

[edit on 7/10/2008 by JPhish]

reply to post by JPhish

The videos are a lazy form of ad hominem by the poster.

You're kidding, right? The OP's claims are baseless from square one. So, technically OP's video is ad hominem in and of itself, as its "evidence" is less than scientific to begin with. Hence, creationism is not a scientific fact.

reply to post by maria_stardust


They are not baseless!
Did you even watch them?
I doubt it.

reply to post by Clearskies

While your response is rude, it is not altogether unexpected.

The OPs video, while stylishly done with moving graphics and an eloquent soundtrack, lacked credibility. It has absolutely zero scientific merit.

It is what it is. That is, it's not a scientific fact.

Originally posted by Gigantopithecus
reply to post by AshleyD

 

"debate the post not the poster".

You're still not doing a very good job of that.

Well let's not stray too far off topic, hope the moderator indulges me this once.

once? I can see at least 5 posts in 4 different threads where you posted off topic videos.

The videos encompass all the arguments presented in this thread, including but not limited to, creationism, intelligent design, evolution, Big Bang, common sense, ability to judge, respect and accept other people's point of view, Albert Einstein, scientists and psuedoscientists. After viewing the videos, you are free to side which ever party and make your own case. It is your given right, especially in ATS where tolerance, respect, pro choices and pro views are encouraged.

The videos did not address creationism. One was about a banana and other was an atheistic layman not understanding a theistic scientist.

Only one of the videos even slightly addressed intelligent design. It barely did so because it only stressed that the modern banana was not proof for intelligent design; which is a ridiculous argument in the first place.

The banana video did not address evolution at all. The other video, although it had the word evolution in it; failed to provide any new or relevant evidence for the theory itself. Instead it tried to recap knowledge nearly contemporaneous with Darwin's time 200 years ago . . .

Yes, thanks to the creationist scientist in the first vid, it addressed the big bang. Then the critic proceeded to be a clown.

Common sense? Define your terms. Because based on common sense, I'd imagine that most people would realize that the atheist critic in these videos is nothing more than a clown.

Ability to judge? Who's ability to judge? People who stare at bananas for too long? Or people who make sexual innuendos with bananas by forcing them through holes in their hands?

Respect and accept other people's point of view? The videos you posted are hardly respectful. In fact they are darn right rude.

I did not see Albert Einstein in your video. Then again I stopped one of them short because the speaker is longwinded to the point that I waned to stab him in the eye with a pencil. hehe

Scientists and psuedoscientists like the scientist and the critic in your video? It's the other way around my friend.

Science doesn't care what you decide. Science is about looking at evidence presented no matter how painful and reporting on the observed law and truth. In the latest two videos, who is the handsome movie star in the video? Who has the least hair? Who has common sense? Who is pretending to be a scientist? Who is misusing, misquoting, misrepresenting and manipulating mainstream science and the good name of Albert Einsteins to advance their agenda?

who is the handsome movie star? obvious but irrelevant; Who has less hair? obvious but irrelevant; who has common sense? you might want to look up the definition of that phrase; who is pretending to be a scientist? the critic, because the creationist scientist is actually a scientist; are you serious? I hope you're not.

Manipulating science and the good name of Albert Einstein? Where did anyone make an offense towards Einstein? Also, the great thing about science is its versatility. If you could not apply a priori knowledge in a dynamic setting, science would be useless and static.

How each of us decides only reflects directly on us, it tells us who we are, it does not change science. Science changes and self corrects as and when needed.

Science changes and self reflects? Are you one of these naïve people who do not realize that science is reliant on humans to operate?

But who is still pretending to be a scientist? Who is misusing, misquoting, misrepresenting and manipulating mainstream science and the good name of Albert Einsteins to advance his agenda? You all decide. It tells me who you are.

Repeat yourself much?

I am more of a defensive guy, who like to put up good defences

Posting random videos is not a good defense. It’s called a distraction, especially when the content of the videos sum up to one giant filibuster.

Originally posted by AshleyD

You really did your homework

Ah, les gonzesses...

reply to post by Bigwhammy

this is the best movie and source i have seen in ATS to show peopl e creationism is accepted by scientists you forgot scott m huse though and did you know the voice of truth was my favorite song

reply to post by JPhish


thats why you look at the sources and read there books

Click here for more information.

reply to post by maria_stardust


I'm sorry if I sounded rude, that was not my intent.
I always try to keep a strong attitude of civility.

But, you had just got through insulting BigWhammy.
My point was that I didn't think you actually watched the whole thing.
It's VERY compelling.


[edit on 10-7-2008 by Clearskies]

Where we are today.

It is pretty well established that most scientists are indeed creationists because they believe in a moment of creation. To date the only valid objections presented have been. "The Big Bang is just a theory" (fair enough) which the very same ones arguing that point wet themselves if you say "Evolution is just a theory." The next valid objection is 1 in 10 ^40 is not impossible. Hilariously true... but don't bet the farm on it.

The M-theory "just add universes" crowd really has no case but the case they have is far more in favor of spiritual beliefs than materialist beliefs. Since 12th century Hebrew scholar postulated 10 dimensions 4 knowable and 6 unknowable using the genesis text it has some pretty cool Biblical implications. So thanks to the "just add universes" crowd for helping me find that. So a few nit picks, new age dreamers, and semantics arguments later....

Creation stands.







[edit on 7/10/2008 by Bigwhammy]

Originally posted by Bigwhammy
It is pretty well established that most scientists are indeed creationists because they believe in a moment of creation.

Wrong.

Creationism is a religious belief that humanity, life, the Earth, and the universe were created in their original form by a deity (often the Abrahamic God of Judaism, Christianity and Islam) or deities, whose existence is presupposed.
en.wikipedia.org...



Main Entry:
cre·a·tion·ism Listen to the pronunciation of creationism
Pronunciation:
\-shə-ˌni-zəm\
Function:
noun
Date:
1880

: a doctrine or theory holding that matter, the various forms of life, and the world were created by God out of nothing and usually in the way described in Genesis — compare evolution
www.merriam-webster.com...




[edit on 10-7-2008 by Johnmike]

[edit on 7/10/2008 by Spiderj]

The personal snipes will end now. Any further deviation in this manner is subject to action.

Please, discuss the topic, "Creation is a Scientific Fact," and not the poster.

Thank you.

reply to post by Johnmike


Thanks for making your best effort to present your point of view. I regret to inform you that you made an error in reading my post. I challenge you to find the term "creationism" in my post. Sorry I never wrote creationism. So you are arguing against a scare crow. I understand that people are terrified of the idea of God. I suppose fear has a way of causing irrationality that is not fully understood.

English is a difficult language to master...

I said "Creationist"

Creation:

# the human act of creating
# an artifact that has been brought into existence by someone
# the event that occurred at the beginning of something; "from its creation the plan was doomed to failure"
# initiation: the act of starting something for the first time; introducing something new; "she looked forward to her initiation as an adult"; "the foundation of a new scientific society"
# (theology) God's act of bringing the universe into existence
# universe: everything that exists anywhere; "they study the evolution of the universe"; "the biggest tree in existence"
wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

Now the suffix "ist":

-ist
(Greek > Latin: a suffix; one who believes in; one who is engaged in)

So if "one believes in" (ist) in creation (he event that occurred at the beginning of something one is properly defined creationist.

Yeah...what shock said

I think we're all mature enough to discuss this without personal attacks.

So from now on, manners or consequences folks.

Which I think we all know would be a totally kicking game show...Next on Manners or Consequences, with your host John Hodgsen.

Spiderj

Originally posted by maria_stardust
There is no evidence for intelligent design, yet proponents of this thread argue it is scientific fact.

Nice addition!

There is no evidence for macro evolution yet proponents of that argue it is scientific fact.

- Con

Originally posted by Johnmike

Originally posted by Bigwhammy
It is pretty well established that most scientists are indeed creationists because they believe in a moment of creation.

Wrong.

Creationism is a religious belief that humanity, life, the Earth, and the universe were created in their original form by a deity (often the Abrahamic God of Judaism, Christianity and Islam) or deities, whose existence is presupposed.
en.wikipedia.org...



Main Entry:
cre·a·tion·ism Listen to the pronunciation of creationism
Pronunciation:
\-shə-ˌni-zəm\
Function:
noun
Date:
1880

: a doctrine or theory holding that matter, the various forms of life, and the world were created by God out of nothing and usually in the way described in Genesis — compare evolution
www.merriam-webster.com...




[edit on 10-7-2008 by Johnmike]

[edit on 7/10/2008 by Spiderj]

wouldn't make any difference if it was religious that doesn't make it NOT science, After all look at evolution, the states religion and its congregation of atheist extremists.

- Con