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.
Originally posted by NOTurTypical
I agree with most of what you stated in the OP, however I'm particularly perplexed to this statement. First of all, it's an appeal to numbers fallacy. Secondly, I have an extremely high IQ and have been taught the evolution side of things from schooling and have also read numerous books on creation science and happen to agree that the creationists have better arguments for the universe we see today than the secular scientists.
You must understand that secular scientists and creation scientists both come from very esteemed university programs and are both highly educated. Both secular scientists and creation scientists have the EXACT same data to form opinions on, but their differing presuppositions lead them to differing conclusions for the data they are observing.
Originally posted by NOTurTypical
I agree with most of what you stated in the OP, however I'm particularly perplexed to this statement. First of all, it's an appeal to numbers fallacy. Secondly, I have an extremely high IQ and have been taught the evolution side of things from schooling and have also read numerous books on creation science and happen to agree that the creationists have better arguments for the universe we see today than the secular scientists.
You must understand that secular scientists and creation scientists both come from very esteemed university programs and are both highly educated. Both secular scientists and creation scientists have the EXACT same data to form opinions on, but their differing presuppositions lead them to differing conclusions for the data they are observing.
you still lack confirmatory, falsifiable evidence to support that conclusion.
Originally posted by -PLB-
Whom are these creation "scientists"? Never heard this was an actual science.
Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by traditionaldrummer
Bullocks, creation scientists have the exact same degrees from the exact same schools secular scientists have them from. They two groups have the exact same data to work with to form their differing conclusions. The difference is the two groups have different presuppositions.
The secular scientists have a metaphysical naturalism presupposition and the creation scientists have a biblical presupposition. The data used is the same for both. Anyone who doesn't know that has never heard/read arguments the creation scientists use.
You mean like conclusive fossil evidence of Evolution being true?? Like I said, the different sides have the same data but different starting presuppositions. The secular scientists use Darwin and Evolution, the Creationists use God and His Word.
Originally posted by NOTurTypical
Originally posted by -PLB-
Whom are these creation "scientists"? Never heard this was an actual science.
Here's a small list...
The United States National Academy of Sciences states that "creation science is in fact not science and should not be presented as such."
Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by traditionaldrummer
I'm rather dumbfounded. Why hasn't anyone yet reported that the missing link fossil has been found?? And which natural history museum is it in? The fact remains, Darwin said his theory would be supported by the fossil record, and after 150 years we have yet to find any fossils which show macro-evolution to be fact.
You mean like conclusive fossil evidence of Evolution being true??
Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by traditionaldrummer
All those scientists believed God created the world and the known universe. Secondly, have you even read what Issac Newton had to say about creation? Correct me if I'm wrong, but it appears you have no idea what the man said as regards to the beginning of the universe or the creation of the world.
Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by traditionaldrummer
I'm rather dumbfounded. Why hasn't anyone yet reported that the missing link fossil has been found?? And which natural history museum is it in? The fact remains, Darwin said his theory would be supported by the fossil record, and after 150 years we have yet to find any fossils which show macro-evolution to be fact.
Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by -PLB-
I hate seeing you be so confused, would "creationist scientist" be a term that you could grasp effectively?
Originally posted by -PLB-
Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by -PLB-
I hate seeing you be so confused, would "creationist scientist" be a term that you could grasp effectively?
It would meaning something different, but if that is what you mean I prefer that you use the correct words yes.
Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by -PLB-
I don't think you know what the Bible has to say that I get my foundation from. It says everything God made will produce after it's "kind", and I believe there is GREAT variations in the DNA codes of these different species as we call them today. I think all the variations of dog-like kinds we see today, (Dogs, coyotes, wolves, dingos et cetra) had a common dog-like ancestor. nevertheless, the ancestor was a "dog" for lack of a better term. Same thing said for horses, et cetra, et cetra on down the list. I have seen no evidence of one kind changing into a different kind. There are NUMEROUS examples of variations within species or kinds which is micro-evolution, but it's highly illogical to use those particular examples of micro-evolution and claim macro-evolution as fact.
Secondly, we are beginning to go completely off the topic of the thread. My post on the last page was an objection to the argumentum ad populum argument the OP used in the beginning of the thread. And also his/her erroneous assumption that scientists who believe in the biblical creation account are not "real" scientists, which is absurd.
Originally posted by NOTurTypical
I have seen no evidence of one kind changing into a different kind.