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.

 

the accomplishments of creation " science "

page: 1
10
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 28 2017 @ 03:33 PM
link   
hi -last year - the cockwombles at " answwers in genesis "`published a " list " of thier " achevements " over that previous 23 years [ thats how long the scam has now being running ]

reading it - the obvious fact leaps out - its utterly lacking any actual scientific acheivement - over 23 [ now 24 years ] - thats a remarkable feat - to actually avoid any science for 24 years - while labeling yourself " creation scientists "

now its " that time of year again " - and crickets - they have obviously not acheived anything sat all this year

last years " acheivements list "

a science free zone indeed - and people wonder why i mock them




posted on Dec, 28 2017 @ 03:36 PM
link   
a reply to: ignorant_ape

How about the fact their achievement list is pretty much re-wordings of a handful of items that 'reaches' people?



posted on Dec, 28 2017 @ 04:28 PM
link   
a reply to: ignorant_ape

I missed Christmas town with camel rides
.
Also lol @ cockwomble.
I think he should prove his ark can float....the Atlantic will do.
edit on 28-12-2017 by testingtesting because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 28 2017 @ 04:45 PM
link   
a reply to: ignorant_ape

If there goal is reaching and spreading their message then have to say theyhave got a lot acomplisihed in that time. I think you have the wrong idea of what there goals are. Matter of fact go back to the link you posted go to the home page and you can't miss what there all about. You definitely got the wrong idea about them.
edit on 28-12-2017 by luke1212 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 28 2017 @ 04:47 PM
link   
a reply to: luke1212

To con folk and make money?....yup they are doing very well.



posted on Dec, 28 2017 @ 04:51 PM
link   
a reply to: testingtesting

Lol. I know nothing about these people other than the link in the op. I fail to see how the op relates the the site linked. Be they con artist or not they do not relate



posted on Dec, 28 2017 @ 04:53 PM
link   
Haha!

Creation science!!

Is that similar to a "flat earth historian"?

Lmao!!




posted on Dec, 28 2017 @ 04:57 PM
link   
a reply to: Akragon

Go look up the definition of Christian science. It has nothing to do with science as you think of science. This op has no idea what it is either and the op is just a bogus misinformed idea of what Christian science is. It has to do with the metaphysical idea of religion



posted on Dec, 28 2017 @ 05:01 PM
link   
a reply to: ignorant_ape

Evolution believers are as mockable as churchians. More, they believe in electric mud puddle theory.



posted on Dec, 28 2017 @ 05:08 PM
link   
Would a creation scientist accept it if something else besides "God" (whatever that means) was found to be responsible for the creation? Or does it absolutely have to be God? There are other creators, after all.



posted on Dec, 28 2017 @ 05:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: ignorant_ape
hi -last year - the cockwombles at " answwers in genesis "`published a " list " of thier " achevements " over that previous 23 years [ thats how long the scam has now being running ]

reading it - the obvious fact leaps out - its utterly lacking any actual scientific acheivement - over 23 [ now 24 years ] - thats a remarkable feat - to actually avoid any science for 24 years - while labeling yourself " creation scientists "

now its " that time of year again " - and crickets - they have obviously not acheived anything sat all this year

last years " acheivements list "

a science free zone indeed - and people wonder why i mock them


If I were to look at the scientific achievements of Richard Dawkins (who calls himself a scientist), over the last 23 years, do you think I would find anything? Even his 'scientific papers' seem to be mostly letters to the editors.

Perhaps you could reveal your scientific credentials as proof of your right to opinion?

Antithesis is part of the scientific method. When one does not address falsifying hypothesis, one is not doing science, it is just a different 'sciency' sounding dogma.



posted on Dec, 28 2017 @ 06:23 PM
link   
a reply to: chr0naut


Antithesis is part of the scientific method. When one does not address falsifying hypothesis, one is not doing science, it is just a different 'sciency' sounding dogma.


That's an interesting statement. Maybe even thought-provoking.

Are you saying that "creationism" is a falsifying hypothesis of "evolution?"


- dex



posted on Dec, 28 2017 @ 07:02 PM
link   
a reply to: ignorant_ape

"creation science" ... that's am oxymoron. The word Science, comes form latin and literally means "knowledge". Somebody thinks God created everying, isn't science, that's logical fallacy. Let's assume there is such a thing as a creator of some sort. Any man claiming to be able to understand that creators motive, is claiming his own godliness ... alas, he´s a liar. All religions are a lie. And the commong thought about their origin, is an insult to human intelligence.



posted on Dec, 28 2017 @ 07:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: DexterRiley
a reply to: chr0naut


Antithesis is part of the scientific method. When one does not address falsifying hypothesis, one is not doing science, it is just a different 'sciency' sounding dogma.


That's an interesting statement. Maybe even thought-provoking.

Are you saying that "creationism" is a falsifying hypothesis of "evolution?"

- dex

I think it is more fundamental than that.

The hypothesis of a hyper-intelligent Creator directly contradicts the hypothesis that entropy can be reduced by forces emergent from randomness.

This apparent reduction of entropy, which is scientifically inexplicable, is required to go from singularity even to the first particles in the proto-universe, well before life.

Consider,as an example, that all chemical reactions tend towards the lowest energy state, how could we, then, end up with such an incredible variety of matter at all scales distributed across the observable universe?



posted on Dec, 28 2017 @ 07:25 PM
link   
a reply to: ignorant_ape




a science free zone indeed - and people wonder why i mock them


I don't wonder why you mock what your science has failed to
negate. In fact I doubt very much that is the reason. I can
imagine the nagging frustration waiting on science to prove
something that would vindicate your unscientific attitude.
All towards something you shouldn't give a rats ass or the time
of day to.

What I do wonder about is how dissecting, observing,
experimenting, theorizing, discovering all in an attemp to
know the mechanics of what was already here. Long before
science.
How in the hell does the minute knowledge science has had
to gain about what was already here. Fill someone like you
with the audacity to make any claims about creation at all?
You don't even have the sense to figure out how ignorant
and juvinile mocking anything makes you look.

The arrogance of one produced by the laughable amount of
scientific knowledge you boast about should embarrass you.
If you're any kind of intellectual at all.

Sickening
edit on Rpm122817v41201700000005 by randyvs because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 28 2017 @ 07:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: randyvs
a reply to: ignorant_ape
The arogance of one produced by the laughable amount of
scientific knowledge you boast about should embarrass you.
If you're any kind of intellectual at all.


The word "Scientific knowledge" is an oxymoron ... you're an idiot. You didn't even bother to look up the word science, and learn what it means and where it comes from.



posted on Dec, 28 2017 @ 07:49 PM
link   
a reply to: bjarneorn

I love it! The very fact that science doesn't know sh!t
about what should matter most to every human being
makes me an idiot.

Ad hominems, the mark of intelligence.

edit on Rpm122817v55201700000017 by randyvs because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 28 2017 @ 11:30 PM
link   
a reply to: chr0naut



Consider,as an example, that all chemical reactions tend towards the lowest energy state, how could we, then, end up with such an incredible variety of matter at all scales distributed across the observable universe?


That is only true in a closed system. Evolution does not occur in a closed system. Stars do not form in a closed system. Closed systems only exist in hypotheticals.



posted on Dec, 28 2017 @ 11:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: rnaa
a reply to: chr0naut



Consider,as an example, that all chemical reactions tend towards the lowest energy state, how could we, then, end up with such an incredible variety of matter at all scales distributed across the observable universe?


That is only true in a closed system. Evolution does not occur in a closed system. Stars do not form in a closed system. Closed systems only exist in hypotheticals.


Surely a universe that began a finite time ago, has limitations on every scale and is all connected at a quantum level, even to the generation of the cosmological microwave background radiation (clearly showing the homogenity and isotropy of the universe), is clearly not an open system.



edit on 29/12/2017 by chr0naut because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 29 2017 @ 12:23 AM
link   
it takes more faith.....to believe the odds of interstellar chance occurrances the science puts forth as far as conjecture to make their models viable.......than to believe God spoke it so marvelous and peopled with emotional loving sexyazz human beings



new topics

top topics



 
10
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join