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.

 

What is evolution, not what some think

page: 34
12
<< 31  32  33    35  36  37 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 9 2014 @ 01:30 AM
link   

originally posted by: JohnFisher
a reply to: boncho

I don't like green N&Ms because I don't like red M&Ms. I don't like red M&Ms because they are too sweet, filled with artificial stuff, and poor quality. I tried the red M&Ms first.

Perspective.


Dont eat M and Ms
Go buy Smarties or Jaffas instead

The perspective is an individual choice, the individual choice is about freedom to choose.

I accept some people dont like M and Ms, I like M and Ms and would recommend them to anybody, though I wouldnt make them eat them if they didnt want to, like them or not.




posted on Jul, 9 2014 @ 02:35 AM
link   

originally posted by: Quadrivium
a reply to: Barcs
Yet your definition was wrong as well. You said they were "exactly the same". They are not.

But they actually are exactly the same as far as the mechanism goes. There isn't a different mechanism required for long term evolution. It is still genetic mutations sorted by natural selection. The only different is the amount of time. That's why you never hear the evolution defenders using the term micro or macro evolution. They aren't 2 different things, they are the same process, one involves thousands of years, the other involves millions.


Never been a problem? Really?
What do we see at the very beginning of of the C. E.? What does the fossil record show?

Explain the problem. Please use math and facts to break the precise problem down. Of course I'm not expecting you to do this, you guys never do. You just insist that there are all these holes and problems with evolution but can't explain them beyond generalizations.



posted on Jul, 9 2014 @ 02:48 AM
link   

originally posted by: borntowatch
To me evolution IS a belief system, cant you understand that simple concept, why do you demand I conform to your view.
I just dont get how you can be so unreasonable

I'm not demanding anything, I'm requesting that you respond to the counter points and data that proves this ridiculous notion wrong instead of ignoring it and claiming its assumptions. I don't care if it's a belief system to you. It's not to the rest of the world and to the thousands of scientists that use it in their research every day, which is the staple of biology and genetics and pretty much everything we know about biological life on earth.


Evolution can not explain the DNA codes, the language of life, how its written, passed on and then read

Can you explain it? Do you exist?


Evolution is not missing tiny pieces, its missing massive amounts of pieces, the biggest pieces dont even look like being discovered.

This is a flat out lie. I've posted tons of it. You ignore it and can't back up a single claim you have made. You still believe it's a duck despite having 95% of the pieces that show it's obviously not a duck. You are simply being stubborn. There is nothing missing. Genetic mutations and natural selection are slam dunk proven. Same with speciation. Sorry, but you can't just keep ignoring evidence and making nonsensical claims like that without backing it up.


Its theory built upon theory, do you at least recognise that?

That is a lie built upon a lie. Do you at least recognize that? Do you even know what a scientific theory is? I'm POSITIVE that many folks have already explained that scientific theories are based on proven facts or they don't count as theories. I'm sorry, but you are doing nothing but spreading disinfo and ignorance, and that's not happening on my watch. Deny ignorance, my friend. Get an education.


I am not here to evangelise, just ask why do those who accept evolution need to evangelise as much as they do


Sorry, I don't buy it. You created this anti evolution thread. You have created many of them over the years. YOU came in attacking evolution full swing and then later backtrack to the point where it's just your innocent opinion. I'm not buying it. You ignore evidence when presented and you use a multitude of fallacies in your arguments. You are specifically here to evangelize and it's blatantly obvious. People defend evolution from attackers like you. They don't go out of there way to do it. They don't worship it and follow it like a belief system because it's a field of science. Faith is not required when something is proven. You may not like that, but that's the way it is. Talk is cheap. Back that talk up.


I accept some people dont like M and Ms, I like M and Ms and would recommend them to anybody, though I wouldnt make them eat them if they didnt want to, like them or not.

But if you didn't like them, would you claim they didn't exist? You obviously don't like evolution and it's obviously because your faith. You also obviously haven't studied or even learned much about it at all. You act like evolution is something that is up to personal opinion or interpretation like your religion is, but it's not. It's solid science as I have clearly demonstrated to you. You can bury your head in the sand whenever evidence gets posted, but you don't get to tell people who use evolution in their daily life or studied it for their entire careers that it is just a belief system. It's obviously not.
edit on 9-7-2014 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 9 2014 @ 03:23 AM
link   
a reply to: borntowatch

Ah, the idea of miracles... Miracles are a tricky thing, you know? Science is based in materialistic philosophy. It is a tool that can only explain what can be directly observed, in essence materialistic reality. If a supernatural world exists, it must either not interfere with science (by which I mean they do not interact) or science loses the one thing it can actually do, make predictive models.
If a miracle can occur, germ theory must be thrown out. If a miracle can occur, the theory of gravity must go. So to the laws of nature, which miracles must break, as theories are based on laws. A scientist can no longer make predictions, do meaningful experimentation, if there is no way to reliably reproduce data, no method to check it. See, this is why the assumption of a consistent universe (by which I mean unbreakable laws of nature) must be necessary. And seeing as we can make predictive models that have repeatable results, we have supported the assumption with reasonable evidence to justify it.
Now, I don't particularly like Answers in Genesis. I will tread carefully, as to not offend. Your source is... deceptive, to say the least. The author claims that "evolution has no proof" a claim with which I agree, but only because science does not offer proof. As I have repeatedly said, science offers evidence. It never proves anything. The laws of nature, thermodynamics, gravity, these very fundamental laws are not proven. Science does not prove, math proves. Science supports with evidence. This may seem like more semantics, silly word meanings, but it isn't. Clarity is key when discussing science. When I say golgi apparatus, you better believe that most cellular biologists are perfectly clear about which organelle I am speaking. Clarity is important for understanding, it is important for reproducing results, and it is important for falsifying claims that are incorrect.
I should say that you did not offend me when you chose you words, and I hope I did not offend you. I am merely trying to clarify, striving to reach that same level of understanding as two cellular biologists discussing a nucleolus.

Now, I didn't watch the video of the comedian, but I will agree that mocking is no way to reach an understanding. It does not help anyone learn, it does not persuade anyone who is open to persuasion, it does not get anyone to think about the evidence. It is not productive. We must stick to facts, we must stick to observations that are as true for me as they are for you. Data does not lie, interpretations can be wrong, but facts are facts.
Your cited AiG page discusses what faith is required for evolution and Creationism (by which I mean only the Christian creationism, here). In doing so, it admits to the Bible being the sole source of evidence for your beliefs. This, I am sure you are aware (and hopefully agree to). Now, some might call this circular reasoning, a fallacy. They'd say the book justifies the faith and the faith justifies the book. I won't argue that. If it were true, then that would be a justified thing, and statistically speaking, the chance of this is non-zero (much like the chance of someone flipping heads 100 times in a row... That source, although I dislike it's critical nature towards statistical probabilities, does bring up an important point. I would be skeptical of this claim, and I would require evidence to support it. Proper evidence, not just the guy's friend saying "Yes, I saw him do it." I would need some kinda unedited video... I digress) No, I would argue that you have one piece of potentially true evidence. I have shown you countless pieces of evidence supporting evolution. Is it not fair to say we have more evidence to support the claim I make? You can say your evidence is better, but honestly, who has MORE? Sheer number of sources. Quantity isn't always quality, I know. But you are arguing that there isn't much, all I am arguing is that I've shown more than you have.

Now, back to your source... I haven't shown much reason to be skeptical, I apologize. Allow me to rectify that...
answersingenesis.org...
That is an article from the same site. It makes the claim that metamorphic rocks are the product of deposition by Noah's Flood. Now, anyone can find the relevant P/T diagrams which will illustrate what conditions must have taken place to react mineral species or components to form the minerals in those rocks. Certain metamorphic minerals only occur in the presence of highly CO2 rich fluids... My point is simply that meta rocks are not the product of mere deposition by flood water. Check out a P/T diagram for them, you will see that you need INTENSE pressures to form some, and some require INTENSE heat... And what's odd, some require intense heat and low pressure, and some low heat and intense pressure... And if you want to change a mineral, completely metamorphose it, takes more than a day for fluid to permeate across grain boundaries... I digress... Forgive me for being skeptical of that site, it is just often demonstrably falsifiable by scientific models.

Cheers



posted on Jul, 9 2014 @ 05:41 AM
link   
Sorry
I used Answers in Genesis to point out the absurdity of using Tim Minchin as evidence for evolution, or whatever reason it was posted.
Not to justify anything.
I see as little value linking AiG for a believer in evolution to read as a proponent of evolution linking Mr Minchin.

In fact I think AiG is far more valid, yet as pointless.

Nothing more



posted on Jul, 9 2014 @ 06:15 AM
link   
a reply to: Barcs

"Maybe you are one that can change the trend and break down the math for me on why you think 20 million years isn't enough time to account for the Cambrian changes."

Considering it happened about 540 million years ago I don't see how I can. My point is Humanity will better understand evolution and the processes involved with such once we observe them longer.

I dont have any of the answer im afraid, just an interest in our origins and how we came about.



posted on Jul, 9 2014 @ 06:19 AM
link   

originally posted by: borntowatch
Tim Minchin?
Is he a scientist I have never heard of him before?

Tim Minchin, seriously, your best bet is to bait and attack with a comedian who runs people down.
I should put a Hovind youtube clip in to counter Tim but that would be a little, tit for tat, so I wont.

Christians get belittled for using creation science websites and you put in Tim Minchin's.

It seems like creation science websites are far more valid that bitter comedians, so much for playing nice.


LOL, really you never heard of Dr. Tim Minchin?



He is the one who started believing and thanked God with song like this...



Reason I posted first song (Storm) is that in there he exactly portraits some 'new age' thinking and science denial with comments like 'we don't know anything yet' or perhaps 'live is a mystery' - same stuff found on this topic over and over... There is no link to Theory of Evolution, but just point to 'unreasonable' thinking and marking of everything 'unknown'...

And just FYI - there is no such a thing as 'creation science' - if is 'creation' or 'intelligent design' - it has nothing to do with science. Please stop with this non-sense...

This fundamentalist kind of thinking is what Father Dr. George Coyne calls 'kind a plague'...


edit on 9-7-2014 by SuperFrog because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 9 2014 @ 10:14 AM
link   

originally posted by: boymonkey74
a reply to: AngryCymraeg

Honestly there is no point, this thread has gone around in ciircles and Borntowatch will never accept any evidence whatso ever.
Like you said blinded by religion and ignorance.

Funny thing is many religions accept evolution as fact.

en.wikipedia.org...

Is it just me or is it mostly American Christians whom are ignorant?. Every Christian I know here in the UK accept evolution as fact also.


There is no point, so why try to change my opinion

When it comes to ignorance, well I guess you just dont know, and no its not funny how many Christians believe in evolution, I have addressed that in this thread nuuuumerous times.
Whats your point, should I believe what you think, will that make you happy, you seem as pushy as a door knocking Jehovah Witness
Funny how many scientists accept creation, even bloody funnier is how hard evolution supporting scientists are working to prove evolution, if it is so stitched up, why are they trying so hard, rhetorical, dont try to answer it.

Funny how arrogant some people can be, if I choose creation why does that make you and so many others so scared. Scared, I dont see another term to use, it sounds like fear, this proselytising against creation sounds like fear to me, especially those who get aggressive

and Limey, I am not from the US...stereotyping people is a sign of ignorance, something you accused me of.

and finally I wont accept the dribbs and drabbs of your evidence, as I stated, in the beginning

Those questions in the OP need to be answered with evidence, not guess work or theory based on belief
edit on b2014Wed, 09 Jul 2014 10:17:05 -050073120143am312014-07-09T10:17:05-05:00 by borntowatch because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 9 2014 @ 10:38 AM
link   

originally posted by: borntowatch
Funny how arrogant some people can be, if I choose creation why does that make you and so many others so scared. Scared, I dont see another term to use, it sounds like fear, this proselytising against creation sounds like fear to me, especially those who get aggressive


We all have to live in this world together, and when someone of us believe in magic rather than facts and hard evidence, it affects all of us.



posted on Jul, 9 2014 @ 10:56 AM
link   
a reply to: borntowatch

No, you believing in creation is not funny, but rather sad and perhaps bit worrisome...

You are entitled to your opinion as everyone else, but reason you have reaction to your belief is not because of what you believe, but because you tried to disprove theory of evolution without any evidence.

You choosing to believe does not entitles you to promote your belief to the same level as scientifically proven theory, and that is what you are trying to do from first post.

I, as everyone else who follows science and facts will never come to your Sunday school or mass and yell that you all will burn in hell because you don't believe in the same things as we do (trust me, I was told that there are in place huge fires for myself in hell
) nor I care what you believe, but please don't come here and try to sell your mysticism and education and science misconception as science. It just does not work that way.



posted on Jul, 9 2014 @ 11:57 AM
link   

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: Barcs

"Maybe you are one that can change the trend and break down the math for me on why you think 20 million years isn't enough time to account for the Cambrian changes."

Considering it happened about 540 million years ago I don't see how I can. My point is Humanity will better understand evolution and the processes involved with such once we observe them longer.

I dont have any of the answer im afraid, just an interest in our origins and how we came about.


I agree. Humans will one day understand this world ten fold what we know today. But when people bring up the Cambrian explosion as some way to suggest it's too fast for evolution without providing any numbers on why they think this, it does a disservice to everybody. It's not a problem for evolution, it's a problem for religious people that don't understand it.



posted on Jul, 9 2014 @ 12:04 PM
link   
a reply to: borntowatch

Howdy,
I would agree that discussing Answers in Genesis might be a more valid and productive use of time. I hope I didn't appear too critical of your use, I merely wanted to supply some evidence for my skepticism... Rather, support my hypothesis that I (and you) should be skeptical of claims made by someone trying to sell you something... (How many adverts does AiG show for their own products on their own site? That's enough to start worrying.)
However, I hope that you again don't mind me addressing some points in your post...
"Funny how many scientists accept creation, even bloody funnier is how hard evolution supporting scientists are working to prove evolution, if it is so stitched up, why are they trying so hard, rhetorical, dont try to answer it."
Yes, a lot of scientists accept creation. But, when you look at the numbers, the majority of sciences related to the nature world, biology, geology, paleontology... those scientists by majority (and strong majority) accept evolution. When you get outside of those fields, you start gaining acceptance of creationism. This is a correlative trend, mind you. No implication of causation. Please check the recent trends section toward the bottom... (although I find humour in the Project Steve section, as well.
)
en.wikipedia.org...
And although it is a rhetorical question, it is perhaps disingenuous to ask a question and say you don't actually want an answer. I warn you to be careful, as I know both sides of this discussion seem to be feeling some frustration. This is inviting accusations of close-mindedness, which I will not accuse you of, but again, I would suggest you not invite such accusations, as it would further increase the level of frustration and decrease the level of actual discourse...
Now, personally, I find Creationism scary in some ways... Some Creationists are quite reasonable fellows, they accept the models science puts forth, accept the results of the scientific method. In fact, a lot of people who believe that God used evolution to create man are nearly identical in belief with me, with one extra added on factor. Those people don't scare me... What scares me is when someone can willfully ignore scientific models, willfully say they have no meaning in reality... When people say we shouldn't teach it "because it's just a theory." (All science is treated the same way, not a theory based on belief, but a theory based on evidence, or belief based on evidence. The germ theory of disease, the theory of gravitation, the atomic theory, the theory of evolution... Scientists overwhelmingly agree that these use the same methods and are of the same level of supported-ness). I am scared that in the future, the world my relatives live in might be one where people do not understand the amount of work that went into creating these models of reality, these models that have been used to make predictions and create technology that have bettered the lives of a large proportion of the human race. I am scared that logic may one day cease to be the determining factors is cases of scientific interest (I don't care what judges in Italy think, earthquakes cannot currently be reliably predicted...). The level of scientific illiteracy, (you don't have to agree with all the interpretations, I just want people to understand how and why those interpretations are made...) that is what makes me scared as an atheist with a stronger than average background in science. (Not all atheism is grounded in science, some is grounded in philosophy...)
I live in PA, close to Dover... They weren't teaching ID, but they were advocating for it in biology classrooms by saying it was an alternative to science... That really scared me. ID cannot make predictions. It has no consistent model of reality...
For a better understanding of why evolution is crucial to biological theory, please look at the above link and see it's implications toward biotech, noting that it states...
"James McCarter of Divergence Incorporated states that the work of 2001 Nobel Prize winner Leland Hartwell which has substantial implications for combating cancer relied heavily on the use of evolutionary knowledge and predictions. McCarter points out that 47 of the last 50 Nobel Prizes in medicine or physiology also depended on the use of evolutionary theory.[95]"
Now, I will again warn you to be careful about how you write what you say... "and finally I wont accept the dribbs and drabbs of your evidence, as I stated, in the beginning" is seemingly incongruous with your next statement "Those questions in the OP need to be answered with evidence, not guess work or theory based on belief". Please be careful not to make yourself a target by joining logically inconsistent sentences that imply that you do "see evidence" and that you do not "see evidence." I understand what you are trying to say is that you do not see enough evidence, but please be aware of how inconsistent someone might think your statements, in their original form, seem.

Cheers

edit on 9-7-2014 by hydeman11 because: Only part of the message is showing, please bear with me as I adjust...

edit on 9-7-2014 by hydeman11 because: to be continued

edit on 9-7-2014 by hydeman11 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 9 2014 @ 12:08 PM
link   
*Sorry, ignore this... I was having trouble getting my previous reply to post due to a weird issue where spaces between paragraphs would cut short the reply. I tried to post again continuing from that point, but it also failed... I figured it out. Sorry again.
edit on 9-7-2014 by hydeman11 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 9 2014 @ 12:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: borntowatch
and finally I wont accept the dribbs and drabbs of your evidence, as I stated, in the beginning

Those questions in the OP need to be answered with evidence, not guess work or theory based on belief


You can't be serious. I cited evidence for each and every one. You choose not to accept it. That is YOUR problem. Your faith forces you to reject proven science blindly. That is YOUR problem. I suspect the only reason you attack evolution constantly is because you can't justify your faith as anything more than a guess, so you figure that if you turn evolution into a believe system it helps keep your fundamentalist faith alive. That is YOUR problem. I don't care what you believe, just stop attacking science with torches and pitchforks. It only makes rational creationists look bad. Hopefully I'm not the only one that notices that blatant contradiction. You claim the questions need to be answered with evidence but you clearly stated you won't accept evidence. So which is it?


Funny how arrogant some people can be, if I choose creation why does that make you and so many others so scared.

It's not about choosing creation. It's about choosing to vehemently reject and deny anything scientific related to evolution. There is not a choice between evolution and creation. It could be both. The only choice is between abiogenesis and creation or naturalism and creationism. It is way more arrogant to blindly believe a faith based on nothing but ancient stories as absolute literal unwavering truth, while cherry picking and attacking fields science you don't like. I believe the earth travels around the sun and that gravity is a real thing. That doesn't mean I'm arrogant. Scientists know what they are talking about. You don't.
edit on 9-7-2014 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 9 2014 @ 12:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: Barcs
You can't be serious. I cited evidence for each and every one. You choose not to accept it. That is YOUR problem. Your faith forces you to reject proven science blindly. That is YOUR problem. I suspect the only reason you attack evolution constantly is because you can't justify your faith as anything more than a guess, so you figure that if you turn evolution into a believe system it helps keep your fundamentalist faith alive. That is YOUR problem. I don't care what you believe, just stop attacking science with torches and pitchforks. It only makes rational creationists look bad. Hopefully I'm not the only one that notices that blatant contradiction. You claim the questions need to be answered with evidence but you clearly stated you won't accept evidence. So which is it?


I noticed this when I went down this same path with the OP earlier in the thread within the first 9 - 10 pages or so. To be honest, he should have just started a blog and posted this thread there. He doesn't want discussion and isn't here to entertain any evidence no matter how compelling.


It's not about choosing creation. It's about choosing to vehemently reject and deny anything scientific related to evolution. There is not a choice between evolution and creation. It could be both. The only choice is between abiogenesis and creation or naturalism and creationism. It is way more arrogant to blindly believe a faith based on nothing but ancient stories as absolute literal unwavering truth, while cherry picking and attacking fields science you don't like. I believe the earth travels around the sun and that gravity is a real thing. That doesn't mean I'm arrogant. Scientists know what they are talking about. You don't.


Like I literally had this exact same conversation with the OP and was called dishonest for it.



posted on Jul, 9 2014 @ 01:00 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

I'm a sucker, what can I say? When he repeatedly keeps stating that somebody needs to break down his OP with evidence (come to think of it, I probably already did months ago as well), I just wanted to make sure that the request was answered, to ensure that the burden is now on him. If he refuses to respond, that is his problem. We did what we can do. I really just do it for the 3rd party observer so they don't accidentally buy what he's selling. I don't even understand why he'd post a thread about this demanding evidence, if he is unwilling to even look at the evidence. In the OP he claims that evolution isn't what most people think, stating that evolution is REALLY about big bang, planetary origins, star origins, and chemical origins. Unfortunately he's lying and using the fallacy of equivocation to claim evolution is wrong unless you prove every single of HIS forms of evolution. He just doesn't like it and doesn't like the word and anything associated with it. He speaks as if he has some inside knowledge of the "evil" scientific community and the massive conspiracy that thousands of scientists willingly participate in every year despite going against everything that science and discovery stands for. In fact, it makes me want to create a thread just explaining it in detail and the misconceptions about it. He's a preacher. Nothing more nothing less. People need to be aware of this. I just don't get how somebody can claim to be a Christian, yet constantly tell lies and attack science to sell your faith. That goes against everything Jesus taught and makes no sense whatsoever to me. I have nothing against Christians, only hypochristians.
edit on 9-7-2014 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 9 2014 @ 01:08 PM
link   
a reply to: Barcs

I know. Believe me. I know... And that is just a few of the responses I made to him in this thread. There are many more.



posted on Jul, 9 2014 @ 01:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: hydeman11
a reply to: borntowatch

Howdy,
I would agree that discussing Answers in Genesis might be a more valid and productive use of time. I hope I didn't appear too critical of your use, I merely wanted to supply some evidence for my skepticism... Rather, support my hypothesis that I (and you) should be skeptical of claims made by someone trying to sell you something... (How many adverts does AiG show for their own products on their own site? That's enough to start worrying.)
However, I hope that you again don't mind me addressing some points in your post...
"Funny how many scientists accept creation, even bloody funnier is how hard evolution supporting scientists are working to prove evolution, if it is so stitched up, why are they trying so hard, rhetorical, dont try to answer it."
Yes, a lot of scientists accept creation. But, when you look at the numbers, the majority of sciences related to the nature world, biology, geology, paleontology... those scientists by majority (and strong majority) accept evolution. When you get outside of those fields, you start gaining acceptance of creationism. This is a correlative trend, mind you. No implication of causation. Please check the recent trends section toward the bottom... (although I find humour in the Project Steve section, as well.
)
en.wikipedia.org...
And although it is a rhetorical question, it is perhaps disingenuous to ask a question and say you don't actually want an answer. I warn you to be careful, as I know both sides of this discussion seem to be feeling some frustration. This is inviting accusations of close-mindedness, which I will not accuse you of, but again, I would suggest you not invite such accusations, as it would further increase the level of frustration and decrease the level of actual discourse...
Now, personally, I find Creationism scary in some ways... Some Creationists are quite reasonable fellows, they accept the models science puts forth, accept the results of the scientific method. In fact, a lot of people who believe that God used evolution to create man are nearly identical in belief with me, with one extra added on factor. Those people don't scare me... What scares me is when someone can willfully ignore scientific models, willfully say they have no meaning in reality... When people say we shouldn't teach it "because it's just a theory." (All science is treated the same way, not a theory based on belief, but a theory based on evidence, or belief based on evidence. The germ theory of disease, the theory of gravitation, the atomic theory, the theory of evolution... Scientists overwhelmingly agree that these use the same methods and are of the same level of supported-ness). I am scared that in the future, the world my relatives live in might be one where people do not understand the amount of work that went into creating these models of reality, these models that have been used to make predictions and create technology that have bettered the lives of a large proportion of the human race. I am scared that logic may one day cease to be the determining factors is cases of scientific interest (I don't care what judges in Italy think, earthquakes cannot currently be reliably predicted...). The level of scientific illiteracy, (you don't have to agree with all the interpretations, I just want people to understand how and why those interpretations are made...) that is what makes me scared as an atheist with a stronger than average background in science. (Not all atheism is grounded in science, some is grounded in philosophy...)
I live in PA, close to Dover... They weren't teaching ID, but they were advocating for it in biology classrooms by saying it was an alternative to science... That really scared me. ID cannot make predictions. It has no consistent model of reality...
For a better understanding of why evolution is crucial to biological theory, please look at the above link and see it's implications toward biotech, noting that it states...
"James McCarter of Divergence Incorporated states that the work of 2001 Nobel Prize winner Leland Hartwell which has substantial implications for combating cancer relied heavily on the use of evolutionary knowledge and predictions. McCarter points out that 47 of the last 50 Nobel Prizes in medicine or physiology also depended on the use of evolutionary theory.[95]"
Now, I will again warn you to be careful about how you write what you say... "and finally I wont accept the dribbs and drabbs of your evidence, as I stated, in the beginning" is seemingly incongruous with your next statement "Those questions in the OP need to be answered with evidence, not guess work or theory based on belief". Please be careful not to make yourself a target by joining logically inconsistent sentences that imply that you do "see evidence" and that you do not "see evidence." I understand what you are trying to say is that you do not see enough evidence, but please be aware of how inconsistent someone might think your statements, in their original form, seem.

Cheers


AiG dont get government funding so I can appreciate why they ask for money.

Scientists as a majority, even most people as a majority are non- christian, it stands to reason that most will not support a creation God. The very fact that some scientists dont accept evolution shows learned men are not on the same page as others. As you stated, by majority, strong majority, though some learned scientists have questions, as do I

Yes my question was rhetorical, but not disingenuous. Quite frankly I dont care for the sales pitch and argument, the arrogance and attitude of the poster. Been there done that, it always ends the same. No point bludgeoning me over and over I dont accept evolution.

As for science for sciences sake, what.
Christianity and the bible introduced science to the West, introduced education to the masses.
Dont take the moral high ground over education. All the major schools in the US were once Christian, Christianity taught that people are equal. That started changing the world not just your country.

Evolution is not crucial to biological theory, work was done in biological science by Christians who didnt believe in evolution. Still is.
Science doesnt and wont stop if evolution was shelved. Are you saying if scientists stopped working on evolution they wouldnt try and crack the dna codes, would stop working on all genetics, stop looking for answers to disease?
Science is money, money inspires, its got nothing to do with evolution.
and ID can make predictions, based on what is seen in the natural world.
Science must be repeatable observable and testable, most of evolution isnt so claiming its a science, hmmmm.

As for all the Steves, isnt that typical of those who dont believe in creation, parody and attack, belittle and criticise
As for evolutionary links, I treat them as suspiciously as you treat AiG

Me I live in Perth, its close to nothing, our schools dont teach creation in any sense at all.

Be careful not to make myself a target? I am a creationist, there are more Steves who believe in evolution than me.



posted on Jul, 9 2014 @ 01:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: Barcs
a reply to: Krazysh0t

I'm a sucker, what can I say? When he repeatedly keeps stating that somebody needs to break down his OP with evidence (come to think of it, I probably already did months ago as well), I just wanted to make sure that the request was answered, to ensure that the burden is now on him. If he refuses to respond, that is his problem. We did what we can do. I really just do it for the 3rd party observer so they don't accidentally buy what he's selling. I don't even understand why he'd post a thread about this demanding evidence, if he is unwilling to even look at the evidence. In the OP he claims that evolution isn't what most people think, stating that evolution is REALLY about big bang, planetary origins, star origins, and chemical origins. Unfortunately he's lying and using the fallacy of equivocation to claim evolution is wrong unless you prove every single of HIS forms of evolution. He just doesn't like it and doesn't like the word and anything associated with it. He speaks as if he has some inside knowledge of the "evil" scientific community and the massive conspiracy that thousands of scientists willingly participate in every year despite going against everything that science and discovery stands for. In fact, it makes me want to create a thread just explaining it in detail and the misconceptions about it. He's a preacher. Nothing more nothing less. People need to be aware of this. I just don't get how somebody can claim to be a Christian, yet constantly tell lies and attack science to sell your faith. That goes against everything Jesus taught and makes no sense whatsoever to me. I have nothing against Christians, only hypochristians.


Your evidence isnt even wishy washy,its not vague or inane, its non existent.

Evolution is not just about biology, we have many types of evolution and they are all largely unexplained. There is no burden on me, I am not making up theorys or trying to prove them

I am not even asking you a question, just stating the evidence is NOT SUFFICIENT for me to believe like others.
I havnt demanded any evidence, just pointed to the lack of it.

Did I say the scientific community was evil, really.

Name calling, really, attacking me to empower yourself.

Sounds like fear that you are losing. Its alright, you cant lose I am not fighting you.



posted on Jul, 9 2014 @ 01:32 PM
link   
a reply to: borntowatch

Mixing the terms , not knowing what theory means as well ingoring all science finding and starting topic that you can't provide any evidence in, ignoring all evidence that is presented on topic... and provoking as if this is a race and someone gonna loose?!

Nah, while in denial, you just make funny example of what really is wrong with religious fundamentalist, nothing more... no topic here, this is more like your own diary witch should make you feel well and prove that your ignorance is stronger then any scientifically proven evidence... good job!

No wonder you found yourself in Tim Minchin's song...




top topics



 
12
<< 31  32  33    35  36  37 >>

log in

join