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.

 

Pope says evolution doesn't mean there's no God

page: 7
15
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 30 2014 @ 02:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: michaelbrux
I'm all about the Top Down view of reality...strict Evolutionists are all about Bottoms Up.


What does this even mean? There's no such thing as a "strict evolutionist". There are evolutionary biologists that study evolution, and there are folks that agree that science is reliable. Maybe you mean "strict atheist"?


What happens to the Theory of Evolution when in the next few years or less top universities introduce the subjects of Quantum Biology and Quantum Chemistry for degree programs?


Nothing happens. Evolution is part of biology. Quantum physics is more about particle interactions on the sub atomic level and how they interact. Neither of them would prove evolution wrong or change it. It may improve our understand of exactly how the process works as far as genetic mutations go, but




posted on Oct, 30 2014 @ 02:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: Barcs

originally posted by: michaelbrux
I'm all about the Top Down view of reality...strict Evolutionists are all about Bottoms Up.


What does this even mean? There's no such thing as a "strict evolutionist". There are evolutionary biologists that study evolution, and there are folks that agree that science is reliable. Maybe you mean "strict atheist"?


What happens to the Theory of Evolution when in the next few years or less top universities introduce the subjects of Quantum Biology and Quantum Chemistry for degree programs?


Nothing happens. Evolution is part of biology. Quantum physics is more about particle interactions on the sub atomic level and how they interact. Neither of them would prove evolution wrong or change it. It may improve our understand of exactly how the process works as far as genetic mutations go, but


by strict evolutionist, i mean a person that believes that all things can be explained by this one theory in a world full of theories and laws. especially when evolution is brought against the Theory of God.

the next quote challenges the alleged absolute definitive nature of the Theory of Evolution where nothing else in scientific inquiry concerning ourselves will ever be discovered thereby diminishing the usefulness of the theory.

history is full scenarios matching the claims evolutionists make today...many ended up the butt of jokes and ridicule. the Earth is Flat and the center of the Universe...remember that one?

its as if the modern evolutionists don't think that what happened to the church 500 years ago can happen to them 6 months from now.

almost as if they've learned nothing from the nature of science.

my theory is that learning will advance to such a place, that makes evolution appear as possibly inspired, but in many ways flawed.



posted on Oct, 30 2014 @ 02:51 PM
link   
no matter how many questions you answer...more questions will arise. it never stops.



posted on Oct, 30 2014 @ 03:12 PM
link   
a reply to: michaelbrux

Sigh

Go on then, let's here these alternative scientific theories to evolution that explain biodiversity.

Keep in mind that:


A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that is acquired through the scientific method and repeatedly tested and confirmed through observation and experimentation.[1][2] As with most (if not all) forms of scientific knowledge, scientific theories are inductive in nature and aim for predictive power and explanatory force.[3][4]


Trying to drag scientific evidence down to the flimsy level of religion will not work for any intellectually honest, scientifically literate person.



posted on Oct, 30 2014 @ 03:17 PM
link   
a reply to: GetHyped

so you do believe that the Scientific community will never suffer the same fate as the Religious Community?

you've learned nothing.

better make sure you always maintain control on all areas of Scientific Inquiry and not let anything get out of your control.

what happened to them will never happen to you.



posted on Oct, 30 2014 @ 03:26 PM
link   
on conspiratorial note...i dropped out of my ph.d program at the University of Alabama in Huntsville because I felt that faculty advisers only serve the purpose of maintaining the status quo in academia

they are there to make sure people DON'T discover anything that may upset the balance and if they do...to make sure the discovery is controlled.

and that they work for .... the Pope.

if that conspiracy is correct...that would suggest that the Pope and Evolutionists created the argument and the format for the debate concerning this and every other scientific discovery.



posted on Oct, 30 2014 @ 03:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: chuck258


And before you start, I am an Atheist, but I want science and religion to peacefully coexist, throughout thought such as the pope has presented here, you want religion to drop dead and disappear.

You misunderstand. Religion is man made. Spirituality is different. Both science and religion catch up with the truth and move the goalposts.

I don't disbelieve in the spirit world I believe men in the world lie to us about that. Just as surely as they lie about everything else. They accomplish that through organized religion. That you are an atheist proves their ploy is working.

I don't believe in religion or science. By science I assume you mean the "theories" of Evolution, no god and Big Bangs?



How does his being an atheist prove that the ploy of "men" is working? He doesn't believe in God. That's all that atheism implies. That leaves a lot left to believe in or not.

Your use of "the truth" is puzzling. Truth is a belief. There are many truths.



posted on Oct, 30 2014 @ 03:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: Barcs


Religion is notorious for moving goalposts while sticking with demonstrably false claims regardless of evidence.

You just described the Sciences, perfectly.

The theories of Evolution, the Big Bang and Life are just that, theories. Which "scientists", i.e., high priests firmly believe in.

But about moving goal posts, feel free to do that with every new scientific discovery. How do you think the Periodic Chart developed (is developing to this day)?


You obviously don't know the difference between a hypothesis and a theorum (ie. theory). A theorum is based on testable evidence. You also are unfamiliar with the scientific method. I suggest you hit the library and do a little reading or take a course in basic science.



posted on Oct, 30 2014 @ 04:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: michaelbrux

originally posted by: Barcs

originally posted by: michaelbrux
I'm all about the Top Down view of reality...strict Evolutionists are all about Bottoms Up.


What does this even mean? There's no such thing as a "strict evolutionist". There are evolutionary biologists that study evolution, and there are folks that agree that science is reliable. Maybe you mean "strict atheist"?


What happens to the Theory of Evolution when in the next few years or less top universities introduce the subjects of Quantum Biology and Quantum Chemistry for degree programs?


Nothing happens. Evolution is part of biology. Quantum physics is more about particle interactions on the sub atomic level and how they interact. Neither of them would prove evolution wrong or change it. It may improve our understand of exactly how the process works as far as genetic mutations go, but


by strict evolutionist, i mean a person that believes that all things can be explained by this one theory in a world full of theories and laws. especially when evolution is brought against the Theory of God.

the next quote challenges the alleged absolute definitive nature of the Theory of Evolution where nothing else in scientific inquiry concerning ourselves will ever be discovered thereby diminishing the usefulness of the theory.

history is full scenarios matching the claims evolutionists make today...many ended up the butt of jokes and ridicule. the Earth is Flat and the center of the Universe...remember that one?

its as if the modern evolutionists don't think that what happened to the church 500 years ago can happen to them 6 months from now.

almost as if they've learned nothing from the nature of science.

my theory is that learning will advance to such a place, that makes evolution appear as possibly inspired, but in many ways flawed.





No one believes that "all things can be explained" by the theory of evolution. There is no theory of God. God is a hypothesis. You fail to understand that a theory (ie. theorum) is backed by testable evidence. The existence of God is a hypothesis backed by nothing but belief.

As for what could happen to science six months from now, the evolutionists need only look to the Dark Ages. Who ran things then? The Church.

Evolution inspired? By what? By a hypothetical supernatural deity whose existence is based on exactly what?



posted on Oct, 30 2014 @ 04:06 PM
link   
a reply to: michaelbrux

Enough dodging, let's see what scientific evidence you have to offer.



posted on Oct, 30 2014 @ 04:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: michaelbrux
on conspiratorial note...i dropped out of my ph.d program at the University of Alabama in Huntsville because I felt that faculty advisers only serve the purpose of maintaining the status quo in academia




Yeah, I'm calling BS on this. Nice try, though. Anyone who's been through a PhD program knows that THE WHOLE POINT is to further your field with new, useful research. You don't get a PhD by "maintaining the status quo".



posted on Oct, 30 2014 @ 04:12 PM
link   
LMAO. I just realized that I totally cut myself off in that post. I don't know how I did that but I ended my point with "but"! Sorry about that. Lack of sleep will get ya every time! I really meant to finish my thought.


originally posted by: michaelbrux
by strict evolutionist, i mean a person that believes that all things can be explained by this one theory in a world full of theories and laws. especially when evolution is brought against the Theory of God.

Evolution only explains the diversity of life, certainly not the origin of all things or even life itself. I don't know anybody that claims evolution is responsible for the origin of life, the creation of solar systems or the origin of chemicals. I think you may mean "Naturalism" instead of evolution. Naturalism (or materialism) is essentially the belief that everything in the universe can be explained by natural processes rather than intelligent interference and design. They are correct to an extent since nothing that has been studied requires outside interference as of yet, but there is still much we do not know. Why can't god and evolution both be correct? Neither can or should disprove the other, merely literal translations of ancient texts.


the next quote challenges the alleged absolute definitive nature of the Theory of Evolution where nothing else in scientific inquiry concerning ourselves will ever be discovered thereby diminishing the usefulness of the theory.

Nothing in science is definitively absolute. Science is forever changing as new facts and evidence are discovered. Is evolution a fact? Yes because tons of evidence backs it up. I wouldn't call it absolute or all encompassing, however.


history is full scenarios matching the claims evolutionists make today...many ended up the butt of jokes and ridicule. the Earth is Flat and the center of the Universe...remember that one?


That's simply not true. There were not scientific research papers or experiments done to suggest the earth is flat. That was a guess, and a large portion of the world did not even believe that. Flat earth and center of universe were never scientific theories. They were guesses, largely perpetuated by religious folk. Evolution has TONS of evidence to back it, it's not just a random shot in the dark like flat earth.


its as if the modern evolutionists don't think that what happened to the church 500 years ago can happen to them 6 months from now.

It can't. We could redefine our understanding of the principles or mechanisms behind evolution, but it's a solid fact of the world now and denying it is like denying the earth is round. Do you really think that something could happen tomorrow and prove round earth to be wrong? That's pretty much impossible, just like something debunking evolution at this point. It may not be 100% complete, but nothing in science ever is.
edit on 30-10-2014 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 30 2014 @ 05:42 PM
link   
a reply to: michaelbrux


What happens to the Theory of Evolution when in the next few years or less top universities introduce the subjects of Quantum Biology

The concepts of quantum biology, as they're studied further, will be incorporated into the biology curriculum and used to help understand and explain what we observe regarding evolution.


and Quantum Chemistry for degree programs?

All apologies, but you have me laughing out loud with this one. I graduated with my BS in Chemistry in 1998 from, what was at the time at least, one of the best science & engineering schools in the United States. Undergraduates and graduates in chemistry programs were being tortured with the quantum mechanical aspects of chemistry for decades before I took those particular classes.

Why is it the pro-creationist / anti-science crowd can't seem to acknowledge the fact that science is not static? We're coming up on the 155th anniversary of the first printing of On The Origin Of Species in a couple of weeks. While it provided the foundation, there's another century and a half of exploring and researching and understanding of evolution that we've piled upon it.


is it renamed to Classical Evolution during a book burning?

Why would it need to be?


these debates are almost as if we've learned nothing from the past.

It helps if you keep up with what's happened since the past.



posted on Oct, 30 2014 @ 06:17 PM
link   
a reply to: Sabiduria


So when you do it it's ok but when someone else does it and it's a different opinion than your it's not ok, typical. *roll eyes* [

I was being facetious. My point was that you told me that the Big Bang has cycled three or four times. From where I am sitting I am thinking how could any one know that? There is as much proof for that as me saying I am Mickey Mouse. Sorry it wasn't meant o be an insult.

Its 'not okay' for either of us to make those kind of assertions as the posts following my Donald Duck reply to you so eloquently point out.

Spy66 said "Who cares"?

Gethyped said, "You have no idea, so sad".

Barcs said, "Cartoon characters are products of human imagination and creativity. They are not real,"

I agree with all three. The real sad, no idea, imaginary, who cares thing is that I can admit I don't know, whereas they all think they are right, without even having left the planet yet.



posted on Oct, 30 2014 @ 06:23 PM
link   
a reply to: GetHyped


You literally have no idea what you're talking about when it comes to science.

Only when it comes to things like evolution and the origins of life and other "theories". But how would you know either, you have never even left this tiny world. That would be like trying to describe the world as a baby in the womb.


The sad thing is that you seem genuinely convinced that you do.

No, I don't. Neither do you.
edit on 30-10-2014 by intrptr because: bb code



posted on Oct, 30 2014 @ 06:26 PM
link   
a reply to: spy66


Who else would care?

You seemed to care enough to even respond to insult me.



posted on Oct, 30 2014 @ 06:30 PM
link   
a reply to: Barcs


Cartoon characters are products of human imagination and creativity. They are not real,

That was my point. But then again, they are real. You can see them in film, on TV, in story books and at Disney World. They been around a lot longer than any theories about the Big Bang.



posted on Oct, 30 2014 @ 06:31 PM
link   
a reply to: Tangerine


Truth is a belief. There are many truths.

Oh, is that the truth?



posted on Oct, 30 2014 @ 06:37 PM
link   
a reply to: Tangerine


A theorem is based on testable evidence.

Not when it comes to "Evolution" or the big bang.

As a disclaimer I am not talking about science as in chemistry or mechanics. For instance, how a plane flies and how to make gasoline are not theory…

When I talk about science it is in regards to theories as in the theory of Evolution, part of the thread topic.

That neither religion or science has those answers, in fact they are both off the mark.
edit on 30-10-2014 by intrptr because: spelling and change



posted on Oct, 30 2014 @ 06:42 PM
link   
a reply to: iterationzero

he's pointing out that evolution and religious teachings regarding the creation of man are not at odds. how could they be...universities were run by the church up until a few years ago.

the only differences between the two are manufactured by people that have an interest in there being a difference.

Why are the evolutionists the scientific group always in the midst of this Argument?

where are all the electromagnetic radiation people to rip on the genesis book concerning the creation of Light; that claim seems to be much easier to attack.








edit on 30-10-2014 by michaelbrux because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
15
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join