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.

 

I just don't get it some days....

page: 1
5
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 7 2015 @ 02:40 AM
link   
So I am constantly amazed that the anti evolution, anti-science crowd, mob to a certain set of forums here, and blanket post their biased ideas. But cry fowl when those of us who are biased in the other way challenge them. They hold us to a certain standard, but excuse themselves from it.

I am also always amazed it degenerates into "godlesss heathens" and "amoral atheists" from them.

For the record, I'm a god loving heathen (Pagan actually but well close enough), as well as a scientist.


Ahh much better getting that out


Slan agat




posted on Apr, 7 2015 @ 03:06 AM
link   
a reply to: Noinden

Yeps, it's pseudo-scepticism at it's best.

And i've never understood the idea that a belief in some form of divinity clashes with an understanding of scientific method, either.

Good Post, i've been facing this recently too.

Tapadh Leat



posted on Apr, 7 2015 @ 03:15 AM
link   
a reply to: skalla

I think they feel they are doing their deities work? Defending the church etc.



posted on Apr, 7 2015 @ 03:29 AM
link   
a reply to: Noinden

I just moved on and stopped posting in those kinds of threads. How many links and explanations go unread before it becomes a waste of time?! If we're all honest about it, we go in there with the same ideas and leave the same too.

The 'it's just a theory' guys stick to that forever. Anti-science and anti-intellectual people choose to occupy a bubble and there's no bursting it. Likewise, I see a lot banner-waving atheists who only seem to want to goad the 'believers' and use their education to ridicule the less educated.

It's best to leave them to it. In a weird way, it makes them all happy and secure in the way the world works.



posted on Apr, 7 2015 @ 03:32 AM
link   
a reply to: Kandinsky

I usually post to remind them (both sides) that being spiritual is not an exclusion from being scientific



posted on Apr, 7 2015 @ 03:41 AM
link   
a reply to: Noinden

I have never understood the "if you don't believe in god you can't have morality' argument.

As if believing some imaginary Perce voyuer in the sky watching my every move and action and thought is the only option to be moral.

It see.s like they are projecting their immorality unless they are afraid of god on us.

I don't need god to do the right thing.

I do it because it is right.

Why isn't that enough of a reason for any rational sane person?



posted on Apr, 7 2015 @ 04:15 AM
link   
And i am just as annoyed by those who don't accept creationism as well.
Now before you get ahead of yourself and type up a storm hear me out. Evolution happens, I believe in evolution 100%.

I just don't believe in Darwinian Evolution.

We are not the first planet in the universe sadly, And Sol. Well is not the first solar system either. Heck, the Milkyway is not the first Galaxy! We can't even know what the first galaxy/solar system is because well quite frankly. Galaxies die, And that is undeniable.

We also see galaxies forming. That is also undeniable. So we can't possibly know the begining or the end cuz well... Both are happening at the same time. Judging by this fact alone, The Universe most likely has always existed forever.

Now does this discredit Evolution? No. I am just making a case that humans, within the probability of Infinity. Are not the only species to mess with Genetics. Now i'm not gunna say *DNA* because well quite frankly. DNA is a specific acid, Okay.

Not sure if everyone realizes this but not all life in the Universe will have DNA. More than likely may have another form of genetic makeup altogether? Since well Deoxyribonucleic acid isn't exactly a requirement for consiousness to exist. Does a computer require Deoxyribonucleic acid to exist after it has been created? say for instance self replicating nanobots? Similar by design to DNA sure, but quite different.

it might be for all the makeup here on Earth. But we simply do not know. If we describe all the makeup of biological life as simply DNA when we havn't even explored the universe well that may be a bit of a strech.

Besides that point alone, Humans are manufacturing life in test tubes by engineering DNA.
So even if mass extinctions occure, its okay. Because Advanced life like us can just recreate it, no biggy.

Now, as i mentioned before about the whole infinite Universe thing. The probability of other advanced life existing in the universe is pretty high considering there are galaxies in every direction we look.

What if Earth's life was seeded by an advanced life-form? To elaborate further, what if humans were created along with everything else by this advanced life form?
Ancient alien astronaught theory as it is called. Now before you or anyone start shouting that's far-feteched. Il let you know that we humans plan on exactly the same thing with Mars.
We plan on terraforming the whole planet with life.

That is undeniable. So reguardless of your oppinion, or mine. That is the plan of the current Elite. It is the plan of every space program around the globe, so unless we humans go extinct or are hindered before we realize this plan, it's going to happen. Which means that you, who deny a creator will ignorantly accept being part of a species who are creators reguardless.

See the only thing that's different is yours or anyone elses lack of imaginative creativity to see that something could of done what we are planning for Mars as what was most likely done here on Earth!

What's stopping people from accepting this? Blind ignorance maybe. Heck, it would be somewhat ironically hilarious if the humans that end up terraforming mars also denied that the life to be seeded there was created.
Amusing to say the least. So is this whole * Aliens didn't create us or all the complex life on Earth it was evolution that did!* Argument just about pride, arrogrance, and unappreciation? Because that's kinda what it sounds like from this side of the screen reading the wall of text coming from Atheists.

I am just assuming of course on your stance as you have not written a biography on your beliefs but honestly. Your beliefs do not matter. Because being a witness to action is the only truth. And oppinions on belief simply are not.
It won't matter if you don't think humans were created by aliens because someday, we will make an advanced form of life like us either here on earth or on mars and the being we will create won't deny us as their creator. The proof is in the equipment, the science, the knowledge. And the paths and choices we make. Not some guy who thinks we as well as all life were forged from mud without any divine intervention what so ever.

So does evolution exist, Yes. But ultimately, consiousness trumps natural evolution. As Artifical evolution becomes the playing card after evolution has occured..... It replaces natural evolution by setting the foundation. Then evolution will occure after.... Advanced consiousness makes natural evolutionary process of *survival of the fittest* obsolete because of creativity and consious perciverence. Advanced life can, once established continue to form life across the cosmos-Universe indefenantly forever and ever. Where does that leave Darwin? He obviously never came to these conclusions. he couldn't even imagine it.

Just some food for thought. You may return to your regular programming.



posted on Apr, 7 2015 @ 04:27 AM
link   

originally posted by: Kandinsky

Anti-science and anti-intellectual people choose to occupy a bubble and there's no bursting it. Likewise, I see a lot banner-waving atheists who only seem to want to goad the 'believers' and use their education to ridicule the less educated.

Since when did science have a monopoly on intelligence? Or atheism on education?



posted on Apr, 7 2015 @ 04:29 AM
link   
a reply to: NthOther

Atheism is just being unappreciative of creation. that's all it means. It means * Hey, I don't care if i was created cuz i ignorantly know i wasn't! and neither was my mom or dad! we came from mud!*

Fantastic observation. I could take this mud and develop another you and it wouldn't take millions of hypothetical years.

But what ever floats the boat right, or sinks it.



posted on Apr, 7 2015 @ 05:07 AM
link   
a reply to: AnuTyr



Atheism is just being unappreciative of creation. that's all it means.


But it doesn't does it? That's what you want it to mean. FTR I'm not an atheist and know full-well that atheists have no beliefs in God or gods - it's that simple. To claim that atheists aren't appreciative of 'creation' is baseless. Belief systems aren't required to enjoy landscapes, beautiful days or colourful sunrises.

a reply to: NthOther



Since when did science have a monopoly on intelligence? Or atheism on education?


That's a good example of internet communication ^^^

I didn't say anyone had a monopoly on intelligence and yet we're now expected to start fighting over the straw man you've brought in here.

Try again.



posted on Apr, 7 2015 @ 05:24 AM
link   

originally posted by: Kandinsky

Anti-science and anti-intellectual people choose to occupy a bubble and there's no bursting it. Likewise, I see a lot banner-waving atheists who only seem to want to goad the 'believers' and use their education to ridicule the less educated.

Let's not pretend you're not attempting to imply an exclusive relationship between science and intelligence.

It's not "internet communication" or a "straw man". It's called reading.

"Who, me?" Right.



posted on Apr, 7 2015 @ 05:25 AM
link   
a reply to: Noinden

I believe that life lived either without reason, OR without faith, is a life only part lived. For balance, for the optimum experience of existence as it is given us mortals to involve ourselves in, both are necessary, vital even.



posted on Apr, 7 2015 @ 05:45 AM
link   
a reply to: NthOther



Let's not pretend you're not attempting to imply an exclusive relationship between science and intelligence.


Hey you're quite good at this. You've brought in 'exclusive' and switched 'education' for intelligence - bait and switch. Classy.

To be fair, I did invite you to 'try again' and you've done just that. At this point, I should be defending myself against something I didn't write. You'd then be beating a straw man that people who argue in favour of science think they're better, or smarter, than those who don't.

The problem here is that I'm not going to argue about something I didn't write, didn't imply and don't believe.

Try again?



posted on Apr, 7 2015 @ 06:22 AM
link   
a reply to: AnuTyr

Well said, I believe in ''something'' / higher intelligence, science and to an extent evolution (though as a more advanced theory).

There are so many possibilities and those denying the possibility of the involvement of higher intelligence on humanity / this planet because there is no fossil evidence of it are looking for stars in the earth. Humanity is as you rightly mentioned, acting as a creator of sorts and is technologically advanced enough to travel space etc, so there is every possibility that there are other more evolved beings doing things far more advanced than humanity and before humanity got to this stage.

Humanity being exclusively intelligent in the Universe and the only beings capable of space travel is statistically very unlikely and the truth is that humanity might well be part of a higher intelligence plan.




So does evolution exist, Yes. But ultimately, consiousness trumps natural evolution. As Artifical evolution becomes the playing card after evolution has occured..... It replaces natural evolution by setting the foundation. Then evolution will occure after.... Advanced consiousness makes natural evolutionary process of *survival of the fittest* obsolete because of creativity and consious perciverence. Advanced life can, once established continue to form life across the cosmos-Universe indefenantly forever and ever. Where does that leave Darwin? He obviously never came to these conclusions. he couldn't even imagine it.



posted on Apr, 7 2015 @ 06:46 AM
link   
Why is every challenge to "evolution" automatically labeled "religious"?

For the record I don't hold to either camp, I think life was brought here. But like you, I can't prove it.

So what?



edit on 7-4-2015 by intrptr because: spelling



posted on Apr, 7 2015 @ 08:22 AM
link   
a reply to: Kandinsky

Seriously? Go back and read what you wrote for the third time. If you don't see how that could be interpreted as equating the two, you shouldn't be accusing anyone of playing word games.
edit on 4/7/15 by NthOther because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 7 2015 @ 05:13 PM
link   
a reply to: AnuTyr

Neighbor I am not going to debate this with you. You are welcome to your own beliefs. They are at odds with mine, and that is perfectly fine with me. This was not the point of this rant. No the point rather was the inconsistency of creationists over how they wish to treat these subjects. They require scientists like myself to use scientific methodology to support our claims, but will not allow it on theirs. To be fair the majority would not know scientific methodology even if it came up in a clown suit and mugged them. There is a reason creationist scientists are a rather rare breed, and the majority are way out of their own specialties.

Now the second point is the fact that morality gets whipped out at some point in these debates. The assumption is that all pro evolutionists are atheists. Darwin would have snorted at that
In the threads I post in I'm vocal of my own spiritual leanings (neo pagan druidism, druidry (one is the religious practice, the other the philosophy) and Celtic reconstructionist spirituality), another regular is Christian, and yet another a devout Hindu. This invalidates the "you are all amoral atheists" oh sorry "godless/god hating heathens" that happens.

Its what is wrong with these debates. Feelings, Unverifiable Personal Gnosis (UPG) vs scientific methodology (aka evidence based logic). I see the same sort of debates when my reconstructionist faith deals with revivalist Druidry. One tries to be as historical as possible, the other is all about how it feels. It will never end peacefully, oneside (usually the feels but not always) will whip out an emotive statement. Then gloves are off (or in my case knife is out but thats me ....)



posted on Apr, 7 2015 @ 05:16 PM
link   
a reply to: TrueBrit

I have zero argument here neighbor. Yet we seem to be in the minority online. In many ways for all the good the interwebs does, it also allows people who are outdwellers in society to feed their neurosis and self treat various mental health issues.



posted on Apr, 7 2015 @ 05:17 PM
link   
a reply to: intrptr

Because the majority on this board are. When someone pulls out a young earth creationist doccument as proof, there is only one reason to do so. We have very few IDers debating these topics. Which is a shame, they usually can be origional, and civil about it



posted on Apr, 7 2015 @ 05:31 PM
link   
a reply to: Noinden

Heh...

Well, I think there are a good few fairly together folks here on ATS in that regard... But if we are truly in a minority online, is that really such a bad place for us to be? My experience of majorities thus far, has taught me one important thing about majorities, and that is that it is often wise to avoid being a part of one!



new topics

top topics



 
5
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join