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.

 

Why Creationism Should Never be Taught in Science Class

page: 16
42
<< 13  14  15    17  18  19 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 8 2015 @ 05:35 PM
link   
a reply to: Ghost147


Most people think that HIV can infect everyone. What those people do not know is that when a person has two parents with the delta 32 mutation in the gene CCR5, then double-dosage creates a new function. That child is now totally immune to becoming infected with HIV.

Wow!

Really?
That's amazing, and I'm very glad to know it. Thanks.

EDIT: Hey, I might have missed it - but, do you have a link for this research? I really want to read it.

edit on 7/8/2015 by BuzzyWigs because: (no reason given)




posted on Jul, 8 2015 @ 05:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: Ghost147
a reply to: chr0naut

I don't think you're fully visualizing what I'm attempting to prove.

Most people think that HIV can infect everyone. What those people do not know is that when a person has two parents with the delta 32 mutation in the gene CCR5, then double-dosage creates a new function. That child is now totally immune to becoming infected with HIV.

The parents can still have the chance of being infected with HIV if they are exposed, but because those two genes came together, they created something entirely new.

Not a recessed mutation that their whole lineage has, but a brand new function all together.


Firstly, that entirely fits the description of a recessive trait.

Secondly, you have made an assumption that the Delta 32 sequence arose from a mutation. There could be other reasons it is there in some people.

Thirdly, I did not know that about genetic resistance to HIV, thank you for educating me.



posted on Jul, 8 2015 @ 07:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: chr0naut


Firstly, that entirely fits the description of a recessive trait.

Secondly, you have made an assumption that the Delta 32 sequence arose from a mutation. There could be other reasons it is there in some people.


The Delta 32 allele mutation is a deletion to the gene sequence of CCR5, hence the delta designation. There's no way for that to be the result of a recessive gene expressing itself. This is an actual mutation to the allele in question.

ETA while CCR5 delta32 does in fact have beneficial effects that affect HIV transmission and very likely small pox as well, it leaves those who have the mutation more vulnerable to West Nile virus and perhaps others. There is a great deal of ongoing research as a result of its beneficial applications in protecting against HIV

edit on 8-7-2015 by Peter vlar because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 8 2015 @ 07:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
a reply to: Ghost147


Most people think that HIV can infect everyone. What those people do not know is that when a person has two parents with the delta 32 mutation in the gene CCR5, then double-dosage creates a new function. That child is now totally immune to becoming infected with HIV.

Wow!

Really?
That's amazing, and I'm very glad to know it. Thanks.

EDIT: Hey, I might have missed it - but, do you have a link for this research? I really want to read it.


I didn't source the material, but here you go!


genetics.thetech.org...


originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Ghost147
a reply to: chr0naut

I don't think you're fully visualizing what I'm attempting to prove.

Most people think that HIV can infect everyone. What those people do not know is that when a person has two parents with the delta 32 mutation in the gene CCR5, then double-dosage creates a new function. That child is now totally immune to becoming infected with HIV.

The parents can still have the chance of being infected with HIV if they are exposed, but because those two genes came together, they created something entirely new.

Not a recessed mutation that their whole lineage has, but a brand new function all together.


Firstly, that entirely fits the description of a recessive trait.


Peter vlar does a good job at explaining.

What I meant to get at was simply that the two combining proteins of CCR5 from both parents create something entirely new.

The same concept is intrinsic to all of Evolution. Once that new genetic material has come about, a further function could arise if, say, two people with CCR5-delta32 were to reproduce. Thus creating yet another new gene and adding to the further evolution of the human who has it.

A lot of people (and I'm not sure if you fit in this category or not, please feel free to let me know) view genetics as a deck of cards. where it's simply a shuffling of the deck, without any new information coming out of it. This concept is false.


originally posted by: chr0naut
Secondly, you have made an assumption that the Delta 32 sequence arose from a mutation. There could be other reasons it is there in some people.


No, it's pretty definitive what the cause is. It's literally called CCR5-delta32 simply due to the double dosage of the CCR5 protein. It's still CCR5, just upgraded.


originally posted by: chr0naut
Thirdly, I did not know that about genetic resistance to HIV, thank you for educating me.



You're very welcome

edit on 8/7/15 by Ghost147 because: (no reason given)

edit on 8/7/15 by Ghost147 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 8 2015 @ 07:40 PM
link   
a reply to: peter vlar




Personally, and I've said it a million times, I find that religion and faith are such personal things that they are best learned and appreciated at home and within the community that your faith is associated with...your congregation. There is so little consensus even amongst the multitude of Christian denominations themselves, that to even design a curriculum properly is a chore and either way... it just doesn't belong in a science based classroom.


And I have no hardship with that, seeing school was pretty much
exactly that for me anyway. School isn't church while church can do
it's schooling well enough at it's traditional pace.

I have at least a few diffrent times, woke from my slumbers
some how in the middle of a great effort. Insanely trying to
help a world that before my eyes closed, I helped make insane.



posted on Jul, 8 2015 @ 08:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: Peter vlar

originally posted by: chr0naut


Firstly, that entirely fits the description of a recessive trait.

Secondly, you have made an assumption that the Delta 32 sequence arose from a mutation. There could be other reasons it is there in some people.


The Delta 32 allele mutation is a deletion to the gene sequence of CCR5, hence the delta designation. There's no way for that to be the result of a recessive gene expressing itself. This is an actual mutation to the allele in question.

ETA while CCR5 delta32 does in fact have beneficial effects that affect HIV transmission and very likely small pox as well, it leaves those who have the mutation more vulnerable to West Nile virus and perhaps others. There is a great deal of ongoing research as a result of its beneficial applications in protecting against HIV


As Delta 32 specifically appears to be a deletion of thirty two base pairs, I accede that it is most probably a mutation.

See, I can be reasonable.



posted on Jul, 8 2015 @ 08:13 PM
link   
a reply to: chr0naut

My respect for you has just shot through the roof


I love when ATS members can be humble and admit an honest mistake (including myself), whilst still being level headed and respectful. Good character, my good sir!
edit on 8/7/15 by Ghost147 because: Typo



posted on Jul, 8 2015 @ 08:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: SuperFrog

originally posted by: hudsonhawk69
The history books are full of science fairy tales... It's only appropriate that religion should be found there too!


History books is full of atrocities of those believing in fairy tales against those using their own head. Hundred of years of witch hunting and burning at stake... just to preserve illusion and keep ignorance?!

If I were you, I would not use history, science and religion in the same sentence...

Of course, you know that when you say 'fairy tales' - we all know you are talking about religion, do you??


What I know is that science is commonly assumed to be absolutely true when in fact scientific theories come and go as our understanding changes. I also know that more and more often scientific theory and religious theory are starting to align. Science and spirituality can and should coexist in agreement with each other. Neither creation nor evolution are correct in their theology and to believe that one of the other is, is narrow minded and silly. No absolute proof exists to support either theory.

The latest theory from the quantum physics camp is that reality could be an elaborate hologram. What happens to your argument if that should show itself to be credible? So much of our 'science' is based upon unprovable assumptions just like creationism. If you don't understand how or why this happens then you aren't asking yourself the correct questions.



posted on Jul, 8 2015 @ 08:34 PM
link   
a reply to: hudsonhawk69

Comparing theoretical physics to a physical Earth Science isn't even a strawman argument. You can argue all day long that creationism should be taught alongside valid science but it's just not a true story. Creationism has its place in Catechism or bible study, not a science class. Evolution is a fact, the Theory describes the why and how of evolution.



posted on Jul, 8 2015 @ 08:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: TzarChasm
a reply to: hudsonhawk69

congratulations on having an opinion. get in line...although its a rather long one at this point. now, if you feel like sharing actual science, that is something we could always use more of around here.


I like your high handed approach in this post. It truly highlights your inability to entertain any notion of something different from that which you have been taught. We can toss around scientific process, theory and hypothesis until the cows come. If you however are completely unable to understand the importance of philosophy is science then everything that comes after this point is a waste of time.

It is absolutely true that absolute truth does not exist



posted on Jul, 8 2015 @ 08:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: TzarChasm
a reply to: hudsonhawk69

if you enjoyed that article, then you should also enjoy this thread as well, courtesy of the very same member who started the thread we are currently participating in.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

i think if you actually read and absorb, you will find your confusion is largely cleared up. and whatever is left should be easily dealt with through further investigation via the numerous resources supplied around ats, readily available to the daring adventurer.


I could refute every point made in the referred post. As I said, what's the point? You are completely unable and unwilling to view the world any other way than what you currently do.

How very creationist of you! And THAT my friend is a point that needs no scientific support. You have quite happily written it all over the pages of this thread for everyone to read.

Thank you.



posted on Jul, 8 2015 @ 08:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: TzarChasm
a reply to: hudsonhawk69


I really don't have the time to convince people that I am correct.


then we dont have the time to consider your...how shall i phrase this...Ludicrous Online Lies. LOL!

see ya bud.


Your assumption that someone can be convinced of something through argument highlights your ignorance. This can rarely be achieved. 'YOU' might suggest that creationist were proof of that!
edit on 8/7/2015 by hudsonhawk69 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 8 2015 @ 08:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: Ghost147

originally posted by: hudsonhawk69
a reply to: Krazysh0t
I did read read the material that you provided. What I did not see was any proof that any one of the animals that Darwin refers to evolved from something else. Only the fact that it was different. Lots of things are different. Where is the proof of evolution? I see no new genetic material here. Only the refining of existing genetic material through natural selection.


Your own ignorance on the subject is preventing you from learning about the subject. The reason you didn't see 'proof' of what you asked for is because you asked "Show me proof of evolution"


Evolution through natural selection is simply a loss of genetic material if anything. Human evolving from apes, Something crawling out the ocean and starting to walk etc all require the addition of new genetic material. You may be able to cite cases of viruses or bacteria acquiring new genetic material. But it's still an effing bacteria isn't it? It didn't grow legs and walk away. It didn't become a flux. It's still just a bacteria or a virus. There is no real proof here folks. Not yet anyway.
There is not one single piece of absolute truth to prove that a complex organism like an ape has ever evolved into another complex organism... like a human.
If you look closely you'll find it's the scientific community that changes our perception of evolution as are constantly trying to definitively prove the theory as fact.
Which a number of members did.

Now you're asking something totally different (again, due to your ignorance), by asking "Show me proof of something evolving into something totally different"

Yet you don't understand that evolution doesn't work that way. Evolution isn't about one Family or Genus magically becoming another Family or Genus. It is a very slow, very gradual, process that takes millions of years to achieve that.

The only difference between Micro and Macro evolution is timescale. That is it. Get it through your head.

We can't prove anything to you not because we don't have the proof, but because you have such a vast number of misconceptions and your so unwilling to realize just how misconceived your concepts are that no matter what we show you it won't do a thing. Not because it isn't substantial, obvious proof. But because you are so ignorant on the subject that you can't understand that it's proof.



posted on Jul, 8 2015 @ 08:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: hudsonhawk69

originally posted by: SuperFrog

originally posted by: hudsonhawk69
The history books are full of science fairy tales... It's only appropriate that religion should be found there too!


History books is full of atrocities of those believing in fairy tales against those using their own head. Hundred of years of witch hunting and burning at stake... just to preserve illusion and keep ignorance?!

If I were you, I would not use history, science and religion in the same sentence...

Of course, you know that when you say 'fairy tales' - we all know you are talking about religion, do you??


What I know is that science is commonly assumed to be absolutely true


We have addressed your misconception about this a number of times. Perhaps you should actually read the comments that reply to you?

Science is never about absolute truth. It is merely our tool in which we apply to help understand and explain how a naturally occurring phenomenon functions. Science is solely about probability, it is never going to be 100% correct


originally posted by: BELIEVERpriest
a reply to: JadeStar
when in fact scientific theories come and go as our understanding changes.


Absolutely correct! give the man a star! (don't actually, it was only an accident that he came to this conclusion.

Again, science helps explain to the best of our current knowledge, how a phenomenon functions. If evidence arises that shows our previous explanation was incorrect, then it will change to make a more accurate description.



posted on Jul, 8 2015 @ 08:58 PM
link   
hudsonhawk69



Your assumption that someone can be convinced of something through argument highlights your ignorance. This can rarely be achieved. 'YOU' might suggest that creationist were proof of that!

Are you really that afraid to ask the basic question? Are you really that afraid to admit you don't know the answer? The truth is, you don't know. You believe, but belief isn't truth. I would really like to see us exit the dark age in my lifetime. Not sure I'll see it though.



posted on Jul, 8 2015 @ 09:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: Ghost147

originally posted by: hudsonhawk69
a reply to: Barcs
The Theory of Modern Evolutionary Synthesis is still as stated quite clearly a 'theory'. Once this theory of evolution has been tested repeatedly using the scientific process achieving consistent results this will then become an accepted truth. Given that it is currently and possibly always will be completely impossible to practically test evolutionary theory than I guess it will always remain theory.


You're mixing up the scientific use of 'Theory' with the proposed-example use of 'Theory'.

In order for a scientific theory to become a scientific theory it is first a scientific hypothesis. Once enough evidence accumulates to support the hypothesis, it moves to the next step — known as a theory — in the scientific method and becomes accepted as a valid explanation of a phenomenon.

To gather evidence what do scientists do? That's right! They do experiments. and there are thousands upon thousands of experiments that directly support the theory of Evolution.


originally posted by: hudsonhawk69
a reply to: Barcs
I'm assuming at this point that you understand the difference between evolution an natural selection?


Will you STOP asking that?!?!? How many times do we have to say that no one is claiming evolution and natural selection to be the same thing. How about you respond to all the posts that explain that instead of skipping the record your mind lives on?


originally posted by: hudsonhawk69
a reply to: Barcs
I'm not denying science. I'm denying ignorance.


What's ironic is that you're on massive ignorance is both denying science and denying it's own state of ignorance at the same time...


originally posted by: hudsonhawk69
a reply to: Barcs
Scientific fact once told us that the world was flat however I'm supposed to believe that evolution is infallible?


Uh, no. science didn't claim that....

"The flat Earth model is an archaic conception of the Earth's shape as a plane or disk. Many ancient cultures subscribed to a flat Earth cosmography, including Greece until the classical period, the Bronze Age and Iron Age civilizations of the Near East until the Hellenistic period, India until the Gupta period (early centuries AD) and China until the 17th century. That paradigm was also typically held in the aboriginal cultures of the Americas, and the notion of a flat Earth domed by the firmament in the shape of an inverted bowl is common in pre-scientific societies."

What science did is prove that concept wrong.

And no one said that Evolution is infallible! To be scientific it MUST BE FALSIFIABLE!


originally posted by: hudsonhawk69
a reply to: Barcs
If you want a source for that open your mind and do some objective research into creationism.


HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHAHAHAHAHAHA...

No more needs to be said about that claim.

We are still talking about Last Thursdayism creationism, right?


originally posted by: hudsonhawk69
a reply to: Barcs
You and I are both smart enough to know that no matter how much we argue about it we are not going to change each others mind so please stop wasting my time.


You're the one asking questions. You are more than welcome to leave this thread. You don't even respond to the people who respond to your comments anyway, so why are you still here?


originally posted by: hudsonhawk69
a reply to: Barcs
There is no absolute proof to support evolution or creationism and why do we all have to be so narrow minded and naive as to believe that these are the only two options... Or that in fact our origins may actually be a culmination of facts and ideas coming many differing theories and philosophies.


Because all the evidence... as in ALL the evidence, suggests that life evolves. The reason we don't look into the other options is because all the other options have been thoroughly debunked, save Evolution.


Wow! That's quite an amazing post.

From there I really have nowhere to go except back to the beginning. Judging by this post you seem to understand exactly what I said in the first place. The scientific process makes no bones about the fact that is impossible to know any absolute truths as a certainty. Quantum Physics as a science clearly highlights the strong tendency for scientist to look for, find, and prove, exactly that which he set out to find and prove!

Amazing!



posted on Jul, 8 2015 @ 09:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: hudsonhawk69

originally posted by: Ghost147

originally posted by: hudsonhawk69
a reply to: Barcs
The Theory of Modern Evolutionary Synthesis is still as stated quite clearly a 'theory'. Once this theory of evolution has been tested repeatedly using the scientific process achieving consistent results this will then become an accepted truth. Given that it is currently and possibly always will be completely impossible to practically test evolutionary theory than I guess it will always remain theory.


You're mixing up the scientific use of 'Theory' with the proposed-example use of 'Theory'.

In order for a scientific theory to become a scientific theory it is first a scientific hypothesis. Once enough evidence accumulates to support the hypothesis, it moves to the next step — known as a theory — in the scientific method and becomes accepted as a valid explanation of a phenomenon.

To gather evidence what do scientists do? That's right! They do experiments. and there are thousands upon thousands of experiments that directly support the theory of Evolution.


originally posted by: hudsonhawk69
a reply to: Barcs
I'm assuming at this point that you understand the difference between evolution an natural selection?


Will you STOP asking that?!?!? How many times do we have to say that no one is claiming evolution and natural selection to be the same thing. How about you respond to all the posts that explain that instead of skipping the record your mind lives on?


originally posted by: hudsonhawk69
a reply to: Barcs
I'm not denying science. I'm denying ignorance.


What's ironic is that you're on massive ignorance is both denying science and denying it's own state of ignorance at the same time...


originally posted by: hudsonhawk69
a reply to: Barcs
Scientific fact once told us that the world was flat however I'm supposed to believe that evolution is infallible?


Uh, no. science didn't claim that....

"The flat Earth model is an archaic conception of the Earth's shape as a plane or disk. Many ancient cultures subscribed to a flat Earth cosmography, including Greece until the classical period, the Bronze Age and Iron Age civilizations of the Near East until the Hellenistic period, India until the Gupta period (early centuries AD) and China until the 17th century. That paradigm was also typically held in the aboriginal cultures of the Americas, and the notion of a flat Earth domed by the firmament in the shape of an inverted bowl is common in pre-scientific societies."

What science did is prove that concept wrong.

And no one said that Evolution is infallible! To be scientific it MUST BE FALSIFIABLE!


originally posted by: hudsonhawk69
a reply to: Barcs
If you want a source for that open your mind and do some objective research into creationism.


HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHAHAHAHAHAHA...

No more needs to be said about that claim.

We are still talking about Last Thursdayism creationism, right?


originally posted by: hudsonhawk69
a reply to: Barcs
You and I are both smart enough to know that no matter how much we argue about it we are not going to change each others mind so please stop wasting my time.


You're the one asking questions. You are more than welcome to leave this thread. You don't even respond to the people who respond to your comments anyway, so why are you still here?


originally posted by: hudsonhawk69
a reply to: Barcs
There is no absolute proof to support evolution or creationism and why do we all have to be so narrow minded and naive as to believe that these are the only two options... Or that in fact our origins may actually be a culmination of facts and ideas coming many differing theories and philosophies.


Because all the evidence... as in ALL the evidence, suggests that life evolves. The reason we don't look into the other options is because all the other options have been thoroughly debunked, save Evolution.


Wow! That's quite an amazing post.

From there I really have nowhere to go except back to the beginning. Judging by this post you seem to understand exactly what I said in the first place. The scientific process makes no bones about the fact that is impossible to know any absolute truths as a certainty. Quantum Physics as a science clearly highlights the strong tendency for scientist to look for, find, and prove, exactly that which he set out to find and prove!

Amazing!


You act as if I made a fool of myself by stating science does not claim absolute truths. (unless of course your post just seems sarcastic, and really isn't)

If that is the case, then you certainly do not see the logic behind falsifiability. It's a good thing to be falsifiable, because when people make amazing claims that are not able to be challenged, then there is no way to prove if they are factual or not. To be unfalsifiable is to be intellectually irresponsible, close minded, and arrogant.



posted on Jul, 8 2015 @ 10:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: Ghost147

originally posted by: hudsonhawk69

originally posted by: SuperFrog

originally posted by: hudsonhawk69
The history books are full of science fairy tales... It's only appropriate that religion should be found there too!


History books is full of atrocities of those believing in fairy tales against those using their own head. Hundred of years of witch hunting and burning at stake... just to preserve illusion and keep ignorance?!

If I were you, I would not use history, science and religion in the same sentence...

Of course, you know that when you say 'fairy tales' - we all know you are talking about religion, do you??


What I know is that science is commonly assumed to be absolutely true


We have addressed your misconception about this a number of times. Perhaps you should actually read the comments that reply to you?

Science is never about absolute truth. It is merely our tool in which we apply to help understand and explain how a naturally occurring phenomenon functions. Science is solely about probability, it is never going to be 100% correct


originally posted by: BELIEVERpriest
a reply to: JadeStar
when in fact scientific theories come and go as our understanding changes.


Absolutely correct! give the man a star! (don't actually, it was only an accident that he came to this conclusion.

Again, science helps explain to the best of our current knowledge, how a phenomenon functions. If evidence arises that shows our previous explanation was incorrect, then it will change to make a more accurate description.


Excellent! You completely understand and yet your completely unable or unwilling to a recognize the fact that same short comings are evident in both evolution and creationism.

Interesting.



posted on Jul, 8 2015 @ 10:06 PM
link   
a reply to: hudsonhawk69

Can you name anything a creation model doesn't fall short of?


edit on 7-8-2015 by WakeUpBeer because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 8 2015 @ 10:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: rollanotherone
hudsonhawk69



Your assumption that someone can be convinced of something through argument highlights your ignorance. This can rarely be achieved. 'YOU' might suggest that creationist were proof of that!

Are you really that afraid to ask the basic question? Are you really that afraid to admit you don't know the answer? The truth is, you don't know. You believe, but belief isn't truth. I would really like to see us exit the dark age in my lifetime. Not sure I'll see it though.


Ask what question?

I do know the answer.

The answer is that all truth should it really exist is relative.

My point remains the same. Evolution is simply an alternative theory from creationism based on relative interpretation of the same data. Both are based on a multitude of assumptions weather you label or view those assumptions scientific or not. Therefore evolution has no more of a factual basis on which to be taught in schools than creationism. Both are simply opposing theories trying to explain a phenomenon that is potentially completely pointless in understanding.



new topics

top topics



 
42
<< 13  14  15    17  18  19 >>

log in

join