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: 19
42
<< 16  17  18    20 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 10 2015 @ 03:03 AM
link   
a reply to: peter vlar
Evolution is outdated because there is no evidence of any information ever being added to a cell. Period. Therefore, there is no evolving into a higher species. We are devolving. We are in a process, not of evolution, but of extinction. The fossil record shows there were 70 phyla. Today we have 30. There are no more dinosaurs (dragons) that we know of, for example, although we have historical evidence that men lived with dragons. www.iflscience.com...




posted on Jul, 10 2015 @ 03:46 AM
link   
a reply to: Jim Scott

And your evidence to support Biblical creationism is?



posted on Jul, 10 2015 @ 05:54 AM
link   

originally posted by: Jim Scott
a reply to: peter vlar
Evolution is outdated because there is no evidence of any information ever being added to a cell. Period. Therefore, there is no evolving into a higher species. We are devolving. We are in a process, not of evolution, but of extinction. The fossil record shows there were 70 phyla. Today we have 30. There are no more dinosaurs (dragons) that we know of, for example, although we have historical evidence that men lived with dragons. www.iflscience.com...


O boy, care to share that 'historical evidence that man lived with dinosaurs or how do you call them dragons?!

It is incredible to what length people will go to try to validate their religion, yet their religion is not much different then any other ancient one, mythology and collection of folklore tales without good editorial, so it would be rated R or MA material....





originally posted by: Artbellfan
why not teach both

Teaching nonsense to kids is actually abuse of kids and will damage their lives in future. Why teach something we know for sure is wrong? Do you teach them that 1 + 1 = 3 just so you can teach some other view?!

Just look at this thread, how severe damage is to the point that people believe in fairy tales rather then to simple facts...

This has to stop....
edit on 10-7-2015 by SuperFrog because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 10 2015 @ 09:12 AM
link   

originally posted by: SuperFrog
O boy, care to share that 'historical evidence that man lived with dinosaurs or how do you call them dragons?!
The problem is I can't tell when I'm reading Satire or when I'm reading sincere claims due to Poe's law, they read exactly the same.

Without a winking smiley or other blatant display of humor, it is utterly impossible to parody a Creationist in such a way that someone won't mistake it for the genuine article.


Scientists Prove Jesus Walked with Dinosaurs
I think that source implies a winking smiley, so here ya go:



The University at Kentucky Fry has also discovered dinosaur footprints dated 2000 years ago alongside the footprints of man. This incredible discovery alone is enough to cement the theory.
If something like that was actually found it could cause problems for the theory of evolution but claims of such have never been confirmed, so I think evolution still hasn't been falsified even though it's falsifiable.



posted on Jul, 10 2015 @ 09:22 AM
link   

originally posted by: Jim Scott
This thread is simply promoting atheistic naturalism. It is not promoting a view where you follow the truth of science wherever it leads. Back on page 6 I proved, without a shadow of a doubt, with hard science, that creationism is correct. It was completely ignored. Then the thread went on to bash the Bible. As if. The Bible is the best ancient scripture we have today...and the most verified. Heck, when the King James translators (who were incredible experts) began their work, they had access to 5,000 copies to cross verify the text. That allowed them to get to the original autographs. I have no idea why you can't see this, but the Bible says you won't. To me, it's surreal. I can put gobs of truth on the table, and it gets completely ingnored. I guess that's why the Bible said, in the last days, people would be willfully ignorant, professing themselves to be wise (but not), and believing in uniformitarianism. It says you would deny creation, deny the flood of Noah. Man, it was correct. I can't believe I am living in these end times, watching this play out around me while the truth from hard science is completely ignored.


This is your proof that was supposed to prove without a shadow of a doubt, with hard evidence, that creationism is correct? That isn't hard science. That isn't science at all. It's just a Gish Gallop and a logical fallacy. Also that post wasn't ignored. It was answered here, which was more than enough refutation to refute that nonsense. The reason it was further ignored is because you did a drive by posting and didn't back up the refutation.

I'm not sure what "gobs of truth" is and why you'd want to put it on the table, but science works through objective evidence not subjective evidence like the Bible. You haven't posted ANY evidence at all. Just your words and thoughts, which isn't evidence of anything.
edit on 10-7-2015 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 10 2015 @ 09:32 AM
link   

originally posted by: Jim Scott
a reply to: peter vlar
Evolution is outdated because there is no evidence of any information ever being added to a cell. Period. Therefore, there is no evolving into a higher species. We are devolving. We are in a process, not of evolution, but of extinction. The fossil record shows there were 70 phyla. Today we have 30. There are no more dinosaurs (dragons) that we know of, for example, although we have historical evidence that men lived with dragons. www.iflscience.com...


We've already discussed this in pages 15-17 of the topic

Here's your example: genetics adding new information

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.



posted on Jul, 10 2015 @ 09:41 AM
link   
Not sure about rest of you, but it is getting very sad to even read current creationist attempts to validate their belief and make it from imagination into full blown science-like discipline. Seems like full grown kids who still believe in Santa Claus.

What is really sad that people like this, who don't believe in education still are spreading this non-sense to kids and only thanks to internet and education, kids are able to find information that otherwise would not be accessible to them. This is major force behind religion loosing ground in developed world, even in USA, but what worries me is undeveloped world and countries where they forbid science due to conflict with religion.

What is even more surprising, even religious institutions are recognizing evolution and science...

Or perhaps those here might be just little internet trolls... who would know?!



posted on Jul, 10 2015 @ 10:08 AM
link   
a reply to: SuperFrog

What's interesting is how a call to give a unified idea of what Creationism even IS turned into a debate on the validity of evolution. Talk about deflection.



posted on Jul, 10 2015 @ 11:06 AM
link   

originally posted by: Jim Scott
a reply to: peter vlar
Evolution is outdated because there is no evidence of any information ever being added to a cell. Period.


This is entirely false. As ghost147 points out, this has been addressed already. Why not address the evidence instead of ignoring it in perpetuity?


Therefore, there is no evolving into a higher species. We are devolving.


There is no such thing as "devolving". Evolution doesn't have a linear direction, it's about measuring change in allele frequencies, not following a path.


We are in a process, not of evolution, but of extinction.


And your evidence for this is what? I sure hope its more substantial than your page 6 list of "proof" in favor of creationism.


The fossil record shows there were 70 phyla. Today we have 30.


And? All this statement shows is your denialism of science. There have been major extinction events in Earths past, all recorded in the geological column. Should those extinct phyla have preserved themselves magically? Of course not.


There are no more dinosaurs (dragons) that we know of, for example, although we have historical evidence that men lived with dragons. www.iflscience.com...


Please show some actual evidence that humans and dinosaurs walked side by side. I would be satisfied with any dinosaur remains being shown to have been found in the same stratigraphy as remains of humans.

As for your link, all it is saying is that the Holocene Extinction, which is occurring right now, is in part a result of human intervention. It doesn't in any way support your gish gallops. Of course extinction rates are going to be higher during an extinction event! If you compare those levels with levels of50 or 100 thousand years ago, do you believe they would be equitable?



posted on Jul, 10 2015 @ 11:13 AM
link   

originally posted by: Jim Scott
Back on page 6 I proved, without a shadow of a doubt, with hard science, that creationism is correct.


Nonsense. You made up a bunch of alleged predictions and when asked to back it up and prove what you are saying you offer nothing. Where is your response to the many folks that offered counterpoints? Where is your debunking of the actual physical evidence behind evolution. Sorry, I know you don't like it, but creationism is not science, and you haven't provided a shred a evidence to suggest a creator or creation process, no model, no predictions based on anything aside from your personal beliefs.

I could write the exact same post as you except switch god and creation out for the flying spaghetti monster and flat earth and it still makes the same argument. You made the predictions up. They aren't based on any science whatsoever.


It was completely ignored.


Seriously? I saw at least 5 well explained responses to that post. You are the one doing the ignoring here, because you failed to address my post or the several others that debunked you or at least presented very good reasonable doubts to your claims.


The Bible is the best ancient scripture we have today...and the most verified.

That is irrelevant. Nothing in the bible related to god's actions or supernatural events have been verified. Only real city names and a few isolated events. Nothing to do with the actual faith. Greek mythology mentions real places and events too. That doesn't mean the supernatural claims about gods are true.


I can put gobs of truth on the table, and it gets completely ingnored.

You failed to back up your "gobs of truth" with anything tangible or objective.


I can't believe I am living in these end times, watching this play out around me while the truth from hard science is completely ignored.


LMAO. Oh no the end is coming, it's only been coming for 2000 years now.... I'm sure it will be here any day now.

Back up your facts with scientific research papers if it is based on hard science instead of illogical loose inference that prove nothing. Cite unbiased sources that verify this science you refer to. You can't prove creationism by talking about it. You need evidence and none of that has been provided.


This thread is simply promoting atheistic naturalism.


Sorry, but unless you give that evidence you have nothing to stand on. One doesn't need to be an atheist to understand science and realize that religion is faith based.

edit on 10-7-2015 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 10 2015 @ 11:55 AM
link   

originally posted by: Barcs
LMAO. Oh no the end is coming, it's only been coming for 2000 years now.... I'm sure it will be here any day now.


Come on, be serious. End time IS coming... for Earth, in some 4-5 billions of years, with us or without us... does not really makes any difference, except we might speed it up, just like we doing with global climate change... give us big enough tools and for profit we will destroy not planet, but whole solar system(s)...


Another event that might turn tragic (very small possibility, as most likely no stars will collide) is our galaxy and Andromeda collision in ~4billion years...

Just like stated and predicted in bible!!!

(As people who wrote bible did not know even stuff that Greek knew, they called moon source of light... that fact just makes those believing this very sad human beings)



posted on Jul, 10 2015 @ 01:29 PM
link   
a reply to: SuperFrog

If we make it as far as the collision with Andromeda, I will be impressed, as it would mean we survived the sun going red giant. I would love to be alive during such a time. It would be amazing how nice the skies would look. But yeah, we're doomed!!!!



posted on Jul, 10 2015 @ 01:31 PM
link   
a reply to: Barcs

Heck... I'd be impressed if we survived the next 100-200 years as a species (the planet will always recover).



posted on Jul, 10 2015 @ 02:11 PM
link   
a reply to: Ghost147

I think it is going to QUITE hard to eliminate humanity from the planet, regardless of what catastrophe we visit upon it. Humans are just too resourceful and good at working together to be taken down. In order to destroy ourselves, we've have to do a DAMN thorough job of it. Man made climate change wouldn't do it for instance.



posted on Jul, 10 2015 @ 02:12 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Yes, I agree. I suppose it would eliminate Humanity as-we-know-it



posted on Jul, 10 2015 @ 04:59 PM
link   
a reply to: peter vlar


originally posted by: peter vlar
Please explain how a theory is outdated when we are constantly learning new things and adding that knowledge where and when applicable. What specifically is outdated about it? What alternative do you propose?

There's new data, yes. But has the MES been updated to account for this new data? No, it hasn't. It maintains a gene centric structure of evolution that by and large hasn't changed since last established by Maynard Smith et al in the 60's. It has become the prevailing view of evolution - essentially a process consisting of small incremental changes via genetic mutation acting across geological time scales. Natural Selection is considered the only process that leads to adaptation in this construct. I'm sorry, but this is a theory that is severely inadequate given the current research. Especially considering the advancements over the last decade in our understanding of the genome, other inheritance systems, and epigenetics. It has been shown repeatedly that organisms can evolve very quickly, and not necessarily via genetic inheritance. This goes against the very essence of what the MES says.


Who exactly are these people? Mutations and natural selection are only 2 of several forces that act on evolution. Genetic Drift and Punctuated Equilibrium are two more. Unless you had something more specific in mind?

"Who exactly are these people? " Come on Pete, how about we skip the rhetorical questioning. While not my style, I could probably call out a few participating members right from this thread if you must know.

Yes, mutation and NS are two aspects of evolution. And maybe even more so, drift, although I hesitate to call these forces. PE is not an evolutionary mechanism as far as I know. Regardless, there are many other mechanisms at play as you cited which the MES largely ignores. The issue is with those who continually claim that evolution is simply mutation and natural selection, citing the MES as the end all be all.


The only willful ignorance is in making judgments as seen above because none of your charges are true. Or can you demonstrate and cite something that works better?

IS that so?
Please tell me, what was so ignorant or untrue about what I've said?



posted on Jul, 10 2015 @ 05:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: PhotonEffect
a reply to: peter vlar
Please tell me, what was so ignorant or untrue about what I've said?


Let's examine it, shall we?


originally posted by: PhotonEffect
a reply to: peter vlar
There's new data, yes. But has the MES been updated to account for this new data? No, it hasn't. It maintains a gene centric structure of evolution that by and large hasn't changed since last established by Maynard Smith et al in the 60's.


Which new data suggests genes do not play a central role in Evolution? Again, can you source your claims?


originally posted by: PhotonEffect
a reply to: peter vlar
Natural Selection is considered the only process that leads to adaptation in this construct. I'm sorry, but this is a theory that is severely inadequate given the current research.


This was stated in 2007

"I think one of the greatest mysteries in biology at the moment is whether natural selection is the only process capable of generating organismal complexity," said Massimo Pigliucci of the Department of Ecology and Evolution at Stony Brook University in New York, "or whether there are other properties of matter that also come into play. I suspect the latter will turn out to be true."

Considering this statement was said in 2007, that means there wasn't anything evidence that was thoroughly tested at that time to really change the entire theory of evolution. Which means that you must have SOMETHING to show us between 2007 and 2015 that at least suggests otherwise.

Again, even if there is evidence, that time frame is still quite short in order to gather enough evidence and test it rigorously enough to change anything yet.

That's not to say if evidence does come up that does show alternative mechanisms that drive species to adapt, that scientists would be reluctant to do anything about it simply because they cherish the old concept. The Theory of Evolution constantly is being updated according to new findings, what makes one of this subject any different?


originally posted by: PhotonEffect
a reply to: peter vlar
It has been shown repeatedly that organisms can evolve very quickly, and not necessarily via genetic inheritance. This goes against the very essence of what the MES says.


Again, feel free to post your sources. The rate at which organisms evolve does not effect our current model surrounding evolution. I even posted (either on this topic or another) that there was recently a study done on the Cambrian explosion that explains the increased rates at which organisms evolved, and also how those rates still functioned within our current understanding of Evolution.

I can post that article again, if you wish.

And maybe even more so, drift, although I hesitate to call these forces.

Genetic Drift isn't a mechanism or a force, it is simply a description of accumulation over time.


originally posted by: PhotonEffect
a reply to: peter vlar
Regardless, there are many other mechanisms at play as you cited which the MES largely ignores.


You continue to make claims with absolutely nothing to back them up. Once again, post your sources, because opinion has no bearings on a scientific discussion.



posted on Jul, 10 2015 @ 09:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: PhotonEffect
There's new data, yes. But has the MES been updated to account for this new data? No, it hasn't.


Yes, actually it has been updated. Every time we learn something new that can be proven, it is included so that we can broaden our knowledge base. Typically, when this is the response I see it tends to revolve around an hypothesis like epigenetics, you can't include hypothesis within the framework of a theory.


It maintains a gene centric structure of evolution that by and large hasn't changed since last established by Maynard Smith et al in the 60's. It has become the prevailing view of evolution - essentially a process consisting of small incremental changes via genetic mutation acting across geological time scales. Natural Selection is considered the only process that leads to adaptation in this construct.


Not really, there are certainly some adherents to the 60's model and there is some dissent in regards to lateral gene transfer and PE and how far reaching their effects can be but no... a genecentric POV is not how Anthropologists look at the world.



I'm sorry, but this is a theory that is severely inadequate given the current research. Especially considering the advancements over the last decade in our understanding of the genome, other inheritance systems, and epigenetics.


What exactly makes it inadequate? You really haven't articulated an actual argument in favor of this position. I asked earlier to tell me specifically what made the theory outdated and what alternative you have in mind so...


It has been shown repeatedly that organisms can evolve very quickly, and not necessarily via genetic inheritance. This goes against the very essence of what the MES says.

Very broad statements that hinge entirely on perspective. Do single celled organisms evolve very rapidly? Yes they do. Is their primary mechanism lateral gene transfer? very likely so. Applying those tenets to large multicellular organisms though is very much lacking in evidence. If you really think these mechanisms aren't accepted then you need to look twice.



"Who exactly are these people? " Come on Pete, how about we skip the rhetorical questioning. While not my style, I could probably call out a few participating members right from this thread if you must know.


It's not rhetorical at all. Please list some people who actually work in these related fields that concur with your supposition.


Yes, mutation and NS are two aspects of evolution. And maybe even more so, drift, although I hesitate to call these forces.


Sure, mechanisms would have been a better adjective.


PE is not an evolutionary mechanism as far as I know. Regardless, there are many other mechanisms at play as you cited which the MES largely ignores.


PE is indeed a recognized mechanism behind MES. The theory doesn't largely ignore anything that can be substantiated though. Please cite some examples and how they are ignored.


The issue is with those who continually claim that evolution is simply mutation and natural selection, citing the MES as the end all be all.

You're one of the few people I've seen on this trip so again, I don't know who all these people actually are that you keep alluding to.They are certainly the most widely understood mechanisms within MES but they aren't at all the only accepted or recognized ones. Not by a longshot.



IS that so?
Please tell me, what was so ignorant or untrue about what I've said?


I think I've done so in both this and my previous reply to you.



posted on Jul, 10 2015 @ 09:59 PM
link   
Teaching creationism in science class is ludicrous, pure and simple. It would be like teaching someone history and using Captain America as source material. We're not talking about teaching historic views on WWII, we're talking about History.
If you want to teach a class called Scientific Philosophy and Theory fine, include intelligent design. But it does not belong in "Science" class.

To add, including any religious material is just going to be trouble. Religion is based on faith, believing in what one cannot prove, sicence is supposed to be about only what is provable. Being someone who doesn't believe the mainstream idea of our past I know science doesn't always get it right and can be just as corrupt as religion, but at it's base it's about what anyone with the knowledge can test and prove. That's simply contrary to the world view and goals of religions.



******One more add*******

Natural selection is not the only thing that effects evolution, see Epigenetics. Basically external factors that can influence the expression of traits in real time, traits which may or may not be inheritable/inherited. There's a couple of good TED talks out there about it.

edit on 10-7-2015 by nemonimity because: Point I wanted to add but couldn't find the term for the science.



posted on Jul, 14 2015 @ 01:26 AM
link   
I think of the Genesis story of creation as more of a prose-poem than anything else. As an explanation by today's way of thinking, it really doesn't explain anything, but it does provide a starting point for what comes after. Trying to make it a fit for the logical dissection that is science is fundamentally dishonest. It's a conclusion in search of a theory. I don't think Biblical literalism is necessary to be a Christian. Indeed, it's a throwback to the era before the start of science, when people believed in witches and such.
a reply to: Krazysh0t




top topics



 
42
<< 16  17  18    20 >>

log in

join