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.

 

Finally, Most Young Americans Now Accept Evolution Over Creationism

page: 2
15
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 26 2015 @ 03:11 PM
link   
a reply to: Cosmic911




If you gleaned the idea of what I was conveying, you'd recognize the quote was implicitly relevant, and no way taken out of context.


It is absolutely taken out of context, you have been shown twice that it was...




posted on Nov, 26 2015 @ 03:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: Cosmic911
a reply to: spygeek

If you gleaned the idea of what I was conveying, you'd recognize the quote was implicitly relevant, and no way taken out of context. You fail to recognize that because you responded to the thread with your own biased opinion on the subject matter.


After reading your sig and noticing your use of the word 'Darwinism' i'm pretty sure you're guilty of the above just as much as anyone else.



posted on Nov, 26 2015 @ 03:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: Prezbo369

originally posted by: Cosmic911
a reply to: spygeek

If you gleaned the idea of what I was conveying, you'd recognize the quote was implicitly relevant, and no way taken out of context. You fail to recognize that because you responded to the thread with your own biased opinion on the subject matter.


After reading your sig and noticing your use of the word 'Darwinism' i'm pretty sure you're guilty of the above just as much as anyone else.


Ok, I'll try to sum it up and break it down for you...The universe is BIG and complex. It's likely that neither theory is 100% correct. It's plausible that portions of each theory might contribute to a greater truth.



posted on Nov, 26 2015 @ 03:52 PM
link   
a reply to: Cosmic911

It's clear that all you're interested in is conjuring up a set of beliefs that you can squeeze into the rational and scientific world.

Yes the universe is a big place, but that then doesn't mean that any and all ideas and thoughts are equally as valid as comprehensive and evidence backed scientific theories.



posted on Nov, 26 2015 @ 04:07 PM
link   
a reply to: Cosmic911

Succinctly stated, science and religion can operate in different realms. Science is very good at answering the 'how' questions. How did the universe evolve to the form that we see? But it is woefully inadequate in addressing the 'why' questions. Why is there a universe at all? Stefan Lovgren

Is a clean separation between science and religion possible? I say no, not for me.


The Bible must not be taken literally, but should be read allegorically. Furthermore, to many scientists, their discoveries may not be that different from religious revelations. Science advancements may even draw scientists closer to religion.



"The universe is incredibly wondrous, incredibly beautiful, and it fills me with a sense that there is some underlying explanation that we have yet to fully understand," he said. "If someone wants to place the word God on those collections of words, it's OK with me."
Brian Greene



posted on Nov, 26 2015 @ 04:09 PM
link   
a reply to: Prezbo369



It's clear that all you're interested in is conjuring up a set of beliefs that you can squeeze into the rational and scientific world.

You really have failed miserably at gleaning the point of thread.



posted on Nov, 26 2015 @ 04:41 PM
link   
a reply to: Cosmic911

The ‘molecules-to-man’ theory of evolution can be problematic to creationists, not all evolution. This is the theory that rejects any participation by God; and it is this theory that is incompatible with Christianity. This is one of the absolutes that prevents one theory from disseminating with the other to form a more scientifically-palatable theory for proponents of creationism.



posted on Nov, 26 2015 @ 05:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: Cosmic911
a reply to: Cosmic911

The ‘molecules-to-man’ theory of evolution can be problematic to creationists, not all evolution. This is the theory that rejects any participation by God; and it is this theory that is incompatible with Christianity. This is one of the absolutes that prevents one theory from disseminating with the other to form a more scientifically-palatable theory for proponents of creationism.



Try Hominids to man. How did organic molecules achieve a high enough level of complexity to be considered as “living”? We do not know, how life originated on this planet has nothing to do with Toe.

Your argument is invalid.



posted on Nov, 26 2015 @ 05:40 PM
link   
Let's see what comes of this growing popular way of thinking only time will tell.

With religion included in the curriculum we have made still some good progress up until now and still are even if it is mostly already removed from public the public educational system. In my mind, the removal of religion really is to remove the values that go with it ,to take things a step further, in my opinion, techs that deal with cloning, birth, transhumanism, brain upgrades, drastic gene modifications, etc. These techs seem to exist from what read here on ATS, but are sometimes conflicting with certain peoples view of this world.

This leads me to the idea that to give the idea of religion or creationism full credit is not good, but to remove it completely is equally foolish. I mean, if the idea of God and how we came about according to the believers is so out of wack then with time it will fade away, kind of like Hitlers philosophy around the time he went nuts. Let us decide in a democratic fashion.

Another point I am fascinated with is some want so much want to become this fictional character, that is God all the while rejecting him. I admire what I want to become, whether it be an ideal or a real human.

This can be good if used properly, extremism is distasteful. As Jesus said: "Moderation is of much better taste." But, he didn't exist so we shouldn't listen to him. Ahem...



posted on Nov, 26 2015 @ 05:47 PM
link   
I love how the two just HAVE to be mutually exclusive.




posted on Nov, 26 2015 @ 05:59 PM
link   
a reply to: flyingfish

This isn't MY argument. It never was. You'd know that if you read the OP.



posted on Nov, 26 2015 @ 06:07 PM
link   
a reply to: MrConspiracy

They aren't necessarily but hard for them to coexist.

Especially from a strictly scientific point since you want to remove the idea of actions of the supernatural.



posted on Nov, 26 2015 @ 06:26 PM
link   
a reply to: Sremmos80

I find interesting your choice of words "want to remove": why would you want to remove? If you are a true scientist you don't look to remove, you look for the truth.

Tell me, what is supernaural to you?



posted on Nov, 26 2015 @ 06:32 PM
link   
a reply to: bitsforbytes

The point is they discourage,strongly, the practice of turning to a supernatural reason when the explanation can not be found.
Remove may be to strong of a word, agreed.

Supernatural is something that goes against the laws of nature, that to the best of our knowledge are universal.



posted on Nov, 26 2015 @ 06:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sremmos80

Supernatural is something that goes against the laws of nature, that to the best of our knowledge are universal.



Why are there laws of nature, and why are they universal?



posted on Nov, 26 2015 @ 06:44 PM
link   
a reply to: Prezbo369

Yea.. no.. the only thing I was ever taught was Evolution...Churches probably had a different view point... but yea I never ran into it till I was done with school.. years after I was done with school.

While towards the end of the 20th sure... Ill give you that... the entire 20th is pure hyperbole.
edit on 26-11-2015 by Irishhaf because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 26 2015 @ 06:56 PM
link   
a reply to: Sremmos80

You do know that there are laws of nature that we still don't know about?

That some laws have happened only once or twice since the beginning of time?

We have nothing recorded and yet it still happened.

That may happen again any day!

What is a law of nature in your case?



posted on Nov, 26 2015 @ 07:06 PM
link   
a reply to: bitsforbytes




You do know that there are laws of nature that we still don't know about?

Sure, we don't know everything yet and just saying you don't know is better then saying that it is the work of a 'god' or something supernatural.




That some laws have happened only once or twice since the beginning of time?

Like what?
a reply to: Teikiatsu
www.iep.utm.edu...
Read up and it was I believe Newton that talked about them as universal first.
Which is to mean there is not separate laws on earth and in space, since space was seen as the heavens long ago.
And because of that thought to not work like things do on earth.
edit on thThu, 26 Nov 2015 19:08:16 -0600America/Chicago1120151680 by Sremmos80 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 26 2015 @ 08:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sremmos80

a reply to: Teikiatsu
www.iep.utm.edu...
Read up and it was I believe Newton that talked about them as universal first.
Which is to mean there is not separate laws on earth and in space, since space was seen as the heavens long ago.
And because of that thought to not work like things do on earth.


Yes, I know there are laws of nature that are constant. That was not my point, nor my question.

WHY are there laws of nature, and WHY are they universal?



posted on Nov, 26 2015 @ 08:11 PM
link   
a reply to: Teikiatsu

Because scientist have observed over time how things work here on earth and decided to call them the laws of nature, among other names of course.
And they are universal because they have been observed to work the same way in space.

All of that is of course subject to change and not final but just the best possible explanation.

What part do you take issue with?
edit on thThu, 26 Nov 2015 20:12:26 -0600America/Chicago1120152680 by Sremmos80 because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
15
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join