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: 6
15
<< 3  4  5    7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 29 2015 @ 03:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: skoalman88
a reply to: Cosmic911
It's really sad that people need to have their beliefs validated in order to feel secure.


It's akin to many other 'things' in the U.S. We are told we must 'pick' one or the other. In American politics, it seems only the two-party system can prevail, no room for third parties here.



(post by skoalman88 removed for a manners violation)

posted on Nov, 29 2015 @ 04:29 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Nov, 29 2015 @ 04:50 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Nov, 29 2015 @ 05:24 PM
link   

edit on 29-11-2015 by peter vlar because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 29 2015 @ 06:13 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Nov, 29 2015 @ 06:15 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Nov, 29 2015 @ 06:53 PM
link   
Mod note:

The topic is the debate between Creationism and Evolution, not Climate Science.

Do not respond to this post.



posted on Nov, 30 2015 @ 01:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: flyingfish
a reply to: SeaWorthy




Yes well many of our brightest people on this planet today also believe,


Besides being wrong, arguments from personal credulity and appeals to authority are irrelevant.




science is finding that order goes deep, an order that is hardly random!


We'll add quantum mechanics to the list of things you don't understand. If you need details look up the Schrödinger equation.




Your own DNA is possibly a language, language does not create itself.

When DNA sequences were discovered they appeared to be some kind of code, so we started called them that. It doesn't mean that computer code and DNA code are the same thing, i.e. needing a programmer. If anything DNA "code" is mostly pure data which translates to amino acid sequences.




Religions have made a mess of things with greed and the need for power, but that has nothing to do with creation nor the creator.

Religion created the creator.


And if it turns out we live in a virtual environment are you going to continue this line of reasoning?



posted on Nov, 30 2015 @ 01:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: SeaWorthy
And if it turns out we live in a virtual environment are you going to continue this line of reasoning?


What if it turns out we live on the back of a giant turtle? Are you going to continue this line of reasoning?

You can ask what ifs until the cows come home, it doesn't get us anywhere in the discussion. DNA is not a language. It is a sequence of atoms that we INTERPRET as a code. Big difference. Humans created the code so we could interpret the genome more efficiently.
edit on 11 30 15 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 30 2015 @ 01:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: Cosmic911
a reply to: Cosmic911

"Science without religion is lame; religion without science is blind." —Albert Einstein


I disagree. From my experience, religion usually holds science back when it discovers that things don't work exactly how religion has always described. Hence the evolution/Creationism debate.


Astronomy has come together so that we're now able to tell a coherent story of how the universe began. This story does not contradict God, but instead enlarges [the idea of] God.


The only way that I can see that god can exist, is if he exists within the gaps in science.

PS: Your Einstein quote is a quote mine. Einstein's Famous Quote About Science and Religion Didn't Mean What You Were Taught



posted on Nov, 30 2015 @ 01:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: MrConspiracy
I love how the two just HAVE to be mutually exclusive.



until such a time as evidence provides a concrete foundation for merging creationism with evolution (and i will leave it to the certified experienced and published professionals to determine that time), its generally understood that the evidence for evolution is not evidence for creation...unless you believe in validation by mere association. which is an unethical and transparent ploy.



posted on Nov, 30 2015 @ 02:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: SeaWorthy

originally posted by: flyingfish
a reply to: SeaWorthy




Yes well many of our brightest people on this planet today also believe,


Besides being wrong, arguments from personal credulity and appeals to authority are irrelevant.




science is finding that order goes deep, an order that is hardly random!


We'll add quantum mechanics to the list of things you don't understand. If you need details look up the Schrödinger equation.




Your own DNA is possibly a language, language does not create itself.

When DNA sequences were discovered they appeared to be some kind of code, so we started called them that. It doesn't mean that computer code and DNA code are the same thing, i.e. needing a programmer. If anything DNA "code" is mostly pure data which translates to amino acid sequences.




Religions have made a mess of things with greed and the need for power, but that has nothing to do with creation nor the creator.

Religion created the creator.


And if it turns out we live in a virtual environment are you going to continue this line of reasoning?


If water wasn't wet, if the sky wasn't blue... Demonstrate evidence in favor of this and there might be a conversation to be had. Until then it's all circular reasoning. Your rhetoric revolving around DNA being language and language not creating itself is nothing more than an attempt to anthropomorphise a solution to a problem you're not versed enough in to grasp.


a reply to: Barcs

You've got some serious balls interjecting facts into this discussion.



posted on Nov, 30 2015 @ 02:14 PM
link   
a reply to: SeaWorthy

There is ZERO evidence of his existence if you use any or all of your senses. Let me remind me of your five primary senses: Seeing; Hearing; Touching, Tasting and Feeling. Apply any of those to determining the existence of god and you come up empty every time. No if "belief" is a sense (by your definition) you are willing to depend on, then no evidence brought forward to proof otherwise will ever be accepted by a religious person. By your own admission you say "you feel very differently". This is not about your feelings/beliefs, this is about hard core evidence which you chooses to ignore.

I await you portraying even ONE evidence, just one, to back up your claim of evidence of a creator.



posted on Dec, 1 2015 @ 09:38 AM
link   

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: MrConspiracy
I love how the two just HAVE to be mutually exclusive.



until such a time as evidence provides a concrete foundation for merging creationism with evolution (and i will leave it to the certified experienced and published professionals to determine that time), its generally understood that the evidence for evolution is not evidence for creation...unless you believe in validation by mere association. which is an unethical and transparent ploy.


It just makes me laugh how people have to be one way or another. You're either a "creationist" or an "evolutionist" ... there's no middle ground. I've said this time and time again... both theories have merit.

I try to look at the bigger picture and understand that it is beyond our human capabilities at this time to even comprehend where we (or anything) originated from.

I still to this day believe there is some form of design in this universe. I can't personally think about our galaxy let alone everything outside of it without coming to that conclusion. I won't delve much further in order to keep on topic.

Right now I know Evolution seems our best bet to explain away our origins. But I think it's ridiculously misguided to think it starts and ends there.
edit on 1-12-2015 by MrConspiracy because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 1 2015 @ 09:43 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

The problem is the more gaps "science" (such a broad term) closes, the more it opens. It's like trying to fit something too small over a larger surface. There will always be gaps. There's gaps for a reason. Humans (as the researchers of "science") can only explain so much without it opening a whole new plethora of questions... and subsequently throwing old theories and understanding out the window. It never quite explains what we need it to.

It does a fantastic job though, I'm pro advancement. And yes, Religion has held scientific advancement back a lot in the past. I agree.



posted on Dec, 1 2015 @ 09:48 AM
link   
a reply to: MrConspiracy

I'd argue that those gaps always existed within our knowledge of science. We just weren't aware of them until we closed the ones that we did causing us to ask new questions.



posted on Dec, 1 2015 @ 10:32 AM
link   
a reply to: MrConspiracy


It just makes me laugh how people have to be one way or another. You're either a "creationist" or an "evolutionist" ... there's no middle ground. I've said this time and time again... both theories have merit.


evolutionary theory and the hypothesis of creationism are not equal, and no amount of you saying it will change how science works. thats one of the really cool things about science - it doesnt care what you believe. its a tool, not a politician.



posted on Dec, 1 2015 @ 10:37 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Right, and what fills up the new gaps? leading to more gaps? leading to more effort to fill gaps... the list goes one. Science can only go so far.



posted on Dec, 1 2015 @ 10:41 AM
link   
a reply to: MrConspiracy

Like I said earlier, the gaps already existed. The only thing that changed is our awareness of them. As science solves questions, the gaps decrease not increase. Yes, answering questions causes us to ask more questions, but it's not like we knew the answer to those questions before we answered the original question.


Science can only go so far.


What makes you so sure of this? Just because the amount of knowledge left to be gained by science is rather large doesn't mean that science cannot answer every question posed to it. We've answered less than 1% of the total questions science can ask about the universe, yet somehow you think you have a grasp on the limits of science.
edit on 1-12-2015 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
15
<< 3  4  5    7  8 >>

log in

join