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: 7
15
<< 4  5  6    8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 1 2015 @ 10:42 AM
link   

originally posted by: TzarChasm
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.



I ask nothing of "science" let alone to care what I think ... it's doing a fine job as is. But it's limited to what it can show/tell us because humans are the ones researching it.




posted on Dec, 1 2015 @ 10:47 AM
link   

originally posted by: MrConspiracy
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.


at least science still tries, rather than surrendering in the name of fuhrer jehovah.
edit on 1-12-2015 by TzarChasm because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 1 2015 @ 10:48 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

It's not the limits of science. It's the limits of man.

"Science" is limitless as it is everything. It's the study of science that is limited.

Who knows... Maybe in some 1000 or so more years we won't be as limited as we are now, and we will be able to understand "science" a lot more. And yes, I do still believe there will be a lot more to be learnt outside of what "science" can teach us even then.



posted on Dec, 1 2015 @ 10:49 AM
link   

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: MrConspiracy
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.


at least science tries.

boom.


If you're not first, you're last. So it better get a move on.




posted on Dec, 1 2015 @ 10:49 AM
link   
a reply to: MrConspiracy

Actually what you call "the limits of science" are really just human frustrations that science doesn't hurry up and answer the questions you want answered.



posted on Dec, 1 2015 @ 10:50 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

I didn't call them the limits of science. I called them the limits of man.



posted on Dec, 1 2015 @ 10:56 AM
link   
Back on topic..

I have always wondered why Creationist do not accept evolution too. God would still need a way for all this to happen, and evolution is a way with or without God. When you think about it the two are apple and oranges since creationism is all about the why and evolution is all about the how, two totally different thoughts there. Creationist do not explain the how, just that God did it, and evolution does not explain the why, just the process, evolution doesn't even touch how life was started.

This has been a silly debate and a more interesting debate would be "why" as in God, intelligent design, natural laws of a universe and so on keeping it all in the "Why' category.



edit on 1-12-2015 by Xtrozero because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 1 2015 @ 11:06 AM
link   
a reply to: Xtrozero

why would it be necessary? or why would he/she/it do the whole creation thing?
edit on 1-12-2015 by TzarChasm because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 1 2015 @ 11:11 AM
link   

originally posted by: Xtrozero
Back on topic..

I have always wondered why Creationist do not accept evolution too. God would still need a way for all this to happen, and evolution is a way with or without God. When you think about it the two are apple and oranges since creationism is all about the why and evolution is all about the how, two totally different thoughts there. Creationist do not explain the how, just that God did it, and evolution does not explain the why, just the process, evolution doesn't even touch how life was started.

This has been a silly debate and a more interesting debate would be "why" as in God, intelligent design, natural laws of a universe and so on keeping it all in the "Why' category.




Bravo!!! This.



posted on Dec, 1 2015 @ 11:25 AM
link   

originally posted by: TzarChasm

why would it be necessary? or why would he/she/it do the whole creation thing?


It is a way to debate the "why" if there is or is not a why. If you feel there is no why then it is not a debate for you. My point was that the two topics are really not related and so a stupid debate to try and match them against each other. Personally I do not see a reason for a 'Why". Life seems pretty natural process in our universe so why would humans, related to every living thing on the planet be different, so the why is most likely not a good debate for me too.


edit on 1-12-2015 by Xtrozero because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 1 2015 @ 12:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: toktaylor
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.



“The simplest bacterium is so damn complicated…that it is almost impossible to imagine how it happened.” Dr. Ken Nealson (National Academy of Sciences): “Nobody understands the Origin of Life, if they say they do, they are probably trying to fool you.” Dr. George Whitesides: “Most chemists believe as I do that life emerged spontaneously from mixtures of molecules on the prebiotic Earth. How? I have no idea…on the basis of all the chemistry I know, it seems astonishingly improbable.”
www.algemeiner.com...#

“Those who say that the study of science makes a man an atheist must be rather silly.”

“Something which is against natural laws seems to me rather out of the question because it would be a depressive idea about God. It would make God smaller than he must be assumed. When he stated that these laws hold, then they hold, and he wouldn’t make exceptions. This is too human an idea. Humans do such things, but not God.”

–Nobel Prize winning physicist Max Born, who was instrumental in the development of quantum mechanics.

“God is a mathematician of a very high order and He used advanced mathematics in constructing the universe.”

–Nobel Prize winning physicist Paul A. M. Dirac, who made crucial early contributions to both quantum mechanics and quantum electrodynamics.

“I’m not an atheist, and I don’t think I can call myself a pantheist. We are in the position of a little child entering a huge library filled with books in many languages. The child knows someone must have written those books. It does not know how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. The child dimly suspects a mysterious order in the books but doesn’t know what it is. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of even the most intelligent human being toward God.” [Italics are mine]

—Albert Einstein, as cited in Antony Flew’s book, There Is A God: How the World’s Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind.

godevidence.com...



posted on Dec, 1 2015 @ 12:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: MrConspiracy

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: MrConspiracy
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.


at least science tries.

boom.


If you're not first, you're last. So it better get a move on.



i dont see a finish line in sight, so maybe i have time for a refill. hope they wait til i get back before they make the "surprise" reveal of a lifetime.



posted on Dec, 1 2015 @ 12:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: TzarChasm

why would it be necessary? or why would he/she/it do the whole creation thing?


It is a way to debate the "why" if there is or is not a why. If you feel there is no why then it is not a debate for you. My point was that the two topics are really not related and so a stupid debate to try and match them against each other. Personally I do not see a reason for a 'Why". Life seems pretty natural process in our universe so why would humans, related to every living thing on the planet be different, so the why is most likely not a good debate for me too.



asking "why" comes awfully close to that anthropormorphism trap that gets everyone talking like this creator thing is somehow more human than not. it implies a thought process, an intention. there is no evidence to support any intention or conscious direction in the universe at all.
edit on 1-12-2015 by TzarChasm because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 1 2015 @ 12:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: Xtrozero
Back on topic..

I have always wondered why Creationist do not accept evolution too. God would still need a way for all this to happen, and evolution is a way with or without God. When you think about it the two are apple and oranges since creationism is all about the why and evolution is all about the how, two totally different thoughts there. Creationist do not explain the how, just that God did it, and evolution does not explain the why, just the process, evolution doesn't even touch how life was started.

This has been a silly debate and a more interesting debate would be "why" as in God, intelligent design, natural laws of a universe and so on keeping it all in the "Why' category.


It seems clear to me that all creation was built to be able to evolve as needed, this only makes sense in creating a lasting anything.



posted on Dec, 1 2015 @ 12:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: flyingfish

originally posted by: SeaWorthy

originally posted by: peter vlar

originally posted by: SeaWorthy
a reply to: Cosmic911

Interestingly a falling away of faith was predicted long ago. I feel like laughing when I read people putting faith in mankind to rule and make everything better. we have one hope and he is predicted to come and the predictions are following course so I expect arrival soon. Thank our creator he has not abandoned us!



you might want to pop some corn, order dinner, grab some refreshments and settle in for a bit if you really think there are any actual predictions in the bible that are coming true. 1st century converts thought the 2nd coming was going to occur in their lifetime so your buddy is about 1985 years late if he's coming at all.


The signs are all here I don't know if it will be my lifetime but it will happen and it will be soon.


That's the problem with cognitive dissonance, you can't spot silly ideas from a mile away but yet, you can spot the signs of ignorant ramblings of bronze age mystics. Who, by the way, expected "the end" within "their" time.


You seem a very angry person I feel for you.
People keep mistaking religion with any part of god, religion is a man made structure for power and money.


“A Creator must exist. The Big Bang ripples and subsequent scientific findings are clearly pointing to an ex nihilo creation consistent with the first few verses of the book of Genesis.”

–Quantum chemist Henry F. Schaefer III, five time nominee for the Nobel Prize, as above.





To the question, “Many prominent scientists – including Darwin, Einstein, and Planck – have considered the concept of God very seriously. What are your thoughts on the concept of God and on the existence of God?”

Christian Anfinsen replied: “I think only an idiot can be an atheist. We must admit that there exists an incomprehensible power or force with limitless foresight and knowledge that started the whole universe going in the first place.”

—Christian Anfinsen, winner of the 1972 Nobel Prize in Chemistry for his work on ribonuclease.



posted on Dec, 1 2015 @ 12:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: Prezbo369
+10 Faith in humanity



Of course if this were Muslims beliefs we were belittling and demonizing, this would all be a low for humanity.



posted on Dec, 1 2015 @ 12:45 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.
.




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

Yes of course lol we must appeal not to authorities but to our own great minds.


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

You do feel quite above and full of superior understanding don't you.



“Science is a game – but a game with reality, a game with sharpened knives. If a man cuts a picture carefully into 1000 pieces, you solve the puzzle when you reassemble the pieces into a picture; in the success or failure, both your intelligences compete. In the presentation of a scientific problem, the other player is the good Lord. He has not only set the problem but also has devised the rules of the game – but they are not completely known, half of them are left for you to discover or to deduce. The uncertainty is how many of the rules God himself has permanently ordained, and how many apparently are caused by your own mental inertia, while the solution generally becomes possible only through freedom from its limitations. This is perhaps the most exciting thing in the game.”

—Erwin Schroedinger, winner of the 1933 Nobel Prize in Physics “for the discovery of new productive forms of atomic theory.”



posted on Dec, 1 2015 @ 12:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: TzarChasm
asking "why" comes awfully close to that anthropormorphism trap that gets everyone talking like this creator thing is somehow more human than not. it implies a thought process, an intention. there is no evidence to support any intention or conscious direction in the universe at all.


People want to have a purpose and not be just a chemical process. Did aliens come here and play with chimps to make us...hmmm who knows, Is there all powerful force, God, that planned us to happen, hmmm who knows, but like you said, there really isn't any evidence to suggest we are anything but a natural process in our universe.



posted on Dec, 1 2015 @ 12:55 PM
link   
Mod note:

This discussion is once again bordering on off topic posts and also inching towards personal attacks.

Off topic post and personal attacks will be removed and continued T&C infractions may garner more serious results.

Do not reply to this post.



posted on Dec, 1 2015 @ 08:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: TzarChasm

asking "why" comes awfully close to that anthropormorphism trap that gets everyone talking like this creator thing is somehow more human than not. it implies a thought process, an intention. there is no evidence to support any intention or conscious direction in the universe at all.




People want to have a purpose and not be just a chemical process. Did aliens come here and play with chimps to make us...hmmm who knows, Is there all powerful force, God, that planned us to happen, hmmm who knows, but like you said, there really isn't any evidence to suggest we are anything but a natural process in our universe.
i suspect its a byproduct of sentience grappling with itself, struggling to balance survival with social awareness. not to mention the dopamine high.




top topics



 
15
<< 4  5  6    8 >>

log in

join