Evolution: Anyone care to Fill in the Huge Blank?, page 5
Pages: <<  2    3    4    5    6    7    8  >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 1 times


reply posted on 27-8-2005 @ 12:14 PM by Evolution Cruncher
here are some examples of people being for making claims that did not agree with the scientific community.

Columbus- said that the earth was round. everyone said he was crazy and that he was going to fall off of the edge of the earth.

Bruno- was burned at the stake for claiming that the earth was not the center of the universe.

Galileo- was imprisoned for teaching that the earth moved around the sun.

The Wright Brothers- ridiculed for claiming they had a machine that could fly.

Galen- announced the atomic theories but was bitterly opposed.

Vesalius- was denounced as an impostor abd heretic because of his discoveries in the field of human anatomy.

William Harvey- was disgraced as a physician for believing that blood was pumped by the heart through the arteries.

William Roentgen- the discoverer of X-Rays, at first was called a quack and then condemed out of fear that the X-Ray would invade the privacy of the bedroom.

Willliam Jenner- when he first developed the vaccine for smallpox, also was called a quack.

Ignaz Semmelweis- was fired first from Vienna Hospital and then many other hospitals just because he required his staff to wash their hands in between patients.

there are many other examples of people being thought as quack or fraud just becuase they think of something that doesnt quite agree with the scientific community. teachers have been fired just for passing out scientific journals that contradict darwins theory.

Einstein said that nothing could exceed the speed of light. he was wrong.
but at the same time, the more he studied the universe the more he believed in a higher power.


EC



reply posted on 27-8-2005 @ 01:16 PM by shaunybaby
Originally posted by Evolution Cruncher
here are some examples of people being for making claims that did not agree with the scientific community.

Columbus- said that the earth was round. everyone said he was crazy and that he was going to fall off of the edge of the earth.

Bruno- was burned at the stake for claiming that the earth was not the center of the universe.

Galileo- was imprisoned for teaching that the earth moved around the sun.

The Wright Brothers- ridiculed for claiming they had a machine that could fly.

Galen- announced the atomic theories but was bitterly opposed.

Vesalius- was denounced as an impostor abd heretic because of his discoveries in the field of human anatomy.

William Harvey- was disgraced as a physician for believing that blood was pumped by the heart through the arteries.

William Roentgen- the discoverer of X-Rays, at first was called a quack and then condemed out of fear that the X-Ray would invade the privacy of the bedroom.

Willliam Jenner- when he first developed the vaccine for smallpox, also was called a quack.

Ignaz Semmelweis- was fired first from Vienna Hospital and then many other hospitals just because he required his staff to wash their hands in between patients.

there are many other examples of people being thought as quack or fraud just becuase they think of something that doesnt quite agree with the scientific community.

Einstein said that nothing could exceed the speed of light. he was wrong.
but at the same time, the more he studied the universe the more he believed in a higher power.


never have i heard such nonsense from another fellow ats member. i wouldn't mind knowing where you copied all that, most likely from some useless source on the internet.

you've also got it the wrong way round. it was the christian church that stifled new scientific ways of thinking, just like they did with darwin, and just like they do today.


teachers have been fired just for passing out scientific journals that contradict darwins theory.


remember the motto 'deny ignorance'. you've just 'stated' that teachers are fired for passing out scientific journals that contradict darwin's theory. what teachers? when did this happen? and could you stop posting without having evidence to back up your personal claims.

at my school we barely got anything that showed darwin's theory was right. we brushed over it in one lesson perhaps, and even then it was not in much detail, and that was about it on the scientific front of evolution. if anything i had more religious education lessons about christian topics that i did scientific topics on evolution.


reply posted on 28-8-2005 @ 11:37 PM by Evolution Cruncher

never have i heard such nonsense from another fellow ats member. i wouldn't mind knowing where you copied all that, most likely from some useless source on the internet.


actually these happen to be things that I know thank you very much. I dont copy things from places unless I have to, and I include the author with it when I do.


No. He was agnostic.


you can be agnostic and still believe in a higher power. I have a friend who is agnostic and believes there is a god, he just doesnt know which one the right one is.


Who told Columbus that the world was flat?

im not sure that someone told him that the earth was flat but many people taught it as a fact at that time and yes he was thought to be crazy because of that belief he had. I learned that in 3rd grade. heck, they even put that in disney movies.



There is a possibility that life originated on another planet and came here on meteorites or comets. It has been proven that bacteria could survive an impact such as this.

if you are refering to the mars meteor that they found, you are forgetting a few other facts. first fact, it wasnt bacteria that was found on the rock it was a crystalized carbon (frozen). and no one knows if anything can survive the vacuum of space, no one knows how long that meteor was in space and no one knows what the bacteria ate [assuming it was a bacteria].



b) evolution is a process, not an event

evolution is both. evolution is both fact and religious. Micro evolution is a fact, all others are religious/theory/never proven.



c) care to explain how we got from adam and eve to 6 billion people in just 10,000 years ?


well if you read the bible, it says that before the flood, people lived to be over 900 years old. you can have a lot of kids in 900 years. people after the flood still lived long enough to have many children. of course the days of men grew shorter but its not impossible to get a population of 6 billion people within 4400 years from a population of 8.
the bigger question is, how do you explain a population of 6 billion people coming from a rock?



at my school we barely got anything that showed darwin's theory was right.

yeah probably because its not right. its a fantacy. he even wrote in his book that he sometimes feels that he had devoted himself to a fantasy. read it.



Now answer the question about who all these sacked teachers are and where they go.

i give you my word, I will get back to you on this, I forget the names of these teachers. but if you for some reason think that I forgot to look them up, remind me and I will get you an answer.



you've also got it the wrong way round. it was the christian church that stifled new scientific ways of thinking, just like they did with darwin, and just like they do today.


uh no. christians have always known that the earth is round. it even says so in the bible. the bible even says that the sun causes the wind. the bible is indeed scientific.

sorry for not answering all your questions, I dont have much time these days, work sucks and my hours suck. hopefully i can eventually get around to answering all of your questions.

EC


reply posted on 29-8-2005 @ 08:39 AM by Nygdan
Originally posted by Evolution Cruncher
yeah I forgot the % sign.
and they probably claim to support evolution only to keep their job.

This is entirely and completely false.

there have been many cases where people got fired for believing in ID or creation and not evolution.

Bull#.

many teachers have been fired and many scientists have been dismissed just because of what they believe in.

Bull#. Teachers may have been let go for breaking the law and instructing students in their religion during class times, but they haven't been fired simply for beleiving in creationism.


The only people that require acceptance of religious dogma on this issue are the creationists, groups like AIG and such require that members accept their creationist religion and that they only publish papers that support creationism.

but at the same time, the more he studied the universe the more he believed in a higher power.

The 'god' of einstein is absolutely nothing like the god of any religion, let aloe creationism. Einstein was in no way a creationist. The man was so brilliant and such a respected star that apparently creationists, recognizing the emptiness of their own position, have to try to make him out to be one of them in order to bring some respectability to their idea.

and yes he was thought to be crazy because of that belief he had

Please site the papers that support this claim. People didn't think that he was insane, everyone who had any education at the time realized that the earth was round, the greeks had figured that out thousands of years before columbus, and demonstrated it with scientific experiment, evidence,and methology. What people disagreed upon was how big the earth was, columbus thought it was significantly smaller than they thought it was, and thus the space between one end of asia (europe) and the other (indo-china) was crossable.
I learned that in 3rd grade. heck, they even put that in disney movies.

I can't imagine why you think what they say in 3rd grade and in disney movies has anything to do with the real world.
Micro evolution is a fact, all others are religious/theory/never proven.

Again, macro-evolution has been observed. Evolution is a science, not a religion.
he even wrote in his book that he sometimes feels that he had devoted himself to a fantasy. read it.

I suggest that you read his book, rather than listen to the misquotes and misrepresentations of irreligious charlatans like Kent Hovind. Darwin did not recant his theory on his death bed, he did not state that it was immpossible for evolution to occur, and when he did say things like 'this might seem hard to beleive', he followed it up with stuf flike 'but if you look at this and this, you will see that it makes perfect sense and is in accord with the evidence'.
uh no. christians have always known that the earth is round. it even says so in the bible.

The bible says nothing of the sort. The closest it ever gets to this is a few passages where the earth is refered to as being round. A dinner plate is round. A basket ball is round. A wad of dirt can be made to be round. The rest of the bible indicates that its understand is that the earth is flat, the heavens, for example, are suspended above the earth below like the top of a tent, other places refer to it as a vault, and jesus goes to a very high location and can see everything on earth, all immpossible with a ball. Not only is the bible not scientific, it wasn't even up to date with the science of its own time. As I noted above, it was the greeks who, not merely thought that the earth was a ball, but actually demonstrated it with a scientific methology.


[edit on 29-8-2005 by Nygdan]


reply posted on 29-8-2005 @ 10:59 PM by Aeon10101110
.
A very well-written article entirely refutes creationism.
Excerpts:

"To formulate a competing hypothesis, you have to get down in the trenches and offer details that have testable implications. So far, intelligent design proponents have conveniently sidestepped that requirement, claiming that they have no specifics in mind about who or what the intelligent designer might be...

"It's worth pointing out that there are plenty of substantive scientific controversies in biology that are not yet in the textbooks or the classrooms. The scientific participants in these arguments vie for acceptance among the relevant expert communities in peer-reviewed journals, and the writers and editors of textbooks grapple with judgments about which findings have risen to the level of acceptance - not yet truth - to make them worth serious consideration by undergraduates and high school students.

"SO get in line, intelligent designers. Get in line behind the hypothesis that life started on Mars and was blown here by a cosmic impact. Get in line behind the aquatic ape hypothesis, the gestural origin of language hypothesis and the theory that singing came before language, to mention just a few of the enticing hypotheses that are actively defended but still insufficiently supported by hard facts...

"For now, though, the theory they are promoting is exactly what George Gilder, a long-time affiliate of the Discovery Institute, has said it is: "Intelligent design itself does not have any content.""




reply posted on 30-8-2005 @ 07:56 AM by riley
Originally posted by shaunybaby
Originally posted by riley
I do think it is illegal to teach religion [creation] in a US public school [without parental consent] so yes I would appreciate it if you could verify it's not.


and so it should be illegal. why should a child of muslim, hindu, buddist background be 'forced' to learn about christianity at school and vice versa.


You caught me on an edit.. I got confused as they are already introducing religion via ID into public [secular] schools so that must mean it's not illegal [though highly unethical].. which made my post speculative. I thought religion and state were suppose to be seperate? If this is the case why would teachers get sacked? Can buddhism/wikka be taught to christian kids then?

however, the 'illegal' manner of teaching christianity without a parent's consent, means that they are teaching that god made the universe, god made us, jesus performed miracles, which i think you should not have to learn about that at school. it's neither the time nor place.

They have been using every legal loophole available it seems. Obviously they've got their claws in the fda [morning after pill] and somehow managed to convince some of the public that evolution is in question in the scientific community when it's not [alternative 'theory' ready].. thus creating media attention which brings doubt into the scientific community via frauds like drdino spreading propaganda.
you may say 'so why isn't science illegal to teach in schools'? well the difference is, is that science doesn't focus just on evolution, there are so many other parts of science. now if you are from a religious background and have strong beliefs about doing science at school i'm certain you do not have to do it...there are other options. however, by not doing science i believe you will be dumber for doing so. science has a lot to offer, all religious people need to do is to ignore their prejudice views that are getting in the way.

Science used like a cheap hoar just to convert.. they are not interested in science but for this agenda. Hopefully it won't take much for science to catch up on the research time wasted fighting fundies.
Pages: <<  2    3    4    5    6    7    8  >>    ^^TOP^^



EVOLUTION - Did YOU Know?
  Posted 16 days ago with 24 member flags
"I was raised an atheist"- Professor František Vyskočil
  Posted 6 days ago with 6 member flags
Evolution. Not a theory, but a fact!
  Posted 18 days ago with 4 member flags
Evolutionary theory: Gaps and not yet understood phenonemon
  Posted 18 days ago with 3 member flags