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.

 

Where do people on ATS stand on this?

page: 21
7
<< 18  19  20    22  23 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 8 2007 @ 11:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by Clearskies
Somewhat..when you think there is no God, there becomes one reason to achieve.


But evolution doesn't even speak to the existence of god, so I guess you never really understood it.


Young people need even more guidance and instruction when they go off to school to be crowded into everyone else.


So, who to blame? The schools/bible or the puplis/believers?

All of the above.


I agree. There is a lot of competition for the attentions of the kids. I don't think we can blame any single thing for kids going wayward. In fact, I don't think we can expect perfection in behaviour. There has never been a time we have had that, and there never will be. We only need to compare the data from different countries to see that fervent religious moral teaching makes absolutely no difference to morality. Even within the US we see the same (i.e. comparing bible-belt states to others).

Schools provide rules, they should provide punishments for breaking rules, they should provide some basic moral guidance. But, ultimately, they also depend on families giving a good grounding in behaviour and morals.

ABE:


Yes, but they were found within the last couple of hundred years, maybe by German scientists as part of the paperclip program.


Ok, lets say that some german scientist in 1941 found a homo erectus skull. We have loads of others from other sources as well, so why would it matter?

You seem to be associating palenotological finds with Nazism for some crazy reason. Are you trying to play Godwin or something?




[edit on 8-9-2007 by melatonin]




posted on Sep, 8 2007 @ 06:20 PM
link   
reply to post by Clearskies
 


Operation Paperclip/Project Paperclip/the Paperclip Program,was to do with smuggling Nazi scientists out of Germany and away from the Soviet Union,with the purpose of using them to make weapons and to help the US with their space program.they had no interest in anthropology!


"""The Ahnenerbe and Tibet

The SS had another arm, the Ahnenerbe Forschungs und Lehrgemeinschaft (Ancestral Heritage Research and Teaching Society). Founded in 1935 with Hitler's blessing, Himmler merged it with the SS two years later. The Ahnenerbe's overriding task was to provide scientific, anthropological and archaeological evidence to support the theories of the Thule Society and, in so doing, determine the origins of the 'Aryan' race.

Some devotees of Nazi racial theory believed that the answer to this mystery lay in the lost city of Atlantis. This they identified as the mythical land of Thule, lying between Greenland and Iceland, and it was the putative destination of at least one Nazi expedition.

However, Karl Haushofer was convinced that the key to the harnessing of the power of vril lay in Tibet. He was supported by the Swedish explorer and Nazi sympathiser Sven Hedin, who had led several expeditions to Tibet. Hitler thought so highly of Hedin that he had invited him to give the opening address at the Berlin Olympics of 1936. In January 1943, Hedin was present when the Ahnenerbe's Lehr und Forschungsstätte für Innerasien und Expeditionen – Institute for Inner Asian Research – was formally established.

The expedition to Tibet.

In 1938, the Tibetans were putting out feelers to Germany, and to Germany's allies, the Japanese, as counterbalances to the influence in the region of Britain and China. In that year, the Ahnenerbe mounted an expedition to Tibet led by Ernst Schäfer, a German hunter and biologist who had made two previous expeditions to that part of the world. He would later publish his report of the expedition as Festival of the White Gauze Scarves: A research expedition through Tibet to Lhasa, the holy city of the god realm (1950).

One of the members of the Nazi expedition was the anthropologist Bruno Beger, a supporter of the theory that Tibet was home to the descendants of a 'northern race'. Beger's role was to undertake a scientific investigation of the Tibetan people. During the expedition, he examined the skulls of more than 300 inhabitants of Tibet and Sikkim, and logged their other physical features in minute detail.

He concluded that, in anthropological terms, the Tibetans represented a staging post between the Mongol and European races, with the European racial element manifesting itself most strongly among the Tibetan aristocracy. He believed that, after the final victory of the Third Reich, the Tibetans could play an important role in the region, serving as an allied race in a world dominated by Germany and Japan.""" extract from article by Robin Cross.



The Nazi interest was not in the evolution of mankind,but in finding a glorious history for Germany and the discovery of a supreme or master race.As far as i know,no Nazi anthropologists made any significant discoveries,but Nazi scientists laid the foundations for the modern military and space programs of the US and the Soviet Union.(Wernher von Braun being the most well known.)



[edit on 8-9-2007 by jakyll]



posted on Sep, 11 2007 @ 11:41 PM
link   
we were obviously created by some one/thing then we evolved. we are def not indiginous of this earth. we are still evolving....we are still evolving people!

[edit on 11-9-2007 by chilu]



posted on Sep, 12 2007 @ 08:16 AM
link   
reply to post by chilu
 


we are "obviously"?

come on, you have to actually show proof to such an extraordinary claim.



posted on Sep, 12 2007 @ 09:17 AM
link   
reply to post by chilu
 


The only thing that made any sense was your statement that we are still evolving. Of course we are; every living thing on the planet is constantly evolving. Evolution never stops, there is no "peak experience" for evolution when it "rests on the seventh day."



posted on Sep, 13 2007 @ 09:33 AM
link   
It never ceases to amaze me how some still think the bible is the gospel truth no matter what.
Religion has been the reason for many wars but still the religious type spout their words.
Why does religion and the bible have to be true?
Could it have been that the intelligent life form that created this earth as we know it be fooling you?
Oh because the bible said it it must be true! Why? It's only a book, a book with much knowledge yes i grant you that but we are stating facts on something we know nothing of but have had it embedded in our brains since kids.
What if religion and the bible were not true! What if everything you have been taught was a lie could you deal with that?
I can hear the voices screaming now as they run to their churches, God help me!
You are a true conciousness you are everything, you are energy we derive from the true creator, one who bares no harm on anyone just to enlighten our true light energy. When people begin to understand this they will begin to see the illusion around them. I hope it's not to late there are still many who are stuck in this religion thing.



posted on Sep, 13 2007 @ 10:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
reply to post by chilu
 


we are "obviously"?

come on, you have to actually show proof to such an extraordinary claim.


Well look at the relationships between plants and insects.

In a proverbial nutshell:

The leaves on a certain plant get attacked by ants (as they desire the tasty chemicals in the sap), so the plant reacts by secreting the desired chemical out for the ants (so less damage is inflicted on the leaf material).... so the ants no longer damage the plant and have access to the desired chemical. The ants then actually act as guardians against other more damaging insects or parasites.

That is basic predator/prey evolution and adaptation.

If that's not proof then I don't know what is?

I'm sick and tired of god botherers who cannot accept that evolution is a fact. There's thousands of other cases that I can use as examples, but I'll let the holier amongst you to do your own research.


[editted due my cack handed typing skills - damn you devolution!]

[edit on 13-9-2007 by mr-lizard]



posted on Sep, 13 2007 @ 02:50 PM
link   
reply to post by mr-lizard
 


um... my question was about the first part, where it was stated we were created by something. i completely support the theory of evolution...



posted on Sep, 14 2007 @ 08:01 AM
link   
Which of the following sounds more preposterous or hard to believe:

1. God created everything.

2. The incredibly complex universe, living organisms and the most complex of all, the human brain all came about by accident. All of this starting from a ball of hot gas.

PROOF:

Creation: Specified complexity

Evolution: Zilch. Natural selection (organisms adapting to their environment), which can be proven, is not proof of evolution (one organism becoming another).

I read a very interesting "interview" with Darwin (the author of the site made it up, but it makes you think). Darwin is shown 2 flowers. One is natural and the other is a very well made artificial flower. Darwin is asked which of the 2 is real and which is man-made. Darwin picks the man-made one and says "This is obviously man-made. The craftsmanship is exquisite. It was made by an exceptionally gifted artist. The other one is obviously real. It is beautiful and all that but it just came about by chance. There's no way anyone could have made this."

EDIT: I just love the way evolutionists claim they believe evolution because there is proof and there is no proof of Creation. Like I mentioned above, there is ZERO proof of evolution. I believe there are people who are prepared to give large sums of money to anyone who can prove evolution. If you've got proof you can make a large sum of money. I also have to add that I'm not a Christian and I don't believe that the Bible is the word of God (see my post in the Lightspeed vs Bible thread).

[edit on 14-9-2007 by Lannock]



posted on Sep, 14 2007 @ 09:00 AM
link   
reply to post by Lannock
 




God is much harder to believe.

There is a mountain of evidence proving evolution and the only "proof" of god is not proof at all. It is faith, the opposite of reason, and the opposite of truth.

But that's ok, Christians can keep hiding their heads in the sand. That'll leave more technology and medical advances to go around for those of us who don't believe in "god."



posted on Sep, 14 2007 @ 12:17 PM
link   
reply to post by Lannock
 


Most people who don't believe in evolution actually don't understand how it works. It's been explained multiple times, and yet they still don't "get it".

It's happening right in front of them, but they don't get it. These same people likely believe that the sun revolves around the earth, and that the earth is flat. That Gravity doesn't exist, and the reason we have solar eclipses is because we've angered our sun god.

I'm sick of explaining the same thing over and over again, so whatever.



posted on Sep, 14 2007 @ 12:24 PM
link   
This debate will go on until the end of time.

Creationists stand by their story, science creates a new one (the earth is older than 6000 years, etc), creationists say god just made it appear that way, then science finds more fossils and dates them at +60 milion years, the creationists say god just put those there and made them look old, so on and so on.

see what I'm getting at?



posted on Sep, 14 2007 @ 12:48 PM
link   
reply to post by WeaponsOfMassDistraction
 


the sad sad reality of the so-called "debate" as nothing more than a BS contest for the religious side and a futile attempt at reason on the scientific one?



posted on Sep, 14 2007 @ 01:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lannock

God is much harder to believe.

There is a mountain of evidence proving evolution and the only "proof" of god is not proof at all. It is faith, the opposite of reason, and the opposite of truth.



Yes, I think a belief in a god, or, Faith in god, probably is more difficult than belief in a scientific principle. Most truly faithful people will tell you that the existence of god is something that cannot be proven. Those who say they can are fooling themselves, they've forgotten what 'faith' even means.

It's a waste of time comparing the existence of evolution to the existence of god. Sure, you could say that evolution discredits the creation stories and that would be perfectly valid, but the creation stories and the creator are very different things. The creator is something that can never be proven by anyone, spiritual or not, nor disproven by science or any other means.

Faith is sort of an opposite to reason, but both are used by humanity to find truth.

I don't think Lannock meant it this way but he hit the nail right on the head.



posted on Sep, 14 2007 @ 02:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by Rasobasi420
reply to post by Lannock
 


Most people who don't believe in evolution actually don't understand how it works. It's been explained multiple times, and yet they still don't "get it".

It's happening right in front of them, but they don't get it. These same people likely believe that the sun revolves around the earth, and that the earth is flat. That Gravity doesn't exist, and the reason we have solar eclipses is because we've angered our sun god.

I'm sick of explaining the same thing over and over again, so whatever.



You are being as closed-minded as a Christian (no offense). Please provide sources of "proof of evolution". This thing that is "happening right in front of me" is NATURAL SELECTION, it is not EVOLUTION. I will repeat myself for your benefit: Natural selection can be proven, Evolution cannot. Your so-called "missing link" is not missing, it never existed.



posted on Sep, 14 2007 @ 03:12 PM
link   
reply to post by Lannock
 


As the earth is in a continuous state of change,those who adapt survive,and in adapting they evolve do they not??



posted on Sep, 14 2007 @ 03:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by MajorMalfunction
reply to post by Lannock
 




God is much harder to believe.

There is a mountain of evidence proving evolution and the only "proof" of god is not proof at all. It is faith, the opposite of reason, and the opposite of truth.

But that's ok, Christians can keep hiding their heads in the sand. That'll leave more technology and medical advances to go around for those of us who don't believe in "god."


Show me your "mountains of proof of evolution". I can almost guarantee you that your "proof of evolution" is proof of natural selection. If evolution was real there SHOULD be mountains of evidence and many evolutionists just assume that there is, without having even seen any of it.

I also have to add that most evolutionists confuse creationists with Christians. I certainly am not a Christian.



posted on Sep, 14 2007 @ 03:19 PM
link   
Evolution IS natural selection.

And "evolutionist" is a stupid word. I can't have a serious conversation with anyone who uses it.

Here's a starter article for those who don't understand what evolution is:

www.talkorigins.org...


[edit to add] Now, show me actual evidence there's a god that doesn't involve the Bible. Got any DNA? A thread from the robe, perhaps? Maybe a feather from an angel's wing? No? Didn't think so.



[edit on 14-9-2007 by MajorMalfunction]



posted on Sep, 14 2007 @ 03:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lannock
You are being as closed-minded as a Christian (no offense). Please provide sources of "proof of evolution". This thing that is "happening right in front of me" is NATURAL SELECTION, it is not EVOLUTION. I will repeat myself for your benefit: Natural selection can be proven, Evolution cannot. Your so-called "missing link" is not missing, it never existed.


I'll explain again to one who doesn't understand. Natural selection is evolution. It leads to birds with longer, thinner beaks, and dogs with shorter hair.

And "my so called missing link" isn't a missing link. If you understood the nature of evolution you would understand that every single link (individual in the continuing line of a species) is a missing link. Meaning that there is no missing link.



posted on Sep, 15 2007 @ 01:09 AM
link   
Just as I thought, ZERO proof. All that site "proves" is NATURAL SELECTION not EVOLUTION.

Us creationists rely on faith, remember?
So we need no proof. You evolutionists rely completely on "proof", so put up or shut up.

I picked this up from en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design


The U.S. National Academy of Sciences has stated that "intelligent design, and other claims of supernatural intervention in the origin of life" are not science because they cannot be tested by experiment,


Evolution cannot be tested by experiment, so it is not science, it is FAITH



new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 18  19  20    22  23 >>

log in

join