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.

 

Professors in Colorado Recieve Death Threats for Teaching Evolution

page: 6
7
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 19 2007 @ 09:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by grimreaper797
hmm, except for the fact that your theory can never become anything more then speculation. Evolution has the chance to be proven, yours never will.


That may be your opinion, and you are certainly entitled to it, but that's all it is.



Nothing intelligent made nature, because nature itself is just a matter of balance, nothing more.


And if you believe that, where do you think that "balance" came from? Another "cosmic fluke"?




posted on Jul, 19 2007 @ 09:48 PM
link   
Just because there isn't a scientific answer for something now doesn't mean that the supernatural is a fall back position.

There is no real evidence for god. It's all in your head. Creationists revile science because it's squeezing their god out of existence and nobody knows how to let go of the church's brainwashing gracefully.



posted on Jul, 19 2007 @ 09:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by GLDNGUN

That may be your opinion, and you are certainly entitled to it, but that's all it is.


How will your hypothesis ever become a theory or be disproven? Its not possible. Evolution, at some point and time, will either sink or float. It will either be disproven or proven. Its a matter of science versus faith. Evolution may not be right, but its scientific. Creationism has no science base, only faith.



And if you believe that, where do you think that "balance" came from? Another "cosmic fluke"?



It was a poor choice of words. I should say IMbalance. Nature is nothing more than an IMBALANCE trying to meet balance. The universe is never in balance. It will always be going from one side to another, like a ship rocking on the ocean.



posted on Jul, 19 2007 @ 09:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by grimreaper797
The poor you did not feed, instead we fed off of them, using them. After world war one instead of trying to make right, we ended up screwing the poor in europe, and thats what allowed hitler to gain his foot hold. We had a war, economy soared, while germany fell to pieces. Nobody cared though, and we left them to deal with the debt they owed france and britian. We left the poor unfed, with a wheel barrel of paper that could hardly buy them bread. They were the weak. The poor were the weak. We were the evil ones, and there was no protectors, because they forgot how to protect long ago.


So we were supposed to protect the Germans but not the Jews? Hmmm. Interesting line of thinking. Let's see who was it that said...



its not your job, duty, or mission to go to africa and save them from their wicked ways. It's your job, duty, mission to promote peace amoung eachother, not create it.


Oh, yeah. That was you! So we are supposed to help the weak or not? How about you try to pick ONE position and stick with it? Just a suggestion.



posted on Jul, 19 2007 @ 10:05 PM
link   
You don't even know how to help some one. You think helping some one is going over and changing who they are and their core beliefs because they are morally wrong. You want to help the poor? Help them get a job when they ask for help. You don't go looking to change the world, you walk the path your on, and you will change the world more then enough.

Don't change the world, change your world. Change the world around you. As for the wars like ww2, we created it in a chain reaction. Some how we have to figure out how to stop this domino effect. Should we have went to fight the war during ww2, yes. Were the Nazi's the only evil people? No. We were evil as well. The poor were the victims. We didn't help them, we used them.



posted on Jul, 19 2007 @ 10:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by MidnightDStroyer

In short, "probably" is a word to use when something is:

"probable: adj likely; to be expected"

You just shot down your own argument again...


Hardly. I'll try to say it for you once again. The text book said something that was "probably" true even though there was not a SHRED or bone of evidence to support that supposition. There is NO more evidence that long-necked giraffes evolved from shorter-necked giraffes or beat out shorter-necked giraffes for survival than there is that giraffes were dropped off on the planet by aliens or that they were created spontaneously by a supreme being. Therefore, it's FRAUDULENT to teach it as "probable" or "likely". That is also why the Gould (famous evolutionist) agrees that Darwin's explanation for long-necked giraffes is based on nothing but speculation.

That is why I said the text book was trying to "put one over" on the students. Twist my words all you want, but once again, I stand by statement.

I know, I know...when an anti-Christian extremist "speculates", it's called "science", and when a creationist "speculates", it's called "blind faith". Funny how that works.



posted on Jul, 19 2007 @ 10:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by GLDNGUN
I know, I know...when an anti-Christian extremist "speculates", it's called "science", and when a creationist "speculates", it's called "blind faith". Funny how that works.


So . . . let me step here for a moment and ask a question. . .

Are you saying that people that believe in science are anti Christians extremist? .

Do you agree that people should be killed for not believing in religion, creationism or genesis?

Sorry but that statement do not fit well with denying ignorance.


I will have to say that science is real while ideological believes are the ones that fall in speculation supported by faith.


[edit on 19-7-2007 by marg6043]



posted on Jul, 19 2007 @ 10:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by GLDNGUN

Hadn't seen that before, but Mr. Garrison's argument does make about as much scientific sense as evolution.





Wow, are you 3?



No, I think you have me confused with someone who uses "South Park" episodes as some sort of basis for truth.



See, if your stupid, you would say,"well, god must have put it here."
If you had half a brain, you would investigate and find out more about the cabin instead of accepting"well, god did it".


Evidently in all of your brilliance you completely missed the point. If I see a log cabin in the woods, my first assumption would be that it was built by "intelligent design". In other words, it was not an accident. Somebody put it there. Now if you really think I was suggesting that God goes around building log cabins when nobody is watching, you need help. If YOU or anyone else here came across a log cabin just sitting there in the woods, you would make the same exact "speculation" that it was "intelligently designed" and put there, and that it was NOT the result of the mother of all flukes.



No, you see, creation was " thought up" because uneducated people couldn't understand why certain things happened so they said the big invisible man in the sky did it.


And you have some sort of proof to back this up?



Honestly, if your to stupid to understand a freaking Lincoln log, than you are worth no more of my time.


I'm certainly not stupid enough to stare at a log cabin and say: "Wow! How did that get there!? I didn't see anyone build it, so it must have come together on its own! Yep, must rule out any outside intervention!"



posted on Jul, 19 2007 @ 10:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by GLDNGUN
The text book said something that was "probably" true even though there was not a SHRED or bone of evidence to support that supposition.

Again, you're reading more into a definition than actually exists. "Probably" was used because, due to supporting evidence of evolution on other species, it's "probable" that evolution had an effect on the giraffes too.

Now please try to stay on topic & I'll even ask your opinion on questions I've already posted earlier that are on topic. If you need to re-read the post that explains why I ask these questions, you only need to go back one page.

Originally posted by MidnightDStroyer
Even so, did Jesus preach for hate & bloodlust?
Does Korn sound like a real Christian now?


You may notice that I answered my own questions in that post, but I answered with my own opinions...At this point, I'm asking what your answers/opinions on Korn's behavior.

[edit on 19-7-2007 by MidnightDStroyer]



posted on Jul, 19 2007 @ 10:42 PM
link   


How about the Westboro baptist church. They are in favor of killing just about anyone who believes other that them. I believe there are at least 12 of them.


Certainly not my flavor of "Christians", but I don't believe they have threated to kill non-Christians. If they have, I would denounce it as I denounce the person who sent the threatening letter to the instructor. They have done some vile things, such as picketing funerals of American soldiers but have they threatened to kill anyone? I don't think so. Are they a growing threat? Hardly.



posted on Jul, 19 2007 @ 10:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by GLDNGUN

If they have, I would denounce it as I denounce the person who sent the threatening letter to the instructor.


I know you did not answer my question but the quote above answer one of them.



posted on Jul, 19 2007 @ 10:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by kleverone

Really. because if I'm not mistaken thousands and thousands of people have died and millions displaced in the last 4 years alone due to a war that our President (the Christian) was directed by God to start.

That has affected me a lot more than any muslim hatred has.


*Yawn* Not that again. There is NO proof that Bush said any such thing. (Gee, aren't anti-Christians the ones that scream for proof? Evidently only when it suits their needs).

A former Palestinian foreign minister, Nabil Shaath, is the one who put those words in Bush's mouth, and even he said the following: "It was really a figure of speech. We felt he was saying that he had a mission, a commitment, his faith in God would inspire him ... rather than a metaphysical whisper in his ear."

So even your *ahem* "credible" source wouldn't agree with your statement.



posted on Jul, 19 2007 @ 11:07 PM
link   



SCIENCE(not like religion) is about learning.
i will put it in dumb ass terms as that is what i am. i am not a scholar or a scientist, just a guy with too much time on his hands that reads every damn thing.

ok, so as of todaym july 19th at 9:45 in the am, there is 'no record of a giraffe with a shorter neck'....i agree with that. here is where you have to use a little logic.
how do we know that they won't find that very evidence tomorrow, on friday at noon?
should we stop looking, testing, experimenting cause we don't have the evidence/answers now?
it's called learning dude....we can NEVER stop.


"Straw man", anyone? Nowhere did I suggest that we stop testing things, stop experimenting, or stop learning.



the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence
^^^i think that can be applied here.


Unless of course someone brings up creation, right? The 2-faced argument is very funny to sit back and watch. It goes something like this:

"You believe in 'creation'??? BWAHAHA! There's no proof! You can't prove it! How can you believe that?!"...then 2 minutes later..."Evolution? Oh, well of course you can't prove it! We haven't learned everything! We discover new things every day! See? Get it??? See how that supports evolution??? See?!"

Uh no, I don't see. What I DO see is a blatant double standard.



posted on Jul, 19 2007 @ 11:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by Rasobasi420

You are correct that you would never see a bird/pig because birds and pigs are an entirely different class within the phylum chordata (way up the line). However, you might find pigeons mutating slightly to form different types of pigeons. These branches could continue on to form drastic differences over periods of millions of years.


Nice leap there from MICRO evolution to MACRO evolution. The former is a proven scientific fact. The latter is pure speculation.

Make me a believer tonight and point me to ONE living creature that is a transitional creature between 2 species. If "these branches could continue on to form drastic differences over periods of millions of years" were actually true, then this planet should be absolutely LITTERED with BILLIONS and BILLIONS of transitional creatures.

Where are they ?

Fact is, we can't find BILLIONS

We don't find MILLIONS

We can't find thousands

We can't find hundreds

We can't find even ONE.

Yet, we are supposed to believe that it happened for "millions of years"?

Now THAT is blind faith.



posted on Jul, 19 2007 @ 11:18 PM
link   
What you aren't seeing is that the key word is evidence. Nothing is ever completely proven. But there IS evidence of evolution, and there is no evidence supporting creation.

Science has concrete uses that advance society. You are even arguing with people right now because of science. But naturally, science you can use is acceptable -- even if it's operating on electronic circuit theory. Scientific theory is just fine and dandy as long as you benefit.

Religion is a philosophy. It is not the same thing, and has no place in our public schools. I'm sorry you don't agree with that, but in this case, you are extremely wrong. There is no "fair" about it. Religious philosophy has no business in school, court, or any other sphere in which public tax dollars pay for the infrastructure and daily operations. There are others than Christians in this country.

So, sorry, science and religion are not equal, anymore than mysteries and westerns are not equal. They are not the same, they do not deal with the same spheres. Keep your religion out of my child's classroom. That's the real point of this thread, not the circular argument of evolution has no "proof", ad nauseum.

Korn is a zealot. A dangerous extremist. The particular political climate in our country is producing more and more people just like him. Religion is at it's root, and is the heart of the evil. In particular, in THIS country, Evangelical Christianity is the source of the evil. The Middle East has their own religious extremists. Korn is a homegrown one, so we are discussing his horrible actions.

If people's opinions bother you so, GG, maybe you oughtn't be reading them.



posted on Jul, 19 2007 @ 11:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by GLDNGUN
Hardly. I'll try to say it for you once again. The text book said something that was "probably" true even though there was not a SHRED or bone of evidence to support that supposition. There is NO more evidence that long-necked giraffes evolved from shorter-necked giraffes or beat out shorter-necked giraffes for survival than there is that giraffes were dropped off on the planet by aliens or that they were created spontaneously by a supreme being. Therefore, it's FRAUDULENT to teach it as "probable" or "likely". That is also why the Gould (famous evolutionist) agrees that Darwin's explanation for long-necked giraffes is based on nothing but speculation.


Don't bring Gould into the idea he supports your arguement. You nitpicked that quote, unsurprisingly, to twist it to your agenda.

Gould had this to say:

The late Harvard evolutionist Stephen Jay Gould states: “When we look to presumed sources of origin for competing evolutionary explanations of the giraffe’s long neck, we find either nothing at all or only the shortest of speculative conjectures. . . . The giraffe’s neck just wasn’t a big issue for the founders of evolutionary theory—not as a case study for arguing about alternative mechanisms, not for anything much at all. No data from giraffes then existed to support one theory of causes over another, and none exist now”


He also had this to say:


Many researchers now suggest that the primary function of giraffe neck length is not for reaching leaves on tall trees, but for male combat (“necking”), or for spotting predators, or for shedding heat through increased skin surface area. All of these functions “have been viewed by prominent scientists as a chief reason for the evolution of the long necks” (Gould 56f.). Darwin himself (202) alludes to some of these as alternate possibilities.


Lets try to use WHOLE quotes. This way we get to see who REALLY supports your arguement, and whos words you just twist to make it appear so. Gould didn't say there was no evidence to the evolution of the long neck, but no evidence to support one theory of evolution above another.



That is why I said the text book was trying to "put one over" on the students. Twist my words all you want, but once again, I stand by statement.

I know, I know...when an anti-Christian extremist "speculates", it's called "science", and when a creationist "speculates", it's called "blind faith". Funny how that works.


You can stand by that idea, but you are starting to just sound dillusional. Believing creationism is one thing, calling it science and saying it should be treated like evolution is treated, is ridiculous.



posted on Jul, 19 2007 @ 11:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by GLDNGUN
Unless of course someone brings up creation, right? The 2-faced argument is very funny to sit back and watch. It goes something like this:

"You believe in 'creation'??? BWAHAHA! There's no proof! You can't prove it! How can you believe that?!"...then 2 minutes later..."Evolution? Oh, well of course you can't prove it! We haven't learned everything! We discover new things every day! See? Get it??? See how that supports evolution??? See?!"

Uh no, I don't see. What I DO see is a blatant double standard.


Um no. What future evidence could possibly DISPROVE creationism? Tell me what kind of evidence it would take to disprove creationism. There is NO physical evidence that can EVER prove or disprove creationism. Thats why it is faith.

You want to know what it will take to prove evolution. Research. You know what it will take to disprove evolution. Research. You know what though, research cannot prove or disprove creationism, because there is nothing to research about. Theres the word of the bible, then there is faith. There is no physical evidence that could prove creationism, only disprove a theory that goes against creationism.

You can disprove evolution, but that doesn't prove creationism. Nothing will prove creationism because its a hypothesis based on 100% faith. I don't 100% believe in evolution, but I do believe evolution is a science matter, and creationism isn't. Evolution may very well be wrong, but its not entirely wrong as some evidence backs up certain arguements made. Just like physics isnt 100% correct today. It may not be 100% correct, but it is science.



posted on Jul, 19 2007 @ 11:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by johnsky
This is the one commonality I have seen of all who promote creationism... they make the mistake of assuming it all fell into place in a short period of time...The log cabin analogy is just a convenient way for Creationists to avoid the concept of MILLIONS of years of adaptations.


Hey, you take all the time you want to watch those falling trees organize themselves into a log cabin. Be my guest. It's the old "well, if a monkey sits down at a typewritter, he will eventually produce a perfect copy of Shakespeare's Hamlet!" argument. Uh huh.



We have many current examples of evolution in action. Fruit flies are the easiest and quickest way to see how an animal can adapt to it's environment through altering their own structure.


Here we go again. MICRO evolution and MACRO evolution. Over the last 100 years or so, geneticists have documented over 3,000 mutations in the fruit fly. This little bug is perhaps the evolutionists favorite, yet science journals have not documented a SINGLE fruit fly evolving into something else, no matter how often and badly they're mutated.

Not a SINGLE one.

The same applies for your other examples.

Keeping breeding those dogs, man, and you'll still end up with what?

A dog.



posted on Jul, 19 2007 @ 11:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by Indellkoffer
Whether or not you believe in evolution, the REAL question is:

"Should people be able to send threats and death threats to someone who is teaching an approved course for an institution?"



In case it wasn't clear, no, NOBODY should be sending such threats. I personally believe the concept of a "hate crime" is ludicrous to begin with. This individual should be dealt with the same as if it were a Christian hater threatening a creationist or any other combination.



posted on Jul, 20 2007 @ 12:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by marg6043
So . . . let me step here for a moment and ask a question. . .

Are you saying that people that believe in science are anti Christians extremist? .


Not at all, although you should define what you mean by "believe in science". If you mean "put their faith in", as one might "put their faith" in a higher power, then that person has made science their religion. It's funny how some people on one hand want to say what "science" tells us today is absolute truth, but in the next breath they say scientists discover new things every day that disprove what they previously thought. It's not such a good idea to rely on such a system for ABSOLUTE truth.

I don't know any Christians who are against or "anti-science". Many ARE against pseudo-science being taught as science. I welcome true scientific research and investigation that does not have an agenda. I am 100% certain that we did not evolve from lower beings. Now if I believe that, why would I fear TRUE science? Simply put, I don't. I don't however, make science my god, since as many pro-evolutionist posters have pointed out, scientists make new discoveries every day that disprove their previously held positions. There's absolutely nothing wrong with such scientific research and investigation, but it has to be put in proper perspective.



Do you agree that people should be killed for not believing in religion, creationism or genesis?


Huh? Uh no.

Do you agree that Christians should be fed to lions?




top topics



 
7
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join