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.

 

Are creationists polluting the minds of our youth?

page: 4
5
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 3 2008 @ 09:31 PM
link   
Well, I believe there's a creator, so creationism is not only a theory to me...it's a proved fact. Science is not the be all, end all. Science is wonderful...but it totally misses the mark on some things. If science is all you have, then science is all you have. Sorry, I have more.




posted on Apr, 5 2008 @ 06:26 PM
link   
reply to post by Neiby
Woefully incomplete. Well, obviously, I would have a hard time summing up in two paragraphs all the works that have been written on the subject, both pro and con. Darwin's work alone took quite a few pages, and that was only the origin of the theory. However, I think I did a little better than:

Actually, I will present a short summary: "God did it."


Not a bad tactic though. If someone cannot meet the expectation of being able to recant every nuance of a theory in a debate, simply state they do not understand and toss out all arguments made.

I was taught evolution in school, just like, I assume, everyone else here. Unlike most of those who have responded to me, I do not believe everything I am told. I examine the issues. I have examined evolution and found some circumstantial (non-repeatable, non-recordable) evidence in its favor. I have also found several potential problems with the theory that have not been resolved to my satisfaction. From a scientific standpoint, I see something similar in certain aspects of creationism. Some circumstantial evidence seems to support it, while other areas have problems, the biggest if these being that there is no (and I believe can be no) direct evidence of God.

This means that, to my eye, the theories are pretty much equivalent in their scientific standing, although due to the excessive amount of study involved with evolution, it would obviously have the edge in that respect. But, I believe there is a God. That sways the balance for me, since it explains in a non-scientific way the potential problems that a scientific examination of creationism has.

The question before us here is not whether one or the other is 'correct', but rather should one be taught while the other is not? I say both are theories, and should therefore be taught as such. Evolution is already taught, exclusively in many schools. Apparently, creationism should be as well, since it seems no one arguing against it has any idea what it even is... except of course, for your 'complete' answer: "God did it."

TheRedneck



posted on Apr, 5 2008 @ 06:32 PM
link   
reply to post by madnessinmysoul

furthermore, it cannot have supporting evidence because it could only be proven by proving the existence of said designer...


Furthermore, evolution cannot have any supporting evidence because it could only be supported by proving a species change over time can happen...

TheRedneck



posted on Apr, 5 2008 @ 06:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheRedneck
Furthermore, evolution cannot have any supporting evidence because it could only be supported by proving a species change over time can happen...


not at all equivalent to what i said. the intelligent design theory is inherently supernatural. even behe said that you'd have to make astrology science if you put ID into the realm of science.

...and there has been proof of speciation.

here are some observed instances of speciation

and here are some more



posted on Apr, 5 2008 @ 07:50 PM
link   
Consider this:

Simple unicellular creatures are very different from a higher animal like a man, for instance. This is quite true...yet neither the amoeba nor the paramecium is as simple an animal as it would appear.

These small creatures have been studied for well over a century. One of the earliest and most famous investigators of their behavior was H. S. Jennings who in 1910 (mind you) published a book on his findings. He had been observing them for some years, spending hours on end with his eye glued to a microscope. His conclusions are significant.

He discovered that amoeba displayed signs of highly advanced forms of behavior which, as he put it, were they to be magnified to the size of a dog they could only be interpreted as anger, determination, frustration, hesitation, attentiveness, and according to Jennings, even intelligence!

Another early observer, J. Boyd Best, fully confirmed Jennings' conclusions, and added to the list such emotions as boredom, rebellion, and even "cognitive awareness" (which effectively is simply consciousness)!

Now, how can you deny a creator when early offerings in science such as this exist?

By protoplasm is simply meant the stuff of life, and when it is said that protoplasm appears in forms that are effectively immortal, it does not mean that such forms cannot die, it only means that such forms need not die. Protected from mortal hazards external to them, these creatures simply do not die. They just go on dividing and multiplying ad infinitum. It is only accidental death that prevents them from overwhelming the earth. They do not die of old age — as we do and as most animals familiar to us do as a matter of course, including our pets. They never die a "natural" death.

So, in the case of Adam, God evidently endowed his body with just such a property as this, a potential for endless continuance. The processes of self renewal and repair could have gone on for ever. It is clear that he could die, since we know that he did die — though not without first surviving for almost a thousand years. But it is equally clear that he would never have died if he had not sinned. If this were not true, the penalty threatened for disobedience would have been no threat at all. You cannot discourage disobedience with a threat of "punishment" in a form that will happen anyway whether there is disobedience or not.

Instead of teaching evolution alone, does it not make more sense to teach other thought processes as well? Not to the evolutionist...because that is the only theory of which he espouses. There seems to be no openness of mind to simply view any other way as scientific.

most material taken from Custance.org



[edit on 4/5/08 by idle_rocker]



posted on Apr, 5 2008 @ 08:46 PM
link   
reply to post by madnessinmysoul

not at all equivalent to what i said. the intelligent design theory is inherently supernatural. even behe said that you'd have to make astrology science if you put ID into the realm of science.


Of course it's not the equivalent. If it were, you would not be able to argue your point.



...and there has been proof of speciation.


Ahhhh, now you've got my interest! I scanned over the links as best as I could in my limited time available, and they will indeed prove interesting reading. On the con side, I see much reference to hybridization, which to my thinking would actually prove the necessity of some intelligent manipulation of the original genetics to produce the offspring. I did however see some references to naturally-generated mutation into new species, based on the BSC definition.

In short, I will have to peruse this information more thoroughly before I can give you an intelligent response. In the meantime, thank you. Someone is finally being scientific here!

TheRedneck



posted on Apr, 5 2008 @ 09:46 PM
link   
reply to post by TheRedneck
 


eh, normally it would be mel doing all the sciencing, but i think he has some real life science stuff to take care of, so i guess i've adapted to fill that niche for this thread.



posted on Apr, 6 2008 @ 09:25 AM
link   
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
Well, I must say that you do a pretty good job in his absence.

I looked over the examples in your links. This is the first time I have seen evidence for a true species change, and at this point I cannot refute it. Good job, and a RESPECTED foe button for you.

The problem is that, while you have proven species change is possible, all of the changes appear to be of a lateral nature, based solely on the BSC species definition. I do agree with the BSC, based in large part to the fact that it is the least subjective definition. But overall evolutionary theory states that species not only evolve laterally, but progressively. Otherwise, how could an amoeba become a dog?

So while you have proven a point here, it does not change my view that evolution is not the sole method of new species creation.

TheRedneck



posted on Apr, 14 2008 @ 08:12 PM
link   
Sometimes youhave to speak with the courage of your convictions. Young people in particular are taught that they are not fallen from GODs grace and that an living, intelligent enemy (satan) has not overcome them. The Darwinian Satan peddlers are uniting them all in evil against GOD and in particular against the Word of GOD, Jesus Christ.

Even though eviloutionary theory is falling apart like a cheap suit. They teach impreesionable minds they are superior to all that has ever come before them as the latest and greatest by a succession of grand accidents. The source of their pride is to them “a lucky accident” that makes each generation of them prouder than the last and more wicked than the last. Evilution is as crooked as a barrel of snakes.

Why do you think there are policemen in school hallways? teaching Evilution! Why are there school shootings? teaching Evilution! Why is homosexuality on the increase? teaching Evilution! Why is drug abuse getting worse? teaching Evilution! Why did the world trade center get attacked? teaching Evilution! Atheism on the rise? teaching Evilution! Disobeying their parents? teaching Evilution! Disrespecting their elders? teaching Evilution!



posted on Apr, 14 2008 @ 11:46 PM
link   
reply to post by Jack Thomas Chick
 

Could you please stop referring to evolutionists as satan/devil worshipers with no conscience? [seen your other posts]. It's antagonistic and false. There are MANY christians who accept ToE so you're disrespecting them as well.

..and it's evolution not evilution. Calling us evil doesn't make us so, [in your language] thats just claiming false witness.


[edit on 14-4-2008 by riley]



posted on Apr, 15 2008 @ 12:42 AM
link   
reply to post by TheRedneck
 


So you disagree with the notion of speciation. Okay. Now to validate that, define "species." Bet you can't - at least, you can't and still be scientifically accurate.

You know, I hate to be the broken record here, buut evolutionary science is decades beyond the arguments that its critics keep trying to bring forth. I'm still seeing Piltdown Man as "evidence against" for crying out loud.

Darwinian evolution has been found to be flawed and incomplete. It may shock those creationists who imagine that evolution is a religion and Darwin its messiah, but, really? It was a good first try. So was Pliny's attempt at taxonomy. Do you see anyone using Pliny's system any more? Things that fly are birds (even insects), things that swim (such as otters) were fish, etc? No? Me either. Nice first attempt, needs a little tinkering.

We've moved on, gentlemen, please come and join us.



posted on Apr, 15 2008 @ 12:45 AM
link   
reply to post by Jack Thomas Chick
 


Oh, this looks like a fun game.

Is Avril Lavigne getting a record deal also caused by evolution? Was Gandhi assassinated because of teaching evolution? When the Germans bombed pearl harbor, was it because of teaching evolution? Is my torn cuticle caused by teaching evolution?



posted on Apr, 15 2008 @ 01:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by TheWalkingFox
reply to post by Jack Thomas Chick
 


Oh, this looks like a fun game.

Is Avril Lavigne getting a record deal also caused by evolution? Was Gandhi assassinated because of teaching evolution? When the Germans bombed pearl harbor, was it because of teaching evolution? Is my torn cuticle caused by teaching evolution?


You really could benefit form a good Bible college son. Because it was the Japanese not the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor. I remember it like it was yesterday. Eviloution wasn't being taught like it is today when Pearl Harbor was bombed. If it was I would say you have a point. Take care of your finger now.



posted on Apr, 15 2008 @ 09:58 AM
link   
reply to post by Jack Thomas Chick
 


First of all, maybe you should watch Animal House, then you'd get the Germans bombing Pearl Harbor reference.

Secondly, you should read this book, then you'd understand how ridiculous the rest of your post is. Seriously. You sound like one of those 50s-style preachers screaming that their parents weren't chimps. You're doing your argument a great disservice by not even bothering to understand what it is you're slamming (which illustrates your motives for doing so).

Evolution WAS taught back then like it is now. It just didn't get you all annoyed as it does now. Why you think it's evil is beyond me, seeing as many tens of millions of Christians around the world believe it to be so.

Put away your bronze-age farmer's manual and actually learn something. Deny Ignorance. Or do you think the best use of God's gift of your brain is to turn it into mush by ignoring the very methodology that allows you to live as long as you currently are? If God created the universe, then he created the scientific method. To call it evil seems a bit hypocritical to me.



posted on Apr, 16 2008 @ 12:17 PM
link   
Why doesn't everyone just admit that they do not know how it all began.
They do not know how humans or anything else came to be.
Why don't they just be honest and say that it is likely that we will never know.
Why doesn't everyone just admit that neither the knowing nor the not knowing will change what we must do in the present.
After they have done that, then they can get on to more serious education matters.



posted on Apr, 16 2008 @ 12:34 PM
link   
reply to post by Jack Thomas Chick
 


It's an Animal House reference. Perhaps you could squeeze it in between your Billy Graham marathons.


Of course evolution wasn't being taught at the time. Also at the time American blacks were seen as inferior creatures with lesser rights. By your logic, there's a correlation between the lack of evolution teaching and Jim Crow.



posted on Apr, 16 2008 @ 01:53 PM
link   
reply to post by OhZone
 


Scientists already admit they don't know how life started. They do, however, know how life has come from there to here. Creationists know neither, and yet claim they do. At least Science doesn't have an ego to dent or feelings to hurt and can readily accept its short-comings.




top topics



 
5
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join