It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by dave420
reply to post by thisguyrighthere
The evolution vs. creationism argument isn't even about science, but about one group wanting to ignore scientific evidence when it suits them, in order to prop up a pre-existing idea they don't want to lose. That's all. The science isn't up for debate, as to do that requires evidence. Creationists have none. None at all.
Originally posted by thisguyrighthere
So......then why all the fighting back against those who want to believe some magic thing put them here? If one group wants to ignore the blue sky so what? Let them ignore the blue sky.
Originally posted by dave420
No-one's saying anyone can't challenge evolution. In fact, science demands it happens.
Yet so far the only "challenges" that have faced it from the Creationist camp have been childish at best.
So debating a baseless theory (which Creationism is, as it's based solely 100% on the Bible, which is not a scientific document)
n the same regard as a scientific theory is pandering to religious types who want equality where none should exist.
You want to challenge evolution with everything you throw at it, yet somehow scientists aren't allowed to throw their hands up in the air and laugh out loud at the ridiculous claim that is the unfounded theory of creationism.
When that happens, it's an evil plot by atheists to trample christianity. Oh the irony.
Science isn't a free-for-all where anyone can say anything they want.
Evidence talks, and so far Creationists have been vewy vewy quiet.
Unless you count rehashing the same debunked points again and again, which only serves to further establish creationism as the wishful thinking of some confused people into the origins of animals as we know them.
So please - enlighten us with these "great masses of information and 'evidence'" that contradicts evolution. Please. And be aware I said "contradicts" not "says something evolution doesn't cover", as the two are very different indeed. If you're right, you could win a nobel prize!
The man was 44-years-old at the time, married with two children, and worked as a civil servant. He went to hospital after suffering mild left leg weakness. He was treated by Dr Lionel Feuillet and colleagues, Hôpital de la Timone and Faculté de Médecine, Université de la Méditerranée, Marseille, France, who authored the clinical update.
Analysis of the man’s medical history revealed at the age of six months, he had had a shunt inserted into his head to drain away hydrocephalus (water on the brain), of unknown cause. At the age of 14, he had complained of unsteadiness and left leg weakness, which cleared up after the shunt was revised. His neurological development and medical history were otherwise normal.
( even a broken watch get's it right twice a day)
French doctors are amazed that a 44-year-old civil servant with an abnormally small brain has led a normal life with a slightly lower than normal IQ, according to a report on Physorg.com.
Doctors said the father of two went to the Hopital de la Timone in Marseille with mild weakness in his left leg. He was given a CT scan and an MRI, which showed that his cerebral cavities or ventricles had massively expanded, according a case history to be published in Saturday's Lancet.
"The brain itself, meaning the grey matter and white matter, was completely crushed against the sides of the skull," Dr. Lionel Feuillet told AFP. "The images were most unusual... the brain was virtually absent."
And saying Social Darwinism is accepted in science is hilarious. If that were the case, then there would be no medical research, as that flies in the face of Social Darwinism.
The fact medicine is one of the most exalted fields of science should tell you just how much claptrap that assertion is.
Going as far as saying Darwin was a racist, which is a point that has been debunked thousands of times before, shows you are willing to say anything to "win" your debate.
Banging on about the Congo and the media silence that surrounded it has nothing to do with this argument, unless you paranoically condense media and science into the same entity, which wouldn't surprise me
Also, if it's not been covered in the media, how do you know about it? Were you there?
And then talking about Iraq? You know who masterminded Iraq? Christians. Great job there, folks. Jesus would be proud.
Read what a certain Dr. Dawkins wrote to a confused person who saw the movie in question. It's pretty concise.
Originally posted by derekcbart
Unfortunately, the IDers don't want to just ignore the blue sky. They want to convince everyone else that the sky isn't blue.
If they just wanted to ignore the scientific evidence that would be one thing, but they are actively trying to convince people that the scientific evidence isn't real.
Imagine there's no countries
It isn't hard to do
Nothing to kill or die for
And no religion too
Imagine all the people
Living life in peace
Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
honestly, this thread is the ignorant arguments against evolution repeated ad nauseum...
if you think ID is science
i can already tell you that it's nothing of the sort, it's just as scientific as astrology (even Behe admits that)
unfalsifiable, no predictions made, entirely ignoring the problem that it's a circular argument
yes, it's a circular argument. it provides no independent proof for the designer the supposed appearance of design is proof of the designer...that's a recursive loop.
Originally posted by StellarX
In ten thousand years we have not added one grain crop to the table (despite the fact that dozens suddenly appeared on the scene all around the world introducing the agricultural revolution) and i have yet to see a convincing argument as to which hunter gatherer groups spent hundreds of years trying to create modern grains from wild inedible one's. Since this seems to generally agree with the almost complete absence of transitional forms in the known fossil record it has led to the theory of punctuated equilibrium to explain why the places where the fossil record is most complete also happens to show no traces of transitional forms.
Originally posted by derekcbart
Have you ever eaten corn? Corn, also known as Maize, as it exists today is an evolved plant.
It is unknown what precipitated its domestication, because the edible portion of the wild variety is too small and hard to obtain to be eaten directly, as each kernel is enclosed in a very hard bi-valve shell. However, George Beadle demonstrated that the kernels of teosinte are readily "popped" for human consumption, like modern popcorn. Some have argued that it would have taken too many generations of selective breeding in order to produce large compressed ears for efficient cultivation. However, studies of the hybrids readily made by intercrossing teosinte and modern maize suggest that this objection is not well-founded.
It started as a form of grass that was domesticated and modified through the evolutionary process to become the food that we eat today.
On the larger scale almost every form of food that we eat today is the result of evolutionary change that was created due to selective breeding (en.wikipedia.org...).
So, your statement that "we have not added one grain crop to the table" is simply not correct.
For more information you can read about neolithic founder crops (en.wikipedia.org...) and overall agriculture history (en.wikipedia.org...).
Among the world's cultivated species this tribe has some of the most complex genetic histories. An example is bread wheat, which contains the genomes of three species, only one of them originally a wheat Triticum species. Seed storage proteins in Triticeae are implicated in various food allergies and intolerances.
Werren and Clark are now looking further into the huge insert found in the fruitfly, and whether it is providing a benefit. “The chance that a chunk of DNA of this magnitude is totally neutral, I think, is pretty small, so the implication is that it has imparted of some selective advantage to the host,” says Werren. “The question is, are these foreign genes providing new functions for the host" This is something we need to figure out.”
Evolutionary biologists will certainly take note of this discovery, but scientists conducting genome-sequencing projects around the world also may have to readjust their thinking.
Before this study, geneticists knew of examples where genes from a parasite had crossed into the host, but such an event was considered a rare anomaly except in very simple organisms. Bacterial DNA is very conspicuous in its structure, so if scientists sequencing a nematode genome, for example, come across bacterial DNA, they would likely discard it, reasonably assuming that it was merely contamination—perhaps a bit of bacteria in the gut of the animal, or on its skin.
originally posted by StellarX
Unfalsifiable may be a requirement of scientific process but it has no bearing on the ultimate truth
Originally posted by dominicus
Myself having experienced spiritual enlightenment first hand, I know subjectively and objectively that God is real....objectively because others I know have shared my experiences. You see God cannot be found and seen using Logic and reason....the two most important and fundamental faculties used in science.
God is found in the sytematic surpassing/transcending of these faculties (logic/reason) using a number of different techniques and excercises. Of course if you dont do them and you are still staying within the limited confines of logic and reason...then yes I see how most of you do not have room for God. I was once there myself in the limited way of being, until being spiritually freed.