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.

 

One in Eight U.S. Biology Teachers Teaches Creationism

page: 12
4
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 30 2008 @ 07:50 AM
link   
reply to post by audas
 


Wow! Where have you been? Science was hijacked by materialist long ago. They made the West and much of the whole (educated) world dumber then monkeys. Now half the world is starting to see the value of going back to the jungle to live. Just to get out of the sick world our brilliant minds have built.
What goes around, comes around, you reap what you sow, he that soweth to the wind shall reap a whirl wind. "Inherit the Wind"!




posted on May, 30 2008 @ 07:54 AM
link   
reply to post by Horza
 


Micro biology is a brand new field. So already they jump to the conclusions that its evolution happening. When they don't even understand the mechanisms that they are dealing with. Oh well, I guess they are pretty desperate to find evolution happening somewhere!



posted on May, 30 2008 @ 08:44 AM
link   
Microbiology has been around since the 17th century.


1660: Robert Hooke (1635-1703) published "Micrographia", containing drawings and detailed observations of biological materials made with the best compound microscope and illumination system of the time.
1676: Anton van Leeuwenhoek (1632-1723) was the first person to observe microorganisms.
1883: Carl Zeiss and Ernst Abbe pioneered developments in microscopy (such as immersion lenses and apochromatic lenses which reduce chromatic aberration) which perist until the present day.



posted on May, 30 2008 @ 08:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by Howie47
reply to post by audas
 


Wow! Where have you been? Science was hijacked by materialist long ago. They made the West and much of the whole (educated) world dumber then monkeys. Now half the world is starting to see the value of going back to the jungle to live. Just to get out of the sick world our brilliant minds have built.
What goes around, comes around, you reap what you sow, he that soweth to the wind shall reap a whirl wind. "Inherit the Wind"!


Footnotes please! What is your source for this history of science?



posted on May, 30 2008 @ 08:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by Howie47
reply to post by johnsky
 


I know gravity is a fact. Just drop something. Now, what makes it drop?
That is the theory.
What do you see happening, that you equate to be evolution? "All life
having a common ancestor." Surely not the fact that we inherit some
traits from are fathers side of the family and some from our mothers?


12 pages into this topic, i think there really isn't an excuse for not understanding the premise of facts, theories, and evolution. Please re-read the thread rather than reopening closed sub-topics.



posted on May, 30 2008 @ 09:48 AM
link   
reply to post by Howie47
 


Well, they found evolution happening here.

Twice i've asked folks on the creationist side of the discussion to both comment on the evidence here and provide some similarly detailed evidence for creationism and twice nothing has been forthcoming. Perhaps you would like to comment on it, Howie?



posted on May, 30 2008 @ 09:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by zarzar
I have been examining the theory of evolution in great depth for a lot time. Most of you have heard that there are a lot of unexplainable or even inconsistent parts in it. Let me list some of them:
order from disorder
information from randomness
complex DNA and RNA by chance?
life's complexity
where are the transitional fossils?
could an intermediate even survive?
reproduction without reproduction?
plants without photosynthesis?
explain metamorphosis!
etc.

So there are A LOT of issues the theory of evolution can't explain currently. Actually it is the same with the Creationism/Intelligent Design. They have some scientific bases like the concept of "Irreducible complexity". Our Children should be aware of these things.

Both theories are used by non-scientific circles, both political and religious. Probably you have heard about the so-called Social Darwinism which is one of the bases of the Nazi and the Communist teachings. I think it is still thought in different forms in the Communist countries, which simply helps to brainwash the citizens more thoroughly.

So, my oppinion is that there isn't any complete scientific explanation of how life came into existence and this should be made clear to the students.


Thank you for this post. I was going to post something like this but went through the thread first.

I don't think people in this thread, including the scientifically minded posters, understand what Evolution and Creationism are.

Darwinian evolution is horrendous. It has way too many holes, and if you look into the whole story of when and how he came up with his Grandfather's work and associate that with the societal politics at that time - it's easy to see what it was. It's just a mainstream opinion put out there to promote agenda's and the evidence screams that out.

This is why people don't even understand what the hell evolution is. I mean, they remember that famous chart of one of the most widespread swiss cheese theories there are, and they notice how nature tends to evolve and grow. To equate this with evolution must be true is mindless.
It's not wonder that they will teach about evolution in school over and over yet only very few opportunities are made to analyse what the theory says.

It's just like how the mainstream pushed the Creationism = Christian nut image and people eat that up and it shapes their view of Creationism. Look at the details and THINK before allowing you to be subconsciously owned up like this.

Most of you are just getting involved in the game. That game is divide and conquer.
Creationism vs. Evolution is a facade. This argument doesn't really exist legitmately. Both depend on interpretation (and there are millions) and both are not conflicting thoughts (they are actually more easily harmonious than conflicting...). They could both exist..one isn't dependent on the other to be true or not in the BLACK AND WHITE way it's played out.

I certainly thought epigenetics would hamper Darwinian's idea of evolution but people are still too pawned by the media hand (which has actually put efforts using epigenetics as a partial confirmation of Darwinian evolution
).

[edit on 30-5-2008 by 1nelove]



posted on May, 30 2008 @ 10:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by wytworm
reply to post by Clearskies
 


What are academic christians?


I think they're a myth.

You know, like unicorns.



posted on May, 30 2008 @ 10:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by Howie47



evolution - relys on observation
reply to post by WinoBot
 


Evolutionist are hallucinating then. Because NO ONE has ever seen
Evolution happen! It supposable happens over millions of years?


I presume you'll be asking for the vaccine for the old, unevolved version of the flu this year, then....




posted on May, 30 2008 @ 10:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by Chris McGee
reply to post by Howie47
 


Well, they found evolution happening here.

Twice i've asked folks on the creationist side of the discussion to both comment on the evidence here and provide some similarly detailed evidence for creationism and twice nothing has been forthcoming. Perhaps you would like to comment on it, Howie?


I wouldn't hold your breath on that.

In fact, expect a few pieces of sophistry stolen from some Intelligent Design page and deflection. Lots of deflection.



posted on May, 30 2008 @ 02:26 PM
link   
Evolution is a theory (which means a description, not a guess) of how existing forms of life developed. It is not required to answer where life came from. It is a biological theory, not cosmological. Don't ask a biologist about the big bang or why there is gravity, etc.



posted on May, 30 2008 @ 03:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nightflyer28

Originally posted by Howie47



evolution - relys on observation
reply to post by WinoBot
 


Evolutionist are hallucinating then. Because NO ONE has ever seen
Evolution happen! It supposable happens over millions of years?


I presume you'll be asking for the vaccine for the old, unevolved version of the flu this year, then....



What difference does it make, they both won't do anything but wear out your immune system.

This post proves what I said. You are not clarifying your understanding or what you are talking about.

This general reference to "evolution" you describe is grammatically correct within the context of a change over generations; however, it has nothing to do with Darwinian evolution which is what is compared to Creationism.
I've NEVER met a Christian or any other believers of Creation who believed evolution DID NOT exist in this context.

Darwinian Evolution stretches to the point of nuclear dna changing over time. Therefore, species can develop into a new species.

The BIGGEST point about Darwinian Evolution is that the DNA molecule was randomly assembled over time. That is where it comes into conflict with Creationism. This has been proven by modern science to be impossible according to what we know. Basically, the lifespan of the universe isn't long enough to form such complex nucleotide base pairs. This is one of many dismisal's of this theory...it's just mind blowing how easily society controls people with information for this to believed...and better yet, the idea is never looked into or understood anyway!

This is the conflict... NOT "well clearly things evolve, creationists are dumb."

Is everything in this world spun into the black and white??? It's just images for eveything at this point (the subconscious mind)..no meaning..



posted on May, 30 2008 @ 03:18 PM
link   
I want to know what process creationists teach.

Exactly how did the Creator do all this?

And what did this creator look like?

And of course who or what created the creator?

Why do they call their Creator a "HE"?



posted on May, 30 2008 @ 07:53 PM
link   
Lay aside all religions and their doctrines. Just forget about them.

Now, you cannot tell me that THIS was ALL an accident!
It would be easy for me to believe that Leonardo da Vinci bumped his easel and palette, knocking them over on the ground and spilling paint onto a canvas that just so happened to create the Mona Lisa. Come on! I don’t care how many millions of years a blank canvas lays around, it will never produce the Mona Lisa either.

Just because we know the earth is round and that we’re floating around in space among billions of stars and planets we think we got it figured out. We need to get over ourselves! We are like a bunch of ants trying to figure out what a stop sign is for.

Mainstream science is the pursuit of truth without God, which is the equivalent of trying to making cherry pie without cherries.

My question is this… What is your hang up with God? I’m not telling what I believe is the Truth! I’m not telling its Buddhism, Hinduism, Christianity, Judaism, or the Great Spirit that many Native Americans worship. I’m just talking about God. Why are you so bent to go through life with your eyes wide shut? Even Einstein, an agnostic, believed in an impersonal God, saying, "I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with the fates and actions of human beings."

Do I sound angry? I guess I am. Angry because you think you’re so smart...

Why don’t you go back to your ant hill.



posted on May, 30 2008 @ 08:05 PM
link   
reply to post by apaulo
 




Mainstream science is the pursuit of truth without God, which is the equivalent of trying to making cherry pie without cherries.




Are you kidding me? Oh, gotcha, good one...

Oh, what's that? You're serious?

Putting science and God together makes NO sense at all, so I don't know why you are thinking that God is the main ingredient in science.



posted on May, 30 2008 @ 08:25 PM
link   
Putting science and God together makes NO sense at all, so I don't know why you are thinking that God is the main ingredient in science.

Are you trying to be funny? No offense, but you have a terrible sense of humor… don’t quit your day job, bub.

Let me tell you something you will probably find humorous, though.

A family has finished devouring a huge thanksgiving feast and they are all sitting around the table when grandpa says, “Ma, that was fantastic!”
“Oh, well, thanks but I didn’t cook it.”
“No? Who cooked it?” Asked Grandpa thoroughly confused.
“Nobody.” Said grandma. “There is no cook.”

Now that's funny!



posted on May, 30 2008 @ 08:33 PM
link   
reply to post by apaulo
 


Wow. Good one. I can see your amazing talent for insult has probably never let you down.

You sound like your from medieval times when you use God to explain things and as the main ingredient in science which they all did too, until they learn how things ACTUALLY work.

I don't deny God, but I think we need to realize that we were left much more alone than many religious people think.



posted on May, 30 2008 @ 10:39 PM
link   
Bigbert,
Thank you so much for the compliment. ((I was unaware that insulting was a talent, though.))

By the way, I don’t use God to explain EVERYTHING… for example, this computer I am using. HP had nothing to do with it. It evolved. It didn’t take very long though. When my father first gave it to me it was a calculator…

As for my religious beliefs, for all you know I could be another believer in Spinoza’s philosophy who is looking for the next scientific Messiah to blow my mind with his ability to “explain things”, but do not put me into an era that I can only read about. I am from the glorious age of science! Oh, but wait, I guess every generation thought that!



posted on May, 30 2008 @ 10:57 PM
link   
reply to post by apaulo
 


You are very welcome.

Now, how about taking back that apple pie analogy too? Being as it is completely ridiculous.

Hey, just trying to help you out a bit.



posted on May, 31 2008 @ 01:34 AM
link   
It takes more faith to believe there is no God and that there is evolution than it does to believe the opposite. The greatest atheist of the 20th century has now agreed that the universe must be designed by a higher intelligence.







 
4
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join