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.
The premise is flawed only from your perspective. To you, reality = accident. In this regard, truly, this discussion is worthless. We could argue until we all die and only then would you finally agree.
It takes an intelligence to design and create something. It’s just that simple. Like it or not
Originally posted by Murangelo
I believe that outside of our ability, or senses, to see, taste, feel, smell, and hear, there are possibly millions of other dimensions. We are limited to only five senses to contact 3. If someone was born blind, that doesn’t mean a rainbow doesn’t exist… even though it really doesn’t in his “universe.” We ant brains can not even begin to fathom the greatness of the universe simply because we lack the ability to contact it.
Evolution is a wild goose chase that will lead a person farther and farther away from the answer to the mystery of the universe, and the reason that is because of the very logic I have encountered here; reality, though impossibly complex beyond comprehension, has no intelligence behind it. Its glory is a mere accident. This logic makes me deeply sorrowful. I feel like I have been speaking to someone about a rainbow, but I’m just now discovering that they are blind.
There is a sixth sense, and I suppose it is the one that you lack in order to contact God. So, in your universe, I guess He does not exist.
Originally posted by bigbert81
reply to post by vor78
At the very least, the students should get a full, all around education instead of a biased one.
Not even mentioning Darwin's name is a joke of an education.
Originally posted by apaulo
reply to post by wolfmanjack
Originally posted by apaulo
Even though Einstein was an agnostic, at least he believed in a supreme power and intelligence that created the universe.
Open your eyes for crying out loud.
Originally posted by saturnine_sweet
reply to post by wolfmanjack
I think what you fail to see is the way in which your own beliefs also constitute a religion. You can use either definition of a theory, it doesn't matter; what does matter is that both creationism and evolution theory are based on CONJECTURE. One is the conjecture of men in ancient times, the other conjecture of men in modern times. Religion holds up the accounts of certain types of events as proof; science holds up other types of events as proof. The problem is, neither constitute proof. They constitute the BASIS OF CONJECTURE.
1. Science is not "Religion
2. "You can use either definition of a theory, it doesn't matter;"
Originally posted by saturnine_sweet
reply to post by wolfmanjack
I think YOU need a jab about reading comprehension...as my point was that the argument about the definition of theory is moot, because that has nothing to do with the fact that it is still a system based on faith in scientists, not on hard science.