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.

 

Evolution. The proof you've been requesting.

page: 6
8
<< 3  4  5   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 5 2008 @ 04:41 PM
link   
reply to post by Conspiriology
 


Despite your aggressive nature, let me clarify what I am trying to say in case I messed up my post.
Science has no agenda.
Scientists are supposed to be neutral and have no agenda.
Scientist accuse creationists of manipulating science for there agenda.
And though you and I may disagree on many things, I was conceding that there are many scientists who have betrayed their craft and drive their research through their own agenda. That in turn makes them hypocrites, as it is the precise accusation they level against creationists.

To conclude:

Science: good. Scientists, some good some bad.
God: good. Christians, some good some bad.




posted on Jul, 5 2008 @ 04:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by Conspiriology
Whoa there Mel I never said anything about supernatural, why is it you have to think I am talking about that? I'm just thinking there seems to be a directive here where "life finds a way" and that is all I'm saying. does there not have to be an intention there and if not then why does it continue ? This isn't to say I agree with the idea this e-coli will evolve into something eventually looking nothing like e-coli but just that e-coli as a life force finds a way to survive.


OK. Perhaps my bad. But when you interjected you did say this...


You're prejudice is showing like a mofo here in that you can not allow a divine foot in the door NOR anything and I mean any hint of any intelligence or intent thereof.


...so this said to me that for some reason I should allow a 'divine foot in the door' in this study. As that was all I was talking about.

So the other non-random alternative is directed mutations or frontloading. In which case, it is pretty rare and random for directed mutation or frontloading. If it was such mechanisms, we would have expected the potentiating neutral mutation to be readily reproducible, but it wasn't. Even the later citrate mutations were rare and random.


It seems everytime we DO figure out many of lifes mystery there are those that think this disproves God ie; "we know how this or that works so it wasn't supernatural after all so God didn't do it nyaa nyaaa".

I wonder sometimes if we are not doing the same thing with this too. We saw it mutate so that means no creator?


It doesn't even speak to a creator per se. It does speak to evolution and ID creationism arguments. It shows many ID arguments to be specious and supports evolutionary mechanisms.

As for the big G. It doesn't say much beyond how such things might act. But that has always been the case for evolutionary science, however, you consistently appear to think otherwise. If you make evolution = atheism, which you do, then any science that speaks to evolution is speaking to the possibility of a creator.

I can actually separate the two ideas much of the time, con. I don't think this data comes close to evidence for or against super santas.



posted on Jul, 5 2008 @ 04:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by melatonin

Originally posted by schrodingers dog
So much of this evolution/creation argument is incidental. It is more of an internal battle within christian identity trying to reconcile knowledge with faith. The scientist is just the messenger.


I think that is generally true. But I fear it is not just christians, but also extends into the political arena for science as a whole, although the overlap is there in the US. 'The republican war on science' is worth a read. However, it can also apply to leftish politics (e.g., communism and Lysencko)

Given that many christians have no issue with evolution at all, I think it is just certain groups. Hopefully they'll catch us all up eventually, but they'll need to lay off the wilfull ignorance.


You know,, that is true, well it used to be. I remember a time when the church wasn't interested in knowing what Science was up to. I think most Christians actually believed Science was an ally of sorts even when Science didn't agree, Christians were more apt to listen to Science go along with it. I am telling you,, where the changes in Christians attitude about Science started and I refer to this a lot was in a long post I made to Madness about it and it had to do with the direction and stance Atheism was taking with Science.

This is also when Science started becoming so much like religion.

They became activists with an embellished anger for Religion and I started seeing the same post bytes over and over "Religion has caused more eveil" Religion "is why the towers came down" I still get told to quit using the Bible and no one wants to hear your biuble thumping Con,, Hell look at the top of this page and see sly says it to me and again,, I tell him not to bitch about it when he ASKS for what the Bible says but he thinks I just thumped the Bible but if you read it carefully, there isn't a quote fro a scripture in there and I probably have only quoted from it a dozen times since I have been here. Only when asked is when but I saw this happening before my very eyes and I wasn't all that into religion at all.

Until they wanted to take Christians and Christianity out of the works,, I got ticked off at that. I don't know what it is but there is something about Christianity that I feel if it wasn't around anymore,, the world would just lose it and go off so far in one direction we would hate it.

Just what I think

- Con



posted on Jul, 5 2008 @ 05:19 PM
link   
reply to post by Conspiriology
 


C, I think you are being a bit disingenuous.
You embrace and benefit from science every day, including as we speak and you type on your computer. I have never met a scientist who's out to "get" God. In fact most of them are regular church going folk. There has never been any scientific discovery that I'm aware of that disproves the existence of God. These two things are not mutually exclusive.
This whole mess started when church folk tried to dabble in science and came up with this whole ID malarkey. Then and only then did the science community got their panties in a bunch. It would be the same if a molecular biologist told the priest how he should interpret the bible and then added a new section to the bible to boot.
You may if you want to, but cherry picking science for your convenience is just plain hypocrisy.



posted on Jul, 5 2008 @ 05:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by schrodingers dog
reply to post by Conspiriology
 


C, I think you are being a bit disingenuous.
You embrace and benefit from science every day, including as we speak and you type on your computer. I have never met a scientist who's out to "get" God. In fact most of them are regular church going folk. There has never been any scientific discovery that I'm aware of that disproves the existence of God. These two things are not mutually exclusive.
This whole mess started when church folk tried to dabble in science and came up with this whole ID malarkey. Then and only then did the science community got their panties in a bunch. It would be the same if a molecular biologist told the priest how he should interpret the bible and then added a new section to the bible to boot.
You may if you want to, but cherry picking science for your convenience is just plain hypocrisy.


The whole mess didn't start with "Church folk" trying to dabble in anything ID has nothing to do with religion damn it and I wish you would quit saying it does. The ONLY reason Christians support it is it is the next best thing to creationism, we think if it was taught as an alternative to evolution it would be the best of the two where evolution is antithetical to everything the Bible teaches.

I know some Christians have tried to reconcile science with religion saying evolution is what God uses as a tool and anyone who thinks that way IS a tool. It simply is NOT in there and the texts are explicit on that. Using Science to Validate God this way is the same damn mistake that eve made condeming us to using science to find our way back to eternal life in the first place. The tree of life was all that was but if you know what Science means it means Knowledge and that was the tree of knowledge

The fruit of that tree was empty and WE have to put the knowledge in it NOT take from it. This was the slick trick satan used in the garden. The tree of knowledge was the tree of science.

This is talked about in the bible as men who think they know so damn much become fools in Gods eyes and man begins to follow it.

I'm not cherry picking jack squat, that's just another cookie cutter comeback most anti religious people accuse us of everytime we say something we are quotye mining or cherry picking and I don't care what you call it, THE FACT IS it is TRUE Just LOOK AROUND. Have you not noticed just about every Atheist in here seems to be speaking as if THEY are a scientist or have some superior knowledge of it over thoise that are religious? You already proved to me I am on the right track just by suggesting I have sonmething against Science when I MOST CERTAINLY DON'T .

I have a big problem with Atheist / evolutionist and that does NOT mean Science in general but seeing how they like to merge meanings of words like Macro to mean Micro and vice versa or Breed of dog to mean species and evolution to mean Science, it all makes sense but it isn't the TRUTH!

Look at this forum read the posts where Atheists quote scientists who have every intention of making God irrelevent.


- Con



posted on Jul, 5 2008 @ 07:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by Conspiriology
The whole mess didn't start with "Church folk" trying to dabble in anything ID has nothing to do with religion damn it and I wish you would quit saying it does. The ONLY reason Christians support it is it is the next best thing to creationism, we think if it was taught as an alternative to evolution it would be the best of the two where evolution is antithetical to everything the Bible teaches.


Con, do you really think this? That ID as is being pushed by the disco tute in the US is not theistic?

lol

I think ID need not be theistic, amazingly when someone actually contemplates the idea of non-theistic ID, people think it's really funny and worthy of mockery. Which is exactly what happened to Dawkins when he even played with the idea in the recent ID mockumentary.

We can see the ballcock of the ID emperor, con. It just rancid creationism wrapped up in some fancy edumacated lingo. The same old stinky anti-evolution arguments. Indeed, the most recent ID book for kids is written by the christian Dembski who says ID is just John's logos theology and co-authored by Sean McDowell of Worldview ministries.

In fact, the theistic underpinnings have never been so obvious since the Dover debacle.


Look at this forum read the posts where Atheists quote scientists who have every intention of making God irrelevent.
- Con


God is irrelevant to me, con. I don't need to make it irrelevant. It/He/She is. As relevant in my life as leprechauns. However, the believers in said gods are more relevant to my life than believers in leprechauns.

If god is relevant to you. That's cool. But don't hide it behind the facade of pseudoscience. All you need is faith dude, stick it on top of science. Many people can handle it. We won't shut up you and your scientists claiming how god is obvious from science, and we won't expect you to shut up scientists claiming how god is a delusion with a spadeful of science.

Each have the right to speak their minds.



posted on Jul, 5 2008 @ 09:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by melatonin

Con, do you really think this? That ID as is being pushed by the disco tute in the US is not theistic?


Damn mel, why is this so difficult, Mel I am telling you the honest to gods truth I do NOT believe this to be some back door way to get creationism into science and I know ID'ers feel just as pissed off at Christians about that but it really isn't out fault. I think ID'ers are Scientists some may be pagan some Atheist some Christian but I know some of them personally at ASU and they ain't religious, NOT AT ALL. You know wraoth was not a Christian right? Yet you saw him arguing our side in evolution debates all the time. I knda know a little about what they believe but it is NOT about God like you or I think.

If that makes me look foolish,, well go ahead and laugh it is just what I think. I agree it was used by theists and that is why they are ticked off about it. (Dover) I doubt even those parents involved really knew what it was tho.



God is irrelevant to me, con. I don't need to make it irrelevant. It/He/She is. As relevant in my life as leprechauns. However, the believers in said gods are more relevant to my life than believers in leprechauns.


awe,, thats nice mel



If god is relevant to you. That's cool. But don't hide it behind the facade of pseudoscience. All you need is faith dude, stick it on top of science. Many people can handle it. We won't shut up you and your scientists claiming how god is obvious from science, and we won't expect you to shut up scientists claiming how god is a delusion with a spadeful of science.


So like sands in an hour glass these our the days of our lives.



Each have the right to speak their minds.


I think we have every intention of speaking ours in public school science class rooms and won't shut up till we do

Sorry, that's what I hear

- Con



posted on Jul, 5 2008 @ 09:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by schrodingers dog




Science has no agenda.

Scientists are supposed to be neutral and have no agenda.
Scientist accuse creationists of manipulating science for there agenda.
And though you and I may disagree on many things, I was conceding that there are many scientists who have betrayed their craft and drive their research through their own agenda. That in turn makes them hypocrites, as it is the precise accusation they level against creationists.

To conclude:

Science: good. Scientists, some good some bad.
God: good. Christians, some good some bad.


Wow I missed this post shrod, I'm terribly sorry, I see on some of these issues we are on the same page and yes you are correct:
"Science: good. Scientists, some good some bad.
God: good. Christians, some good some bad."

Again,, sorry I missed that one

- Con

[edit on 5-7-2008 by Conspiriology]



posted on Jul, 5 2008 @ 09:50 PM
link   
reply to post by schrodingers dog
 


This is a great post. But If humans did evolve from chimpanzee's why are there still chimpanzee's?
Cockroaches evolved and they are still cockroache's.



posted on Jul, 5 2008 @ 09:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by Conspiriology
Damn mel, why is this so difficult, Mel I am telling you the honest to gods truth I do NOT believe this to be some back door way to get creationism into science and I know ID'ers feel just as pissed off at Christians about that but it really isn't out fault. I think ID'ers are Scientists some may be pagan some Atheist some Christian but I know some of them personally at ASU and they ain't religious, NOT AT ALL. You know wraoth was not a Christian right? Yet you saw him arguing our side in evolution debates all the time. I knda know a little about what they believe but it is NOT about God like you or I think.


I'm quite sure many IDers are not christian. But the vast majority are evangelical christians.

Well, you should tell these people at ASU, along with your theist friends, that they need to start doing some science rather than writing books for kids, making mockumentaries, and forcing anti-evolution approaches into schools.

Looks awfully like creationism in disguise. Being completely vacuous on the level of science, subverting the scientific process, relying on socio-political techniques, and a predominately evangelical par-tay.

ID is scientifically vacuous. We know that. You have nothing. Over 10 years, and nothing. The IDers can't even publish in their own journal.

Nothing. Nada. Zilch.


If that makes me look foolish,, well go ahead and laugh it is just what I think. I agree it was used by theists and that is why they are ticked off about it. (Dover) I doubt even those parents involved really knew what it was tho.


The people who pushed ID into the schools in Dover knew exactly what they were doing. They were just good old creationists, and there were very honest about it, until the DI told them to keep their Jebus yelping to themselves.

You should try being a bit more honest about it, con. There is no science to support, it's all jebus for you. For others it's their own super-santa.


awe,, thats nice mel


Glad you think so.


So like sands in an hour glass these our the days of our lives.


I think they are, con.


I think we have every intention of speaking ours in public school science class rooms and won't shut up till we do

Sorry, that's what I hear

- Con


And that's why you will be fought tooth and nail. And you will lose, and you will lose continually and painfully, just like you have done since 1987. Even when faced with an 'activist' Bush-appointed christian judge. The deception of the DI and most ID supporters is clear enough for all to see, not much more than a group of liars for jesus. You actually make christians look foolish, that's why we laugh. I actually feel sorry for the good honest christians.

For someone that pretends to be a fluffy science supporter, con. Those whiskers and chompers sure do look canine. Just like a creationist wolf hiding in a scabby moth-eaten wooly science cloak.

Just saying like...

ABE: haha, this is beautiful...


Originally posted by Conspiriology
Damn mel, why is this so difficult, Mel I am telling you the honest to gods truth I do NOT believe this to be some back door way to get creationism into science


cf.


I think we have every intention of speaking ours in public school science class rooms and won't shut up till we do

Sorry, that's what I hear


At least be internally consistent. I guess it's a bit like creationism tourettes.

ID is a form of creationism, just another theological pseudoscience, essentially neo-Paleyism. And that's the honest to leprechauns truth. You have the same arguments, we have the transitional fossils from your own creationist schooltexts. Even without doing any science, you want it in school classrooms.

That would be funny, but for the fact that this would just be the start of the 'renewing' of culture.

[edit on 5-7-2008 by melatonin]



posted on Jul, 5 2008 @ 10:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by melatonin


I'm quite sure many IDers are not christian. But the vast majority are evangelical christians.

mmm I wouldn't know to tell you factually enough to argue the point. I see how it would attract them but many aspects of it are not biblical in my view.


Well, you should tell these people at ASU, along with your theist friends, that they need to start doing some science rather than writing books for kids, making mockumentaries, and forcing anti-evolution approaches into schools.


I am not aware of this "mockumentary" Ill research it .


Looks awfully like creationism in disguise. Being completely vacuous on the level of science, subverting the scientific process, relying on socio-political techniques, and a predominately evangelical par-tay.


the evangelical aspect notwithstanding, this can't be said of evolutionist mel?


ID is scientifically vacuous. We know that. You have nothing. Over 10 years, and nothing. The IDers can't even publish in their own journal.

Nothing. Nada. Zilch.


I think you are wrong there Mel but don't quote me just yet I need to check on it. Ill make a call and see if I can verify.

Other than that, many of them have decided to commit their Science to yours. Another words, they are more interested now in debunking evolution than proving ID. That is all I know from what I gathered at ASU. This may be a retaliatory thing or who knows for what reason but I remember when all they talked about was ID talk and now they talk about evolution more but in reverse if you know what I mean.

I know they put up with Christians because they get a lot of money from us but seems like they always take it begrudgingly like they wish they didn't have to. I think they hold a grudge from dover towards us.



The people who pushed ID into the schools in Dover knew exactly what they were doing. They were just good old creationists, and there were very honest about it, until the DI told them to keep their Jebus yelping to themselves.


They were NOT ID''rs Mel jeeziz can't you see that. The trial had gotten so much publicity it pulled them into it but believe me they did not want to have it done that way and NOT by anyone yelling "Jebus". See here is the real tragedy to this is they were not near ready to be questioned like this and this was rushed into. Those people on the school board were soccer moms and typical dads and moms that got a hold of something that looked like what they wanted taught in schools and I understand why but they didn't know they were messing things up making ID guilty by association to "jebus" but Jesus really has nothing to do with it.

Religion has nothing to do with it but if you insist that it does I can't change your mind. The only thing I think Atheists went all up in arms about is that it has religious implications but

SO "F"ing what!




And that's why you will be fought tooth and nail. And you will lose, and you will lose continually and painfully. Even when faced with an activist Bush-appointed christian judge. The deception of the DI and most ID supporters is clear enough for all to see, not much more than a group of liars for jesus.


Don't count your chickens Mel,


And you will lose, and you will lose continually and painfully.


losing the battle is business as usual to us but it's the lord who decides who wins the war

Christians have a way of getting on with things and as many have tried to exterminate them,, they just seem to survive and flourish. One of the most difficult places to penetrate was China but look whats happening there.

Don't lump us all in with the liars, I think there was some hanky panky being done on both sides.

Oh and that Judge,,,

what a putts

- Con



posted on Jul, 5 2008 @ 10:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by Conspiriology
mmm I wouldn't know to tell you factually enough to argue the point. I see how it would attract them but many aspects of it are not biblical in my view.


Yes, many christians see it as bad science and bad theology.


I am not aware of this "mockumentary" Ill research it .


Heh, Expelled, con.

Rather than doing science, it appears that IDers have other things in mind.


the evangelical aspect notwithstanding, this can't be said of evolutionist mel?

I think you are wrong there Mel but don't quote me just yet I need to check on it. Ill make a call and see if I can verify.


Firstly, no, I don't think it can. Evolutionary biology is science. It just does its science thing. ID wants to claim science status, yet subvert science and act as a public force to get its way. Science ain't a democracy.


Another words, they are more interested now in debunking evolution than proving ID. That is all I know from what I gathered at ASU. This may be a retaliatory thing or who knows for what reason but I remember when all they talked about was ID talk and now they talk about evolution more but in reverse if you know what I mean.


Not much change there then, rofl. ID was essentially negative arguments against evolution - from Behe's first book to his last. Simple arguments that evolution can't do x, therefore disembodied telic entity/god/aliens.


I know they put up with Christians because they get a lot of money from us but seems like they always take it begrudgingly like they wish they didn't have to. I think they hold a grudge from dover towards us.


I do know some IDers who are not comparable to the DI style evangelicals. They are rare, very rare. Many are ashamed of the DI and their shennanigans. Yet you are essentially no different from the run of the mill.

If you want ID to be science. Do the bleedin' science thing first. When it gets scientific credibility, then school science might be an arena.


Those people on the school board were soccer moms and typical dads and moms that got a hold of something that looked like what they wanted taught in schools and I understand why but they didn't know they were messing things up making ID guilty by association to "jebus" but Jesus really has nothing to do with it.


No, con. The major force of ID is theistic. It is christian in the US. I know of a couple of IDers who are not christian or theistic, and one silly POMO sociologist.


Religion has nothing to do with it but if you insist that it does I can't change your mind. The only thing I think Atheists went all up in arms about is that it has religious implications but

SO "F"ing what!


Religion has a lot to do with it. Even the alien ID is not a big solution. If aliens designed life on earth, where did they come from? Evolved or designed? An so on and so forth.

Honestly, con. If they actually did some science, it wouldn't be so bad. But they have been subverting science and attempting to force their theistic pseudoscience into schools. You just essentially shown the same motivations.

We. Are. Not. Stupid.


Don't count your chickens Mel,

losing the battle is business as usual to us but it's the lord who decides who wins the war


Heh, you'll keep twisting schoolboards and pushing the drug. But it will get knocked back in time. Again, you show you have no real interest in science, just religious fervour.


Christians have a way of getting on with things and as many have tried to exterminate them,, they just seem to survive and flourish. One of the most difficult places to penetrate was China but look whats happening there.


I don't want to exterminate you. I want you to keep you theology from contaminating science. It doesn't belong there. If you have such pretensions, get out and do the bloody science first.


Don't lump us all in with the liars, I think there was some hanky panky being done on both sides.

Oh and that Judge,,,

what a putts

- Con


I thought he was a fair guy, and have sympathy for the crap response he got from the fools - the attempted assassinations on his integrity. But that's normal for those who have none.

Con, I can't help but lump you in. If it quacks like a duck etc. Your very words here show you have little interest in the science, it clearly appears to simply be about forcing your theistically motivated BS into school classrooms.



posted on Jul, 6 2008 @ 03:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by melatonin

I thought he was a fair guy, and have sympathy for the crap response he got from the fools - the attempted assassinations on his integrity. But that's normal for those who have none.

Con, I can't help but lump you in. If it quacks like a duck etc. Your very words here show you have little interest in the science, it clearly appears to simply be about forcing your theistically motivated BS into school classrooms.


No you are wrong there Mel for this reason, ID is no guarantee for Christians either, hell we don't know what the science is they discover may be nothing like the Bible says and guess what happens then??

Oh Nooooooes! lol

This is why I am not a big proponent of any model, hell I don't even think it is that important to know whether we came from an amphibian or what ever. We are now what we are NOW and that is the only time I live in is NOW. Ill be dead before Science ever knows the answer to life.
So it isn't like we are pushing ID as OUR religion but it DOES represent more possibilities to consider the prospects of God we embrace.

Like I said it IS attractive because it doesn't shut God out out of hand merely because Science doesn't want to believe in that and that is whether they found evidence or not.

You saw that link to tysons comments, that is the kind of egoistic barrier that exists out there.

I am going to retire foir the evening as it is 2:00am but before I do Ill say I have enjoyed this dialogue with you Mel.

Take care and G/nite

- Con

[edit on 6-7-2008 by Conspiriology]



posted on Jul, 6 2008 @ 09:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by Conspiriology
This is why I am not a big proponent of any model, hell I don't even think it is that important to know whether we came from an amphibian or what ever. We are now what we are NOW and that is the only time I live in is NOW. Ill be dead before Science ever knows the answer to life.
So it isn't like we are pushing ID as OUR religion but it DOES represent more possibilities to consider the prospects of God we embrace.

Like I said it IS attractive because it doesn't shut God out out of hand merely because Science doesn't want to believe in that and that is whether they found evidence or not.


And neither does evolutionary theory. You keep making this false dichotomy. You must know by now that many christians and theists have absolutely no problem integrating evolutionary science with their faith.

ID can live as philosophy, that's all it is. And that's fine, nowt wrong with philosophy. You can take it as a good philosophy that fits your theism if you want, but it just isn't science. And therefore does not belong in a science classroom.

If you think it is science, then there's work to do. But at this point, it appears to be a total dead-end. No hypotheses, no predictions, no mechanisms, no theory. Essentially a science killer and also a career killer. Almost every IDer destroys their scientific ability by going down this pathway. Not because they are 'expelled', but because it's just vacuous in the scientific arena.


I am going to retire foir the evening as it is 2:00am but before I do Ill say I have enjoyed this dialogue with you Mel.

Take care and G/nite

- Con


And back at ya, con.



posted on Aug, 15 2008 @ 10:37 AM
link   
reply to post by melatonin
 


biological evolution is fantasy science. All someones fantasy about how this animal evolved into that animal with no living examples. there are millions of every kind of living beings on this planet, be it human, ape, pig, dog, whatever, and not one single living link between any of them. Just someones fantasy about how it could have happened.

The observable results of life are every animal according to its kind.




top topics



 
8
<< 3  4  5   >>

log in

join