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.

 

just let them believe in creationism

page: 2
2
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 18 2008 @ 03:07 AM
link   
reply to post by dave420
 


What is logical about believing the universe started itself. that gos against proven science ( 1st law of thermo dynamics). You only have fantasies and science fiction to explain how everything started without a God to start it.




posted on Aug, 21 2008 @ 09:48 PM
link   
reply to post by dave420
 


Dave your post says more about you then those that believe in Creationism. It is essentially an attack on anyone who does not believe the same as you. It does seem that Evolution has a lot more supporting evidence then Creationalism. However, the theory has flaws. There is no way around it. At best, the theory is incomplete.

However, Creationalism in the purest form is very flawed by itself. Regardless, there are some very bright people who believe in the existance of a higher power. Many Quantum Physicist are now acknowleging a higher power. Many have claimed the universe is not an accident, maybe it was not "poot the universe into existance" as you so elequently put it but it is a near mathematical impossibility that everything we know is a random event.

There is a theory that may or may not been discussed here (I am new to this site). It is called Theistic Evolution. It is as it sounds. It is not accepted by the biblical purest nor the diehard athiest but it does combine elements of both Evolution and Creationalism. It does not support Genesis by itself but acknowleges that a higher power is influencing life by Evolutions and other means.



posted on Aug, 25 2008 @ 12:38 PM
link   
I reiterate that the great debate here is not the ligitimacy of the various theories, because on that account evolution wins hands down due to the fact that it is only one that has any quantifiable and qualifiable evidence. Rather, that what we are discussing are the respective stations that science and theology have in society.

Creationists wish to replace the limitations of our scientific knowledge with theology, thus ending enquiry and reinforcing theological doctrine as truth.

Proponents of Evolution, however, acknowledge the limitation of scientific understanding, but rather than accepting any the limitation of knowledge, actively pursue to break beyond that barrier, and consistently do...furthering the body of scientific understanding, to be tried and broken beyond again and again....

It comes down to the motto of this forum.... Do we deny ignorance or embrace it?

If it is embraced, we will quickly find ourselves in the middle of another Dark Age....IMO. If it is denied, the future is full of possibilities.....



posted on Aug, 25 2008 @ 12:43 PM
link   
reply to post by riggins44
 


Bollocks. Absolute pure, 100%-by-volume bollocks.

I am advocating people using their brains. To think for themselves. To study the evidence. Evolution is 99.9999% complete. Creationism is 0.00000000001% complete. To equate the two in terms of completion is a travesty in the face of logic. That is what I'm saying - to allow creationism to exist on the same level as actual rational thought is dangerous. That opens the flood gates of belief - we now have to believe in every single hairbrained hypothesis that pops up (like creationism/ID - it is a hypothesis, unlike evolution which is a theory). Surely there must be a level of evidence under which any hypothesis must be discarded until such evidence is found. Otherwise we must believe in everything.

If you are prepared to flush the sum of human knowledge down the drain so Jesus fans can go through life without being called out for believing baseless nonsense, go right ahead. Just understand that some folks in this world give a rat's ass about humanity, and won't stand by and let it happen.

If you believe in nonsense, be prepared to be called out. That goes for everyone - David Icke fans, Bigfoot-believers, UFOlogists, scientists, religious folks, the lot. If you can't back up your claims, you are a fool. Luckily the scientific method is a self-correcting methodology that has no beliefs, just evidence. It is the pinnacle of human achievement - the single tool that allows humanity to thrive. It's strange people seem to forget that fact when attacking science. Without it, most of us would be dead, we'd have no computers, and our world would be unrecognisable to us. Yet the exact same methodology, when used to understand evolution, is deemed flawed. Absolutely ridiculous.



posted on Aug, 25 2008 @ 02:34 PM
link   
What a bunch of idiocy. I'm going to address the majority of people in this thread:

Seriously, can you guys even attempt for a brief second to step outside your own scope? Your know, it's good to be aware and have variable thought to be able to understand something. Guess what? The larger the scope you consider, the better your understanding of all (the biggest scope) is. Not very difficult huh?

The simple fact that you guys can't even step outside the set boundaries (which are a set of inevitably biased absolutions of gross limitations) exposes your pathetic ability to reason.

Creationists and Evolutionists are both wrong. That's 100%. A child could point that out, but of course, the herded sheep (on BOTH sides) will still only stick within their pens.

I don't even see a hint of consideration upon the ridiculously exposed and apparant limitations on both sides of the argument. That would obviously entice the concepts of what the truth is (which can't have a label or set of boundaries).
Seeing as how most people posting within this thread have exposed an incredibly limited, objective and hilariously confrontational perspective I would assume the reason is that these people ABSOUTELY need a physical (more like 5-sense...) means of closure of some sort. Pathetic. Selfishness is the root of that.

All this is is a debate between the commericalized and slander based images of the two non existent(in reality) ideas. You guys actually believe and reiterate the garbage depictions of the mainstream media. You guys are acting exactly like the extremely RACIST North American public that existed many decades ago. Why do you think they were so convinced of such generalizations? Because reality was pumped in a way that owns short term sensationalists (which too is obviously promoted to insane lengths). Go laugh/look down upon the concepts that were passed and accepted in the past to the public without even realizing you are the same.

It's like the poster who stated things like 'the earth is flat' should never be taught as a point AGAINST Creationism.
Incredible. Think very hard (I'm insulting you with that) to see how this moment of collective thought represents a really damn good point against your precious Evolution.

Nobody really even knows what the two sides are about. All this is is a means for an Athiest to attack anyone who believes in a creator. I mean the simple fact that most people who believe in a creator (including the greatest minds of all time) believe in evolution to some extent (noone with an open intelligent mind can possibly accept the full out Darwinian evolution) just automatically destroys these stupid images you guys worship.

Creationists don't acknowledge that the definition of Creationism has been used to destroy their beliefs.
Evolutionists don't acknowledge what the actual meaning of their science really states and how it's holes essentially are filled in by the idea of Creator.
Or how the REAL debate began between random vs. intention. Not whether evolution exists (the real question is to WHAT extents does it exist). Not how a small scoped concept can somehow magically negate one that surrounds the entire scope (black and white, useless logic).

You guys continue to perpetuate the stereotypes and generalizations that a billion examples of life and history have been shown that to be retarded (the actual meaning, not the derogatory characterization you're probably more familar with) and the opposite of what science is supposed to promote. Wasting your time, but managing to be controlled so well and in such numbers that you hinder the progress of the world.
Can't even see the intentional 'summoning' of an Athiest movement everytime it's convenient for the Global aristocrats...only for another massive religious movement to follow of course

I have to say, the Creationists are WAY more aware than the evolutionists from what I'm seeing. I will take a challenge to that on any level.



posted on Aug, 25 2008 @ 02:52 PM
link   
It doesn't really matter if "ID" isn't a science. Science isn't truth, and yet people teach it as if it is. Scientists can never understand the truth of anything.

So since evolution is obviously crap, there is no problem with teaching another crap theory like ID, basically just to show that evolution is such bull# that it can even be challeneged by religous nutcases.

That said, evolution in general is better than religion, but it's not anymore true and still never hapened anymore than Jesus flying into the sky did.



posted on Aug, 25 2008 @ 03:02 PM
link   
All the evidence suggests evolution is almost 100% correct. There are still gaps, but the scientific theory stands.

Science does think outside the boundaries of currently-accepted fact. That's how it works. You suggest something, you come up with a reproducable experiment, you perform the experiment, and if the results are consistent, and able to be used to predict outcomes, you've got yourself a theory. Creationism/ID is just gum-flapping designed to try to jam a ridiculous, baseless assertion, into scientific discussion.

Deny ignorance. Deny creationism. Deny religion.



posted on Aug, 25 2008 @ 03:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by dave420
All the evidence suggests evolution is almost 100% correct. There are still gaps, but the scientific theory stands.

Science does think outside the boundaries of currently-accepted fact. That's how it works. You suggest something, you come up with a reproducable experiment, you perform the experiment, and if the results are consistent, and able to be used to predict outcomes, you've got yourself a theory. Creationism/ID is just gum-flapping designed to try to jam a ridiculous, baseless assertion, into scientific discussion.

Deny ignorance. Deny creationism. Deny religion.


No, the theory of evolution, as described by Darwin (for the sake of a referential consensus), is nothing close to 100%. Are you kidding? You only speak from the mainstream word with this type of stance. You seem to do ZERO TRUE individual exploration into these matters. Maybe you are speaking for somebody else with the laughable extents you take things.

Science is simply a single tool, of many, to discover truth. Truth is all, science is an enclosement within all. You have essentially admitted to your limited scope over and over anyways...but don't try and enforce it upon me. You've just negated the approach, mindset and believe of pretty much every great scientific mind in history.

And please, you don't need to describe the scientific method to me. If we start at this point of the argument we'll get nowhere because that is ridiculously behind my intentions of this debate. If you want to talk about the limitations and blind tunnel-vision faith that many people fall into with this method, sure.

You do need to start to show a slight hint of intelligence though. Which would allow you to apply the scientific method more vastly and maybe to the level of an acceptable opinion on these matters. Then these ridiculous slanders and repetitive nonsensical statements that only serve as a means to attack groups of people without any logic will cease to exist.

You're too religious (I'm aware you are probably an Athiest, term still applies) for a neutral debate. Your opinion is not yours. I mean, would you even consider the scientific method outside of physical reproduction or containment? I doubt it.

[edit on 25-8-2008 by 1nelove]



posted on Aug, 25 2008 @ 03:41 PM
link   
reply to post by 1nelove
 


The theory of evolution as it stands today is what I'm talking about. Dismissing 150 years of improvements because they don't suit your argument is logically bankrupt. Science learns as it goes along - it doesn't assume something then try to shoe-horn the evidence to fit. The theory has been improved upon steadily, including DNA being discovered (and fitting in perfectly with the theory), and today we have a theory that covers 99.9999999% of the processes that give us evolution.

Sorry if that offends you, but that's the way it is.



posted on Aug, 25 2008 @ 03:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by Slothrop
it's really no skin off my back. the smarter kids will immediately dismiss whatever creationist propaganda is taught in public schools and get on with their studies. as for the dumber kids....

Propoganda? *smirk* ...I think you need to look up that word, because last I checked, schools teach Darwins theory of evolution as if it is a fact, not creationism.



posted on Aug, 25 2008 @ 04:09 PM
link   
It is practically a fact. You know all those wonderful foods you eat, like carrots, wheat, corn, apricots, rye, gourds, soy...? They were artificially evolved through artificial selection by people a loooong time ago. Artificial selection is the process that humans can put on plants and animals alike. Here's a list of some of the things Humans have domesticated, starting back in the Upper Paleolithic with dogs.

Wild forms of plants still exist, and you can go see them for yourself. Wild Carrot, Wild parsnips can cause Phytophotodermatitis, the typical cultivated strawberry comes from a hybrid of Fragaria virginiana and Fragaria chiloensis, the list is very long.


It should be emphasized that there is no real difference in the genetic processes underlying artificial and natural selection, and that the concept of artificial selection was first introduced as an illustration of the wider process of natural selection. The selection process is termed "artificial" when human preferences or influences have a significant effect on the evolution of a particular population or species. Indeed, many evolutionary biologists view domestication as a type of natural selection and adaptive change that occurs as organisms are brought under the control of human beings.


Don't ever argue about "theory", that is a weak and silly position. Lots of things are theories. Gravity is a theory, but seems to hold us down very well. The atomic theory seemed to help kill a lot of people on August 6th and 9th in 1945 when Hiroshima and Nagasaki were bombed with nuclear weapons. Computational Theory is allowing you to deface the very scientists who worked very hard to get where we are today with computers. Science is allowed to change because we accumulate new knowledge that is better and more accurate. I shouldn't have to explain why something being a theory isn't a weak point.


The scientific meaning of a theory has a more precise and mechanical definition: "An extremely well-substantiated explanation of some aspects of the natural world that incorporates facts, laws, predictions, and tested hypotheses" [1]. Clearly, when scientists use the term "theory of evolution", they really mean that evolution is a large body of consistent, well-substantiated facts, laws, predictions, and observations that describe natural phenomena; they don't use the word to imply that evolution is yet to be proven. There is a popular misconception that a theory must be proven, then it becomes a fact or a law. However, a scientific theory is, most generally defined, a large body of facts and laws, so this criticism does not make sense. The weakness of the "just a theory" criticism becomes obvious because in light of other well known theories, such as Einstein's theories of Relativity, atomic theory, germ theory, quantum theory, electromagnetic theory, plate tectonics theory, etc. No one would seriously imply that any of these theories are unproven and uncertain.


Science doesn't just "happen" and get included in the textbook. It has to follow the criteria, be looked over by others, and made sure that its as accurate as it can be with the current resources. As resources and technology get better, we get better and more accurate results, which in turn replaces the old and less accurate results.


[edit on 25-8-2008 by OnionCloud]



posted on Aug, 25 2008 @ 04:10 PM
link   
reply to post by websurfer007
 


And you should understand what a scientific theory is, and how it differs to a theory. Because clearly you don't. Gravity is a scientific theory, too, but I don't see creationists floating around the place.

There is no evidence for creationism. There is as much evidence as you care to look at for evolution.



posted on Aug, 25 2008 @ 04:34 PM
link   
I'm not getting into an argument with you about this because nothing will be achieved...

If you could prove all the holes in Darwins theory, then I'd change my stance and if I could prove creationism, you might change your stance. Neither is going to happen anytime soon.

The point I was making is that creationism is not and has not been taught in schools for a while, so I don't know why the OP is getting so emotional about it.

I will leave you with this thought, however...
If you are right, then when I die, nothing is going to happen to me, but if I'm right, when I die, perhaps God will be gracious enough to let my sinning ass into heaven...so I think I'll take my chances with creationism.



posted on Aug, 25 2008 @ 05:17 PM
link   
reply to post by websurfer007
 


The holes in Darwin's original theory have been patched up in the 150 years since he first wrote it down. If you are too lazy to do even the most cursory research into evolution, then of course you won't learn a thing.

Evolution is water-tight as a theory goes. It is backed by strict scientific evidence.

What if the Bible is lying? What if believing in creationism is a straight road to hell? Then you're screwed, and us rational people will be OK. See what happens when you disband logic? You can make any old stuff up and you have to believe it.

I feel sorry for you. You are clearly delusional (the dictionary definition describes your position perfectly). The evidence for evolution is out there - you just refuse to believe it, even though it is 100% sourced and backed-up by peer review.



posted on Aug, 25 2008 @ 06:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by websurfer007
If you are right, then when I die, nothing is going to happen to me, but if I'm right, when I die, perhaps God will be gracious enough to let my sinning ass into heaven...so I think I'll take my chances with creationism.


And which god would that be? Perhaps Thor will accept you into his heart, or maybe Morrigan of Celtic belief. Perhaps Viracocha, the Incan creator will pick you up and you can live eternally with him at lake Titicaca.

I think you would do well to actually research evolution from reputable sources. As it has been said, and as I showed in my previous post, evolution is very real and observable. Most recently a new species of water lily was discovered in central Canada, and before that bacteria were observed to evolve in the lab:


Mostly, the patterns Lenski saw were similar in each separate population. All 12 evolved larger cells, for example, as well as faster growth rates on the glucose they were fed, and lower peak population densities.

But sometime around the 31,500th generation, something dramatic happened in just one of the populations – the bacteria suddenly acquired the ability to metabolise citrate, a second nutrient in their culture medium that E. coli normally cannot use.

Indeed, the inability to use citrate is one of the traits by which bacteriologists distinguish E. coli from other species. The citrate-using mutants increased in population size and diversity.

"It's the most profound change we have seen during the experiment. This was clearly something quite different for them, and it's outside what was normally considered the bounds of E. coli as a species, which makes it especially interesting," says Lenski.


These are only two recent observations, forget all the old ones that people don't seem to like reading about.

I am not arguing, I am showing you the evidence and letting it speak for itself. Its there in black and white (well, sometimes colour), but if you don't accept it, I can't be faulted for it. What that means is, don't tell me I'm wrong when the evidence fairly clear.

There will always be things to learn about life, and theories like evolution. I can make a prediction now that within the next 1000 years, the theory of evolution will change in some way, and it will be because we know it better. If something is discovered to show that the theory of evolution is truly flawed, it will be adjusted, but it requires scientific evidence to do so, we can't go around taking philosophy as proof. We will always be adding new information to the repertoire that is science.

[edit on 25-8-2008 by OnionCloud]



posted on Aug, 26 2008 @ 05:01 AM
link   
reply to post by websurfer007
 


And not to mention the bible doesn't approve of false believers - believing in god just so you can go to heaven is a sure-fire way of going to hell.

See you there!



posted on Aug, 26 2008 @ 10:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by dave420
reply to post by 1nelove
 


The theory of evolution as it stands today is what I'm talking about. Dismissing 150 years of improvements because they don't suit your argument is logically bankrupt. Science learns as it goes along - it doesn't assume something then try to shoe-horn the evidence to fit. The theory has been improved upon steadily, including DNA being discovered (and fitting in perfectly with the theory), and today we have a theory that covers 99.9999999% of the processes that give us evolution.

Sorry if that offends you, but that's the way it is.



There's no offence here because I stand away from both sides of the argument as the definitions that are associated with them are ridiculous, but not even on the level of the general public's idea of them.

The reason I specifically stated Darwinian evolution is because his original work ignited (and pubically/officially suggested) conclusions that the more modern appliance of evolution wouldn't dare to do.
The reason this is significant, IF YOU BOTHERED TO READ MY POSTS AS OPPOSED TO SIMPLY CHALKING ME UP AS ANOTHER CREATIONIST, is because the conflict between these two VERY seperate beliefs was ignited by Darwin's Athiest/Philosophical Society movement charade.

That is what was significant of Darwin's evolution. The final conclusions that were made to the public (Random events over billions of years) are all that matter here. Everything else is scientific and OBVIOUS. Of course science has further developed this clearly evident understanding of development - you need nothing but simple observation to establish the occurance of evolution to prove that to be true. It's impossible, bearing some ridiculous revolutionary stipulation, that things don't evolve in some way.

That is not the argument. You are jumping the gun, or following suit, that somehow these observations establish some sort of historical closure on how creatures on this planet reached the development they have. The amount of factors are enormous and the amount of unknown factors that could change your precious conclusion are also enormous. This is braindead stupid, you have been had by the intentions of those who move masses. You see, when it comes to the evolution point we as humans have reached on our time on this planet - science has NOTHING substantial. Let alone the theory of Evolution. Any person can make the speculation that 'well since we evolve, that must be how we became what we are' but any person that wants to be even remotely thoughtful would investigate that. Things change rapidly from there, and I quite often see people of YOUR stance doing the shoe-in...and at ridiculous rates. It's just the black religion vs. the white religion debate going on again..that's all, but as usual both are wrong and the gray isn't even investigated by these two sides.

Now, explain to me how the epigenome coincides with evolution so perfectly. You see, there's a VERY big problem raised with this development and understanding of DNA. I want to see if you have any idea what you are talking about or if you can research properly.



[edit on 26-8-2008 by 1nelove]



posted on Aug, 26 2008 @ 10:21 AM
link   
reply to post by 1nelove
 


If DNA hadn't been discovered, you'd have a point. As it is, we can easily see the similarities in the genetic make-up of every single living creature. That make-up shows us how genes have propagated throughout the animal kingdom, and gives us massive, massive insight into our genetic background - ie the species that preceeded us. If non-human offspring of our ancestors exists (which they do), then we can easily place them in the family tree.

You seem to be arguing from 150 years ago. I'm arguing what we know today. I don't lump you in with the creationists, I lump you in with those who don't understand evolution. Sorry if that offends, but clearly you have some reading to do.



posted on Aug, 26 2008 @ 10:56 AM
link   
Since most of your misconceptions about the current state of evolutionary theory and the man Darwin himself aren't correct (he was actually Agnostic), I will only address this epigenetic issue that you didn't even describe. You can read my posts in this thread and in my post history that sufficiently describe how we are fairly certain that evolution is real.


Although epigenetics in multicellular organisms is generally thought to be a mechanism involved in differentiation, with epigenetic patterns "reset" when organisms reproduce, there have been some observations of transgenerational epigenetic inheritance (e.g., the phenomenon of paramutation observed in maize). Although most of these multigenerational epigenetic traits are gradually lost over several generations, the possibility remains that multigenerational epigenetics could be another aspect to evolution and adaptation. These effects may require enhancements to the standard conceptual framework of the modern evolutionary synthesis. [31]

Epigenetic features may play a role in short-term adaptation of species by allowing for reversible phenotype variability. The modification of epigenetic features associated with a region of DNA allows organisms, on a multigenerational time scale, to switch between phenotypes that express and repress that particular gene. [33] Whereas the DNA sequence of the region is not mutated, this change is reversible. It has also been speculated that organisms may take advantage of differential mutation rates associated with epigenetic features to control the mutation rates of particular genes. [33]

Epigenetic changes have also been observed to occur in response to environmental exposure—for example, mice given some dietary supplements have epigenetic changes affecting expression of the agouti gene, which affects their fur color, weight, and propensity to develop cancer. [34] [35]


"These effects may require enhancements to the standard conceptual framework of the modern evolutionary synthesis."

Evolutionary theory might have to change to encompass a new discovery? Good, it better, that's what science is all about. Taking empirical evidence that has been well proven and peer reviewed, and using it to further increased the knowledge to benefit all those who use it. This isn't even an issue in science since that's what science is all about.

[edit on 26-8-2008 by OnionCloud]



posted on Aug, 27 2008 @ 04:24 AM
link   
1. Dave420, you're my hero. I love your debating technique and content presented. If I had gods, you'd be one of them!

2. The Morrigan ain't gonna be offering anyone forgiveness anytime soon. So I wouldn't pray to her/them. Best off praying to Satan IMO, as he's actively looking for converts, whereas God seems a bit picky.

3. Christianity and all dogma is obviously bunk, because of the logical fallicy of there being thousands of generations of humans BEFORE the particular revelation of choice, which means the diety in question has condemned them to whatever negative afterlife it is laying claim to by simply not telling them how to reach whichever paradise is on offer. This is ridiculous and pointedly unfair, and I can't morally support a diety that takes this point of view.



new topics

top topics



 
2
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join