It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable 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: 6
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in


posted on Sep, 2 2008 @ 06:26 AM
All of the planets had a comon ancestor right?

posted on Sep, 2 2008 @ 06:35 AM
Well my logic, it appears, is as limited as yours.
So there is no difference between the value of a cat or horse, and a human. We all evolved from the same ancestor so we are all brothers and sisters.
Next time a cat or dog, deer, coon, possum runs in front of your car on the interstate, swerve to miss it and put the lives of you, your family and others at risk. Dont think so. Why? Survival of the fittest? The dog, cat deer, coon or possum is not making the atmsophere unfit by polluting the air with car exhaust, and hence is more fit to exist than you and your children.
It has to do with value of the being. Your value is greater than a dog. Why because you are more intelligent, more evolved, more rational, more what.

posted on Sep, 2 2008 @ 06:46 AM
reply to post by fmcanarney

Yes. It's our ancestor, too.

reply to post by fmcanarney

This discussion has nothing to do with "value".

posted on Sep, 2 2008 @ 06:47 AM
reply to post by fmcanarney

What are you talking about?

BIOLOGICAL evolution has to do with how organisms on earth have developed into species. It has nothing to do with how planets are made, or where the universe comes from. Before life, there was no biological evolution.

I fear you are confused.

[edit on 2/9/08 by dave420]

posted on Sep, 2 2008 @ 06:53 AM
Yes I must be confused.
Evolution is limited to the single solitary sole planet of earth, and limited even to the time that biological lige begins. I see.
Argue for your limitations and sure enough they are yours.
Creation however occurs prior to life on earth and hence is less limited that your myth of evolution. That is not rational. You must then create another theory to explain the presence ot the earth before life, and the universe as well.
Cool hope it continues to work for you.

posted on Sep, 2 2008 @ 07:03 AM

Originally posted by dave420
BIOLOGICAL evolution has to do with how organisms on earth have developed into species. It has nothing to do with how planets are made, or where the universe comes from. Before life, there was no biological evolution.
I fear you are confused.
[edit on 2/9/08 by dave420]

The other evolutionary sciences cover planet origin and the origin of the amoeba, so, he's right.
"Let them believe in creationism", because no one can change my mind, personally and NO amount of archaeopteryx fakes from China or 'mudskipper' Tiktalics are going to change that.

posted on Sep, 2 2008 @ 07:31 AM
reply to post by Clearskies

I assumed we're talking about biological evolution here, not any other kind of evolution.

And if you're not willing to listen to reason, go ahead and believe in any old made-up story you want. Just don't complain when the school system grinds to a halt as science lessons stop teaching science and start teaching every single creation myth from around the world. That will have devestating consequences for the kids of America. They won't know what rational thought is. That doesn't bode well for society at all.

posted on Sep, 2 2008 @ 07:34 AM
reply to post by dave420

Well, I guess you think early America had a ban on 'science', so that the children wouldn't be corrupted?
Not at all!
We were making great strides in technology.
Science doesn't mean Evolution.

posted on Sep, 2 2008 @ 08:39 AM
reply to post by Clearskies

What was the point of that last post? I've read it 8 times and still it makes no sense.

posted on Sep, 2 2008 @ 08:31 PM

Originally posted by fmcanarney
Yes I must be confused.
Evolution is limited to the single solitary sole planet of earth, and limited even to the time that biological lige begins. I see.
Argue for your limitations and sure enough they are yours.
Creation however occurs prior to life on earth and hence is less limited that your myth of evolution. That is not rational. You must then create another theory to explain the presence ot the earth before life, and the universe as well.
Cool hope it continues to work for you.

I think this argument is another straw man.

Are you saying that a god created the planets and the universe and life on Earth in the same way?

Lets say for arguments sake that a god did create everything.

Even if this god did use the same supernatural power to create everything (The Create Power!), the processes that that power manipulated were obviously very different for biological and non-biological things.

Surely you can see the fundamental difference between the creation of a planet and the creation of a Human.

And, fmcanarney, I believe you are arguing for your own limitations.

Creationism is a very closed and limited belief. God created everything. That's it. There is no other alternatives. Those that believe in Creation are not open to any other explanation and will deny any other explanation even in the face of overwhelming evidence. I have absolutely no issue with your belief in this. It makes no difference to me. But surely you can see the limiting nature of your belief?

The theory of Evolution, by it's own nature, is open for falsification, is open for change and those who study it are open to the idea that there maybe a better explanation.

At this point in time there is no other explanation that is as complete and as sound as evolution.

posted on Sep, 2 2008 @ 09:33 PM
I believe that there certain immutable laws that direct and define both biological and material evolution. Including man, planets, solar systems, universes. Yes there are several separate disciplines of studies in each of these separate things. I think that laws which we cannot even fathom are behind the entire process. living and non living matter. Surely you grasp the logic of that and the continuity of that. For what law would apply to molecules atoms and heat and light on earth also applies to other planets and solarsystems. The reason that there separate divisions of the different
things, like I will limit it to living and non living matter, is because even the information in just one small part of biological evolution is too much information for one human to understand. Too much for for one person.
This should be a clue as to the vastness and enormity of the multiple basic and immutable laws in effect. Someone, GOD, in my system knows both forged these laws, and put then into operation. A solar systen is nothing more than a massive representation of an atom in its structure. A universe nothing more than a an organ, again in massive proportion.
I think if there is not contunity throughout the entire relation and existence of all living and non living created evolution then how do you explain living matterbeing able to evolve from nonliving matter. I know I already read about the "replicator" who in the life of the second generation of single celled things it replicated, would actually be a god, or a creator. I do not think that evolution which limits itself to a imaginary replicator to explain the transition from nonliving to living, a replicator that there is no proof of under the microscope, is any different than a creationist who does not see the creator but noly the created.
I reason that evolutionists exert as much faith in the unseen as does a creationist. Except the underlying difference is I have a world view that gives me free will. For if I evolved from lower life forms which had no free will then how did I get that capacity. Or would that be another unexplainable invisible missing link. Since if i believe that I evolved from life forms that have no free will, only instinct, drives, urges then I and my ideas are naught but meaningless and banal. My attempt to make others evolve into adaptations that i created. To what point, I ask, to stave off the loneliness felt at a spiritual level which is an unseen reality that creationists believe in.
Give me free will, spirit, respirations, conspirations, aspirations, inspirations, which evolutionists experience often, and finally my exsipation.

posted on Sep, 2 2008 @ 11:30 PM
reply to post by fmcanarney

I cannot argue with passion.

But I will say that the idea of evolution does not contradict the existence of a creator.

In fact the idea of an infinitely complex creator simply creating things as they exist today show a huge lack of imagination.

For arguments sake, if an intelligent creator did exist then using evolution as it's creative tool seems much more a gods style than spontaneous creation.

Unfortunately most creationists and IDers separate their idea of god and evolution out of a overblown sense of the importance of human kind. "Look at us" they say "How can we be related to animals? We are civilised!" ... Bah ...

Why is the idea that we are not the "chosen" or "special" creation of a god so hard to swallow?

To me, the fact that we all evolved from a common ancestor is an amazingly special thing that should be celebrated, not shunned because we think we are somehow better than monkeys.

It is a precious thing, a sentient and intelligent life form able to manipulate it's environment.

And we waste it worrying about what happens when that life ends

Life is what happens when you are making plans.

Edit - it needed to be edited

[edit on 2/9/08 by Horza]

posted on Sep, 2 2008 @ 11:52 PM
Bravo, I envision my creator as using evolution to create things. After all he is lazy if not brilliant. Even Carl Sagan when having to choose between dying oc cancer or trying a drug that was developed using his ancestors as guinea pigs, conceeded and used the drugs. This added some years to his life. So x million or x thousand years ago god who is lazy, brilliant and bored said, i am going to "create a being slightly cariant from yet radically different from our closest relative the great ape. Therein he instilled a spirit and free will, as he was bored with the monkeying around so to say. He desired a being in resembalance to him who would have to choose between aminam instinct and intrinsic goodness which violates the base animal instinct. He created humans, in his image and likeness with a eternal spirit and a free will. surely, reason will see the vast difference between the brain of our nearest relative an ourselves, which has yet tobe explained even though it is the most recent "mutation" and transition, in the unbroken evolutionary process of biological life. Why did Carl make that decision? Because he knew in his soul that there was a higher realm of existence that separates human from apr, and knew the flimsy science upon which evolution was based.

posted on Sep, 3 2008 @ 12:03 AM
reply to post by fmcanarney

What makes you think that monkeys have no free will and no spirit?

Carl Sagan chose the drugs because science showed that the drugs could be effective in treating the cancer he was suffering from not because he thought there was a god.

Your argument that his choice of taking life prolonging drugs instead of death as proof that Carl Sagan believed that the theory of Evolution was flawed is a huge leap away from logic.

And what does that have to do with the existence of an intelligent creator?

posted on Sep, 3 2008 @ 05:10 PM
It is not a leap of logic if you go read what Carl said about the incident.

posted on Sep, 3 2008 @ 07:11 PM
fmcanarney says: "In other words Humans have an intrinsic value that transcends plants and animals."
*****This is your vain supremist opinion which has no foundation in fact. How do you know you have a "soul"
How do you know that plants and animals do not?

Intelligence is no indicator of value. That is more an expression of "might is right".

The human mind seems to be incapable of understanding or even accepting that the Universe aways was. It had no beginning and there is no end. As you look out at the stars at night understand that you are looking into infinity.
There is no end. If there was, what would it be? And what would be beyond that?

posted on Sep, 3 2008 @ 08:41 PM
These are your words
"your vain supremist opinion"
This sounds like "dogma", just like, the buzzwords you evolutionary posters use like "logic" "Myth", "stupid", "ignorant", is your dogma and mantra.
More of the same in a highly reasonable, logical "nonjudgmental" tone:
"no sane, intelligent person can deny",
"creationist propaganda",
"reason seems to go out the window on matters religious",
"1. Insane
2. Unintelligent, Dumb
3. Asleep (as if we don't have any coherent perception)
4. Carry low paying jobs as if they're too stupid to get anything better"
" in the middle of another Dark Age"


"believing baseless nonsense",
"Creationism/ID is just gum-flapping designed to try to jam a ridiculous, baseless assertion, into scientific discussion.",
" You are clearly delusional", "
"Creationism is a very closed and limited belief"
"a huge lack of imagination"

Plus I will identify that the majority of foul, inflammatory, baiting, obscene, judgmental language being used has been coming from the evolutionist side of the hall.

I would propose to you that in a purely evolutionary paradigm that good breeding (intelligence, class, manners, respect, large vocabulary) is seen in the most highly evolved organism in a species.

Lets just look at the evolution of language in a single individual. If evolution theory is correct, and here it is very evident, then the most evolved will be displaying the highest degree of intelligent and most reasonable command and understanding of the English language.

Too often though it seems the evolutionary theory does not, or maybe it really does, apply to the people who believe it, at least in terms of language and command thereof.

I pray that those of you who need to understand this most intimately will be able to do so. Those of you who this does not fit, please do not put on the shoe. No matter which side of the fence you are on.

If evolution works then i insist that you use your free will to make yourself learn more words than a eighteen month learns in six months. There are 500,000 words in the English language. Evolve and learn some and use them.

The ontogeny of phylogeny is discombobulated otherwise.

Read the clip below evolutionists and I pray with understanding:

Today Haeckel is remembered for his biogenetic law in which he proposed that "ontogeny recapitulated phylogeny" (Ref 5, p. 353). Haeckel theorized that animals climbed up their own family tree during embryonic development and as such presented us with a vision of how things had once been. Armed with his inaccurate representations of embryonic development and the convincing arguments of his biogenetic law, Haeckel created the phylogenist's 'dream' (Ref 6, pp. 246-247). However, by the beginning of the twentieth century, the shine of recapitulation had lost its luster. Gould recounts the disappointment that ensued with a quote from E.B Wilson's description of the "exact" experimental method:
It is a ground of reproach to morphologists that their science should be burdened with such a mass of phylogenetic speculations and hypotheses, many of them mutually exclusive, in the absence of any well-defined standard of value by which to estimate their relative probability. The truth is that the search [. . .] has too often led to a wild speculation unworthy of the name of science; and it would be small wonder if the modern student, especially after a training in the methods of more exact sciences, should regard the whole phylogenetic aspect of morphology as a kind of speculative pedantry unworthy of serious attention." (Ref 6, p. 247)
Paleontologists David Raup and Steven Stanley were equally emphatic about the inaccuracies of Haeckel's claims:
"During the eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries, many students of Mesozoic ammonites attempted to apply Haeckel's recapitulation theory to all ammonite species, believing that the course of ammonite evolution could thus be read from ontogenetic changes in shell ornamentation and suture patterns. In 1901, Pavlow invalidated the strict recapitulation concept by showing that in certain Jurassic lineages of ammonites new evolutionary features arose in the early stages of ontogeny; not until later in the evolutionary history of their respective lineages were these changes retained in the adult stages [. . .] ontogenetic development of the new features was retarded, relative to time of reproductive maturation." (Ref 7, p.275)
In other words, changes in the adult form arose after changes in the embryo, not before. It could no longer be convincingly argued that ontogenetic changes were a reflection of some evolutionary past. In light of such findings, it is paradoxical that prominent zoologists such as Richard Dawkins still maintain the importance of the so called 'embryological continuum'. Dawkins wrote, for example, that science, "can point out that the (embryological) continuum that seamlessly joins a non-sentient foetus to a sentient adult is analogous to the (evolutionary) continuum that joins humans to other species" (Ref 8, p.34). Likewise science writer David Quammen emphasized the classical Darwinian perception of the embryo not only as "the animal in its less modified state" but also the embryo as revealing, "the structure of its progenitor" (Ref 9, p. 13). Obviously, Dawkins and Quammen are at odds with the alternative, more persuasive assessment that was built on empirical evidence.
"The assumption that ancestral reminiscences could always be distinguished from recent embryonic adaptations had not been sustained. Too many stages were missing, too many others discombobulated. The application of Haeckel's law produced endless, unresolvable, fruitless argument, not an unambiguous tree of life." (Ref 6, p. 246)
These findings are in themselves preliminary indicators that the different classes of vertebrate are discontinuous. The data does not fit Darwin's premise of a few common progenitors from which all of life had originated.

couple of recent references:
Richard Dawkins (2003), A Devil's Chaplain, Published by Weidenfeld and Nicolson, London
David Quammen (2004), Was Darwin Wrong? National Geographic Magazine, November 2004 pp4-31
[edit on 3-9-2008 by fmcanarney]

[edit on 3-9-2008 by fmcanarney]

[edit on 4-9-2008 by fmcanarney]

posted on Sep, 4 2008 @ 11:10 AM
reply to post by fmcanarney

Being called delusional is not offensive, unless you actually are delusional, and have to think about your delusions as just that.

Science is not dogma. Dogma: 'a religious doctrine that is proclaimed as true without proof'. Science only works with evidence. I trust the scientific method as it is completely transparent. It accepts that new information can topple long-held understanding, should the information be correct. You are sworn in to uphold your dogma, regardless of how intrinsically flawed it is

Clearly you don't know anything about evolution. Your science education must have been horrific.

posted on Sep, 4 2008 @ 06:40 PM
Did you read and understand my last post? If so, lets discuss it at length.

Excessive passion is the tap root of emotional reasoning. Animals have passions, human have passion restrained by reason.

Using excessive emotional laden words like, delusional, not sane, illogical, and so forth speaks more about your reasoning skills and abilities than your thoughts. Command language through vocabulary and I will deduce that you are highly reasoned and intelligent. Prove evolution is true with your own superior intellect. The Scientific Method is dsspassionate and without prejudice. Use it in your own capacity to think, else be in violation of one of your penultimate principles. Otherwise, join a gossip group and vent your emotions and feelings, in that format.

posted on Sep, 5 2008 @ 03:44 AM
reply to post by Slothrop

Couldn't Agree with you more, i am constantly having to humor white Jesus believing evangelicals (most if not 90% in my "case" are over 40). There is nothing you can say or do or prove or disprove that will sway someone with Upstanding "faith". Faith is a funny word i like to think of Faith as blind ignorance in someones beliefs. Which is just what it is, and just what it was intended to be when it was Created as a word with a definition, in my eyes.

Blind Ignorance makes the perfect slave of Yesterday.

top topics

<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in