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.

 

Surely this will silence a lot of you...

page: 6
5
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 18 2008 @ 01:29 AM
link   
reply to post by AshleyD
 





False! Evolutionary science is only an aspect of biology. It is not all of biology, therefore not a denial of all biology if you do not accept evolution on a wholesale level.


Good Wolf is right. Evolution is considered the grand unifying theory of biology BECAUSE it unites all of the different fields of study in an thorough and elegant fashion. When you consider even just two fields, like say, Genetics and Paleontology - it's what you refer to a twin nested hierarchy because it can be confirmed both from the bottom up and from the top down. Further, it goes beyond simple biology into other fields such as AI development, Computer Technology and Network Structuring, structural engineering, biomedicine, etc.




Also... why are people bringing up Darwin? He helped originate the theory, but his word is not the be-all end-all of evolution. It's been 150 years, and what we've discovered about it since then far surpasses Darwin's original framework. At this point, Darwin is pretty much completely irrelevant to the matter except in a historical context.

[edit on 18-9-2008 by Lasheic]




posted on Sep, 18 2008 @ 01:46 AM
link   
DerpDurr

Double post.

[edit on 18-9-2008 by Lasheic]



posted on Sep, 18 2008 @ 02:01 AM
link   
I also don't understand the hyperfocus on Darwin. It has long since developed and transcended its Darwin roots. If you're going to make a case against the theory of evolution (which is functionally fact in modern biology) then you have to leave Darwin out of the arguement altogether. I wonder why Creationists always focus on him when these issues are brought up? Is it easier?

 

Clearskies you didn't address a point I made earlier, which I ultimately meant as a question.

I am wondering Clearskies, Ashley, and the others; are you old Earth or new Earth creationists? Do you feel evolution and God are mutually exclusive? Or is it evolution and the Bible that are mutually exclusive? God and evolution? How do you feel about the "Intelligent Designer" approach which tries to bridge the ideas of a Creator god and the evolutionary sciences?

Is the issue ultimately that it conflicts with your interpretation of the Bible?

Personally I have always held a stance that is similar to the buzz word "Intelligent Design" and I do not see conflict between the idea of God (as Creator) and the sciences. Of course, I am not 'restricted', for the lack of a better word, to Church doctrine.

[edit on 18-9-2008 by Lucid Lunacy]



posted on Sep, 18 2008 @ 03:14 AM
link   
reply to post by Lucid Lunacy
 


Indeed, the concept of an intelligent designer is not wholly incompatible with evolution, or any of the sciences. This is why it's so easy to unmask ID, "the controversy", or any of the other pseudonyms creationism tries to use to cover up the fact that it is merely a form of religious indoctrination. To simply state a belief in intelligent design is an extremely vague position that is completely malleable to current scientific theories depending on the context. Because of that malleability, it would be able to conform to new discoveries and using them as a selector to refine it's definition.

It's still not science though, merely a philosophy, and therefore wouldn't belong in a science class. However it certainly wouldn't raise the ire of the scientific community - of which many are theists themselves. However, those behind the movement push so adamantly to put it into classrooms, science classrooms no less, and are fundamentally unwilling to allow "ID" to accept the evidence and the conclusion they lead to - that it betrays the fact that what they're really doing is a bait & switch to replace your science books with a bible.


In the loosest sense of the word, I'm also a "Creationist". My philosophy being that there probably is a god, and judging by how the universe operates, there is really no apparent direct need for that god as anything other than a creator since what he has set up is capable of running just fine without his constant interaction. Perhaps he does interact, perhaps not. I can't say either or in total confidence, although it certainly appears that he does not. This doesn't necessarily mean that I believe he crafted each and every facet of the universe by hand either. Rather, I would liken reality to that of a fractal image - amazing complexity of depth, beauty, and intricate design - created by the interactions of basic component rules. So indeed, even the big bang theory is compatible with the notion of god as a designer.

(Though I notice many fundamentalist Christians don't have a problem with the big bang theory itself, since it vaguely resembles the creation story and attribute "days" to billions of years - unlike Evolution which they feel runs completely contrary to their scriptures)



posted on Sep, 18 2008 @ 04:12 AM
link   
reply to post by Lasheic
 


I have a thread on that line of thought.

I have a looser take on the God => Creation => Us. It's clear that since the big bang that god hasn't needed stepped in and aided the natural because the natural was perfectly able to form us on it's own.

I'm agnostic and the reason that I never rule out God is because everything exists, I find the universal constants like Pi and C intriguing.



posted on Sep, 18 2008 @ 06:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by Clearskies

Here
"On the birthplace and antiquity of man";


At some future period,
not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will
almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the
world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes, as Professor
Schaaffhausen has remarked (18. 'Anthropological Review,' April 1867, p.
236.), will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his
nearest allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a
more civilised state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape
as low as a baboon, instead of as now between the negro or Australian and
the gorilla.


social comentary, in the furture he believe's that civalised mankind may wipe out none civilised mankind becasue of the actions that they are taking (he neither says this is good or bad, your projecting your need for it to be racist)


The anthropomorphous apes, namely the gorilla, chimpanzee, orang, and
hylobates, are by most naturalists separated from the other Old World
monkeys
from the same source so which anthropromorphic apes are you objecting for gorilla? chimps?



Also, here in chapter 7;
He is NOT talking about monkeys, but humans!

"In a series of forms graduating insensibly from some ape-like creature to man as he now exists, it would be impossible to fix on any definite point when the term "man" ought to be used. But this is a matter of very little importance. So again, it is almost a matter of indifference whether the so-called races of man are thus designated, or are ranked as species or sub-species; but the latter term appears the more appropriate."




nothing wrong here

from an ape like ancestor of man, we get what we now call man, should the races of man all be classed as 1 species or subspecies

differentiation of species worked on differances of appearance or anatomy as genetic study wasnt possible at the time,

average caucasian male appear different to an average afro-carribean males, skin colour bieng the most obvious differance

Afro-carribean males on average have heavier stronger bone structure then caucasian

thats not racist its stating facts of average measurments and observations

no where did i say becasue you have slightly different averages or appearance you should be killed/persecuted/made to wear funny hats

from their view the changes would infact make the different geographical groups all divergent forms of the same species again no where does he state which one is superior

there are several distinct ethno groups which then have further variations built within each group, therefore each of those groups(yes including white folk) came from a common ancestor

only after did people start adding the racist conotations to this to prove thier and not Darwins thinking

now we have genetics and we can and have compared the dna of the ethno groups and found that we all have massive traces of every other groups dna, genmetically we are all exactly the same even with our minor external mutations to fit our ancestors enviroments

so what your saying is he is racist because he looked at an afro-caribean man and said your skins darker then mine ........ ? that makes everyone racist

noticing the differances arnt racist, ignoring the similarities and making the differances an issue is

[edit on 18/9/08 by noobfun]

[edit on 18/9/08 by noobfun]



posted on Sep, 18 2008 @ 07:18 AM
link   
So where are we now?

This thread started out demonstrating how the two biggest churches in the world (and biggest denominations) have recanted their opinion of Darwin's contribution to science, the smaller of the two issuing a public apology. The point of this was to show how (while much to their historical disliking) the majority of Christians around the globe are getting real and accepting a fact of life. These same people look back through history and see how unwise it is to cling to the idea that scripture, while sacred, is not historically accurate. It's been a hard lesson for the church to learn but they seem better and more tolerant of outside ideas for it.

But there are the unruly and foolish who simply refuse to learn the same lesson. They come up with outlandish excuses and "proofs" (and I use that term lightly) for not acknowledging the factual.

And characteristically, you decided to have a got at Darwin and waste our time and your breath.


Do the smart thing and learn from your mistakes, I believe that even Jesus tells you to do that. I believe he said something about a dog being foolish because it goes back to it's own vomit and hence the thing that made it sick in the first place.

And I tell you what, 'creationism' smells worse than dog vomit.

[edit on 9/18/2008 by Good Wolf]



posted on Sep, 18 2008 @ 09:53 AM
link   
Since the Church of England no longer follows the Bible, is no longer a "Christian church in the traditional sense, and has no real body of beliefs that it requires anyone to accept, why would their statement have any effect on those fundamentalist Christians that still believe in the Biblical Vreation story?

The Church of England is dying. The more liberal and all inclusive they become, the more members they lose. And sadly, they can not see that the further away from their roots they go, they less important they are in the grand sceme of thigs.

But this does not just apply to the Anglican communion. ALL of the old "Mainstream" Protestans churches are dying. Their membership is shrinking world wide, they have schism after schism because of their forcing ever more liberal views onto their members, and they can't seem to understand that they are destroying themselves.

Personally, I see no real conflict between the Biblical story and evolution. After all, what is a day to God? How do you count a day out of infinity? Who says that he couldn't have used evolution to accomplish his purposes?



posted on Sep, 18 2008 @ 09:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by Lasheic
reply to post by The time lord
 





It does not matter if the Church or some priest accepts evolution because in the end its against what the Bible and their faith teaches. This is a form of adultary in seeing God the way they want to because this is not part of the scripture's and in no part does the Bible describe evolution.


I find it to be the height of blasphemy to deny the nature and mechanics of the very works of god (the creation), in favor of just one of many many versions of bronze age tales written about god. So worshipers of the bible (or any bible for that matter) practice a form of idolatry wherein they place their holy scriptures above and before god - as if they WERE god, because they believe it's his word even though he never wrote a word of it.


Now, in regards to the post directly above mine:




the chances of natural occurence are so slim that if it was any other subject you'd be called a conspiracy theorists for believing it. thats the chances of the universe being able to support life. was it fine tuned? or just coincidence?


I'll let tf00t handle your videos.



and:



[edit on 18-9-2008 by Lasheic]


he dos'nt make a very good arguement. he spends most of his time attacking and questioning peoples character rather than addressing the issues. he's right about the chances of peddles and rocks, and correct about random symbols in a grid, however all he shows is how slim the chances are of it occuring. the symbols are an example, randomly thrown in they mean nothing, however arranged in the correct order, or so that all the letters and symbols have a overall meaning would show the symbols were not just thrown in, but arranged purposily by a inteligence.

or you could just go on believing that the grid with meaning was just pure coincidence and chance.

you can take the arguement down to any level.

everything that exsists was either created by inteligence(us) or many many many processes and laws which came about by pure chance.

we could even argue that plastic is just a natural occurence in the same way, if we did'nt know how it was formed and there was tons of the stuff in the earth, something to watch out for in 5,000 years time. im sure someone will pop up with a theory of how plastic came to be.

regardless and like i said, its stupid to dismiss either scenerio. the main reason is 1. we dont know how life started, its just a theory not fact.
and 2. we don't know how the universe started there are just theorys, not fact.

however everybody is so obsessed with it being one or the other and being right, they neglect the 3rd scenerio which is that we were created to evolve and adapt. life was started by a inteligence in a very basic form, but it was designed so it would evolve and adapt to its climate and surrondings, and all life stemmed from that.

nobody has given me a reason so far to dismiss that scenerio. nobody answered. darwinism dos'nt equals there was no creator, pure and simple.
it just means people ignore the other possibility's and argue in circles to prove wrong the otherside.

but untill we know for a fact, and a theory is not a fact. then the possibilitys all still stand.

and for the record incase you think im a church going preacher, im not religous and think religon is a con to control the masses.

however i won't let my beliefs stop me seeing how it is, how things stand and were the pointer is pointing.

religon dos'nt have the answers.

science dos'nt have any answers, it just has theories.





[edit on 18-9-2008 by lifeform]



posted on Sep, 18 2008 @ 10:21 AM
link   
reply to post by Good Wolf
 


I'm not a young earth creationist so none of that means anything to me. I do not believe the universe is only 6,000 years old.

reply to post by Lasheic
 


I understand what you are trying to say but in my opinion this all goes back to the age old IQ test question about all zips being zoodles but not all zoodles being zips. All evolution is biology but not all biology is evolution. At the very least you can study biology and end up learning a ton without ever touching on evolutionary theory. And that is precisely what was implied by another member- that to reject evolution was to reject all the other facts and knowledge dealing with the study of biology. However, that statement is wrong.

And I have no clue why you ask me about the mention of the name Darwin because I never once brought up his name in this thread. You'll perhaps have to get your answer to your question from someone who did... unless you are referring to the mention of Darwin's name in the OP's article? In that case I would have to say since he was the 'father' of evolution, the apology was directed at him.

reply to post by Lucid Lunacy
 


No. I don't believe evolution and creationism are mutually exclusive. (See: HERE). That thread started out as a tongue in cheek joke on my part but it later got me thinking about a lot o other things. Then of course I strongly believe in microevolution. But the entire theory which believes all living cells on earth started out as a single celled organism and then covered the earth with grass, trees, fruit, animals, fish, humans, and insects... No. I simply cannot believe that. But as I've said before, if I get to Heaven and God tells me, 'Ash you goof! I used evolution as the method for My creation!' My reply would be, 'Oops! Sorry, God!' It's not a pride thing nor is it a theological snag. I simply cannot accept the evidence provided. It doesn't jive in my mind. Hope that helps.

[edit on 9/18/2008 by AshleyD]



posted on Sep, 18 2008 @ 10:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by OldMedic
The Church of England is dying. The more liberal and all inclusive they become, the more members they lose. And sadly, they can not see that the further away from their roots they go, they less important they are in the grand sceme of thigs.


I can't agree, at least not completely. Time in this case appears to be two pronged. Christianity seems to be dying across the board. I think if they kept to theri roots strictly, they'd long've drunk to a minor denomination. Holding these more liberal views seems to just being delaying the inevitable.

 



Originally posted by AshleyD
I'm not a young earth creationist so none of that means anything to me. I do not believe the universe is only 6,000 years old.


Well if you're not denying that the universe is older than 6500 years then that argument was not directed at you. I probably should have stated to begin with that a literal interpretation of genesis denys certain principles of physics and geology.

And you can't just cut out the parts of science that you don't like. You can't just pull evolution out of biology class, because evolution doesn't want to go and will rip parts of the rest of biology as you drag it away. Suddenly you have a very fragmented unstable science that colapses under its own inadiquecy. You need to fill those gaps and there is no other thoery to put in those holes. Remember that (in science) a theory isn't just belief that something happens that everyone simply agrees on, its an explaination that explains all the abservations, evidence and facts. A theory is the highest level of factuality and accuracy that science can reach (out side of maths anyway). The reason for this is so that as new evidence emerges there is room for refinement.

[edit on 9/18/2008 by Good Wolf]



posted on Sep, 18 2008 @ 10:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by Good Wolf
And the pope accepting it isn't a recent development either. The catholic church has been saying that the findings of science should not be seen or believed to conflict with faith in JC and to understand that God was in control of the systems of nature.

He basically saying take evolution and superimpose god over top of it (since evolution doesn't say anything about God).


essential facets of Darwins' theory go right out the window the moment G*d is in the equation. Say goodbye to the notion of "random" beneficial mutations".


reply to post by AshleyD
 


wow Ashley, this thread is excellent. Ideas that i'd dabbled with in the past, but you've elucidated them beautifully!



[edit on 9/18/2008 by JPhish]



posted on Sep, 18 2008 @ 11:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by JPhish

essential facets of Darwins' theory go right out the window the moment G*d is in the equation. Say goodbye to the notion of "random" beneficial mutations".



that all depends where you put god

if he made it then left it to run no it doesnt get in the way

if he made it then keeps prodding it to change stuff evolution doesnt work

darwinism doesnt say god didnt create it as already stated, it just says god didnt create it how it is today, and he didnt meddle after he had made it



posted on Sep, 18 2008 @ 11:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by JPhish
essential facets of Darwins' theory go right out the window the moment G*d is in the equation. Say goodbye to the notion of "random" beneficial mutations".



Thank you JPhish, for demonstrating a common false assumption.

The bottom line is that not all mutations are bad, most are in fact neutral. But a portion of non-neutral mutations are beneficial. It's important to know that adaptation is reliant on beneficial mutations.

I'll give you one example and a link to some more.

Remember these are all beneficial mutations observed in the lab.

Chlamydomonas is a unicellular green algae capable of photosynthesis in light, but also somewhat capable of growth in the dark by using acetate as a carbon source. Graham Bell cultured several clonal lines of Chlamydomonas in the dark for several hundred generations. Some of the lines grew well in the dark, but other lines were almost unable to grow at all. The poor growth lines improved throughout the course of the experiment until by 600 generations they were well adapted to growth in the dark. This experiment showed that new, beneficial mutations are capable of quickly (in hundreds of generations) adapting an organism that almost required light for survival to growth in the complete absence of light.


[Source (you'll find more there) and for further info on mutations, go to TalkOrigins.org]


Beneficial mutations are commonly observed. They are common enough to be problems in the cases of antibiotic resistance in disease-causing organisms and pesticide resistance in agricultural pests (e.g., Newcomb et al. 1997; these are not merely selection of pre-existing variation.)


Another good mutation becoming more and more common is the resistance to AIDs mutation in white folk.


[edit on 9/18/2008 by Good Wolf]

[edit on 9/18/2008 by Good Wolf]



posted on Sep, 18 2008 @ 11:39 AM
link   
reply to post by Good Wolf
 


Maybe I'm wrong but to me that didn't look like the point Jphish was trying to make.



posted on Sep, 18 2008 @ 11:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by noobfun
reply to post by Clearskies
 


your cousin kills someone does that make you a killer?

your cousin calls someone a (insert rascist comment of choice) does that make you a racist?


according to eugenics, it does! According to genetics. If you cheat on your wife; if your brother gets married, he will be a cheater as well; because he is genetically disposed to cheat.


you quote doesnt show darwin was rascist

it shows his cousin started a movement that was racist and used ancient animal breeding techniques to create its ideal version of the human bieng


actually it does; Darwin believed that certain creatures were superior to others and therefore survived and passed on their traits. He believed humans were creatures; he believed that certain humans were superior to others. Darwin was racist. There is not even a question about it.



posted on Sep, 18 2008 @ 11:44 AM
link   
reply to post by AshleyD
 


Not really. So long as God doesn't get in the way, the natural processes he's already set up will ensure beneficial mutations, and make them prevalent.

There is no need for God to be involved at all.



posted on Sep, 18 2008 @ 11:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by AshleyD
reply to post by Good Wolf
 


Maybe I'm wrong but to me that didn't look like the point Jphish was trying to make.


it wasn't . . . though i'm getting used to it; gwolf completely missed the point. If G*d exists within the scheme of evolution. Then the proposed RANDOM mutations necessary for evolutionary theory, are not RANDOM at all . . .

[edit on 9/18/2008 by JPhish]



posted on Sep, 18 2008 @ 11:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by JPhish
ctually it does; Darwin believed that certain creatures were superior to others and therefore survived and passed on their traits. He believed humans were creatures; he believed that certain humans were superior to others. Darwin was racist. There is not even a question about it.


pfffh! If I make a prediction that one 'race' of people are going to exterminate an other that doesn't make me a racist, and it didn't make Darwin a racist either.

To say "I hope it's my 'race' that exterminates that particular other 'race'" would be racist. And in an evolutionary sense, "superior" means better suited (adapted) to an environment. To throw extermination to the equation then the superior species/subspecies, through process of competition, will reduced the population of another species/subspecies. That's the definition of survival of the fittest.

Also, show me some research that shows that 'cheating' or murder is an inherited disposition, please.


Now, you guys. If you are gonna keep on this tired argument that Darwin was a racist, then why not go make a new thread?



posted on Sep, 18 2008 @ 12:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by JPhish

according to eugenics, it does! According to genetics. If you cheat on your wife; if your brother gets married, he will be a cheater as well; because he is genetically disposed to cheat.


you do realise that genetics and eugenics are different dont you?

(genetics)

if im predisposed to cheating that does not mean he is, by that thinking he wouldnt be my brother but a clone. by combining the chromosones of 2 people(mommy and daddy) you can get several variations of genetics comming out all similar but all slightly different. else all brothers and sisters would look alike and act alike and sound alike and pretty much just be a younger clone version of the one before. so he may or may not have a predisposition to cheat, he may carry it and pass it on to the next generation without it triggering in him

(btw you have read the studies on adultery and how pregnancy is more likley to be achieved through adultery as well as orgasms are i think it was 40-60% more like to be achieved then with a regular partner like a husband
)


(eugenics) i display unacceptable behaviour (adultery *and i enjoyed it too*) i am no longer allowed to reproduce and any children i have are either watched closley for signs of this dysfunction or banned from reproducing just incase, my brother is free to reproduce happily as long as he doesnt show a love of adultery too at which point the same constraints would be placed on him and his .... thats of course if were talking about negative eugenics which were not supported by the founder of the eugenics movement

so if im a killer im not allowed to breed, my cousin doesnt become a killer until he kills someone ........



actually it does; Darwin believed that certain creatures were superior to others and therefore survived and passed on their traits. He believed humans were creatures; he believed that certain humans were superior to others. Darwin was racist. There is not even a question about it.


Darwin believed that certain creatures were superior to others and therefore survived and passed on their traits. He believed humans were creatures ... undoubtedly and correct in my book
*yay Darwin*

those quotes dont show anything other then he recognised differances no where do they show him saying one group is better then the other

remember racism isnt recognising differance, its ignoring the similarities to make the differances an issue


[edit on 18/9/08 by noobfun]



new topics

top topics



 
5
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join