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.
Originally posted by Masterjaden
reply to post by nj2day
I don't know anyone looking to the bible for sceintific facts. People look to evidence and interpret that evidence with their perceived truth of the bible in mind. You do the same thing with your perceived truth that evolution is accurate and that the modern scientific paradigms are a close approximation of truth, you only have your faith in the infallibility of man and human reasoning to base your faith on and creationists only trust in the infallibility of God in their trust of using the bible as a lens.
Originally posted by kettlebellysmith
reply to post by dr_strangecraft
Doc, you've hit the nail on the head. I've been trying to tell people the same thing in other threads. Mainstream science does not want to think outside the box. They are much like the old alchemists who convinced there were only 4 elements. When it was proven that air, fire, earth, and water were not elelments, they hung the scientisits.
The reason they don't want to deal with people who ask questions about creationism or intelligent design(and they are different concepts) is that the scientists might have to deal with something that doesn't fit inside their little paradigm.
Originally posted by kettlebellysmith
Mainstream science does not want to think outside the box.
?? erm... what? the alchemists were the scientists sorry .. and they were presecuted by the church not each other
They are much like the old alchemists who convinced there were only 4 elements. When it was proven that air, fire, earth, and water were not elelments, they hung the scientisits.
The reason they don't want to deal with people who ask questions about creationism or intelligent design(and they are different concepts) is that the scientists might have to deal with something that doesn't fit inside their little paradigm.
Originally posted by nj2day
Theologians are very intellectual... and many of them actually accept evolution and other scientific theories that seem to debunk the existence of "god"
The difference being, is most use god to fill in the details there are no answers for...
Originally posted by saturnine_sweet
reply to post by optimus primal
from the OP:
"This is only one reason why we cannot let creationism or ID to be taught in schools, especially in science class, or let anti-intellectualist fundamentals rise to power. It would be the beginning of the end for western society."
Outstanding arrogance aside in this post, ID is equated with creationism right off the bat. But its easier to deflect than answer the tough questions. Don't all of you zealot naturalists ever get tired of that game?
BTW...Im no christian. Facts are facts, and ID easily has more merit than evolution, by the facts alone.
Originally posted by amazed
Well, what I have not seen is anyone explaining what those facts are. Please list them. As science does thank you very much.
Originally posted by nj2day
reply to post by '___'eviant
I wasn't responding to the OP...
But I.D. doesn't have more merit than evolution... if it does, show me how?
Originally posted by Clearskies
reply to post by JaxonRoberts
Have you ever heard of 'wolves in sheep's clothing'?
Christians aren't perfect like Jesus, but, they try.(most of them)
The thing is, JESUS HELPS us to overcome evil, if we want Him to.
Originally posted by amazed
Get a grip, save your own soul, meaning stop the judgmental, self serving, racist, small minded, hypocritical thinking.
dont worry we wont hold it against you
Oh, and to another person that called me "a good man..." it just so happens that I am a woman.
Originally posted by optimus primal
reply to post by riggins44
i'll answer your last question, as it's most pertinent to the discussion at hand.
why not teach both in science class? well creationism is not science. it pretty basicly says : god created everything the end.
where as evolutionary theory says : this is how we think diversity arises, and here is the evidence we have gathered since it's first advocacy by darwin. we may be entirely wrong, and if you've got different evidence that we can test as we have with the evidence we have, we'll seriously consider your evidence and theory.
do you see the difference?