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.

 

Creationism's Legacy: Anti-intellectualism

page: 8
31
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 29 2008 @ 10:16 PM
link   
reply to post by noobfun
 


Ask God yourself, SINCERELY! He GUARANTEES to show those with a meek heart!


I think you might actually like me. I'm not mean. I'm SOUTHERN.




posted on Oct, 29 2008 @ 10:18 PM
link   
Im not against evolution in fact i believe it is almost comletely correct (almost because we dont know yet exactly how life started). What I am against is this finger pointing back and forth between the theists and athiests. These points will be argued continually till the end of time but evidence from both sides must be considered without biased based on preassumptions



posted on Oct, 29 2008 @ 10:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by Clearskies
reply to post by noobfun
 


Ask God yourself, SINCERELY! He GUARANTEES to show those with a meek heart!


I have been doing this for months, as has my atheist friend who also left Christianity recently. God will have to show up beyond reasonable doubt, but I doubt that will happen, I've never heard of it happening before, at least no beyond reasonable doubt.

[edit on 10/29/2008 by Good Wolf]



posted on Oct, 29 2008 @ 10:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by constantwonder

Originally posted by Good Wolf
reply to post by constantwonder
 


The narrow mindedness of science? The scientific community basses all it's theories and beliefs based on evidence. Heard of it?!


Ah there you are wrong my friend. There are many many theories in particle physics mathematics and cosmology that are much better than the accepted paradigms.

One such example is the electromagnetic universe model that gets shunned and called fringe science because the string theorists are sucking up the budget and without making one testable prediction they shoot down other models that have testable provable hypothosys.

[edit on 29-10-2008 by constantwonder]


no, the electric universe theory gets shunned and called fringe science, because it's not a total theory yet, it only tries to explain some parts of cosmology, totally ignoring others. now when they do start providing falsifiable explanations for the totality of cosmology, like standard cosmology does, then ...and only then will it be a true theory and then it can take on standard cosmology. and honestly i wouldn't say it gets shunned...there seem to be a lot of interested people in the field of cosmology, they're just waiting for the EU people to get their "stuff" together.



posted on Oct, 29 2008 @ 10:20 PM
link   
reply to post by saturnine_sweet
 


I actually disagree with you. All you have to do to sway me otherwise . . . show me any experimentation that has been done or that is currently underway for I.D.

I.D. has just taken the "if you can't beat them, join them" motto to heart. It's basically the religious establishment saying . . . okay, we'll take the work on evolution, big bang, etc and mold our religious beliefs to fit accepted scientific theory. However, they still opine from the supernatural, so it must then move to the realm of philosophy . . . NOT science. For I.D. to "take" a scientific approach, as you claim, they must truly be doing experimentation? What are they doing? What have they found?



posted on Oct, 29 2008 @ 10:23 PM
link   
reply to post by Good Wolf
 


That's the thing. You call yourself an 'atheist'. One who says there is No God. An 'agnostic' is one who doesn't know and therefore is humble enough to state such.
Become an agnostic and you may become a Christian.



posted on Oct, 29 2008 @ 10:23 PM
link   
reply to post by constantwonder
 


i dont think you're understanding the point really. the creationists the op is talking about are the diehard " the universe is 7000 years old and mankind was created in this form at that time. god made all the animals exactly as they are at that time as well" people. science can't and doesn't really try to say what happened before the big bang. it's entirely possible that a deity or deities created the impetus for the bigbang and with it the impetus for evolutionary theory as we understand it today. what's not possible is the above statement i made about diehard creationists...as we have ample evidence that refutes it.



posted on Oct, 29 2008 @ 10:25 PM
link   
reply to post by Clearskies
 


I AM agnostic. No amount of talking or preaching will turn me back to christianity. Gods gonna actually have to do some work for once if he actually exists. Evidence is what is required.



posted on Oct, 29 2008 @ 10:26 PM
link   
reply to post by Clearskies
 


and that has what to do with the original post? go preach in bts please.



posted on Oct, 29 2008 @ 10:27 PM
link   
reply to post by constantwonder
 



yeah those string theory guys are a bit odd anyway

when it goes below quantum and you start throwing alternate univerese at it you need to be a bit of a mentalist to understand it

not familiar with the electric universe theory though i have heard the name

if there hypothesis is testable and provable its gonna win out, the string theorists will hang on and kick up a fuss for a while but thats scinece for ya

the t-rex hunter or scavenger debate has been going over 10 years lol and theres still a few hangers on for the amphibina if we dont move they cant see us debate from even further back

they are winning the P.R. battle atm but the truth wins out



posted on Oct, 29 2008 @ 10:28 PM
link   
I will never disagree with Darwin but I do think evolution has many flaws. I think none of us know enough to be so sure of our position as to nullify to opposing point of view as anit-intellectual. I am stuck in the middle some where and I am not an intellectual but I think all of our theories are flawed.

How can two different species of shark in captivity have a pup with out the presence of a male shark and the absence of male DNA. Biologist are puzzled and I still have not heard an explanation.

How can a distant light in between galaxies, in dead space, suddenly appear, grow brighter for 20 days and dim at the same rate as it brightened, only to disappear altogether. Nasa has not given an explanation and withheld the information while trying to decide what to do with it.

Why do opjects get heavier the faster they move and once reaching the speed of light they weigh infinity. How can something weigh infinity? Or since it is impossible to move faster then light, then why when an object reach the speed of light, other objects around it slows, only giving the illusion that the moving object is moving faster than light. Is'nt that the same as moving faster then light?

How can quantum physics tell us we have 10 dimensions and the only way this is possible is to have many universes, each with a big bang, each having different physical properties, finally coming together and merging. And if that does not sound like fantasy, the chaos theory claims there are 11 dimensions.

I think our understanding of our universe is limited. I agree that if you isolate a species for an indefinate amount of time it will mutate but I think the theory of evolution is also flawed. There are many biologist, physicist, ETC., who go to church every sunday. There are many philosophers who believe that religeon is inate, almost instinct, in human beings. Some form has always been with us and is reflected in cave drawings. I think they should teach both evolution and creationism. Why not, why does one side, either side, try and suppress the other. Just my rant.



posted on Oct, 29 2008 @ 10:31 PM
link   

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.


So you are telling me that anyone who isn't Christian is evil??? *giggling again* Should I point out the millions who have been killed and the countless cultures that have been destroyed in the name of Christianity??? Those who follow any religion blindly are sheep in sheeps clothing, and sheep are only good for two things, wool (for pulling over the eyes) and dinner (keep sending in those checks to your favorite church)!!! And sheep have no use for science or truth, they are told what to believe. So the BIG question is, are you a sheep or are you an intelligent free thinking individual. I'll stick with the latter, thank you very much!



posted on Oct, 29 2008 @ 10:31 PM
link   
reply to post by riggins44
 


A lot of that isn't evolution or even biology, but your opinion is heard.



posted on Oct, 29 2008 @ 10:32 PM
link   
reply to post by liveandlearn
 



This is actually a reply to both live and Jaxson . . .

Orthodox Jews . . . from which I descend and have, currently, relative Rabbi's in Jeruselum . . . do hold a strict belief in Genesis. I'm sure, like any religion, some may take the "lazy, imperfect god" hypothesis that god set things in motion for evolution/nature to take over, but the majority of Orthodox Jews believe in the genesis story, albeit from a metaphorical over literal interpretation. The difference between Jews and Christian's is that Jews are confident in their beliefs and don't need "outside" validation. They will listen to scientific theories and if they don't fit into their divine ideology . . . they pass through like clouds. They don't evangelize or push the issue on anyone . . . nor to they confuse science with the divine or theology. If they want to teach the miracle of creation . . . they do it amongst themselves and don't subject the "public" (school system, media, politicians) to a waste of time and personal matters . . . if others don't believe that's fine by them . . . they are (to them) already god's chosen people. Maybe Christian's are fighting for their view because they are not "god's chosen people", so they feel like they have to validate their beliefs in the public and secular sphere?



posted on Oct, 29 2008 @ 10:33 PM
link   
Clearskies id like to ask why you must insist that christianity is the way to be religous. The modern christian faith is based on the catholic cannon. These were books chosen specifically by the catholic priesthood to garner faith and sheeple. It was never meant to be a doctrine of spiritual growth but to foster control of the masses. I believe that the is a "God" "intellegent designer" whatever you like to call it. But i also believe that he wants us to search himself out for ourselves and not be lead by a church that has its best interests at heart not yours. Im faithful but not to any one religious sect i am faithful to God I amfaithful to peace and love and brotherhood. I am faithful that Jesus preached a message of peace for the world, but i am also faithful that the catholic church is corrupt and that other christian sects are narrow-minded often rascist and biased against people of color different sexual orientation and whatever else. Try preaching the message of God and not the message of the catholic church and you may be surprised at the positive results



posted on Oct, 29 2008 @ 10:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by Clearskies
That's the thing. You call yourself an 'atheist'. One who says there is No God.


actually an athiest is one without faith, to claim there is no god needs faith as you cant prove god doesnt exist

the possability of god existing is so slim its super crazy but thats a bit long so it gets shorthened to "no god" for ease of use


An 'agnostic' is one who doesn't know and therefore is humble enough to state such.
Become an agnostic and you may become a Christian.


no an agnostic is one who beleives there is a god but just doesnt beleive its one we understand or are able to comprehend


and what southern got to do with it? geography has no merit or effect on the fact your making homophobic remarks, you have hate in your heart so id rather not be around you



posted on Oct, 29 2008 @ 10:35 PM
link   
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?



posted on Oct, 29 2008 @ 10:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by liveandlearn
May I suggest that those who thrust creationism on society are those who require the old testament to justify their own belief. If the Jewish myths are dscounted, Christianty, among other religions, has nothing to stand on.

Just a thought.


Not really. If Christianity were to focus on it's own book, the New Testament, it would be a far better religion. But instead some follow the teachings of the old book, and let's face it, the God of the Old Testament is a (starts with pr and ends in ick)!!!



posted on Oct, 29 2008 @ 10:38 PM
link   
Evidence is something creationism does not want to hear about. You know why? Because there is no evidence supporting their belief in intelligent design.

In 21st century we can not call theories built on belief (in this case belief in creationism) sane.

Some people are so dumb that, if I would create and start to popularize a new belief system that the world is created by EPENCHUCHEK and he is watching out for us, I would gain followers. Trust me.

All I need to do is present it in a convincing manner... possibly with rituals...
People do not care about evidence - they enjoy living in illusion.

[edit on 29-10-2008 by FIFIGI]



posted on Oct, 29 2008 @ 10:42 PM
link   
reply to post by riggins44
 



As Aurthur C Clark said "the universe is stranger then we imagine, and stranger then we ever could imagine"

i disagree with Darwin quite often

he got chunks of it wrong, he got it right by his technology and ability but wrong compared to what we know and can do today, he did a dam good job starting it but he still got some of it wrong

your physics is a little off witht he whole light thing

Einstien theorised no object could move as fast as light if it were able to it would become as heavy as infinity(an impossability becoming an impossability) as things get faster and approach the spped of light time slows down as your moving away from the light its having to chase you

im trying to keep it simple so i dont make my self look an ass i may be a bit wrong feel free to correct me if you know better folks




top topics



 
31
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join