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.


Florida to be next battleground for Intelligent Design?

page: 7
<< 4  5  6   >>

log in


posted on Feb, 11 2009 @ 08:00 PM
I think the saddest thing is with our vast knowledge of evolution, it has been prevented or made uncommon knowledge to find a book or a tv show with the whole fact story explaining our current scientific findings. I can find bits and pieces on discovery or nat-geo but not one whole thing. This could be a topic for conspiracy but it goes here to. The lack of the average person knowing common fundamentals on evolution is their plan to dumb you down and the next step is to trick the agnostics into believing their view is real because they know you wont look it up. They already have the followers with religion now they will get all other non educated people threw bull# "science", like smoking, fatty foods and recycling/global warming. Its extremely easy to put god in front of evolution to say he created it because theres no way to test it, thats your way out and whole argument. So i say, if you have doubt look it up, crave knowledge, because when you do there only one of them fall apart due to lack of evidence, facts and real science. I do not believe god doesn't exist, i know by fact this thing doesn't exist, until someone provides the next best guess with facts backing it up, tested over and over again evolution stays as the best way to explain our origin on this planet.

[edit on 11-2-2009 by XXXTheClown]

posted on Feb, 11 2009 @ 11:42 PM

Originally posted by Avarus

Originally posted by Ownification
reply to post by tezzajw

The problem that you can't rap your head around is the fact that Darwin's Theory is a theory ehh. A theory doesn't need evidence to support it, it is guess work hence there is no evidence to support dark matter, we just guessed its there because hence subjective.

Sorry Ownification, you're confusing the traditional word "theory" with the scientifically known theory.

A theory is developed only through the scientific method, meaning it is the final result of a series of rigorous processes. It's not something some crackpot scientist thought up in a dream. There is actual significant evidence with measurable results that evolution is true.

There is something called Academia which I do agree is new where only qualified individuals are allowed to propose theories.

hypothesis that survives experimental testing becomes a scientific theory

A hypothesis may become part of theories and only some part of a theory need to be proven for it to survive the Academia hence there is no evidence supporting the fact that any animals evolved gradually except at the molecular level. That does not prove nor disprove the hypothesis that all animals did gradually evolve over time. A theory is a collection of hypothesis and a hypothesis is something crackhead can comeup with which could potentially become the basis of a whole study.

Sir Isaac Newton is credited with the defining work on gravity. The apple falling from a tree as inspiration is set down in several records of the time. The apple did not fall on his head, but he observed it fall and was inspired to wonder how far away the effect of gravity might reach. He considered that the moon may be held in its path by gravity, and expanded his thinking from there.

That sounds like a crackhead to me. No idea should ever be disregarded even if at the moment it is not possible to produce any experiments to test its validity that includes GOD. 200 years ago who could have imagined that one of the smallest particle could optain such huge force which could potentially destroy cities.

posted on Feb, 12 2009 @ 01:55 AM
I don't get it. What DIFFERENCE does it make at this point in time??? I think it a tad more important that we figure out where we are going. This subject is getting really old. It's a paradox but there is NO absolute truth, but in the same sense the 'truth' is not relative. If we can't agree on SOME truths, then there must be war between us all....don't you agree? Or do you love war? It simply looks like another commercial designed to attempt to divide the American people once more. Have you ever heard WHY from any creationists of the reason it is SO important to them??

posted on Feb, 12 2009 @ 02:02 AM
Florida, in and of itself, is a state full of sheep. They are everywhere, and there's no escaping them. I wish I could say that is is surprising that someone in Florida wants to bring all this up.

Intelligent Design is not "the other side of the story". You SHOULD be going to school to learn something, not to be taught about what religion says is true. If you want religion's side of "the story" you should go to a church. This has no place in a facility that is supposed to be for learning science and things like that.

Honestly, I don't think it TRULY matters anymore because the school system is so degraded that it just needs to be eradicated completely and restructured to gear toward some actual learning. However; with the way people behave, and the combined efforts of the school system, I can truly say that I will NOT be sending any future children of mine to one of these mind washing facilities.

Especially if religion is going to get all tied up in it like this.

posted on Feb, 12 2009 @ 03:58 PM
From WiKi

The term "religion" refers to both the personal practices related to communal faith and to group rituals and communication stemming from shared conviction. "Religion" is sometimes used interchangeably with "faith" or "belief system,"[1] but it is more socially defined than personal convictions, and it entails specific behaviors, respectively.

therefor all of you are using the term incorrectly just as i said before ....
Intelligent Design and Religion are not one in the same.

posted on Feb, 12 2009 @ 07:14 PM
reply to post by EliteLegends

its a belief set based on shared religeous belief relating to the persons or group view of the universe bieng expressed through the actions of a high bieng called God

sorry if you change God for designer in the same text book then we still know you mean God,

it is a religeous view on an aspect of nature, it is religeous in nature, it is at best a religeous philosophy and to some people like creationism an active feature and part of thier faith

but hey let go look at Wiki's article on ID

It is a modern form of the traditional teleological argument for the existence of God that avoids specifying the nature or identity of the designer
religeous argument ....

Intelligent design's leading proponents, all of whom are associated with the Discovery Institute, a politically conservative think tank,[7][8] believe the designer to be the God of Christianity.[9][10
arguing for god and baby jebus

"We are building on this momentum, broadening the wedge with a positive scientific alternative to materialistic scientific theories, which has come to be called the theory of intelligent design. Design theory promises to reverse the stifling dominance of the materialist worldview, and to replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions."[32][33]

Intelligent design arguments are formulated in secular terms and intentionally avoid identifying the intelligent agent (or agents) they posit. Although they do not state that God is the designer, the designer is often implicitly hypothesized to have intervened in a way that only a god could intervene. Dembski, in The Design Inference, speculates that an alien culture could fulfill these requirements. The authoritative description of intelligent design,[95] however, explicitly states that the Universe displays features of having been designed. Acknowledging the paradox, Dembski concludes that "no intelligent agent who is strictly physical could have presided over the origin of the universe or the origin of life".[96] The leading proponents have made statements to their supporters that they believe the designer to be the Christian God, to the exclusion of all other religions.[9][10][53]

Although arguments for intelligent design are formulated in secular terms and intentionally avoid positing the identity of the designer,[117] the majority of principal intelligent design advocates are publicly religious Christians who have stated that in their view the designer proposed in intelligent design is the Christian conception of God.

The strategy of deliberately disguising the religious intent of intelligent design has been described by William Dembski in The Design Inference.[120] In this work Dembski lists a god or an "alien life force" as two possible options for the identity of the designer; however, in his book Intelligent Design: The Bridge Between Science and Theology, Dembski states that "Christ is indispensable to any scientific theory, even if its practitioners don't have a clue about him. The pragmatics of a scientific theory can, to be sure, be pursued without recourse to Christ. But the conceptual soundness of the theory can in the end only be located in Christ."[121] Dembski also stated, "ID is part of God's general revelation [...] Not only does intelligent design rid us of this ideology (materialism), which suffocates the human spirit, but, in my personal experience, I've found that it opens the path for people to come to Christ".[122] Both Johnson and Dembski cite the Bible's Gospel of John as the foundation of intelligent design.[53][114]

face it the whole thing is about the judeo-christian god, depending on how strongly the proponent believes in ID and how it works within thier framework of faith ID can be clased as a religeous belief, a religeous argument, a religeous philosophy or ideology

there is simply no way to honestly seperate ID from religeon, unless you fall under the general term of athiest and believ aliens done it and then you still have to use the religeous arguments tpo promote a none relieou view

[edit on 12/2/09 by noobfun]

posted on Feb, 12 2009 @ 09:44 PM

The Gallup survey, released Wednesday, found a quarter of those polled do not believe in evolution, and 36 percent said they don't have an opinion either way

Please visit the link provided for the complete story.

Ok, Ok. Interesting. However:

The Gallup poll of 1,018 American adults found strong ties between education level and belief in the theory of evolution.

"Among those with high-school educations or less who have an opinion on Darwin's theory, more say they do not believe in evolution than say they believe in it," Gallup found. "For all other groups, and in particular those who have at least a college degree, belief is significantly higher than nonbelief."

Please visit the link provided for the complete story.

posted on Feb, 13 2009 @ 10:36 AM
reply to post by awake_awoke

the bottom section showing how the better educated someone is the more the are likley to understnd and accept evolution ad the cause for diversity isnt anything new the same poll shows this everytime

its similar to the trends in atheistic/theistic results the higher the education the more likley to be atheistic in view

the interesting thing is the percentages, the last one had evolution/creationism dam near neck and neck

but this year the percentage for both evolution and creation have dropped forming a massive undecided middle group

but the creationist percentage has dropped roughly 30% more by comparison of the evolution drop,

looks like creationsim is loosing the battle, and ignorance is bieng replaced by mass confussion

[edit on 13/2/09 by noobfun]

posted on Feb, 13 2009 @ 08:02 PM
reply to post by noobfun

I'm not sure if it's an undecided middle group or the group that his simply stopped caring since this has been on the front pages for awhile now. That being said, something else I would like to see is a state by state breakdown of each.

posted on Feb, 14 2009 @ 10:53 AM
reply to post by FSBlueApocalypse

yeah there could be several reasons for the sudden third party, but its the speed of change that interests me was it 07 or 08? the last one of these had evolution on level pegging with ID and cretinism when they were combined

now evolution has a clear 14% lead

a state break down would certainly be interesting, to much of a possability of it enforcing regional negative stereotypes on both sides of the issue for them to do it though id guess

posted on Mar, 1 2009 @ 02:27 PM
Creationism is kind of misplaced into the realm of religion. What religion teaches is dogma (not that science is free of that!), and "creation" is offered in a form of cosmogony or parable. That most certainly gives rise to lots of unfounded speculation.

How about approaching this problem from philosophical grounds? Philosophy is certainly capable of endorsing both science and religion within the same operational mode.

Scientific postulates are clearly derived (and, unfortunately, filtered) from philosophical ones. The problem with scientific approach is that it is "freed" from ethical contents, which is in current practice falsely and intentionally ascribed to the religious approach.

All this fuss it about ethics, I believe. Scientists (science) tries to avoid responsibility in its conclusion making and is strongly opposed to ethical approach to the problem.

Theory of evolution does not explain how life came to existence. It only observes how life forms change during time and looks for evidence and causes of those changes.

Religious (dogmatic) approach, as is for example given in Bible, claims that all life was created within the 6 days schedule by God, and therefore cannot acknowledge a time passage without which Theory of evolution cannot operate.

The whole polemic is in most cases amateurish.

posted on Mar, 1 2009 @ 02:45 PM
“You ever noticed how people who believe in Creationism look really unevolved? You ever noticed that? Eyes real close together, eyebrow ridges, big furry hands and feet. "I believe God created me in one day" Yeah, looks like He rushed it.”

“You believe the world's 12 thousand years old? "That's right." Okay I got one word to ask you, a one word question, ready? "Uh huh." Dinosaurs. You know the world's 12 thousand years old and dinosaurs existed, they existed in that time, you'd think it would have been mentioned in the #ing Bible at some point. "And lo Jesus and the disciples walked to Nazareth. But the trail was blocked by a giant brontosaurus...with a splinter in his paw. And O the disciples did run a shriekin': 'What a big #ing lizard, Lord!' But Jesus was unafraid and he took the splinter from the brontosaurus's paw and the big lizard became his friend.”

The Science Of Bill Strikes Again ;-)!!!...

new topics

top topics

<< 4  5  6   >>

log in