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.

 

'Praise Darwin, Evolve Beyond Belief' billboards go up

page: 10
8
<< 7  8  9    11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 15 2009 @ 11:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by johnsky

You know, when a bunch of people are claiming to be the author of the same thing without using evidence... as a standard, they all lose credibility.



I have an old quote for you.

"When you come to terms with why you dismiss all the other gods, you'll understand why I dismiss yours as well."

So...
Why do you dismiss Zeus, Gaia, or any of the other estimated 100,000 gods? What makes you so sure YOUR god is the right one?


From my point of view, when hundreds of thousands have all tried to claim the same thing you've claimed... and only one or none can be correct.
I have to assume they're all BS'ing me.


Another question you should probably ask yourself is... why would the one true religion need to use threats of eternal damnation just to keep it's members?

Sounds more like a threat to maintain profit and control.

Is this all you guys know how to do? Is make presumptuous assertions for what another is saying, then mock them making all kinds of ignorant assumptions as if the person you are ridiculing had actually made any statements or words to the effect you assume I did. My posts are regarding this very kind of stereotyped , presumptuous prejudice and ridicule. If you got something intelligent to add to the mix Johnsky by all means don't hold back. But in the meantime quit acting like you know a thing about what you are talking about because, so far,,,


You Don't




posted on Feb, 16 2009 @ 09:52 AM
link   

Do you mean the nasty,insecure,vindictive god from the old testament?




Originally posted by Aermacchi
Yeah, that be the one, you know,, the one that gave you a life free of charge




Originally posted by Aermacchi
I never said which one


Sorry I must have completely misunderstood your comments -not to worry.



As for biblical creationism,theres some good links here:

Objective,scientific method Vs these guys:


Dishonesty:


How the argument usualy goes:
thebizzare.com...


Approriate Cartoons:











And I think these are quite perceptive:










[edit on 02/10/08 by karl 12]



posted on Feb, 17 2009 @ 01:17 AM
link   
reply to post by karl 12
 


You imply some sort of authority and expertise but fail to provide credentials, you simply post a lot of the same bigotry in the form of comic book cut outs mocking people who have every right to the same access to Science as any atheist.

You post that comic book criticism to make us think you know what you are talking about. Why do you refuse to address the issues without using such dis-inormation and discrimination tactics that look so familiar to that which we have seen coming from evolutionists and so accurately portrayed and proven happens just as Ben Stein said it did in the movie expelled.

You attempt to pull me into emotional response without discussion of the issues. If you have something useful to contribute which defeats my argument, let's hear it -- preferably without snide and unwarranted and inaccurate attacks mocking something you have obviously too much of a bias against to be objective about much less intelligently honest about

You have made all the arguments and supicions documented in that article patent, proving my point

while you may think yourself so enlightened, you're just as irrational and unreasonable as was pointed out in the congressional report. This is becoming more convincing that their is more to this kind of thing than merely differences in worldviews. I think Science is becoming somewhat of a new hate group.

It is obvious we cannot trust these men of Science if all they are about is keeping people and other valid arguments suppressed and oppressed using such juvenile angst agression for anyone with a deeper sense of reality besides materialism.

Your comments or opinions do not offer meaningful dialog or information, if you can manage to refrain from such immature actions to make your case then by all means, otherwise your useless rhetoric serves no purpose here if that is all you can manage.









[edit on 17-2-2009 by Aermacchi]



posted on Feb, 17 2009 @ 08:16 AM
link   
reply to post by Aermacchi
 


I see you chose to wilfully ignore the initial point about
'sanctimoniously proseltyzing about the abrahamc god'
and instead decided to go on a (rather predictable) 'emotion enflaming' rant with very little substance or objective meaning -isn't that the sign of a weak and evasive argument?

I thought the cartoons did quite a good job of encapsulating impartial viewpoints on the subject of organic evolution vs biblical creationist opinion.

If you found the cartoons a little too cavalier,why not try making some objective comments about these two videos?

Truth is not democracy:


Do you not think these young children have the right 'not' to be indoctrinated by religious cultists?



[edit on 02/10/08 by karl 12]



posted on Feb, 17 2009 @ 03:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by karl 12

I thought the cartoons did quite a good job of encapsulating impartial viewpoints on the subject of organic evolution vs biblical creationist opinion.





Truth is not democracy:


No but our form of Government is and if you think having a clique of Scientists who go out and pump eachothers nuts up at their next power lunch is what finding truth is about, you're mistaken. having them all singing the same song while having tunnel vision as they all swing from Darwins Vas Defrens, isn't truth, it is what Darwinists accuse Religion of doing while they do the same damn thing. If this is your idea of truth, it is time for a paradigm shift in Science and the sooner we kick this crap out of our public schools the better! I don't want our children being indoctrinated to hate religious people like Science obviously taught you.

If this is all Darwinists learn how to do, then it ain't about science, it's about ridiculing religion.

You keep changing the subject guy as if I have been spouting a bunch of scripture here and I haven't. Why? because that is right out of the Darwininan playbook apparently.

I didn't even say the billboards put up by the Darwinists offended me, I only gave my opinion as to the reason they put them up.

I have made a point about Darwinists discrimination against anyone challenging evolution using tactics just like you are using here. I have no opinion to offer for the inflammatory videos other than it is typical bunk Darwinists spew to express justification for the very discrimination and opression they seem to desire for stalinist AmeriKa.

Your taking an extreme of any ideology whether it be religion or science is asinine to say the least and doesn't reflect an objectivley honest assesment but an agenda JUST LIKE WE SAW DARWINISTS DOING IN BEN STEINS MOVIE EXPELLED! It is amazing how you keep missing the point while proving mine and as much as I appreciate the help and assistance in that regard, I am starting to feel like I am bullying you now.

If I were to use the most extreme acts gays live out, or muslims or showed an extreme of your own logic for instance, taking the premise of the videos and showed how teaching children to look both ways before crossing the street. Shouldn't we let them decide for themselves etc.

This seems to be all you Darwinists know how to do is ridicule, mock and make fun of anyone who has a mind unlike yours not sharing your darwininian toaster.

I see it all the time a lot of talk about so called MOUNTAINS of evidence by the so called "Science" community.

The difference between these two ideologies can be summed up just by reading the vitriolic venom the act of children being spoken by allegedly "intelligent mature adults" whose childish acts are an insult to children everywhere. I have shown a case where even the united states congress has seen this and sides with the victim of this sort of Darwinian bigotry and it is sickening to say the least.

I notice even when Darwinists so brazen in their agenda to discriminate against anyone who might be a republican or a Christian, Muslim, Jew, is announced as NOT the benefit of Science or mankind but to advance ATHEISM and if it doesn't look as oppressively familiar to any religious person proseletyzing under a traveling salvation show circus tent, then you are even more incorrect about religion and its followers than the idiotic people in the videos you try to pass off as main stream religious "folk". I give you Sciences Answer to Jerry Fallwell,,

Neil degrasse Tyson
www.uncommondescent.com...









[edit on 17-2-2009 by Aermacchi]



posted on Feb, 17 2009 @ 03:46 PM
link   
reply to post by Aermacchi
 


Sounds to me like your still refusing to address any of the (perfectly valid) points made in the videos and are now just attempting to 'court victimhood'.

I'm actualy all for people beleiving in whatever they wish as long as it does not bring harm to others (beleive in pixies and hobgoblins if you want) - its just when deluded extremists try to 'hide behind' science and forcefully impose their opinions on others as
'factual in context' (especialy young,impressionable children) that it becomes totaly irresponsible,unhealthy and dangerous.

If you actualy want to engage in meaningful discussion about this subject then you could start by addressing some of the videos shown above or commenting on some of the pertinent quotes listed below explaining the reasons why you think they are wrong.



"I cannot deny that the increase of scientific knowledge has deprived parts of the earlier books of the Bible of the historical value which was generally attributed to them by our forefathers.
The story of Creation in the Book of Genesis, unless we play fast and loose either with words or with science, cannot be brought into harmony with what we have learnt from geology.
Its ethnological statements are imperfect, if not sometimes inaccurate. The stories of the Fall, of the Flood, and of the Tower of Babel, are incredible in their present form.
Some historical element may underlie many of the traditions in the first eleven chapters in that book, but this we cannot hope to recover."
Professor Bonney, F.R.S., Canon of Manchester ,October 10, 1895.

Geology shows that fossils are of different ages. Paleontology shows a fossil sequence, the list of species represented changes through time. Taxonomy shows biological relationships among species. Evolution is the explanation that threads it all together. Creationism is the practice of squeezing one's eyes shut and wailing "Does not!" ~Author Unknown

If we are going to teach 'creation science' as an alternative to evolution, then we should also teach the stork theory as an alternative to biological reproduction. ~Judith Hayes, In God We Trust: But Which One?

In science, "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent." I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms. ~Stephen J. Gould

I like to browse in occult bookshops if for no other reason than to refresh my commitment to science. ~Heinz Pagels, The Dreams of Reason

[Creation science is] an attempt to give credibility to Hebrew mythology by making people believe that the world's foremost biologists, paleontologists, and geologists are a bunch of incompetent nincompoops. ~Ron Peterson

Religion seems to have a way of making people abandon logic. ~Amanda Baxter

So far as I can remember, there is not one word in the Gospels in praise of intelligence. ~Bertrand Russell

"I have determined, after extensive surveying, tabulation, and data analysis, that the average creationist in the US earns $21,387.29 in family income; owns 1.2 cars; 1.8 TV's, and 2.3 kids; and has, at some stage answered to the name "Bubba". He has less than one year of college. Yet he knows more about paleontology than Bakker or Horner (or he thinks that what they know is wrong--same thing). He knows more about the definition of evolution than Gould or Dawkins. He knows more about Biology than Dobzhansky or Mayr. He knows more about cosmology Hawking, Smoot or Witten and more about fossils than Jhanson or the Leakeys. He knows more "true" geology than geologists, more psychics than physicists, more astronomy than astronomers--and more about everything than atheists like Asimov or Sagan"
Anon

The biblical account of Noah's Ark and the Flood is perhaps the most implausible story for fundamentalists to defend. Where, for example, while loading his ark, did Noah find penguins and polar bears in Palestine? ~Judith Hayes

Most men would kill the truth if truth would kill their religion. ~Lemuel K. Washburn, Is The Bible Worth Reading And Other Essays

It is the position of some theists that their right to freedom OF religion is abridged when they are not allowed to violate the rationalists' right to freedom FROM religion. ~James T. Green

Most reformers wore rubber boots and stood on glass when God sent a current of Commonsense through the Universe. ~Elbert Hubbard

Gods are fragile things; they may be killed by a whiff of science or a dose of common sense. ~Chapman Cohen



[edit on 02/10/08 by karl 12]



posted on Feb, 17 2009 @ 06:16 PM
link   
[quote

Originally posted by karl 12

Sounds to me like your still refusing to address any of the (perfectly valid) points made in the videos and are now just attempting to 'court victimhood'


Hey Genius, I think calling that crap BS pretty much summed it up the first time where for me to elaborate on that definition to someone who OBVIOUSLY has his mind made up in-spite of the facts may seem amusing to some but I got better things to do then explain to a hater what he is and what he does to prove it.
.

I'm actualy all for people beleiving in whatever they wish as long as it does not bring harm to others (beleive in pixies and hobgoblins if you want)


Yes but sternberg brought no harm to others and had done what many in his position had also done but the rules only apply to sternberg and the punishment for which was what many like you say they have nothing against what people believe but that is not true and albeit John Scopes might have taught a classroom of people we all came from MacGilla Gorilla, Pixies and hobgoblins need not apply regardless of all three being utterly ridiculous. I understand you couldn't resist the immaturity using the innuendo as an ad-hom nevertheless.


- its just when deluded extremists try to 'hide behind' science and forcefully impose their opinions on others as 'factual in context' (especialy young,impressionable children) that it becomes totaly irresponsible,unhealthy and dangerous.


Yet that is EXACTLY what Atheists are using Evolution to do and while I am at it I guess the the distinction for making up things that will affect us for the rest of my life like when it dawned on my their was no santa clause, the ironic thing is, I have only grown to be more convinced of other so called myths they are not myths at all but an obvious presence where ever I look and one you DENY.


If you actualy want to engage in meaningful discussion about this subject then you could start by addressing some of the videos shown above or commenting on some of the pertinent quotes listed below explaining the reasons why you think they are wrong.


Why would I want to start there when you haven't addressed the reason you responded to a post of mine about sternberg and the evolutionist discrimination yet?

Is that one is too easy to convict? Your calls to authority coming from everyone who has no more a degree in theology as you do but what you intend to do is keep making this an issue about religion being how all religious think and that what they think is illustrated by you in some asinine caracature so typical the tactics of ridicule by the religion of Atheism

"I have determined, after extensive surveying, tabulation, and data analysis, that the average Atheist in the US earns (sorry, unlike atheists, who need to pidgeon hole everyone into a characature to substantiate their superior veiw of themselves, we would rather not be interested in what is none of our business) in family income; owns 1.2 cars; 1.8 TV's, and .01 kids; as many are gay and do not procreate, has, at some stage answered to the name "Poindexter or Seth ". He has a degree in knowing what they think is science because that is what dawkins said and no one but no one challenges the grand dawk.

Yet he knows more about God than Missler or Charles Stanley (or he thinks that what they know is wrong--same thing). He knows more about the definition of evolution than Gould or Dawkins. He knows more about Biology than Dobzhansky or Mayr by virtue of their being an atheist because as everyone knows,,,

ATHEISTS are all SCIENTISTS and they

KNOW EVERYTHING!


Pffft!



posted on Feb, 17 2009 @ 06:37 PM
link   
reply to post by Aermacchi
 


Is everything an atheist conspiracy to you (I could be a freethinking deist or an agnostic polytheist for all you know).

I've never known anyone dance around a subject and write down so many words without actualy saying anything.

Lets make it simple.

Do you agree with this kind of behaviour - yes or no? :



[edit on 02/10/08 by karl 12]



posted on Feb, 17 2009 @ 06:41 PM
link   
You cannot tell me that THIS was ALL an accident!
It would be easier for me to believe that Leonardo da Vinci bumped his easel and palette, knocking them over on the ground, spilling paint across a canvas that just so happened to create the Mona Lisa. Come on! I don’t care how many millions of years a blank canvas lays around, it will never produce the Mona Lisa.

Oh, woops, I just spilled my coffee. Hmmm, would you look at that… it looks like the mess has some sort of order to it?

Wow, it actually looks like letters.

Let’s see here, what does it say?

“Your father was a monkey.”



posted on Feb, 17 2009 @ 07:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by karl 12
reply to post by Aermacchi
 


What a joker -is everything an atheist conspiracy to you (I could be a freethinking deist or an agnostic polytheist for all you know).

I've never known anyone dance around a subject and write down so many words without actualy saying anything.

Lets make it very simple.

Do you agree with this kind of behaviour - yes or no? :


[edit on 02/10/08 by karl 12]


Let me ask you this sherlock, who posted to who first !

You want your BS discussed then YOU START WITH MINE!

I have repeatedly brought up the reasons for it NONE of which you have answered but only tried to change the issue to your video as if I had ANYTHING to say to you about this video having anything to do with Darwins Billboards.


By the way, I don't do youtube's so you are going to have to think for yourself about how





[edit on 17-2-2009 by Aermacchi]



posted on Feb, 17 2009 @ 07:37 PM
link   
True... Mona Lisa wasn't painted in 4seconds, 4minutes, 4hours, or 4months... more like 4billion years in the making. Evolution is a very very very slow process. As for the flawed use of the world "chance", a more accurate word would be mutation. Good or bad, the occasional random variation in life form that gives a surviving advantage prevail. Same could be said for ideas, skills and a sense of aesthetics, those that serve to be most useful to our financial, mental and emotional well being prevail. As for the evolution of art alone, from cave drawings to Mona Lisa took approximately 1.5 million years.

This chart should put the age of life on earth as we know it in proper perspective:
www.science.uct.ac.za...

[edit on 17-2-2009 by The All Seeing I]



posted on Feb, 17 2009 @ 07:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by The All Seeing I
True... Mona Lisa wasn't painted in 4seconds, 4minutes, 4hours, or 4months... more like 4billion years in the making. Evolution is a very very very slow process. As for the flawed use of the world "chance", a more accurate word would be mutation. Good or bad, the random mutations that give a surviving advantage prevail. Same could be said for ideas, skills and a sense of aesthetics, those that serve to be most useful to our financial, mental and emotional well being prevail.

This chart should put the age of life on earth as we know it in proper perspective:
www.science.uct.ac.za...


I think the point was the mona lisa was guided by an intelligent hand just as your excuse to explain how the rest of everything got here is guided by a somewhat misguided, intelligent mind and it is only in your mind that it prevails





[edit on 17-2-2009 by Aermacchi]



posted on Feb, 17 2009 @ 07:59 PM
link   
Da Vinci was capable of painted the Mona Lisa, because of his singular devotion to the craft and study of all who came before him.

This is evolution in skill and perspective with regard to visual communication.

Now you can go into any art school in the country and find a student who can replicate Mona Lisa.

"If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of giants."
- Isaac Newton, letter to Robert Hooke, 1676



posted on Feb, 17 2009 @ 11:19 PM
link   
…my father was a monkey?

Wow. What are the chances of my coffee having spilled that message on accident? Perhaps I have contacted the force… the mind behind evolution? Surely it must have a name, or maybe this mug is special somehow. I’ll just pour myself another cup of coffee here, ask a question, and just spill it again. ((BTW, my coffee mug is black with a number 8 on it.))


Hate to waste a good cup of coffee, but here goes nothing… hey, that was kinda punny!

“What is your name?”

Wow, sure enough, that looks like words to me… yep, I have defiantly got another message here!

“No-brainer.”

Huh? No-brainer? As in easy or something absurdly simple, or could it mean just that? No brain?

Thankfully I have just enough coffee here for one more question...



posted on Feb, 18 2009 @ 01:17 AM
link   
It is silly to claim that science, or anything, is beyond belief (i.e. relies on no unprovable assumptions).

Science itself is constructed out of two distinct languages, mathematics and the natural language native to the scientist. So to say that scientific claims are beyond belief is to say that something formulated in these two languages has the possibility to be beyond belief when it is formulated in a hybrid of these two languages. Well, now we will have to determine that our understanding of the languages is, itself, beyond belief.

Unfortunately, neither of these languages can be proven to rely on unprovable premises. In mathematics, no mathematical system can retroactively prove all the axioms out of which it is built (as Godel famously showed). This means that we must assume certain basic premises about how the world works before mathematics can even get off the ground!

Similarly in natural languages, a simple consideration of how definitions work will reveal that all words are defined in terms which, themselves, require defining. This entails a similar circular content-dependency. Just as mathematics must be provided with unprovanle axioms by which it may operate, so language must assume certain irreducible concepts (viz. meaning-relations) in order to function. For if there were anything to be found beneath the definition, then it seems as though we ought to be defining words in terms of that thing!

Ergo, all knowledge requires making assumptions about just what knowledge is in the first place. What science really ought to do is to help us distinguish the reasonable basic assumptions from the unreasonable by comparison with empirical data. Those theories which do not accomodate the data ought to be relinquished in favor of those that do. In this case, both theories (evolution and "intelligent design") began as basic assumptions (for Darwin really didn't have strong rational support for his theory at the time, considering he had no mechanism to explain his theory), and evolution has proven to be the one more consistent with the data. Nevertheless, there are many possible areas of which can admit rational explanation using assumption of basic principles or axioms, but which admit of no empirical evidence. Such areas are God, metaphysics, spiritual and mystical claims and the supposed priority of science over "faith".

To admit of having "faith" is no more than to admit that one assumes a particular worldview by which to interpret the world. When I add numbers, I am assuming the rules of arithmetic. When I speak about human ethics, I am assuming fundamenal metaethical principles (e.g. "all for the sake of profit," "self-interest is the common good," "equal opportunity for all," etc.) which shape my ethics. What science should teach us is that there are always ways to determine whether these worldviews actually do accomodate the evidence on hand. And any worldview which inadequately accounts for the empirical evidence (such as those religions which reject evolution) ought to be compelled by human reason to incorporate the discovery. I wonder how similar all religions would look if they all attempted to incorporate the recent technological, social and scientific discoveries rather than reject them...

(Edited for code errors.)

[edit on 18-2-2009 by PriamsPride]



posted on Feb, 18 2009 @ 02:03 AM
link   
reply to post by The All Seeing I
 


Darwin was not an Atheist, and believed he found proof of God in his works... soo .. kind of a weird mascot for an Atheist/Agnostic movement?

Then again I should learn not to expect logical sense.

But in my old home town there are bill boards all over the place with "Jesus loves you" and various commandments etc advertising the nearest Baptist church.. so what ever.



posted on Feb, 18 2009 @ 07:42 AM
link   
Darwin wrote in two places in his book "Life and Letters" about his personal faith:


"The mystery of the beginning of all things is insoluble by us; and I for one must be content to remain an Agnostic."

"I think an Agnostic would be the more correct description of my state of mind. The whole subject (of God) is beyond the scope of man's intellect."



posted on Feb, 18 2009 @ 07:45 AM
link   
reply to post by The All Seeing I
 


So, why are science establishments SO atheistic?
Dawkins, Harris, Meyers?
Why do atheists use Darwin for so much mileage?



posted on Feb, 18 2009 @ 09:32 AM
link   
reply to post by Clearskies

Darwin is a perfect poster boy. A man of science and reason who was character assassinated by the church, for seeking and telling the truth. Copernicus and Galileo had similar fates. Over and over again, and even to this very day we see religion derailing scientific inquiry.

Now with Darwin fully vindicated and properly placed in history, he is proof that science trumps religion in matters of physical reality. Atheists/agnostics are disciples of science. Darwin was a disciple of science, and was crucified for his devotion to seeking the truth. In sum, a simple clear parallel is made... Darwin to atheists/agnostics is much like Jesus is to Christians.



posted on Feb, 18 2009 @ 10:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by apaulo
It would be easier for me to believe that Leonardo da Vinci bumped his easel and palette, knocking them over on the ground, spilling paint across a canvas that just so happened to create the Mona Lisa. Come on! I don’t care how many millions of years a blank canvas lays around, it will never produce the Mona Lisa.


You demonstrate that you know little or nothing about Evolution and how the process works, because that comparison doesn't make sense.

Contrary to what happens with living organisms, there is no process that would gradually produce a 'better' or more 'successful' painting, as the painting has no need to survive or reproduce to start with.

Your example only contemplates chance, while if you knew anything about Evolution and natural selection you would know that the results that arise from the process are not merely the result of chance.

While chance does play a part in mutations, genetic variations, that's only one part of the process, and natural selection is actually the opposite of chance.



You cannot tell me that THIS was ALL an accident!


No, but that's not what Evolution describes either.

It must be hard to understand, especially to someone who doesn't understand Evolution, that if something isn't an accident it must mean that something, some entity or deity created or designed it to be this way, but there are other explanations.

People also used to believe that sunshine, rain and thunders were acts or manifestations of the Gods. Why don't people still believe that? Because we have come to understand where those things come from, their purpose and what processes generate them.


It's really worrying to see people discuss the validity of Evolution, or think Creationism has the same validity, when they are completely ignorant about Evolution and in fact, science as a whole.

Just because you personally can't understand how the process works, or even believe that the process is responsible for the chances in the organisms, it doesn't mean it isn't real or happening.

[edit on 18-2-2009 by converge]



new topics

top topics



 
8
<< 7  8  9    11  12 >>

log in

join