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: 6
8
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 12 2009 @ 03:01 PM
link   
reply to post by sezsue
 



You need to look up the word theory. It isn't a "guess" it is a collection of data that explains a hypothesis. Look at the most recent genetics research or that of molecular biology. Both of these scientific enterprises support evolution. But there are still missing pieces. We know the big bang happened but we don't know the mechanics of it, hence why it is a theory.

I recommend this:

www.pbs.org...


[edit on 12-2-2009 by projectvxn]




posted on Feb, 12 2009 @ 03:06 PM
link   
reply to post by sezsue
 


The natural process we call Evolution is a fact. Darwin's theory addresses this process, not the origins of life in the Universe, you seem to be confusing the two.

By the way, not sure why you wrote theory within quotes. A scientific theory is not an uninformed opinion or a hunch.



posted on Feb, 12 2009 @ 03:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by melatonin

But if christians weren't pushing literal biblical creationism into classrooms and all but accepted that genesis was allegory, then there would be no use 'dogmatic science lovers' using genesis as a stick to bash creationists with.


That is an approach. But is it an effective one? At least one of the people arguing "for" God in here was not a literalist. But I saw no differentiation being used when addressing him/her.


Originally posted by melatonin
If someone says to me that evolution is trash, creationism should be taught because genesis is literal truth, then I will bash creationists with the erroneous claims of genesis with a side-dish of science.


And I would say "what purpose does it serve?" Does it change their minds? Is it persuasive? Or does it merely reinforce their belief? Or is it just a way to vent frustration? I dont think I am overly evenhanded. I could be, and simply be unaware of it. But I dont believe that to be the case. I reject without apology the idea that creationism as it is proposed literally in the Bible is science. I just dont insist they throw the baby out with the bathwater. I acknowledge that science can say nothing about the existence of God. In my mind, I am being as objective as I can be. Which is the scientific mindset.



Originally posted by melatonin
I think the 'dogmatic science lover' also accepts it's not literal truth - better stated as just literally wrong. And so if it is literally wrong, it would probably be poetic myth, like much of this sort of ancient writing. They are taking on creationists by the claims they make. If one says x is truth, then I take 'x is truth' as their position and work with that.


In logic, no matter how carefully you follow the form of logic, if your premises are faulty you cannot be assured of a sound conclusion. You seem to be saying that you will take a faulty premise and plug it into logical form. I simply choose not to do that. I redirect back to a premise that is not faulty, and run my logic from sound premises only. My goal may differ from yours. It comes back to the first question I asked in this post. What purpose does it serve? If it makes you happy to do it, if it vents frustration, then it may serve its purpose. There are days when I am likely to say something sharp or sarcastic because I have just had my fill of something. But if it is meant to persuade, or convince, it is highly unlikely to. I dont know that using sound premises is any guarantee of persuasion either. But I calculate the odds as slightly higher. And to the degree I am able I try to avoid just "bashing" for the sake of bashing. I dont think it gets us anywhere. Railing out against something has the unfortunate tendency to make you begin to resemble that which you are railing against.

en.wikipedia.org...


Enantiodromia (Greek: enantios, opposite + dromos, running course) is a concept introduced by psychiatrist Carl Jung meaning the superabundance of any force inevitably produces its opposite. It is equivalent to the principle of equilibrium in the natural world, in that any extreme is opposed by the system in order to restore balance.


I dont tend to argue (in the technical sense) with someone who is utterly incapable or unwilling to reason through with me at all. I accept that there are some who are so dogmatic that there is no reasoning with them, no matter how fair I might be. Many beliefs are not based on logic, and so logic does not act on them. Its just a fact. I believe in giving it a fair shot, and if what I see returning is consistently pure emotion, I leave it be. What purpose is there in continuing?



posted on Feb, 12 2009 @ 03:26 PM
link   
reply to post by projectvxn


the·o·ry [ th əree, three ] (plural the·o·ries) noun Definition:

1. rules and techniques: the body of rules, ideas, principles, and techniques that applies to a subject, especially when seen as distinct from actual practice
economic theories
Many coaches have a good grasp of the theory of football but can't motivate players.

2. speculation: abstract thought or contemplation

3. idea formed by speculation: an idea of or belief about something arrived at through speculation or conjecture
She believed in the theory that you catch more flies with honey than with vinegar.

4. hypothetical circumstances: a set of circumstances or principles that is hypothetical
That's the theory, but it may not work out in practice.

5. scientific principle to explain phenomena: a set of facts, propositions, or principles analyzed in their relation to one another and used, especially in science, to explain phenomena

Late 16th century. Via late Latin< Greek theōria "contemplation, theory" < theōros "spectator"]
in theory under hypothetical or ideal circumstances but perhaps not in reality



hy·poth·e·sis [ hī póthəssiss ] (plural hy·poth·e·ses [ hī póthə sz ]) noun Definition:

1. theory needing investigation: a tentative explanation for a phenomenon, used as a basis for further investigation
The hypothesis of the big bang is one way to explain the beginning of the universe.

2. assumption: a statement that is assumed to be true for the sake of argumenthypothesis.

3. antecedent clause: in logic, the antecedent of a conditional statement [Late 16th century. Via late Latin< Greek hupothesis "foundation, base" < thesis "placing"] hy·poth·e·sist noun



posted on Feb, 12 2009 @ 03:28 PM
link   
If monkeys could speak their minds,
I would image they would say...



Three monkeys sat on a coconut tree,
Discussing things as they’re said to be.
Said one to the other,
“Now listen you two,
There’s a certain rumor
That can’t be true …
That man descended from our noble race.
The very idea is sure to disgrace.”
“No monkey ever deserted his wife,
Starved her babies and ruined her life.
And you’ve never known another monk,
To leave her babies with others to bunk,
Or pass them on from one to another.”
“And another thing you will never see …
Is a monk build a fence around a coconut tree;
And let the coconuts go to waste,
Forbidding all the other monks to taste.”
“Why, if I put a fence around this tree,
Starvation would force you to steal from me.”
“And here’s something else a monk won’t do …
Go out at night and get on a stew;
Or use a gun or club or knife,
To take some other monkey’s life.”
“Yes, man descended … ornery cuss,
But, brother, … he didn’t descend from us!

*author unknown



posted on Feb, 12 2009 @ 03:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by converge

You can't possibly take the position that something for which there is no evidence has the same merit and probability of existing, otherwise you'd have to take all the other supernatural beliefs, myths and stories as equally probable.


Is it true, or is it not true, that in science, we often first begin looking for theoretical particles, forces, planetary bodies, etc., not because we have directly observed them, but because we have noted an effect on another thing?

When gravity was first described, was it not because its effect on objects was observed? No one ever saw a piece of gravity laying about.

We see an effect on people, the vast majority of people, not just a few nutters here and there. Something makes them believe there is "something else." Some conscious directing force. Many call this God. Now, this effect could turn out to be some artifact of the mind. But we cant yet say for sure that it is. It could also be an indication that there IS some conscious directing force.


Originally posted by converge
Yes atheism is based on an opinion but there is a difference between an opinion based on factual and empirical evidence, and one based on the lack of evidence.


And I am arguing that the mere fact that so many people, all over the world, even in cultures like Soviet Russia that forbade religion, believe, is evidence. Of something. A sense of "something else" is not just cultural. It seems hardwired into most. Now like I said, it may just be some function of the brain. But at this point all we know is something is affecting people. You are saying, in effect, there is nothing there. There is no evidence. I am saying we are seeing something that effects people, we just dont know what. It seem unreasonable to me at this point to say definitively it cannot be an actual perception of sorts of some real force. Which some calls God.

If you lack this sense, does that mean it doesnt exist? Because a blind person cannot see, does it mean color has no meaning to someone who can? It may not mean color IS, it may merely be the way the brain interprets light waves, but does like lack of sight mean necessarily that there are no light waves at all?

To be objective, and scientific, one cannot discount evidence simply because of a lack of personal experience. A blind scientist who totally discounted light waves would not be a very good scientist.



posted on Feb, 12 2009 @ 03:36 PM
link   
reply to post by sezsue
 


Oh boy... you don't even understand the concept of a scientific theory? Both myself and project have told you that a scientific theory isn't just a theory in the ordinary sense.

A scientific theory is a testable model capable of predicting future occurrences or observations and capable of being tested through experiment or otherwise verified through empirical observation.



posted on Feb, 12 2009 @ 03:38 PM
link   
reply to post by sezsue
 


I noticed you highlighted only the words that support your idea of what a theory actually is. Nice spin.

A proposition is a hypothesis. Just because people say "That's the theory" what they are actually saying is "That's the hypothesis". When you have a hypothesis you then gather data to create a theory. That is the way the scientific principle works which I will note below:


I. The scientific method has four steps 1. Observation and description of a phenomenon or group of phenomena. 2. Formulation of a hypothesis to explain the phenomena. In physics, the hypothesis often takes the form of a causal mechanism or a mathematical relation. 3. Use of the hypothesis to predict the existence of other phenomena, or to predict quantitatively the results of new observations. 4. Performance of experimental tests of the predictions by several independent experimenters and properly performed experiments. Properly executed experiments use controls. Controls are needed to eliminate alternate explanations of experimental results. Using this simple and linear logic we can narrow down the existence or non-existence of any phenomena known to man, provided we have the adequate means to test any given hypothesis or theory.


Genetics and Microbiology have tested the tenants of Evolution by identifying chromosomes which bear the characteristics of the combination of chromosomes of the Great Ape. They (The Ape) Has 24 chromosome pairs, we have 23 pairs. The reason is that at some point in our evolution the chromosome fused with another separating the human race from the Great Ape. That Chromosome pair is Chromosome two. And it is the evidence that proves we evolved and it is irrefutable.

[edit on 12-2-2009 by projectvxn]



posted on Feb, 12 2009 @ 03:38 PM
link   
reply to post by converge

Yes, you are right, Darwin did have a theory, but that doesn't make it fact. Until it can be proven absolutely, it will remain a theory.

And the Big Bang theory can't be proven either. I have read plenty about the Big Bang theory, and there are other theories that are surfacing as time goes on, but as I said before, scientists that have spent their lives teaching, promoting, advocating etc., their particular view will be in no hurry to allow other points of view to rise to the forefront.

They have too much to lose, and there are too many egos involved. A controversial new theory will not get much media play, because the ensconced scientists and professors who have promoted the Big Bang, and Evolution Theories will not allow it.
 



posted on Feb, 12 2009 @ 03:57 PM
link   
reply to post by sezsue
 


This may help you to understand what science is (from a non agenda based,objective viewpoint):

What science is not:
www.indiana.edu...

Carl Sagan's baloney detection kit:
users.tpg.com.au...



posted on Feb, 12 2009 @ 03:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by Illusionsaregrander
That is an approach. But is it an effective one? At least one of the people arguing "for" God in here was not a literalist. But I saw no differentiation being used when addressing him/her.


OK, so I guess you are referring to earlier with the 'let there be light' comment. So the problem is why should I (or they) give that statement from genesis any weight at all? I assume the person was using it as support for the bible and/or god, but just a few sentences later in genesis, we have all sorts of erroneous claims.

So why would anyone even bother to use such a cherrypicked claim from an allegorical book? What's the point?


And I would say "what purpose does it serve?" Does it change their minds? Is it persuasive? Or does it merely reinforce their belief? Or is it just a way to vent frustration?


For me? I don't actually bother that much anymore, as the discussions here are no more than a pursuit in wasting valuable time (I used to have discussions with people with new ideas rather than tedious circular discussions and feeding trolls). However, off the forum these sort of issues are very important and have real consequences in education.

Science education is for science. Not for pseudoscience and religion. Scientific literacy is very poor already (look around you) without spending valuable class time on vacuous tripe. Some people need to hold back the moronic barbarians - and help is required from atheists, theists, and scientists, and overlaps.


I dont think I am overly evenhanded. I could be, and simply be unaware of it. But I dont believe that to be the case. I reject without apology the idea that creationism as it is proposed literally in the Bible is science. I just dont insist they throw the baby out with the bathwater. I acknowledge that science can say nothing about the existence of God. In my mind, I am being as objective as I can be. Which is the scientific mindset.


Okie doke, I'll try to put it another way. Ultimately, you and the 'dogmatic science person' both hold the same position. Just one of them is actually facing off certain people. Yet you are criticising the one's who might be helping keep science free of vacuous religious tripe. It's just the way you are framing the problem. So you state:


What is similar? They are both taking parable or allegory as literal truth. What is different, one accepts it as truth and the other denies it. There is a third way. Accept parable as not being literal truth.


Yet it is just as true to state that you and the 'dogmatic science lover' view the allegory as literally wrong. You both deny it as truth. So the third way is just the second way, but without caring about the first way. In essence, this is why some atheists see the moderates in religion as sort of enablers for the fundamentalists.

What is similar? They are both taking what one group take as literal truth, as literally wrong. You just enable them by attempting to bash 'dogmatic science lovers' and put over some sort of faux balance.


In logic, no matter how carefully you follow the form of logic, if your premises are faulty you cannot be assured of a sound conclusion. You seem to be saying that you will take a faulty premise and plug it into logical form. I simply choose not to do that. I redirect back to a premise that is not faulty, and run my logic from sound premises only. My goal may differ from yours.


Don't get your point at all. If someone claims that clouds are made of green cheese, then I would take their claim and show it to be wrong - I don't need to take it as literal truth, I take it as something they are claiming as truth/reasonable. You seem to be trying to place your position on some sort of pedestal, when it is nothing of the sort.


What is similar? They are both taking parable or allegory as literal truth. What is different, one accepts it as truth and the other denies it. There is a third way. Accept parable as not being literal truth.


Your position is the same as the 'dogmatic science lover'. The person that 'denies it' is accepting it is not literal truth.


It comes back to the first question I asked in this post. What purpose does it serve? If it makes you happy to do it, if it vents frustration, then it may serve its purpose.


Time wasting? Procrastination? Boredom? Idiocy? Playfulness?

It most certainly has no profound aim.


There are days when I am likely to say something sharp or sarcastic because I have just had my fill of something.


Heh, I do that for fun. My sarcasm and sharpness is correlated to the moronic nature of a post. I hold no delusion that clearskies could ever be educated on this issue. However, in contrast, I actually don't mind her. ATS wouldn't be the same with clearskies et al.


But if it is meant to persuade, or convince, it is highly unlikely to. I dont know that using sound premises is any guarantee of persuasion either.


I never expect to persuade or convince anyone I'm talking with here.


But I calculate the odds as slightly higher. And to the degree I am able I try to avoid just "bashing" for the sake of bashing. I dont think it gets us anywhere. Railing out against something has the unfortunate tendency to make you begin to resemble that which you are railing against.


I doubt it. But I'm sure it helps with the faux balance.

Funny thing is - I'll take the dogmatic claim as targetted, because it was methinks - I'm actually a very undogmatic science lover. I just don't take fools gladly and like to have a bit of fun in posting. Boring, long-winded, tedious, dry posts like this reply don't float me boat.


I dont tend to argue (in the technical sense) with someone who is utterly incapable or unwilling to reason through with me at all. I accept that there are some who are so dogmatic that there is no reasoning with them, no matter how fair I might be. Many beliefs are not based on logic, and so logic does not act on them. Its just a fact. I believe in giving it a fair shot, and if what I see returning is consistently pure emotion, I leave it be. What purpose is there in continuing?


Dunno...

[edit on 12-2-2009 by melatonin]



posted on Feb, 12 2009 @ 04:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by projectvxn
reply to post by karl 12
 


Very well put.
But manipulation of faith is not the same thing. That is what religion is. Faith cannot be used as an excuse for committing crimes only religion can.


Thanks for the reply,you may well be right -I'll have to give that some thought.



posted on Feb, 12 2009 @ 04:08 PM
link   
reply to post by projectvxn

Actually, you guys both make me laugh, because you guys are doing the same thing I did.

My point is why is your view any more valid than my view, or any other view, when the main idea is, scientists can "predict" "model" "hypothesize" or put whatever kind of spin on it you want, but just because you are speculating, that doesn't make it true, or provide proof.

The fact of the matter is....you don't know if your hypotheses is true, and you never will know....you still don't have proof, yet, and you may never have any.

So, why should anyone believe what some scientist says, when there could be a theory, say, that some fairy drops by the earth every now and then and sprinkles fairy dust that causes a new species to spring up and that's why there are no fossils to support evolution, so we don't need to find any, because hey, the fairy dust does it.

I'll just leave you with this quote below


Columnist George Caylor once interviewed a molecular biologist for an article entitled “The Biologist,” that ran on February 17, 2000, in The Ledger (Lynchburg, VA), and is in part reprinted here as a conversation between "G: (Caylor) and “J” (the scientist).

We join the piece in the middle of a discussion about the complexity of human code.
G: "Do you believe that the information evolved?"

J: "George, nobody I know in my profession believes it evolved. It was engineered by genius beyond genius, and such information could not have been written any other way. The paper and ink did not write the book! Knowing what we know, it is ridiculous to think otherwise."

G: "Have you ever stated that in a public lecture, or in any public writings?"

J: "No, I just say it evolved. To be a molecular biologist requires one to hold onto two insanities at all times.

One, it would be insane to believe in evolution when you can see the truth for yourself.

Two, it would be insane to say you don't believe evolution.

All government work, research grants, papers, big college lectures—everything would stop. I'd be out of a job, or relegated to the outer fringes where I couldn't earn a decent living.

G: I hate to say it, but that sounds intellectually dishonest.

J: The work I do in genetic research is honorable. We will find the cures to many of mankind's worst diseases. But in the meantime, we have to live with the elephant in the living room.

 


why so many scientists endorse evolution



posted on Feb, 12 2009 @ 04:11 PM
link   
reply to post by sezsue
 


The Chromosome pair evidence is NOT a hypothesis it is the smoking gun I recommend you stop looking at ID supporters and look at the peer reviewed work that has taken place in Genetics and Microbiology.

Evolutionary science made the prediction and this study and the evidence it produced proved it to be true. Without this proof I would be hesitant, as you are, to accept evolution as a sound theory.

[edit on 12-2-2009 by projectvxn]



posted on Feb, 12 2009 @ 04:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by sezsue
Yes, you are right, Darwin did have a theory, but that doesn't make it fact. Until it can be proven absolutely, it will remain a theory.


No, an idea just by itself doesn't make it a fact, but confirmation of his ideas did.

Like I said, a scientific theory is a testable model which predicts future occurrences. Darwin's theory of Evolution made predictions that for example only in recent times were confirmed thanks to DNA. And they were proven to be correct.

The natural process we call Evolution, the genetic variation and adaptation along the generations, is a proven fact. Darwin's model is the best at explaining this process.

You either have little understanding of Evolution and Darwin's theory of Evolution, or you're confusing the purpose of Darwin's theory. As I stated before, Darwin didn't address the origins of life in the Universe or the why.



And the Big Bang theory can't be proven either. I have read plenty about the Big Bang theory, and there are other theories that are surfacing as time goes on


The Big Bang is a cosmological model (a scientific theory), that tries to explain an event that apparently, to the best of our knowledge, happened roughly 14 billion years ago. It is based on observable evidence and, like other scientific theories, also made predictions.

It's by no means a perfect model, it has many flaws, but one of the things that makes science great is that it thrives on knowledge, not on beliefs. Old/non-working models will give way to better models.

Just as Newton had a theory of gravity, and for the most part, it works. It breaks down with big bodies for example though, that's why - among other things - better models (Einstein's General Relativity) replaced it. General Relativity also has flaws, in that it fails to successfully address every observable evidence.

But just because models have flaws doesn't mean the phenomena and laws they attempt to explain aren't real. Gravity doesn't cease to exist because our models don't address it perfectly.



They have too much to lose, and there are too many egos involved.


It's undeniable that scientists have egos, and will even go to the lengths of forging data to keep or improve their reputation, but that's not inherent to science or scientists, but to all humans.

However, the great thing about science is that it deals with facts. If someone forges data is bound to be discovered. Non-working models will be replaced by better working models and so on.

The fact that scientists have egos have nothing to do with the merit of the Big Bang model or Darwin's theory of Evolution. If things don't hold up to scrutiny, if they don't make accurate predictions, if they don't pass the tests, they will fall apart.

In the case of Darwin's theory of Evolution, all of the evidence that we have until now point to it being correct.



posted on Feb, 12 2009 @ 04:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by karl 12
reply to post by sezsue
 


This may help you to understand what science is (from a non agenda based,objective viewpoint):

What science is not:
www.indiana.edu...

Carl Sagan's baloney detection kit:
users.tpg.com.au...



Uh, did you read your post before you posted it?

Cause if you did, you would see how patronizing and superior sounding your comment is.

Did you read either one of the references you listed, because they really don't support your view any more than my view.

Here's a quote about God from Carl Sagan you might enjoy, it can apply to the Evolution Theory as well....


Sagan said: "I have some discomfort with both believers and with nonbelievers when their opinions are not based on facts ... If we don't know the answer, why are we under so much pressure to make up our minds, to declare our allegiance to one hypothesis or the other?"



posted on Feb, 12 2009 @ 04:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by Illusionsaregrander
That is an approach. But is it an effective one? At least one of the people arguing "for" God in here was not a literalist. But I saw no differentiation being used when addressing him/her.


I wuz going to edit, but I'll put it here...

After reading back, the 'sharpness' would have come from the silly original claim about the definition of atheism. Atheism most certainly is about lack of belief in deities/theos. And the comments about closed-mindedness of atheists - more sillyness. You only have to compare the stupid bus adverts to compare closed-mindedness between freethinkers/atheists and theists.

But it all has a purpose doesn't it? An attempt to raise your pedestal. Surrounded by all those dogmatists, must be awful, lol.

"Trying to make some sense of it all,
But I can see that it makes no sense at all,
Is it cool to go to sleep on the floor,
'Cause I don't think that I can take anymore
Atheists to the left of me, Fundies to the right,
Here I am, stuck in the middle with you."

Maybe Ken Miller thinks the same. But at least he has the gonads to stand up and be counted.

[edit on 12-2-2009 by melatonin]



posted on Feb, 12 2009 @ 04:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by Illusionsaregrander
We see an effect on people, the vast majority of people, not just a few nutters here and there. Something makes them believe there is "something else." Some conscious directing force. Many call this God.


The difference between your analogy with scientific hypotheses is that this "something else" doesn't appear to influence everybody, while gravity for instance - which you used in your post - does.



Now, this effect could turn out to be some artifact of the mind. But we cant yet say for sure that it is.


I tend to believe it is an 'artifact' of the mind. And no, we can't say for sure that it is, but there is a big difference in the probability of the two things.

Saying it could mean the existence of God doesn't have the same probability than being caused by some biological effect. We have to take into consideration what we know and what we have previously observed.

For instance, we know that there are certain things, conditions, that affect people's minds, while on the other hand, we've never empirically seen God.

These things or logic are not required or even have to make sense to common people, but science goes by them, regardless of the event or phenomena being studied.



And I am arguing that the mere fact that so many people, all over the world, even in cultures like Soviet Russia that forbade religion, believe, is evidence. Of something. A sense of "something else" is not just cultural. It seems hardwired into most.


I have to argue that it is cultural, otherwise you wouldn't see the majority of people in India being Hindu, people in so called Christian nations being Christian and so on. You would see an evenly distributed 'share' or the majority of people leaning in one direction.

This mere fact proves that it is, at least in some degree, cultural. Now, you could argue that the specifics are cultural (believing in this or that God), and that underneath all the different names of Gods one chooses to believe there is a predisposition to believe in "something else".

But as you point out...

Now like I said, it may just be some function of the brain.




But at this point all we know is something is affecting people. You are saying, in effect, there is nothing there. There is no evidence.


Let me be clear, I'm not saying there is nothing there. I am however, saying that there is no evidence for God's existence. I can't obviously dismiss the possibility of a predisposition or ease to believe in God being the result of some biological feature or function; and when comparing the two, for reasons I have previously mentioned, I have to give the biological one more credit.



I am saying we are seeing something that effects people, we just dont know what. It seem unreasonable to me at this point to say definitively it cannot be an actual perception of sorts of some real force.


The mind is a very powerful force




To be objective, and scientific, one cannot discount evidence simply because of a lack of personal experience. A blind scientist who totally discounted light waves would not be a very good scientist.


Well, to be objective and scientific there is no evidence for God's existence; there is evidence that some people apparently are born with a predisposition or ease to believe in God. The two aren't obviously the same.

Again, I don't dismiss that there is "something there", but it hardly equates to being evidence of God's existence.



posted on Feb, 12 2009 @ 05:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by 44soulslayer
For those who are so inclined, explanation and proselytism is not necessary.

For those who will never understand, they will just be galvanized against science.

All in all, a bad move by this atheist group. And yes, it certainly does make Darwin look like a false prophet/ icon of the group. They're doing a great disservice to science and logic.



Imagine a religion whose founder claimed to be a scientist, its holy book a scientific message, and its cult of zealots, people who think of themselves as learned, tossing around words like "logic" and "reason" who by virtue of their dis-belief in something else, seem to think they have a monopoly on Science.

It would seem a particular Science also and a particular Scientist. Reminds me a lot of L.Ron Hubbard's flock, and is one of the many reasons we are not seeing Issac Newton as there poster boy scientist. The OP speaks about the Pope having so much support of this so called Scientist and his accomplishment of creating the very excuse these same followers use to justify and substantiate the same sarcastic insults and innuendo of those who have belief and faith in God.which is what the Pope doesn't seem to understand and is one of the biggest reasons for protestantism. Be that as it may, Darwin today wouldn't even recognize the quasi lamarkian anti-god religion he first wrote his famous book "Origins" in 1859.

. This religion has penetrated into our public schools during the scopes trials using freedom of speech and Clarence Darrow arguing that NO ideas should be kept out of Science. Ironically, two key components of both Dover vs Kitzmiller and the Scopes trials, depended heavily on the evidence for evolution. Piltdown man an icon for the missing link during the Scopes monkey trials has long been one of the biggest embarrassments for the Darwinian theory as it was discovered to be a hoax. In any other court of law trials are over turned when evidence is manufactured and their is no doubt, piltdown man was manufactured.

They don't tell you that tiktaalik the so called greatest discovery to show a transitional fossil which just happened to be just in time for the dover trial, is now just a footnote in Darwinian jumps to false conclusions. They don't tell you the skull with the huge browbone was an artist rendering of what they think it would have looked like. They don't tell you the pictures of cavemen we see including the use of these renderings to create entire lifeforms are dreamed up in the imaginations of artisans. If I were to tell you we have proof of a unicorn and created an entire head, abdomen hind quarters of a unicorn and built all this around the discovery of a pigs tooth, one might find that this practice and deception doesn't stop at skulls and other finds. It is also done using convoluted and fudged data on genetics discoveries too.

If you think this is out of line, consider the fact this is exactly what kind of "science" brought about one of the many more frauds to prove evolution with the amazing discovery of colorado man. This time it was an entire caveman that got by these highly trained exceptionally educated "Scientists" and not one of them thought to say much than science corrects itself when it was finally discovered the entire man was built around the tooth of an extinct pig. Wow! Impressive!

If you were to argue this discovery back when it was first introduced, you would see the same arguments given to defend it as you do the current frauds this science is purporting to be "fact" today.

The history of Darwinism's miraculous rise from the grips of death is well documented. This theory had faced a "prove it or lose it" situation many times and has always been able to escape the final debunking via some "breaking news" or discovery backing up its claims with the very first one being haekel's doctored embryo's. Fraud pure and simple with haekel getting a lifetime achievement award when if this was about selling securities on the open stock market, he would have gone to jail.

Their is no telling how much this kind of fraud has cost us in lives lost because Science keeps trying to protect Darwinian fraud and rewriting history to reflect what is quite honestly an urban legend at best.

When it comes to Darwin himself, attacking Darwin is perhaps as taboo to Atheist's as talking smack about the pope is to many Christians . I mean after-all he is the founder for this movement with all its trappings and passions not unlike we see of fundamentalist Christianity,.

If you were to honestly look at every school of thought and every ideology; In every field of endeavor every kind of specialization, history, sociology, philosophy, psychology, biology, etc. Darwinism as we have witnessed in this thread and many others like it, is a basic dogma, the "light that illuminates truth." freeing us from the darkness of the evil one. The evil one in this regard would be "Religion" especially, Christianity.

Sounds familiar because it is and we see no difference between Darwinsim's Atheist's using this theory to advance their atheism and is why out of all the Science's it is THIS one taking a stab at it's biggest competitor religion, Christianity. You don't see so many here arguing for Physics or celebrating euclid and geometry, or Otto Hahn for Chemistry, Lise Meitner for solving Hahns math problems in physics which would make Einsteins e=mc2 an explosive reality.

So, just what do we have here?

Just what IS evolution?

a theory?

a system?

or a hypothesis?

It is much more than THAT!

It is a general postulate to which ALL theories, and all hypotheses, all belief systems must hence fourth bow down to. Yet when one looks at Darwin and his life, he isn't all that much to celebrate about.

The idea he was the naturist on the HMS Beagle is again, not exactly the truth and like his theory, we discover, theories very much like it had been debunked before only this time,, THIS TIME,. atheist's got behind this one and have made sure no one even THINKS it can be challenged much less debunked ever again. I have seen this theory use every specious and spurious means to protect it from attaching it to every other science riding on the coat tails of REAL science discoveries in cosmology, chemistry, and technology.

They have made any assault on this area of science, an assault on Science in general and that anyone criticizing it is now taking for granted the very advancements in discoveries made by other Sciences while in the same voice and like they have done here citing Catholics embracing evolution. Yeah I guess it is too much to think that when a Catholic works out in a gymnasium lifting weights noticing his muscles getting larger or getting tan in the sun is just like those finch's Darwin observed had larger beaks. It would be stupid to deny that is not a life form evolving. The idea that means they believe in the rest of the theory where we come from a common ancestor is where I think you will find many saying NO, I don't think we believe that.

Just like we wouldn't believe in unicorns, flying teapots, sky fairies, flying spaghetti monsters. BUT if I could find a pigs tooth and build a God being around it, well,, that's more like it. You'll have to forgive my dry humor but the levity albeit not as corrosive as what we have seen from afrosamurai, the point is, when you look at it from both sides, the tactics used to mock the person of faith can be used both ways.

When I brought up the lack of evidence for transitional molecules to man fossils, I was given a line that goes "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence". Now if you are like most of us, you'd be shakin your head like a cartoon saying "what the??" but I have seen the semantics used by the Darwinists before and they are clever but they don't apply in most cases. I will have to borrow that one next time an atheist says their is no proof of God = ) hee hee


DARWIN WILL BE HONOURED on a more modest scale. In the absence of a Parliamentary Commission, the Cambridge University Press is organising events. The Press, not the University? Yes, even though 2009 marks the 800th anniversary of its establishment together with the bicentenary of its most celebrated alumnus. The Press has the lead because of its commitment to editing Darwin's vast correspondence and bringing it online. The Royal Society and other British scientific societies have committed support to Darwin 2009, as it is called, and London's magnificent Natural History Museum will host the Darwin Exhibition.

Yet Darwin is but one of many distinguished scientists and he is not associated with any public benefit, unlike his contemporary Louis Pasteur, who is associated with the germ theory of disease. Although the mass media commonly identify evolution with Darwin, this is typical of popular garbles of complicated facts. Pasteur didn't invent the germ theory of disease (let alone vaccination), and Darwin didn't invent the evolution idea. Those attributions flow from the hosannas of personality cults that formed in their lifetimes. Pasteur received France's highest honour, the Grand Croix of the Legion of Honour, and the Pasteur Institute was established under his direction. He was buried in the Notre Dame Cathedral with great ceremony and an air of superiority to the British.

Another curiosity is that the primary bicentennial testimony, the lavish Darwin Exhibition, was created not in Cambridge but at New York's American Museum of Natural History. It opened in November 2005, and migrates to other museums until it comes to rest in London's Natural History Museum in February 2009. My initial contact with the Exhibition was its website, whose home page conveys the tale in a short message: Discover the man and the revolutionary theory that changed the course of science and society, and, For 21 years he kept his theory secret. A highlighted tag reads Featuring live Galapagos tortoises, iguana, and frogs! In the background are images of the HMS Beagle and the Galapagos Archipelago. Prominently to the left is the familiar photo portrait of the aged Darwin in his prophet-like mood: remote, yet near; intense, yet detached; suffering, yet serene.

As a historian preparing a book on nineteenth-century evolution, I keenly toured the online Exhibition; six months later I walked the real thing in New York and confirmed my expectation that the online version is an accurate representation. The Exhibition's story is also consistent with the 1959 centenary of the publication of The Origin of Species, hosted by the University of Chicago, and with the 1909 celebration of the golden anniversary of the Origin's publication. All tout Darwin as an epic hero, ascribing imaginary achievements and glossing over the all-too-human flaws. But there are some differences.

Evolution theory in 1909 was in turmoil because cell-based experimental biology had recently discovered an explanation of inheritance inconsistent with Darwin's speculative inheritance theory. Contributors to the commemorative conference represented this intense conflict and they reached no consensus. Yet in the introductory essay of the book Fifty Years of Darwin, zoologist Edward B. Poulton ignored the conflict to celebrate Darwin's remarkable command of the fine detail of plants and animals. The Darwin Exhibition duplicates Poulton's evasion-there's no mention of the "eclipse of Darwinism" phase of evolution's history. Gregor Mendel, the father of genetics and the only nineteenth-century scientist to discover quantitative biological laws, gets no mention. The public are encouraged to believe that contemporary evolutionary theory is just Darwin's theory extended over an ever-widening domain. In reality it required a major reconstruction, called "Neo-Darwinism", that reconciled the Darwin-Mendel conflict with a new tool devised in the 1920s, population genetics.

DARWIN'S FIVE-YEAR VOYAGE in HMS Beagle is a classic story of the young hero's initiation into knowledge that he will convert into world-changing vision: the evolution of living things by natural selection. The story goes like this. Young Darwin was recommended by his Cambridge mentor as the Beagle's naturalist. He threw himself into the task, wrote copious notes, and collected many specimens. On the Galapagos Archipelago, he observed that the fauna of similar species varied from island to island. Might the differences be due heritable changes induced by "transmutation"? On his return home, a taxonomist confirmed that the differences were indeed species differences. The latent evolution idea distilled into the revolutionary idea on reading Thomas Malthus' celebrated statement affirming the natural necessity of the struggle for existence in which the weak and vulnerable perish. The great principle sprang to life, and Darwin commenced his long, secret meditation whose fruit was The Origin of Species.

A story more faithful to fact goes like this. Darwin was exposed to transmutationism at age eighteen, when he encountered the transmutationist Robert Grant at Edinburgh University. They got on well, probably in part due to Grant's delight in having the grandson of the nation's best-known transmutationist, Erasmus Darwin, under his tutelage. His exposure was increased by the library that he took aboard the Beagle. Charles Lyell's freshly-published Principles of Geology contained an extensive summary of Jean-Baptiste Lamarck's theory. His library also included the seventeen-volume transmutationist Dictionnaire Classique d'Historie Naturelle, which, as it happens, used data from island biogeography to argue for adaptive radiation. Whether Darwin's attention to the biogeography of the Galapagos was informed by the Dictionnaire we don't know, but the priority attributed to Darwin is incorrect.

And natural selection? As Darwin tells the story, he didn't derive it as an induction from the Galapagos or other evidence; it came to him as an intuition, or better, a vision of living nature. He needed another two decades to assemble evidence. As he was writing his classic, he learned, to his dismay, that the young naturalist Alfred Russel Wallace had hit upon what he judged to be exactly his own prized concept. Uncertain what to do, he passed the challenge to friends, who resolved credit for priority of discovery in his favour.

But another challenge emerged only months after the Origin's publication. A Scottish arboriculturist, Patrick Matthew, wrote an article pointing out that he had himself published a statement of the "natural law of selection" in 1831, the year of the Beagle's departure. Darwin graciously acknowledged Matthew's priority and included recognition of it in the third edition of the Origin. The Exhibition makes no mention of this key historical fact. Darwin made natural selection his "child" (as he called it), not by discovering it, but by assembling the evidence for and against with a thoroughness that no one else remotely approached.

Another detail tarnishes the legend. The claim that Darwin was named the Beagle's naturalist suggests early confidence in his scientific destiny. The reality is that the Beagle's naturalist was a physician, Robert McCormick. Darwin was selected by Captain Robert Fitzroy as his gentleman companion. The Admiralty listed him as a "supernumerary"; he had no duties and he paid all his costs, including specimen collection. However, McCormick abandoned the Beagle after a year, while the supernumerary quickly matured to a talented naturalist. When Darwin as editor of the numerous studies of the Beagle's specimens claimed to be the Beagle's naturalist, only a lawyer might quibble. Captain Fitzroy did not.

One of the core beliefs of the legend is that the Origin suddenly illuminated the living world that until then had been cast in theological shadows. "The Origin of Species caused a sensation," the Exhibition claims, "not only in Britain but around the world … the book sold out of stores the first day … and in a surprisingly short time, the storm passed-at least for scientists. Evolution by natural selection became part of their language, integral to scientific work." Natural selection, we are told, is the "foundation for all modern biology" and Darwin "launched modern biological science … evolution by natural selection became part of [biologists'] language, integral to scientific work".

Not one of these statements is true. The book that caused a sensation was the anonymously authored Vestiges of the Natural History of Creation, which appeared in 1844. It was a full-scale philosophy insisting on explanation by natural causes alone. It commenced with the origin of the solar system, passed on to the abiotic origin of life, then to the evolution of plants and animals, culminating in the evolution of the human species. It provoked furious denunciations from leading scientists and clergymen, among them the geologist Adam Sedgwick, who predicted "ruin and confusion in such a creed", which, if adopted by the lower classes "will undermine the whole moral and social fabric". Yet Vestiges sold well-26,000 copies by 1860.

Sedgwick's distress about its corrupting influence was warranted by its popularity not only among workers, but among all classes and even the Queen. It was translated into Dutch and German, and sold briskly in America, where one admirer was Abraham Lincoln. Another admirer was the showman P.T. Barnum, who dazzled his customers by exhibiting the "missing link" between humans and apes, "Zip the Pinhead" (who in reality was an Afro-American, William Henry Johnson). By the time the Origin appeared, the evolution idea had reached saturation point in England. That is why Darwin's publisher printed only 1250 copies of the first edition, which did not sell out on the first day in the shops, as the legend boasts. It never became a best-seller in Darwin's lifetime.

Did scientists believe that Darwin had proved his grand thesis of evolution by natural selection? Many eminent living evolutionists who should know better say so unreservedly. Actually the book's real achievement was to re-establish evolution as a serious scientific question and to stimulate a wide-ranging debate about evidence and hard questions. The debate developed into a "crisis" of Darwin's theory about 1900 when cellular biology matured to include the inheritance mechanisms, chromosomes and genes. In the intervening years, even the most ardent Darwinians made significant departures from his theory. Thomas Huxley and Francis Galton rejected natural selection. George Romanes claimed that Darwin didn't explain speciation; he devised a new mechanism, "physiological selection", to explain it. Alfred Wallace was an ardent proponent of natural selection, except as applied to ourselves. He maintained that our primate origin could not explain the human mind. He had recourse to spiritualism, then in fashion.

Gregor Mendel believed that his discovery disproved natural selection by proving the static character of inheritance. No one read Mendel, but the most widely read evolutionists, Ernst Haeckel and Herbert Spencer, agreed with him without knowing it. According to them, natural selection accounted only for the elimination of the unfit; Lamarckism, by contrast, was the engine of novelty.





What about "modern biology"? Was it launched by Darwin's discoveries? On the contrary, it flourished decades before the appearance of the Origin. Evolution didn't figure in those investigations because nerves, cells and infectious pathogens operate in the here and now and on the micro scale. Conversely, Darwin was unacquainted with this literature, whose terminology and experimental method were well ahead of the naturalist's home-grown experiments and speculation. This is abundantly clear by comparing Darwin's Pangenesis theory of reproduction with the experimental evidence for cell division that culminated in the elucidation of meiosis and mitosis. One of the principal contributors to this development, Oscar Hertwig, published a detailed analysis and refutation of Darwin's theory. In sum, the Exhibition's statement that the Origin was the "foundation" of modern biology is incompatible with any knowledge of it.

The Exhibition's mega-claim is that Darwin's "revolutionary theory" changed "society". This promise of a gripping story unfortunately falls a little flat. There are hints that the launch of secularism and humanist agitation for religious freedom might be intended. Many Darwinians in those days, as today, were aggressive critics of religion and staunch humanists. Yet the Exhibition touts the compatibility of evolution with religion, limiting itself to polite scorn of Intelligent Design and Creationism.

What about Social Darwinism and economic competition? We're told that this concept is a "misuse of a purely scientific theory for a completely unscientific purpose". Today, yes, but the New York Times Darwin obituary declared that "the central principle-his opponents call it a dogma-of Mr. Darwin's system is 'natural selection,' called by Herbert Spencer 'the survival of the fittest,' a choice which results inevitably from 'the struggle for existence.'" The obituary continues with an outline of Social Darwinism. Its practical application was eugenics, which meant optimising the number of the best human types.

The Exhibition is silent about eugenics. This is a damning evasion. The fusion of Social Darwinism with eugenics was the most novel idea of social change to emerge from the Darwinian revolution. That three of Darwin's sons, two of them leading scientists, warmly supported eugenics indicates its respectability. But more to the point, the Museum's long-serving Director, Henry Fairfield Osborn, hosted the Second International Eugenics Congress at the Museum in 1921: the Exhibition ducks its own past. It also avoids coming to grips with the historical conflict with religion. Its roots sprang from the Enlightenment and exploded in the French Revolution. The strong wind of nineteenth-century secularisation blew from many quarters, including Darwinians, feminists, humanists, trade unions and liberals. But the strongest wind was socialism, since the Soviets instituted the world's first official state atheism. Darwin's Britain, by contrast, has yet to disestablish the Church of England. This compromising fact is ignored by British atheists today.

WHAT REVISIONS of the standard image of Darwin and Darwinism are warranted by a factual look backward? That the Exhibition is an American creation reflects the fact that the evolution-religion entanglement is largely an American phenomenon of the post-1960s. Moral Majority types are reacting to wholesale secularisation from many sides, most of which have no science component. Madonna's erotic parodies of the Virgin Mary that enchant millions of youth have far greater impact than humanist blogs or protests at Ken Ham's Creation Museum. Best-sellers by evolution atheists are small change compared with the massive sweep of The Da Vinci Code-25 million copies in two years! Children respond positively to museum visits, but that's no comparison with their captivation by the magic of Hogwarts. J.K. Rowling's books have sold over 300 million copies, not only in the West but around the world, including "communist" China. Add the films, and the impact doubles.

It's not to be expected that creationists and evolutionists will abandon their outdated antagonism; it's too much fun. But the bicentennial is an apposite moment to recognise that the antagonism expresses a historical moment of secularism that continues today on a much-reduced scale of importance. Exposing the nonsense of the Creation Museum has less relevance than coming to terms with Hogwarts magic: Darwin can't compete with Harry Potter. This is not to suggest that we discard Darwin as a hero of science and secularisation. Far from it. But since our commitment to rationality obliges us to get it right, let's replace the legendary Darwin by the real man and his times.


So all the hoopla about this man and his so called innovative greatness is much like the Judges statements at the dover trial where 99% of it was word for word verbatim, written by the plantiffs in the trial given to the judge and used during the trial a whole month before it was over. The Idea a Judge would use something written like that is not the question, the idea his mind was made up before the dover trial was even halfway over where the Judge used exact phrases from the document to base his rulings during trial,,

No THAT is interesting and makes any lies made by defense negligible.

The sign that the op is using as a point of interest is no different than any other I have seen where a Church uses a billboard to advertise.

Only this one is about Atheism and i doubt it has anything to do with Science. In fact, I would think most REAL Scientists, would find it disturbing to be associated with it and see right through the transparent reasons it was put up in the first place.

That reason for all you Agnostics out there still sitting on the fence,,

would be to antagonize people of faith.

You know it and I know it



posted on Feb, 12 2009 @ 05:24 PM
link   
reply to post by Clearskies
 


The people behind this billboard are as ignorant as the creationists they mock.

Darwin's work stands on it's own and is still being tested and argued today among legitimate scientists.

Evolution is not inconsistent with a religious belief or even with the idea of creation.



new topics

top topics



 
8
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join