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: 8
8
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 13 2009 @ 01:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by The All Seeing I

That the group is using the signs on buses in Madison is also reflective of its own history. The Freedom From Religion Foundation is believed to have placed the first anti-religious sign in the country on a Madison bus in 1983, after putting a halt to a Madison Metro practice of giving free ads to the Knights of Columbus to promote Christmas.


So what? was the "freedom from the bondage of religion" or what ever these folks are that think we like going around waterboarding people into Christianity, were they jealous the knights of columbus got money?




Believers have been pushing their ideals on the rest of the world since the bible came into being. It's about time the secular world starts pushing back. If they don't stand up for themselves, and don't proactively educate the public on who they are and what they represent, then who will?


Aahh I see, so I was right, you DO have issue's with Religion and this thread IS about vendetta of your imagined abuse the world has suffered at the hands of those that killed the 200,000 witch's in Salem or whatever the embellished revisionist history is now.

For what it's worth and to whom it may interest,

it was approx 20






[edit on 13-2-2009 by Aermacchi]




posted on Feb, 13 2009 @ 02:25 AM
link   
awesome billboard, even though im non-religious, I complete despise god and all religion, I'd like to join that foundation. EVOLUTION IS THE WAY, CREATIONISM IS FALSE!



posted on Feb, 13 2009 @ 04:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by The All Seeing I
Looks like the Darwin billboards were only the beginning of an extensive campaign series,
kudos to FFRF

[edit on 12-2-2009 by The All Seeing I]



will there be any billboards of Lenin and Stalin with their similar anti religous "freedom", and perhaps pitcures of butchered priests, CHristians and Muslims?



posted on Feb, 13 2009 @ 04:13 AM
link   
reply to post by The All Seeing I
 


I just don't think this should be shoved in people's faces. I do not believe in Darwin's theories, it lacks evidence, that doesn't mean I automatically prefer to believe that God created everything either, but evolution doesn't ring true to me and many others, never has, never will, putting up billboards, what it that for anyway?



posted on Feb, 13 2009 @ 06:26 AM
link   

reply to post by melatonin

I'll bash pseudoscience cheerleaders with the most appropriate 'weapon'.


Wouldn't it be better to participate in dialogue with others of differing viewpoints on an equal basis of mutual respect and open-mindedness ?


It depends. Differing viewpoints often don't deserve equal respect. And it's amazing how often those who hold to pseudoscientific nonsense are actually attempting to propose such things to try to equalise their own pet ideology onto a level with a well-supported scientific position.

It's pseudosceptism, not scepticism. Scepticism and open-mindedness requires assessing ideas on their merits. And if the ideas hold validity, they will be accepted. That's not what pseudosceptics mean by open-mindedness, they want uncritical acceptance.

There is no mutual respect between, for example, the IDers (not applying to all cheerleaders) and evolutionary scientists. One only needs to watch and listen to creationists and IDers to see the complete lack of respect and their nefarious approaches.

It actually did start off all those years ago with more respect. The likes of Behe and Dembski were given the opportunity to support their vacuous claims. But, then, the socio-political methods became their main approach, completely bypassing any pretensions to science, and they attracted the respect they deserve.

There is no way anyone with a care about this issue (the religious attempts to undermine evolution) can respect a position like this:


Reposted from:
www.tulsabeacon.com...

What is the difference between education and indoctrination?

The line between conveying information with an open mind and a mindset that parallels religion is being crossed this year at The University of Oklahoma with a 12-month celebration of the 200th birthday of Charles Darwin.

...

OU has a website devoted to this worship of Darwin and evolution. It’s clear from the content of that website that organizers believe that evolution is a fact and that if other theories are mentioned, they will be discounted or ridiculed.

Do things change? Certainly. But species don’t evolve into other species. Dogs don’t turn into cats. Monkeys don’t turn into men.

In fact, even secular scientists are doubting the viability of evolution concerning the origin of life. The laws of thermodynamics and common sense tell us that things don’t get better - they deteriorate.

www.tulsabeacon.com...

So here we have an editorial from an Okie newspaper with the most basic zombie claims that are spread about by the uneducated consistently. And look! We have a start with a claim about 'open mind', lol.

This is nothing to do with open minds. If people actually have real evidence and new ideas, science is always open to them. But they need real evidence and repeatedly dragging out the dead doesn't count. Disco institute ID is nothing more than apologetics. And that's fine, it really is. I suppose someone had to update the approach of AIG to bolster religious belief.

If you want to believe in creation, mother goose, santa...I really don't care - it's your right and I'll defend it. Just don't expect me to respect it, and don't expect science to embrace it. And if you attempt to push it into school science, do expect resistance.

[edit on 13-2-2009 by melatonin]



posted on Feb, 13 2009 @ 07:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by Aermacchi

Aahh I see, so I was right, you DO have issue's with Religion and this thread IS about vendetta of your imagined abuse the world has suffered at the hands of those that killed the 200,000 witch's in Salem or whatever the embellished revisionist history is now.

For what it's worth and to whom it may interest,

it was approx 20


I don't think the hunting down of wizards and witches by overtly relgious folk was just confined to the US.

Mark Twain sums it up quite well:

"During many ages there were witches. The Bible said so. The Bible commanded that they should not be allowed to live. Therefore the Church, after doing its duty in but a lazy and indolent way for 800 years, gathered up its halters, thumbscrews, and firebrands, and set about its holy work in earnest. She worked hard at it night and day during nine centuries and imprisoned, tortured, hanged, and burned whole hordes and armies of witches, and washed the Christian world clean with their foul blood. Then it was discovered that there was no such thing as witches, and never had been. One does not know whether to laugh or to cry."
Mark Twain


As for impeding rational freethinking progress,there are some other quite perceptive comments here:

"The so-called Christian nations are the most enlightened and progressive...but in spite of their religion, not because of it. The Church has opposed every innovation and discovery from the day of Galileo down to our own time, when the use of anesthetic in childbirth was regarded as a sin because it avoided the biblical curse pronounced against Eve. And every step in astronomy and geology ever taken has been opposed by bigotry and superstition. The Greeks surpassed us in artistic culture and in architecture five hundred years before Christian religion was born."
Mark Twain

You find as you look around the world that every single bit of progress in humane feeling, every improvement in the criminal law, every step toward the diminution of war, every step toward better treatment of the colored races, or every mitigation of slavery, every moral progress that there has been in the world, has been consistently opposed by the organized churches of the world. I say quite deliberately that the Christian religion, as organized in its churches, has been and still is the principal enemy of moral progress in the world.
Bertrand Russell

For ages, a deadly conflict has been waged between a few brave men and women of thought and genius upon the one side, and the great ignorant religious mass on the other. This is the war between Science and Faith. The few have appealed to reason, to honor, to law, to freedom, to the known, and to happiness here in this world. The many have appealed to prejudice, to fear, to miracle, to slavery, to the unknown, and to misery hereafter. The few have said "Think" The many have said "Believe!"-
Robert Ingersoll


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



posted on Feb, 13 2009 @ 10:16 AM
link   
reply to post by karl 12
 


The Catholic church killed Christians (Protestants, Anabaptists) as much or MORE than supposed 'witches'! Look up The Waldensians, The Mennonites, The Albigensians,
The Huguenots,
Who have a significant history with the US;

Early emigration


Etching of Fort Caroline.
See also: Fort Caroline
The first Huguenots to leave France seeking freedom from persecution went to Switzerland and to the Netherlands.[citation needed] A group of Huguenots under the leadership of Jean Ribault in 1562 ended up establishing the small colony of Fort Caroline in 1564, on the banks of the St. Johns River, in what is today Jacksonville, Florida.
The colony was the first attempt at any permanent European settlement in the present-day continental United States, but the group survived only a short time. In September 1565, an attack against the new Spanish colony at St. Augustine backfired, and the Spanish wiped out the Fort Caroline garrison.

The Hussites,
The Lollards,
The Anabaptists
and various Protestant sects.
And more besides that!
Mark Twain was probably an attendant of Bohemian Grove.
Oh yeah, he was.



posted on Feb, 13 2009 @ 10:17 AM
link   
I can't help but laugh at these people who continue to dismiss Darwin's theory or even Evolution itself because there are missing links in the fossilized records.

The knowledge we currently have and the evidence we have discovered so far demonstrates that Evolution is a proven fact, not only based on fossilized records, but also to the undeniable fact that our genome bares remarkable similarities with apes (95-98%) and in fact all other mammals, giving more strength to the notion that we are related and evolved from the same organisms.

This idea that since there are gaps and missing links the whole thing is made up, or Evolution has the same credibility than creation myths, is preposterous.

The common mistake is to assume that both Darwin's theory of Evolution and creation myths are even comparable.

Darwin's theory addresses the natural process that is observed in fossilized records and confirmed by DNA similarities among and even between species. It doesn't (necessarily) explain how all life came to be, much less the why.

Darwin's theory is a model to explain this natural process, to which we call Evolution. From this standpoint Evolution is undeniably a proven fact, confirmed by observations and data.

Creation myths and Creationism/ID explains nothing, but claims to explain everything. Creationists can't provide a single argument based on factual and observable evidence to help their case, but only point out that Darwin's theory doesn't explain how or why life came to be.

There's a big difference between providing evidence to help or prove your case, and assuming yours is right because the other ones don't explain everything.

Creationists and other religious fanatics will scream from the top of their lungs that Evolution is just a theory, but Creationism isn't even a theory - it's a story.

Darwin's theory is indeed a theory but a scientific one, not merely a hunch or a guess. Creationism/ID provides no evidence, no data and no predictions. It is not a comparable to Darwin's theory and could never be accepted as scientific and therefor has no place in science classes.

It's when we are faced with this kind of stubborn ignorance that we see how powerful and dangerous faith can be. And little can be done about this. Some will snap out of it, but most people won't and nothing you say or do will ever change that.

A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it. ― Max Planck



posted on Feb, 13 2009 @ 11:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by visible_villain

IMHO, ID proponents would simply like equal instructional time for their favorite theory of the origin of species. After all, their tax-dollars are funding the educational system too. If they can win their ballot initiative by a democratic majority then it would make sense that the system is functioning as intended by the founding fathers ... where is the problem here ?


The problem is that tax dollars are not intended to be spent in America to further the religious agenda of one religion over another. ID'ers do not argue that we should teach about a cow licking ice until life appeared.

ancienthistory.about.com...


Originally there was a chasm, Ginnungagap, bounded on either side by fire (from the world known as Muspelheim) and ice (from the world known as Niflheim). When fire and ice met, they combined to form a giant, named Ymir, and a cow, named Audhumbla (Auðhumla), who nourished Ymir. She survived by licking the salty ice blocks. From her licking emerged Bur (Búri), the grandfather of the Aesir. Ymir, father of the frost giants, employed equally unusual procreative techniques. He sweated a male and a female from under his left arm.


They do not argue that ALL creation stories from myth and religion be given equal footing in classrooms. They argue that their favorite story be given equal footing. This is not an argument that religious beliefs in general are worth putting on equal footing with science, it is obviously an argument that elevates Christianity above all other religions BY putting it on equal footing with science. This is not allowed under our Constitution. I would be in favor of a class that taught the creations stories of all the religions. I would have loved that class. But it shouldnt be a science class. And, it should not be limited to one creation story. Perhaps a social studies course, or history, or something of that nature.

Science classes are for teaching science, and there is no science to support the Christian story of creation as it is written literally in the Bible.


Originally posted by visible_villain
Ok ... how does this make adherents of evolution different in any respect from the adherents of intelligent design ? Please explain it to me !


Because we some evidence for it. We can use science to date bones and know that some of them are millions of years old. Which is in direct contradiction to the claims of many ID'ers. Now I know and have heard all the arguments that "well, how do we know that kind of dating is valid, it isnt perfect" which is why I pointed out that those same ID'ers will accept imperfect science when flying in a plane, or seeking medical treatment. One would expect, if they really believed science to be so woefully inadequate, they would not. However, they are well aware that it isnt that woefully inadequate. They reserve their mocking for science related to something that contradicts a cherished belief. Not for all science equally. They happily eat most of the fruits produced by science, and scorn only those that they find inconvenient. Their behavior betrays that fact that they do NOT think science is woefully inadequate. It betrays very selective acceptance of it. And selfish acceptance. If it does what I want, I accept it. If it doesnt do what I want, I reject it. Science isnt about what you want. Its about what is, to the best of our ability to know it. Science accepts that we can always learn more as our body of knowledge and technology advance. So it avoids making absolutist statements.

en.wikipedia.org...


Although it has only recently become available, the best evidence for common descent comes from the study of gene sequences. Comparative sequence analysis examines the relationship between the DNA sequences of different species, producing several lines of evidence that confirm Darwin's original hypothesis of common descent. If the hypothesis of common descent is true, then species that share a common ancestor will have inherited that ancestor's DNA sequence. Notably they will have inherited mutations unique to that ancestor. More closely-related species will have a greater fraction of identical sequence and will have shared substitutions when compared to more distantly-related species.



Originally posted by visible_villain
Maybe it took thousands of our modern years for the Earth to complete a single revolution around its axis. This means that in a most literal sense a single day back then would have lasted literally thousands of our modern years ... just a thought - but that's ok since we're only talking hypotheticals here in any case ...


It would have had to have been some millions of years per revolution of the earth, and how would that have affected plants and animals? Would plants and animals as we know them have survived millions of years in the kind of heat a several hundred million year day would entail? Why do you think it is more likely that the creation happened literally in 6 revolutions of the Earth than the other possibility, that if there were a Creator God, time for this God may be nothing at all like time for us, (eternal and all of that) and when people wrote down the story they made the mistake of assuming Gods days are like our days? Thats a way one can not be in denial about science and maintain their acceptance of the Bible if that is their goal.



Originally posted by visible_villain
Obviously legal fact has no equivalency whatsoever with scientific fact. So, the mere fact that a legal court has ruled on a scientific issue has no bearing whatever on the truth or falsehood of a scientific theory. Hence, pointing out that courts have ruled in favor of the truth of evolution has no bearing on the actuality of the scientific truth of evolution.


Logically, you cannot use scientific evidence proving the innocence of prisoners to overturn court cases as evidence that scientific evidence presented in court for evolution is useless. It was better science that freed the prisoners. And better science is being used to demonstrate evolution. If you are saying that science trumps a courts decision when better science is allowed into a later hearing, then you are saying that you accept that scientific evidence is more valid than the opinions of people who lacked that science. How is that different from saying that the people who wrote down the creation story lacked the science to accurately describe what happened in the creation of the Earth and its inhabitants, and now, with better science, we can give a more accurate description?



Originally posted by visible_villain
Wouldn't it be better to participate in dialogue with others of differing viewpoints on an equal basis of mutual respect and open-mindedness ?


I think it would be. But the dogmatism has to cease for their to be open mindedness. A more flexible view of religion has to be adopted by the religious in order for this dialog to occur. Open mindedness on the part of the religious means not only open mindedness towards scientific theories, but also to other religious ones as well. You have to be clear what you are asking. If you are really asking that science give Christianity a status above all others without any evidence that it merits that elevated position, then science cant do that. Science has to attempt to be as objective as it is possible for humans to be, or it ceases to be science.

[edit on 13-2-2009 by Illusionsaregrander]

[edit on 13-2-2009 by Illusionsaregrander]



posted on Feb, 13 2009 @ 11:50 AM
link   
Notice how this billboard plays in to this superiority complex people on the left seem to have. It should be worrying people that they use language like "evolved". These people really do beleive they are more evolved than other people. What happens when they start treating them like it?



posted on Feb, 13 2009 @ 11:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by Anonymous ATS
awesome billboard, even though im non-religious, I complete despise god and all religion, I'd like to join that foundation. EVOLUTION IS THE WAY, CREATIONISM IS FALSE!



You despies God? Mmmmmm,, so what he do?

Raise your rent?



posted on Feb, 13 2009 @ 11:53 AM
link   
reply to post by Cio88
 


I dunno. What happened when Christians believed they were better than everyone else?

Oh yeah.



posted on Feb, 13 2009 @ 12:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by Cio88
Notice how this billboard plays in to this superiority complex people on the left seem to have. It should be worrying people that they use language like "evolved".


How typical of you to turn everything into political preferences.



These people really do beleive they are more evolved than other people. What happens when they start treating them like it?


Never heard anyone say they were more evolved than people who don't believe in Evolution. More informed? Yes, definitely.



posted on Feb, 13 2009 @ 12:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by Illusionsaregrander


You see, that's more like it. No point throwing jibes at 'dogmatic science lovers' for facing off nonsense. You have as much a part to play in keeping science free of nonsense as any atheist. Maybe you can be even more helpful, as atheists are church-burning communist fascist bogeymen.

Ask Aermacchi about his opinion of Ken Miller, lol. He almost hates him as much as the 'dogmatic science loving' Dawkins. Ken is great and deserves mucho kudos. A fantastic speaker and protector of science. Of course, I don't respect his religious belief and, indeed, when he mixes it with his science gluons cry, but I'm sure both he and me can live with that.

[edit on 13-2-2009 by melatonin]



posted on Feb, 13 2009 @ 06:43 PM
link   
Oh MY Goodness!!!!
I am watching Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed!
I am so impressed!!!
This is the best movie I have EVER SEEN!
:UP:

Darwinist Evolutionists are SO hypocritical about 'freedom'!!!!
Like I said, The Best Movie Ever!



posted on Feb, 13 2009 @ 07:09 PM
link   
reply to post by Clearskies
 


Jeez, dear, you must get yourself to the flicks more often. Try 'the lives of others' - another film filled with boot-stomping germans, but at least has some real world basis and is actually interesting, thoughtful, redemptive, and a well-written and compelling piece of work.

[edit on 13-2-2009 by melatonin]



posted on Feb, 13 2009 @ 07:09 PM
link   
reply to post by Clearskies
 


That's a joke right? Expelled is riddled with inaccuracies, distortions and lies. Expelled Exposed is a good starting point for everyone to get an idea how much nonsense this movie is.



The movie has been criticized by those interviewees who are critics of intelligent design (P.Z. Myers, Dawkins, Shermer, and National Center for Science Education head Eugenie Scott), who say they were misled into participating by being asked to be interviewed for a film named Crossroads on the "intersection of science and religion," and were directed to a blurb implying an approach to the documentary crediting Darwin with "the answer" to how humanity developed (source)


Also of interest is how Stein twisted Darwin's quote completely:


According to John Moore writing in the National Post:

Stein quotes from a passage in Darwin's writing that appears to endorse the notion that for a species to thrive the infirm must be culled. He omits the part where Darwin insists this would be "evil" and that man's care for the weak is "the noblest part of our nature." When I asked Stein about this on my radio show he deadpanned, "If any Darwin fans are listening and we have misquoted him, we are sorry; we don't mean to diss Darwin."


This one is a doozy too. Biologist PZ Myers was expelled from an Expelled screening.

Also of interest are these Scientific American articles:

Six Things in Expelled That Ben Stein Doesn't Want You to Know...

Ben Stein's Expelled: No Integrity Displayed (by John Rennie)

Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed--Ben Stein Launches a Science-free Attack on Darwin (by Michael Shermer)

A Conversation with Expelled's Associate Producer Mark Mathis



posted on Feb, 13 2009 @ 07:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by Clearskies
I am watching Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed!
The Best Movie Ever!


i honestly hope you are joking.

Either way you might be interested in this thread:
Ebert's review/expel of EXPELLED



posted on Feb, 13 2009 @ 07:42 PM
link   
Yeah, so what if Dawkins didn't know he was being interviewed in something that didn't lick his boots!!!
or if, Darwin showed racism, you say "He was only saying it was a natural thing, but not that anyone should restrict breeding by degenerates!"
or "Everybody was doing it", well, Hitler sure took it in it's purist form!
To create the Ubermensche!!!!
Man, that was an HONESTLY GREAT movie!
How quick you guys are to attack it, though!
You are so funny!


FANTASTIC.

[edit on 13-2-2009 by Clearskies]



posted on Feb, 13 2009 @ 08:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Clearskies
Yeah, so what if Dawkins didn't know he was being interviewed in something that didn't lick his boots!!!


Yeah so what if the interviewees were lied to? So what if Stein took things out of context? It's a war, right? Religion against science? Everything goes if you want to win.



How quick you guys are to attack it, though!
You are so funny!


Nonsense deserves to be attacked, and debunked.

I agree, we were pretty quick trying to inform you. You're welcome.

Too bad you didn't read any of it. But that's what happens when your mind automatically discards everything that contradicts your religious views and beliefs.




top topics



 
8
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join