Adam and Eve Did What? A Visit to the Creationism Museum Makes Scientists Laugh, Cry, page 4
Pages: <<  1    2    3    4    5  >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 6 times


reply posted on 3-7-2009 @ 05:53 PM by Totakeke
reply to post by ZombieOctopus


No, but I question evolution and the big bang theory. There's no definitive evidence for either of those.


reply posted on 3-7-2009 @ 07:19 PM by Ron Paul Girl
I try not to argue about evolution vs. creationism because I think it's pointless. No one will change my mind and I doubt I'll change anyone else's mind.

That said, I attended the University of Michigan as an Agnostic with no religious background at all, and I obtained a B.S. in environmental science. My courses were a combination of geology, bio and chem. I did not become a Christian until nearly a year after I graduated from college and even then, I was sticking with the idea of an intelligent designer to go along with a belief in what I was taught in college with regards to evolution. It's only been in the past few years, after much thought, contemplation and study that I've come to the solid belief that macro-evolution is bunk.

Simply put, I believe, contrary to the TOE that in the beginning, God created each TYPE of life form on this earth and each TYPE was created with an immense amount of DNA. Over time, diversification has occured within each TYPE via natural selection, isolation, etc. I believe that when a subgroup within a type loses the genes for a particular attribute, it is gone forever and will not mistakenly return because the gene no longer exists. Sure, mutations happen, but mutations do not create entire structures that would require multiple mutations all at the same time.

Now, when I've posed this idea to molecular biologists, the only way they could dispute it was to say that it doesn't follow evolution, so it can't be true. IMO, they are brainwashed to not think outside of the box or the possibility that their theory is only partially correct and is completely upside-down.

[edit on 3-7-2009 by Ron Paul Girl]


reply posted on 3-7-2009 @ 07:27 PM by Ron Paul Girl
reply to post by Ron Paul Girl


I also want to say that I haven't been to the Creation museum, but will probably go there someday. I'm sure there are many things there that I don't agree with, but that doesn't mean I wouldn't check it out anyway. We visit natural history museums with an evolutionary take and I pick apart things that I read at those museums as well. What I try to teach my children is to question EVERYTHING - especially motive, when it comes to science. Always ask, "why?" and don't just accept something as rock-solid truth just because it's on a sign at a display.


reply posted on 3-7-2009 @ 07:38 PM by Tank2/8
Originally posted by max.is.awake
Reply to post by GradyPhilpott


I agree. How many arrogant conceited stuuborn humans will stand before God on Judgement Day and still insist He is not real but only a figment of his or her imagination? Deny Ignorance? Not from what I have seen from some of the people on ATS. Irony is more like it.


Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com



There will not be a judgment day before a god. By all means believe in what ever tales you like but calling people who do not share perspective arrogant conceited stuuborn humans is not very becoming for someone who is selfconcieved as being on a higher pedistall then those who do not share faith.


reply posted on 3-7-2009 @ 08:18 PM by randyvs
reply to post by max.is.awake
i bet there's alot less chance, of everything happening by chance.
then the chance's for a creator. who wants to bet?



reply posted on 3-7-2009 @ 08:25 PM by open_eyeballs
reply to post by budski


Where is the bravo icon?

C'mon ATS...We need a freakin Bravo button!..Two hands clapping together or something...

Consider my star and flag and 4 thumbs up as a big time BRAVO....


reply posted on 3-7-2009 @ 08:29 PM by open_eyeballs
reply to post by max.is.awake


Only Science refuses to give God the credit but instead toss it over to chance.


I like the demeanor of your post, but I have to go with a big negative on this one. Science doesn't refuse anything, where as fundamentalist and evangelicals for the most part refuse all injectures of science and what it offers.

Theres no budging room at all with these sort of religious folk.


reply posted on 3-7-2009 @ 08:29 PM by Totakeke
Originally posted by Tank2/8
Originally posted by max.is.awake
Reply to post by GradyPhilpott


I agree. How many arrogant conceited stuuborn humans will stand before God on Judgement Day and still insist He is not real but only a figment of his or her imagination? Deny Ignorance? Not from what I have seen from some of the people on ATS. Irony is more like it.


Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com



There will not be a judgment day before a god. By all means believe in what ever tales you like but calling people who do not share perspective arrogant conceited stuuborn humans is not very becoming for someone who is selfconcieved as being on a higher pedistall then those who do not share faith.


Nobody is better or worse than anyone else. We're all sinners and none of us are worthy of entering into Heaven. But we're forgiven through Christ, all we have to do is ask.


reply posted on 3-7-2009 @ 08:31 PM by open_eyeballs
reply to post by milesp


Oh..., dude, that is funny... a good chuckle indeed. thanks for posting!




reply posted on 3-7-2009 @ 08:32 PM by ~Lucidity
Originally posted by Totakeke
reply to post by ZombieOctopus


Just remember: the big bang theory, the theory of evolution; they're all just theories.


some theories are just sillier than others.


reply posted on 3-7-2009 @ 09:03 PM by randyvs
reply to post by Totakeke
thats pretty much what i was try'n to say.that is good. you only have to keep one ole say'in in mind, when science trys to give God the
elbow. "to much of anything can be bad for ya" in this case for the
scientists it was brains.w/ all thier impossible numbers. 365 million years
ago. this is when tree sap engulfed this little skeeter right cher. what a
joke. i'm sorry but most of the big brains, lose all credablility when they
don't stay away from subjects of this kind why? because it's smart.



reply posted on 3-7-2009 @ 09:05 PM by Avenginggecko
Originally posted by Totakeke
reply to post by NovusOrdoMundi


So we all evolved from monkeys and everything else evolved from something else, despite the lack of evidence for it and the existing evidence against it?

Forget it, I give up trying to understand fairy tales.

[edit on 3-7-2009 by Totakeke]


Evolution does not claim we evolved from monkeys.

You "give up trying to understand fairy tales" yet wholeheartedly accept Genesis as literal?

I assume you aren't completely against science, as it is the reason you enjoy the lifestyle and life expectancy you do, as well as the reason you are able to post something on the internet for literally the entire globe to see instantaneously at any point in time, so I have an honest question:

How do you reconcile science when it conflicts with creationism or scripture? Do you believe that all of the scientific evidence pointing towards evolution is simply agenda-driven against God?


I'll say the same thing I do in every thread where people come out claiming that Fundamentalist Christianity is being attacked by 'science'. Science does not care about Christianity or Creationism. If there was evidence of creationism or a way to test the theory, scientists would gladly do it. Do you think there is one human on Earth who wouldn't leap at the chance to scientifically prove the existence of God?

Once again, science has absolutely no agenda against religion. Scientific method is a way of testing a hypothesis, recording a result, and coming to a conclusion. Then, when the experiment is repeated and found to be true, it can become a theory. Every scientific theory is subject to change, and science gladly accepts this.

Can fundamental religion say the same? A reed that does not bend in the wind will snap in a storm.


reply posted on 3-7-2009 @ 09:23 PM by Totakeke
reply to post by Avenginggecko



How do you reconcile science when it conflicts with creationism or scripture? Do you believe that all of the scientific evidence pointing towards evolution is simply agenda-driven against God?


I would choose scripture. No, I don't think science has an anti-God agenda. A lot of good things have come from mankind trying to better understand the universe. However, I do think that most of the evidence that points towards evolution is either fraudulent or determined through incorrect methods. Science is supposed to objective, but there have been evolutionists whom have knowingly falsified data. The problem is that so many scientists regard evolution as fact that any evidence that doesn't fit evolution is considered a fluke. Scientists seem to forget that evolution is just a theory until proven true.


reply posted on 3-7-2009 @ 09:43 PM by Avenginggecko
Originally posted by Totakeke
reply to post by Avenginggecko



How do you reconcile science when it conflicts with creationism or scripture? Do you believe that all of the scientific evidence pointing towards evolution is simply agenda-driven against God?


I would choose scripture. No, I don't think science has an anti-God agenda. A lot of good things have come from mankind trying to better understand the universe. However, I do think that most of the evidence that points towards evolution is either fraudulent or determined through incorrect methods. Science is supposed to objective, but there have been evolutionists whom have knowingly falsified data. The problem is that so many scientists regard evolution as fact that any evidence that doesn't fit evolution is considered a fluke. Scientists seem to forget that evolution is just a theory until proven true.


I think you might misunderstand evolution a bit. No scientist will say evolution is a law. It is fact (on a micro level), and the inference is that since it works on a micro level, it works on a macro level as well.

Evolution is proven true in that the hypothesis is tested and repeated with agreeable results. That is why it is an accepted theory. The reason why it is not law is because scientists aren't sure if it's applicable to every condition, i.e. they aren't sure if it occurs every time when species reproduce.

The only way to prove that would be to find a complete fossil record of a species from its divergence (or speciation) from its ancestor species to when it undergoes speciation again. It's reasonable to assume, given the mountain of evidence (even disregarding a minute percentage of scientists who may have falsified data) that evolution does occur. That's why it's scientific theory and is actually "proven true" even though we don't know if it's true in every case.


I'm still honestly confused how you say evolution is a fairy tale and then completely accept Genesis when Genesis is, by definition, a fairy tale. It features a protagonist confronted with a moral dilemma by a talking animal and a magical (for lack of a better word) being that teaches the protagonist a valuable moral lesson within the context of the character's life.

I'd also like to make it clear I'm not an Atheist, just trying to gain a better understanding of fundamentalism.


reply posted on 3-7-2009 @ 09:58 PM by Phlegmi
reply to post by Totakeke


Your link shows your ignorance. But don't worry, not everyone is able to grasp the big picture, that is why I have such an awesome sig.

[edit on 3-7-2009 by Phlegmi]


reply posted on 3-7-2009 @ 09:59 PM by Totakeke
reply to post by Phlegmi


It's so funny how you post a picture mocking Christ, then you call me ignorant. So you can post a picture of Jesus but get upset when someone posts something about atheism? Oh the delicious irony.

[edit on 3-7-2009 by Totakeke]
Pages: <<  1    2    3    4    5  >>    ^^TOP^^