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.

 

Why can’t Creationists teach an alternative? Are the ‘free thinkers’ - atheists scared of som

page: 20
11
<< 17  18  19    21  22  23 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 20 2009 @ 06:12 PM
link   
reply to post by OldThinker
 


Why don’t you consider listening to the BEST in your field?

I'll listen to him when he talks about Neuroscience, hows that sound.

Though I find it suspicious that such a leading scientist would say that there is no evidence for evolution when there is.... Odd. Maybe you should find me a blog or some work of his where he says that rather than quoting one of your propaganda websites.

I could also listen to all the other Neuroscientists out there that'll vouch for evolution. You don't quite get this whole "quoting peoples' opinions does not equal evidence", thing do you?

In fact you don't even get evolution itself either now that I think about it.




posted on Aug, 20 2009 @ 06:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by makinho21
reply to post by OldThinker
 


Again, just like our other discussions, I put forward a point, and you can't say anything else but talk as if I am "not grasping" your superior intellectual understanding.
Atleast you can respond to my points sometimes...rather than ignore them. I guess that helps you keep your view whole though doesn't.


lil' ole me? Smarter than you?

No way.....

What did I IGNORE? Bolt? Farve?
btw, more info to thwart your prior post, your supposed clever point...Favre started for the Hancock North Central baseball team as an eighth–grader and earned five varsity letters.


8th grader! think he couldn't have gone pro???


not the point.....get back to the OP please....that for sure, you have ignored.....

Answer, ok?



posted on Aug, 20 2009 @ 06:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by Welfhard
reply to post by OldThinker
 


Why don’t you consider listening to the BEST in your field?

I'll listen to him when he talks about Neuroscience, hows that sound.

Though I find it suspicious that such a leading scientist would say that there is no evidence for evolution when there is.... Odd. Maybe you should find me a blog or some work of his where he says that rather than quoting one of your propaganda websites.

I could also listen to all the other Neuroscientists out there that'll vouch for evolution. You don't quite get this whole "quoting peoples' opinions does not equal evidence", thing do you?

In fact you don't even get evolution itself either now that I think about it.



wow....

OT got ya??????

whew....prayer must work!



Knowing you, you will look into him, THE recognized, leader in your area of study....you will not find any discrepancy in my posts.....enjoy the journey...Dr. Ben is the real deal....smarter than all of our postings, been doing it for more years than you have lived....

oh well, I'll help...see: images.google.com...:en-us:IE-SearchBox&oe=UTF-8&sourceid=ie7&rlz=1I7ADBS_en&um=1&ie=UTF-8&ei=tNyNSt2u J8qwmAfpmsixDA&sa=X&oi=image_result_group&ct=title&resnum=4

LISTEN! This is not about OT trying to win an ATS thread argument...it is more than that?



posted on Aug, 20 2009 @ 06:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by OldThinker
Am I asking a hard question here? I don’t think so…freedom of thought mandates all credible alternatives be considered?


You answered your own question.



posted on Aug, 20 2009 @ 06:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jezus

Originally posted by OldThinker
Am I asking a hard question here? I don’t think so…freedom of thought mandates all credible alternatives be considered?


You answered your own question.



I did....yes!

Did I do it well?

Skeptics don't think so...

You?

OT



posted on Aug, 20 2009 @ 06:55 PM
link   





trying to post an image/picture, not too good at this IT stuff, we'll see, or I'll edit


If this doesn't work, anyone out there who knows how to do this?

OT



posted on Aug, 20 2009 @ 07:29 PM
link   
reply to post by OldThinker
 


Appealing to authority...again. Jesus, do you ever learn?
That has no relevance to the idea of creationism being anything more than faithful speculation.


This man is not a PHD scientist in the fields of evolution or biology. He is a doctor/surgeon.

He does not perform scientific research in the fields of evolution or biology.

Quoting simply makes your argument more holed than it already was.

As I said before, Welf and myself could easily find doctors and scientists who are unreligious and quote them. Does that make your argument false? No, because it has no connection to the discussion at hand.



posted on Aug, 20 2009 @ 07:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by OldThinker

Originally posted by Conclusion
reply to post by OldThinker
 


I do get your meaning as to your question. Why are all or most of the scientists that are believers looked down on by mainstream scientists? ....


Back from dinner...

Conclusion, you have got it!!!!!!!!!!!!

Why do others, good folks, IGNORE?

This is not TRYING to prove a THEORY...

But........

An ANSWER...to a question???????

IS IT HARD?

Well, here it goes again......re read the OP...


"Why can’t Creationists teach an alternative? Are the ‘free thinkers’ - atheists scared of something"

hm???????




Come on guys, let's try and NOT OUTSMART EACH OTHER...answer the OP, ok?

OT


Hmm, I'm a little late here but let let me just say...

The problem is not Creationist teaching alternatives to Evolution. That is a misdirection, every day all across the globe alternatives to Evolution are discussed, studied and in general generate lively conversation. A plethora of texts in multiple medias are readily available (and many are free!) just waiting to be picked up.

The catch is they are discussed in the proper forum.

Thus the problem, its not about what Creationist are saying, its where they are saying it.

You see Creationism is not Science, they would like to be but its not. Creationism evolved from our need to be Divine, Humans hunger to be part of a larger universe, we want all of our trials and tribulations to have meaning. We look at much of the natural world around us and our biases impact our every decision (Kill the which is ugly, save that which is beautiful). IMHO at their heart Creationists just don't want to be Apes (or anything other then Human), many find this to be a repellent thought and give no mind to the fact that all creations are Gods creations and as such we are related. There is also the many insights that could come from the study of our own primal instincts (Whats the saying? something about if you forget the past you are doomed to repeat it? Well we have several million years of history to study less we are doomed to repeat the mistakes of the past)

For myself this whole issue was never a problem. I was not raised in a very religious home and was given free will to synergize my beliefs as I saw fit. For me God created evolution, God is in the details.

So onto the other part...

Are the ‘free thinkers’ - atheists scared of something"

Yes they are and they are not the only ones, Many people of a spectrum of beliefs fear a forum of Science will be co opted by a message of Belief. Belief is taught in another classroom.



posted on Aug, 20 2009 @ 07:40 PM
link   
reply to post by OldThinker
 


that has nothing to do with my point. You are trying to make a straw-man argument out of nothing.

I was using Bolt and Farve as an analogy to showcase that, yes, various scientific theories are weighed and compared against each other. These are the "baseball players" you spoke of.

However what you are asking for - this is where Bolt and Farve come into play. I know it's hard for you to follow along, so I apologize if you are already lost - they are completely different from those other "players".
Religious creation stories - which is all they are - are not the same as scientific theory. Until they provide testable predictions, which we can observe and measure, they will remain nothing more than fable.

Now ignore my point like you usually do - or bring out some useless quote to appeal to emotion and authority like normal - because it is clear you can't comprehend anything other than the dogma you are fed; and are attempting to feed us.

I challenge you to stop trying to proselytize, stop using pointless quotes, and provide us with testable observations and predictions for the rhetoric you claims.

6 OUT 10 AMERICANS DON'T BELIEVE IN EVOLUTION. That says more about the American public than the "truth" of evolution.
Your country needs a serious wake-up I think.

[edit on 20-8-2009 by makinho21]



posted on Aug, 20 2009 @ 07:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by makinho21
reply to post by OldThinker
 


Appealing to authority...again. Jesus, do you ever learn?
That has no relevance to the idea of creationism being anything more than faithful speculation.


This man is not a PHD scientist in the fields of evolution or biology. He is a doctor/surgeon.

He does not perform scientific research in the fields of evolution or biology.

Quoting simply makes your argument more holed than it already was.

As I said before, Welf and myself could easily find doctors and scientists who are unreligious and quote them. Does that make your argument false? No, because it has no connection to the discussion at hand.



DARN...

I missed you...sorry!

Can I rephrase your post....?

2 and 2 is 4!!!!!!!


Whew....

point?



OP answers, please....


OT



posted on Aug, 20 2009 @ 07:43 PM
link   
Maybe I'm a bit late, but this kind of thing interests me from the fact that when America had a bunch of people rally for this, the same thing happened over here. Not for quite as long as our cousins are enduring it though, probably because we don't have the number of fundamentalists here.

But yeah anyway, reasons why Creationism should not be taught in school as a science.

Well, for a start, because it's a religious creation myth backed ONLY by Christianity. As others have put at the start of this thread, if you're going to teach 'the alternative', why not teach ALL 'the alternatives' and not just the Christian one? Why not teach them the Norse, Roman, Greek, Egyptian or Sumerian 'alternatives'? As fact. Teach them as fact that the world is actually the giant snake Iggdrasil, that the original goddess Tiamat created the first life and then turned against the gods to start producing monsters, and the wolf Fenrir will devour the moon in the end times. If you want to teach Creationism, then you're going to have to teach them ALL. And they clash, so they can't all be true. And this is assuming that Creationism be taught at all, by itself, never mind mixing it up with science classes.

Secondly, I wouldn't want to have someone elses religious beliefs about the origins of life taught to my kids, if/when I have any in the future, in school. Especially not just the one, because that would be saying (as all religions try to do) that that one is the only one that is right. And shoving your own beliefs down someone elses throat, especially childrens, is wrong

Thirdly, creation is abiogenesis, the origins of life. These scientists want it taught as an alternative to evolution, which isn't abiogenesis. The origins of life (abiogenesis/creation) and how/why/when/where etc it changes (evolution) do not and should not clash. Any clash is imagined, and probably the result of resentment of realising that we are, in fact, creatures of the earth just like everything else, not it's masters, we don't have the 'god given right' to own, kill, maim, torment etc etc everything, and no-one is going to come along and zap everything we've messed up and make it all better. It's torn down mans superiority complex, and now man wants it's high back

Fourthly, why should it be taught in schools anyway? Surely it's doing just fine on it's own, in Bibles, being read and believed (though not all the time) by Christians, whom are the only ones it should affect.

And, finally, ID or Intelligent Design. I saw you use that term earlier in this thread and say it is the same thing. I had a look at it, and I actually agree with the many ATSers who back it that it is not the same as Creationism. Creationism is completely different. ID simply states that due to certain statistics found in the world around us (like the beauty equation and the fact that we and our moon are the exact distance and courses that the moon seems to be the exact same size as the sun and can cause an eclipse, and the earth make a lunar eclipse) makes them 'believe' that there must be something Intelligently Designing life. But there it is again, belief, that would take about five minutes explaining in an evolution class. No need to be taught in schools, and besides, that's easy enough to figure out for yourself without anyone telling you.

[edit on 20-8-2009 by ShiningSabrewolf]

[edit on 20-8-2009 by ShiningSabrewolf]



posted on Aug, 20 2009 @ 07:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by Helmkat
.....For myself this whole issue was never a problem. I was not raised in a very religious home and was given free will to synergize my beliefs as I saw fit. .....


Hey Helmkat,

So glad you joined...

Regarding your post, that's great, you had engaged parents....have you considered maybe others didn't?

What is to become of them? they will never hear, qualified, smart, scienctists, in a number of areas of study, who have questions/concerns/peer-reviewed experiencments...that contradict the Biology 101 status-quo....you are not for that I know?

OT-none of us is as smart as all of us!!!!!

edit a word

[edit on 20-8-2009 by OldThinker]



posted on Aug, 20 2009 @ 07:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by makinho21
reply to post by OldThinker
 


Appealing to authority...again. Jesus, do you ever learn?
....


Stick to the OP ok?

How hard is it to answer a simple question?

OT



posted on Aug, 20 2009 @ 07:54 PM
link   
reply to post by ShiningSabrewolf
 




SS, you are not late, right ON TIME!

Thank you, glad you are here....

OT will go and read your points in detail and respond, for sure....

OT



posted on Aug, 20 2009 @ 07:56 PM
link   
reply to post by OldThinker
 

Speak for yourself buddy - I've put forward my arguments and the only way you can respond is to "make it a joke", as if that all of a sudden does away with any valid point I brought up.

I've told you over and over why "creationists" can not teach their fables as fact. If you choose to ignore my points, that is your own fault.



posted on Aug, 20 2009 @ 08:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by makinho21
reply to post by OldThinker
 

Speak for yourself buddy - I've put forward my arguments and the only way you can respond is to "make it a joke", as if that all of a sudden does away with any valid point I brought up.

I've told you over and over why "creationists" can not teach their fables as fact. If you choose to ignore my points, that is your own fault.





Last try.....please answer the OP.....


I don't want you, nor did the OP ask you...to explain that "creation" is a fable.....SOOOOOOOOO

Relax, on that....


nuther thread......


Well???????????????????????????????


Come on now, you are not drinking with the codiene? sp?

oldTHINKER, not timer...




[edit on 20-8-2009 by OldThinker]



posted on Aug, 20 2009 @ 08:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by makinho21
reply to post by OldThinker
 

Speak for yourself buddy ............



What am i a Ventriloquist ?


OT



posted on Aug, 20 2009 @ 08:19 PM
link   
reply to post by OldThinker
 


Your title is "why can't creationists teach an alternative". That is the question I have answered.
I also answered "your thoughts on Newton's quotes" and "free thinking" and I had explained why creationist fables are not taken seriously.
This is not "banning" anything.



posted on Aug, 20 2009 @ 08:26 PM
link   
This is why, creationism, OT, will not become accepted until the ignorant control the system. (and it gets scarily closer every day).


The teaching of creation "science" in public schools in the United States effectively ended in 1987 with the United States Supreme Court decision in Edwards v. Aguillard. The court affirmed that a statute requiring the teaching of creation science alongside evolution when evolution is taught in Louisiana public schools was unconstitutional because its sole true purpose was to advance a particular religious belief.

By all means take Jesus as your Messiah, take the bible as your guide. But stop trying to glorify a myth as hard science.
There is simply no,none,nada,zip empirical evidence to back up these claims.
Realising this the "smart" fundementalists made creationism become born again as Intelligent Design. Marginally more elegant and plausible. But still highly suspect and definitely religious in intent. It is simply not science.



posted on Aug, 20 2009 @ 08:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by makinho21
reply to post by OldThinker
 


Your title is "why can't creationists teach an alternative". That is the question I have answered.
I also answered "your thoughts on Newton's quotes" and "free thinking" and I had explained why creationist fables are not taken seriously.
This is not "banning" anything.




Alright, this is a long thread, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt....


please cut and paste your answer to the OP....

OT



new topics

top topics



 
11
<< 17  18  19    21  22  23 >>

log in

join