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: 25
11
<< 22  23  24    26  27  28 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 23 2009 @ 01:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by rken2
Why are creationism and evolution mutually exclusive. The truth usually lies between the extreme. Why could there not be a force in nature call it god if you like,, that guides the flow of evolution. There is you know so why don't both sides at least accept it as a possibility and be done with all this squabling.


They are not mutually exclusive. They have nothing to do with each other.

Evolution doesn't have anything to say about creation one way or the other.

Creationism doesn't have anything to say about evolution one way or the other.

Evolution is science, Creationism is philosophy.




posted on Aug, 23 2009 @ 01:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by TailoredVagabond
If evolution is only a theory then creationism is tantamount to a shared assumption - as is any religion.

By the way, somethign can no longer be a theory, if there exists progressive evidence to support it. Ergo - evolution is NOT a theory and therefore cannot be a theory.

Ergp - Creationism ("Look at the pretty butterfly, someone HAD to create that") is, at best, just a theory.

Jeeez!!!


Flawed logic.

Evolution is not "just a theory". It is a "Scientific Theory".

The word has a specific meaning in science that is not necessarily the same as that used in 'common' discourse.

Just as the word 'saved' has a different meaning to a Christian and a drowning man, it is important to use words correctly to avoid misunderstanding. If you are going to play ball at someone else's ballpark you have to play with their ground rules.



posted on Aug, 23 2009 @ 01:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by rnaa

Originally posted by TailoredVagabond
If evolution is only a theory then creationism is tantamount to a shared assumption - as is any religion.

By the way, somethign can no longer be a theory, if there exists progressive evidence to support it. Ergo - evolution is NOT a theory and therefore cannot be a theory.

Ergp - Creationism ("Look at the pretty butterfly, someone HAD to create that") is, at best, just a theory.

Jeeez!!!


Flawed logic.

Evolution is not "just a theory". It is a "Scientific Theory".

The word has a specific meaning in science that is not necessarily the same as that used in 'common' discourse.

Just as the word 'saved' has a different meaning to a Christian and a drowning man, it is important to use words correctly to avoid misunderstanding. If you are going to play ball at someone else's ballpark you have to play with their ground rules.


It was said out of jest. Read it again


That post actually supports you.



posted on Aug, 23 2009 @ 02:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by OldThinker


Your quoted assertions from allaboutcreation.org are wrong in all particulars.




Lack of Transitional Fossils... Nearly 150 years later, there has been no evidence of transition found thus far in the fossil record.


Wrong. See Index to Creationist Claims: CC220



1) There are many transitional fossils. The only way that the claim of their absence may be remotely justified, aside from ignoring the evidence completely, is to redefine "transitional" as referring to a fossil that is a direct ancestor of one organism and a direct descendant of another. However, direct lineages are not required; they could not be verified even if found. What a transitional fossil is, in keeping with what the theory of evolution predicts, is a fossil that shows a mosaic of features from an older and more recent organism.

2) Transitional fossils may coexist with gaps. We do not expect to find finely detailed sequences of fossils lasting for millions of years. Nevertheless, we do find several fine gradations of fossils between species and genera, and we find many other sequences between higher taxa that are still very well filled out.






Lack of a Natural Mechanism... However, Natural Selection is known to be a conservative process, not a means of developing complexity from simplicity. Later, with our increased understanding of genetics, it was thought perhaps Natural Selection in conjunction with genetic mutation allowed for the development of all species from a common ancestor. However, this is theoretical and controversial, since "beneficial" mutations have yet to be observed. In fact, scientists have only observed harmful, "downward" mutations thus far.


Wrong. See Index to Creationist Claims: CB300



1. This is an example of the argument from incredulity. In fact, several complex organs, which have previously been claimed unevolvable, have plausible means of evolving, including the eye, the bombardier beetle defense mechanism, the woodpecker tongue, and more.

2. Evolutionary mechanisms do account for the evolution of complexity, since non-lethal mutations tend to add more components to simple systems than they remove (Soyer and Bonhoeffer 2006). The abstract of Lenski et al. (2003, 139) is worth quoting in full:

A long-standing challenge to evolutionary theory has been whether it can explain the origin of complex organismal features. We examined this issue using digital organisms -- computer programs that self-replicate, mutate, compete and evolve. Populations of digital organisms often evolved the ability to perform complex logic functions requiring the coordinated execution of many genomic instructions. Complex functions evolved by building on simpler functions that had evolved earlier, provided that these were also selectively favoured. However, no particular intermediate stage was essential for evolving complex functions. The first genotypes able to perform complex functions differed from their non-performing parents by only one or two mutations, but differed from the ancestor by many mutations that were also crucial to the new functions. In some cases, mutations that were deleterious when they appeared served as stepping-stones in the evolution of complex features. These findings show how complex functions can originate by random mutation and natural selection.





Time Constraints... Currently, there are approximately five times more natural chronometers indicating a "Young Earth" than an "Old Earth." Each discovery is a separate "Limiting Factor" that places a constraint on the possible age of the earth. For example, moon drift, earth rotation speed, magnetic field decay, erosion rates, chemical influx into the oceans, ocean salinity, etc, all constrain the possible age of the earth. Each Limiting Factor is distinct. If one were successfully challenged, there is still the problem of all the rest. Furthermore, there are Limiting Factors constraining the possible age of the universe, such as spiral galaxies where they're maintaining their spiral shapes despite their centers spinning faster than their extremities.


Wrong. There are too many points to list all of them here, so I'll just link to the problem of the spiral galaxies: Index to Creationist Claims: CE380. Please review the entire section on Astronomy and Cosmology for information on the other claims.




Unacceptable Model of Origins. The Big Bang Theory is the accepted source of Origins among the majority of Evolutionists, and is taught in our public schools. However, the Big Bang does not explain many things, including the uneven distribution of matter that results in "voids" and "clumps," or the retrograde motion that must violate the Law of Conservation of Angular Momentum. Furthermore, the Big Bang does not address the primary question at hand, "where did everything come from?" Did nothing explode? How did this explosion cause order, while every explosion observed in recorded history causes disorder and disarray?


Wrong. Evolution and Evolutionists are silent on creation. Science, in general, accepts the Big Bang theory, but the problem of creation is NOT part of evolution. See Index to Creationist Claims: CB090

I am not going to address the alleged problems with Big Bang listed here, because it has nothing to do with the discussion of evolution. Some of the assertions may be as much rubbish as the preceding claims, and others may indeed be unsolved mysteries. However, unsolved problems don't invalidate entire accepted theories, only better theories that explain everything the old one did in addition to those problems can do that. Usually explanations are found that fit into or adjust the accepted theory. All unsolved problems mean is that there is always something more to learn.

My Primary Source: An Index to Creationist Claims

note: halfway through writing this post I lost comms with talkorigins.org, so I didn't get quotes for some items. Hopefully it is just me.



posted on Aug, 23 2009 @ 02:32 AM
link   
reply to post by rnaa
 


Wow, stomped OT there, didn't ya.

I love talkorigins. When you go to any anti-evolution site like 'answersingenesis.com' and you look at who authored the site you see things like "we are ......... and we believe that God is the God of the bible as it's his revealed truth." or whatever and it effectively confirms a strong and immediate bias. But you look at somewhere like talkorigins...

"The Talk.Origins Archive is a collection of articles and essays that explore the creationism/evolution controversy from a mainstream scientific perspective."

It's nice to have some sanity in the discussion.



posted on Aug, 23 2009 @ 04:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by OldThinker


Behe's central argument against human evolution hinges in how the malaria parasite P.falciparum has become resistant to chloroquine. The reason for invoking the malaria parasite is an estimate from the literature that the set of mutations necessary for choloroquine resistance has a probability of about 1 in 1020 of occurring spontaneously.


Behe's central argument is based on an invalid assumption that P.falciparum mutated in response to the invention of chloroquine and reveals his total lack of the mechanism involved. Your uncritical parroting of his argument reveals your complete lack of critical thinking and your complete lack of understanding of evolutionary processes.

P.falciparum had resistance to chloroquine in its gene pool for some time before choloroquine was invented, it just wasn't important to its survival, so it wasn't necessarily expressed in every individual. When the first application of chloroquine killed off everyone except the ones who were lucky enough to express the resistance, it increased the likely hood that future generations would express that resistance too. And so on and so on for many generations, until the expression of the resistance trait becomes the rule rather than the exception.

The silly statistic doesn't apply. Organisms have had billions of years to have accumulated a lot of mutations that are useless at the time, but may someday turn out to be critical to their survival.



posted on Aug, 23 2009 @ 04:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by OldThinker

Originally posted by EdCase512
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.



Ed, you have been in and out here...let me re-clarify.....


There are those scientists out there, bonified, endorsed, accepted, tenured, etc....


That have questions/observations/criticisms of the Evolutionary THEORY....yet they ARE NOT HEARD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


A one-sided argument is not an ARGUMENT...but a MONOPOLY......



Why? Why? Can't others SEEEEEEEEEEEE this????? What is there to fear?

OT


Pot meet kettle.

This has nothing to do with the question in the OP. Please stick to the OP if you are going to be the OP police.



posted on Aug, 23 2009 @ 04:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by OldThinker

Originally posted by EdCase512
.......Religion based beliefs belong at best in the Philosophy Department.
....




Yes, I agree....


Let's put religion/faith/JC/Buddha/etc etc.... aside....


OUT OF THE EQUATION.....


What do we do with those evolution-related/feild scientists...who have questions/criticisms of the theory?

They are NOT heard....this isn't fair correct?

Nor is TRUTH given a chance, brcause of loop-sided testing...


OT


Of course they are heard. If they publish in recognized peer review journals they are heard.

On the other hand, if they publish something and go all defensive when they are challenged, or if they don't publish 'properly', then they will at best, remain obscure or at worst ignored.

And if they continue to insist even after their findings are demonstrated to be incorrect, especially if they resort to evangelizing in a non-scientific manner, it is not surprising that they will be subject to ridicule.



posted on Aug, 23 2009 @ 05:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by Welfhard
reply to post by rnaa
 


Wow, stomped OT there, didn't ya.

I love talkorigins. When you go to any anti-evolution site like 'answersingenesis.com' and you look at who authored the site you see things like "we are ......... and we believe that God is the God of the bible as it's his revealed truth." or whatever and it effectively confirms a strong and immediate bias. But you look at somewhere like talkorigins...

"The Talk.Origins Archive is a collection of articles and essays that explore the creationism/evolution controversy from a mainstream scientific perspective."

It's nice to have some sanity in the discussion.


Yeah, thanks.

You've done a pretty good job stomping on the OT and others as well.



posted on Aug, 23 2009 @ 09:24 AM
link   
reply to post by rnaa
 

You boys r having fun are'nt you? I'll do some stomping of my own in day or two. Want to have some more fun? google 'kirk franklin, stomp'
as
a precursor to what's coming.



posted on Aug, 23 2009 @ 09:50 AM
link   
Intelligent design?

If any theory one-day has any merit involving actual design....... it will be named unintelligent design based on the fact that the product is far from perfection.

Not to mention the idiocy behind the current intelligent design theories, meaning the pun - "unintelligent" also applies to the delusions of those non-thinkers.

How far does religious ignorance go... well this thread shows it goes as far as to have no idea why athiests fear bible thumpers from indoctrinating kids into their limited world-view.

Why should we all be content with filling in the blanks & unknowns with a simple made-up idea which solves nothing, it only creates more unknowns like where god came from.... what is the point of doing that? only an illogical and deluded person would see the need to do that!

The OP's interpretations of scientists such as Newton are way off.... he based his theories on observations and evidence, not wild speculation. It doesn't matter if he believed in god or not because his laws of motion are based on real science. Having a belief as an opinion that doesn't affect your work or the quality of science you produce is not an issue, it's those who let it affect their judgement by using faith-based thinking in their job rather than critical thinking.

I would prefer a doctor who decided which medicine to use for treatments from rational thinking & evidence, not what he/she might believe will be the correct treatment because they have a feeling or opinion that god told him it might be work!

If somebody proposed an intelligent design (or unintelligent design) theory based on evidence that would be great, but unfortunately that hasn't happened. So leave the real science to the scientists, and we'll leave your church for your religious meetings and prayers. Would we ask for athiest or science clubs inside churches??? NO!!! So get lost with your fantasies out of the science class-room!

When ignorant people cannot see why their annoying imposing & self-righteous attitudes cause resentment, then they are not only embarrassing themselves, but humanity as a whole.

And they actually dare claim creationism is an alternative..... they are not equavalent opposites. One is real, and the other is not real! It's irrelevant what anyone's opinions are because that's all they are! To get from the realms of fantasy you require evidence to back up your claims.

Creationism is no more credible than claiming a giant banana is floating near pluto because I dreamt about it. For a working theory you require evidence to back it up, and so far not one creationist has done that. Oh they claim evidence as sufficient proof all of the time, but that's because they don't understand what constitutes real evidence & proof.

Science has not discovered god, and neither has religion. Athiesm is the logical course after following the evidence. If anybody discovers a god one day it will probably be scientists because they are the only one's out of this group that are doing any worthwhile investigations into our universe's origins. But I wouldn't hold my breath! Just accept we may never know certain things, and filling them in with little fantasies doesn't answer anything.

And as usual the religious people here have trouble writing a cohesive sentence, whilst proclaiming speciality is a necessity to explain the origins of our existence. And the constant unintelligent bickering between them will ensue for around dozens of pages as always!


These kinds of threads are perfect pieces of evidence that theists are generally lower in intelligence than athiests.


[edit on 23-8-2009 by john124]



posted on Aug, 23 2009 @ 01:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by Astyanax
Why make assumptions for which there is no evidence? If 'I think, therefore I am' is unsound (see Nietzsche above, and he is surely right), why do you imagine 'I think you think, therefore you are' is any more legitimate?




I guess your right.

I can only speak for myself in that my mind is a separate entity from my brain and physical body.

I can never really prove for sure that you have a soul/mind/consciousness


Originally posted by Astyanax
Rather obviously, it is because if there were no vehicle, there is no driver;


When you get out of a car do you cease to exist?



posted on Aug, 23 2009 @ 02:03 PM
link   
reply to post by Jezus
 


When you get out of a car do you cease to exist?

I continue to exist, but the driver ceases to be.

My continued existence is inferred from other interactions with the physical world that have nothing to do with steering wheels, gearshifts and pedals. Could you propose an analogous series of interactions with physical reality for a dismbodied mind? Without, I mean, quoting from the Proceedings of the Society for Psychical Research and other fanciful sources of that kind?



posted on Aug, 23 2009 @ 02:17 PM
link   
reply to post by OldThinker
 


We are not so fightend by what creationst's say. It's a free country. What I REALLY DO fear is when a religion forces people to abandomnent of the tested and proven scientific method. Unlike religion, you can test it objectively. To me the so called supernational is just the natural we don't understand yet.



posted on Aug, 23 2009 @ 03:31 PM
link   
reply to post by Astyanax
 


Also when one alters the state of that car, the nature of the driver also changes because he is one with the car.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Our emotions are neurological, instincts, unconscious cognitive functions, intuition, language, logic, maths, creativity, fear, sense and perception. What is consciousness but the net function of all our neurological function. Eventually, with localisation of function, there is nothing left for consciousness, outside of our body, to be.



posted on Aug, 23 2009 @ 03:41 PM
link   
reply to post by OldThinker
 


Originally posted by OldThinker
reply to post by rnaa
 

You boys r having fun are'nt you? I'll do some stomping of my own in day or two. Want to have some more fun? google 'kirk franklin, stomp'
as
a precursor to what's coming.


Typical OT there, sidestepping the rebuttals that show his ignorance, instead either appealing to ignorance or avoiding the issue.

I didn't get a response to that u2u about the Sumerian myths.

"'kirk franklin, stomp' "
*yawn*
That's no rebuttal OT. Sometimes I don't think you know how to argue:




[edit on 23-8-2009 by Welfhard]



posted on Aug, 23 2009 @ 04:17 PM
link   
reply to post by Astyanax
 


The issue here is that you think I am trying to debate your understanding of the brain.

I'm not trying to refute anything your saying, I'm simply trying to take it further.

Through science we know that manipulation of the brain impacts the consciousness.

But none of that has anything to do with the point that the observer is separate from the brain.

This might not be the kind of issue that I can explain adequately enough. You may just have to think about it and come to your own conclusions.

Again, topics that can help understand this our...
Consciousness of plants.
Material of dreams.
The physical and mental reaction of extreme emotions.

The very nature of your consciousness mind and world around you is constantly screaming this fact -

The observer is a separate entity that is being poured through the brain.

The brain is the light bulb but the mind is the electricity. Obviously the electricity can't work if the light bulb is damaged but that doesn't mean that the power isn't still coming.

The electricity is still flowing but you would never be able to tell if the light bulb is out.

I'm not trying to refute the modern understanding of the brain, this is the direction science is moving in.



posted on Aug, 23 2009 @ 04:39 PM
link   
reply to post by Jezus
 


The brain is the light bulb but the mind is the electricity. Obviously the electricity can't work if the light bulb is damaged but that doesn't mean that the power isn't still coming.

The electricity is still flowing but you would never be able to tell if the light bulb is out.


No, without a complete circuit, electricity ceases - all you have left is possible potential differences depending on the situation. Ironically your chosen analogy is correct in that when the brain is damaged sufficiently, consciousness, or the so-called "observer" property collapses.

[edit on 23-8-2009 by Welfhard]



posted on Aug, 23 2009 @ 04:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by OldThinker
reply to post by rnaa
 

You boys r having fun are'nt you? I'll do some stomping of my own in day or two. Want to have some more fun? google 'kirk franklin, stomp'
as
a precursor to what's coming.


Yep, just catchin' our breath, eatin' an orange brought out by the runners.



posted on Aug, 23 2009 @ 08:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by Welfhard
reply to post by Jezus
 


The brain is the light bulb but the mind is the electricity. Obviously the electricity can't work if the light bulb is damaged but that doesn't mean that the power isn't still coming.

The electricity is still flowing but you would never be able to tell if the light bulb is out.


No, without a complete circuit, electricity ceases



the electricity ceases!?!?!?



Come on, now your just getting ridiculous....

Just because the light is off, broken, or whatever does not in any way mean the source has lost it's power.

The electricity is still there.

lol, go ahead and put your finger where a light bulb goes, you'll find even though the light is not on the electricity is still VERY MUCH there.



new topics

top topics



 
11
<< 22  23  24    26  27  28 >>

log in

join