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.

 

Charles Darwin film 'too controversial for religious America'

page: 27
29
<< 24  25  26    28  29  30 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 21 2009 @ 06:35 PM
link   
reply to post by novacs4me
 


Specious.

A few "hoaxes" uncovered does not a full well-researched and documented principle destroy.

Speaking of "lies", those who try to trumpet the "creationism" argument whilst using nothing except ridicule, innuendo and red-herrings to try diminishing evolutionary theory are truly resorting to the most crass lies. They are intentionally disingenuous in order to promote their particular beliefs.

It reminds me to similar situations: The self-avowed holier-than-thou preacher or lawmaker considered a "pillar" of society and "family values" who is just, at heart, a phony. A hypocrite who gets caught with his secretary or aide or Congressional page...in either a hetero- or juicy homo-sexual tryst....

Phony, phony. THAT is the reality of the "Intelligent Design" crowd, who are attempting to silp in their pseudo-science, when rational thinking people can see it for the 'Trojan Horse' it actually is, to sneak in religion where it doesn't belong.

"Creationism" is a religious belief. There is no other description for it, no matter how hard somew try to justify it. It has NO scientific merit, it never achieves the status of real science.

As I said, it is a choice. Religion is NOT something you are "born with", it is a system of tenets that you are taught; usually within a societal framework. AS SUCH, it belongs in the purview and context of religious thought and study.

Honestly, I do not understand the fear that the religious (and there is little doubt that Christians, especially Fundamentalists, are predominately behind this 'debate') fear so much from evolution. Do they really wish to pollute people's minds, bring them backwards into an age of ignorance and superstition???

Is it easier to control the minds, once you remove logic and reason??




posted on Sep, 21 2009 @ 06:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by infinite
Universities not Univerity's, take it you never went then?


This is all you can do? you can't REFUTE me, If all else fails attack grammar ? LOL You never ever miss spelled a word though have you ? Would you like me to show you the posts? Then I can make a big leap and assume you haven't been to college and start attacking you personally and bring others in it I consider just as "stupid" but not quite as stupid as you ? Am I getting the gist of your post?



Do you honestly know how stupid you sound, not even John Matrix was denying the existence of dinosaurs and accusing scientists of faking discoveries.


Do you honestly know how dishonest YOU sound? Of course not, you are dishonest. Please share with me the alleged stupidity, Copy Paste the quote where I denied the existence of dinosaurs or withdraw the claim

Oh and yeah please share with us oh great pontif of Science and those you consider a paragon of virtue, Scientist's!, Allow me to hear the error in my ways as I introduce you to the world of REAL science. At least evolution science but I am sure they are all pretty corrupt from the seriousness of this problem of fraud. From Global Warming to You're "innocent" mistakes.

Johann Beringer published Lithographiae Wirceburgensis, a scientific treatise describing a remarkable collection of 'fossils', which turned out to be an elaborate palaeontological fraud.



Transcript

Paul Taylor: He did have a hint. Actually, even in the book he mentions the fact that some of his colleagues, I guess they’d started to get worried about how far this fraud had progressed and they were trying to give him hints that really he shouldn’t go ahead and publish this. So some of them in front of him carved some very similar looking fossils and gave them to him, but he wouldn’t accept these as being related to the specimens he previously had. He pointed out that wherever valuable items are in demand, such as for example antiquities, Roman coins and so on, there was always going to be people around who were willing to fake them and this is what he thought these carved specimens that had been given to him later on were.

Robyn Williams: I suppose when you’ve built a huge edifice, grand career, lots of books, you don’t want to bucket the lot do you, you don’t want to dismiss the whole thing?

Paul Taylor: Yeah, well actually this was really his first and only venture into the world of palaeontology, most of his publications were on medical matters, he was essentially a medic and indeed after this he didn’t touch fossils again. He lived for another 14 years, the book published in 1726, he died in 1740.

Robyn Williams: And as for the scale of it, were there thousands of these objects?

Paul Taylor: Yes. That, to me, is the most remarkable thing about this. In existence at the present day there are estimated to be 400 of these fake fossils but it’s thought that there were probably as many as 2000 produced at the time, which is a vast undertaking. They’re carved from quite hard limestone and a stone mason in Germany a few years ago was given a piece of the same kind of limestone and asked to reproduce one of the fake fossils and it took him six hours to do this. So there was a lot of man hours involved in producing as many as 2000 fake fossils - and these all appeared or were produced within the space of less than a year.

Robyn Williams: So it means that several people were working on it.

Paul Taylor: Oh, most certainly, there are at least three youths who lived in the village next to Wurzburg where the specimens allegedly came from, who are known to have been employed doing this and court proceedings were brought against them by Beringer when he realised he’d been duped.

Robyn Williams: Oh I see, he did find out?

Paul Taylor: Yes, he did find out. The peculiar thing is, it’s not very clear what made him decide that these truly were faked because he’d published his book and he’d dismissed the idea they were faked within the book and yet within two or three months of the publication of the book he’d reversed his opinion and realised that indeed they were fake fossils.

Robyn Williams: Did these youths ever say during the court case why they spent those thousands of hours labouring away, an incredible kind of commitment, to bringing this guy down?




Scientists resolve to crack down on fraud


The meeting in Madrid on 17-18 November was organised by the newly formed Research Integrity Forum of the European Science Foundation (ESF) in collaboration with the Spanish National Research Council (CSIC). It continued work set in motion by the first world conference on research integrity held in Lisbon in September 2007.

Fraud in science includes inventing data (fabrication), manipulating data to produce an unjustified result (falsification) or presenting the work of other researchers as one's own (plagiarism).

There is little hard evidence of the extent of the problem but various estimates suggest that between 0.1% and 1% of researchers commit fraud and perhaps as many as 10% to 50% engage in questionable practices. Most of these are relatively minor, said Dr John Marks, Director of Science and Strategy at ESF, "but if people get away with it and if no-one says anything about it, it might invite bigger issues of misconduct." He said that opinion polls showed that trust in scientists is still high "but that trust is easily lost by high profile cases of misconduct and that is why we are so concerned."

A survey by ESF earlier this identified 18 European countries that had put in place codes of conduct for good practice in research but they varied greatly in how they dealt with suspected cases. Many have set up research integrity offices to promote good practice and discourage misconduct.

No European country has yet followed the lead of the US National Science Foundation which, along with other federal agencies, has statutory powers to investigate allegations of fraud including power to subpoena evidence. Dr Peggy Fischer, of the NSF's Office of Inspector General, described how offenders can be required to take a course in scientific ethics or, in the most serious cases, banned from receiving any federal research funding for up to five years.

Systems in Europe tend to be more consensual and rely more on the self-governance of the scientific community. Professor Eero Vuorio, chair of the National Advisory Board on Research Ethics, said that all of Finland's universities and polytechnics and most research funding bodies had signed up to a national code of good scientific practice. Allegations of misconduct are investigated by individual institutions to an agreed procedure with the help of outside experts. Sanctions are in the hands of employers.
www.physorg.com...




Feathers fly as China cracks down on illegal fossil sales
Rex Dalton


Top of pageAbstractValuable dinosaur fossil may have been crushed in fracas.

Officials are taking a hard line on the illicit trade in dinosaur fossils in China, leaving palaeontologists worried that valuable specimens will be lost or destroyed.This summer, fossil-rich quarries have been blasted, some 75 people threatened with arrest, and a potentially important new specimen apparently run over with a tractor — all in conflicts over fossils that could fetch a high price on the black market
www.nature.com...




COMBATING FRAUD IN THE COMMERCIAL FOSSIL MARKET


Ask any scientist or museum curator and they will tell you. Fossil fraud and fakes have become a huge problem in today's commercial fossil market. It is of utmost importance for both dealers and collectors to be able to determine if a fossil has been faked or parts of it fabricated. Here we have dedicated a separate section on this vital topic.
www.paleodirect.com...



Archaeoraptor was a fossil believed to be an intermediary between dinosaurs and birds, but proved to be an archaeological forgery.


The purported fossil of archaeoraptor was found 1998 in a gem show in Tucson, Arizona. It had been found on the Liaoning Province of China, sold on the black market and smuggled into the United States. Stephen Czerkas, owner of the Dinosaur Museum in Monticello, Utah, purchased it for $80,000 and contacted National Geographic Society. The society made a deal to study it and eventually return it to China.


The fossil was unveiled in a press conference on October 15, 1999, and an article about the find was published in the November 1999 issue of National Geographic Magazine. The magazine described it as a missing link that would connect dinosaurs and birds. The original fossil was put on display at the National Geographic Society in Washington, DC, pending return to China. Team of Geographic-supported experts named the fossil Archaeoraptor liaoningensis.
www.statemaster.com...





Brontosaurus never existed. The head of one dinosaur was put on the skeleton of a different one that was found over 6 km away

unmaskingevolution.com...




Before you suggest someone is so stupid, make sure you haven't blown it by BEING WRONG!



The loquacious manner and vituperative veener of your post


vituperative?? Ha ha ha wow, I don't think I can name one person who wouldn't think you were trying to impress them but going a little too far to be considered anything less than phony. "Loquacious" ha ha what, the word talkative sound to much like a commoner to you in your circum loquacious logic



facetious it was to claim Einstein was not a genuine scientist



Here is another I want to see the quote copy pasted from the post you have hallucinated was said or withdraw the claim


- along with the poor punctuation - made me conclude the US needs to worry about standards instead of evolution.


You don't think all these posts are like that?



Apologise for my vocabulary, but I read other books apart from the Bible



Yeah but we don't take Dr. Seuss all that serious here.


[edit on 21-9-2009 by Stylez]



posted on Sep, 21 2009 @ 06:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by novacs4me
 


Is it easier to control the minds, once you remove logic and reason??


Funny! It was logic and reason that convinced me that evolution is a cruel lie. I examined the evidence, and found it supported intelligent design, and not the random chance of evolution.

I grew up believing in evolution, because it was taught to me in high school and university. But then I met a man who didn't believe in it. As I reviewed the evidence for creation, with a strong desire NOT to believe in it, I became convinced that it was true. With a university education in Statistics, I find the odds of life developing in all its complexity from non-life within ANY time frame to be ridiculous. I don't know why I couldn't see it before. Wait... Yes I do. I was lied to for years and years. Deny ignorance. Consider the evidence.



posted on Sep, 21 2009 @ 06:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by Stylez
 


Seriously?? Someone gave you a star?!?

Hmmmm....maybe there IS a 'god'.......

PS....ever hear of 'venomfangX', that dude on YouTube?

Hope he's not your role model.


Ha Ha I LOVE VenomfangX but my favorite youtube videos are by BigWhammy. Weed you haven't been able to explain why Dawkins was so confused contradicting himself in the video I posted. Share with us your knowledge weed. Share with us how you can possibly consider evolution not being worthy of the nearest dumpster for dogmatic delusions of Darwin. It isn't just a "few" cases of fraud, the science you are so desperate to defend is RIFE with Fraud and various acts so illegal they were found GUILTY of same by the US Senate.

[edit on 21-9-2009 by Stylez]



posted on Sep, 21 2009 @ 07:10 PM
link   
reply to post by refuse_orders
 
Wow, you are honestly telling me you don't think Darwin was a racist?????

Do you even know the FULL title of "Origin of Species"????





"On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life"

Excuse me?? ".. Preservation of FAVOURED Races.."

No, no, he isn't racist.




posted on Sep, 21 2009 @ 07:11 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


According to you atheists's, it IS something we are born with. Just google the God Gene, atheist's of course want to cure us of that lol.

Weed why are you talking about creationism? if it isn't a science then stick to the science they say actually is and get back on topic.

This is about reasons we have for not wanting to see Darwin film. You want to talk about Creationists or Christians then do it at your next OUT meeting or make a thread



posted on Sep, 21 2009 @ 07:17 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


Anytime you want to compare notes on which websites use nasty names to call the otherside you let me know weed and Ill bet you will find you are a thousand miles from being even close to being correct in that regard.

It was Dawkins who said for all atheist's to ridicule the creationist into better behavior. The Op obviously subscribes to that Idea and admits it saying I deserve to be ridiculed for not having the same opinion as he does.

The only thing that will get him is a fat lip. Not too "Brite" of the zoo keeper Dawkins is it.



[edit on 21-9-2009 by Stylez]



posted on Sep, 21 2009 @ 07:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by infinite
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


The Lord apparently can work in mysterious ways....


However, I need to lay down after the claims made against the world's greatest thinkers. To question Newton is questioning the very existence of gravity




Wow are you serious or are you just a compulsive liar? None of us from either side of this argument said any such thing. Copy paste the quote and link or withdraw the lie. You fit right in with the rest of the fraud in science I see. The fourth time now you have done this.

[edit on 21-9-2009 by Stylez]



posted on Sep, 21 2009 @ 07:37 PM
link   
reply to post by Stylez
 


It appears that you're too concerned with finding the fraud that the evidence escapes you. A simple search of even this forum will shew you that there is beautiful and sensible research being undertaken in the field of Evolutionary Theory.
As human-based disciplines there will always be a factor that want to further their own nests and do it by deceit. Try not to let these few occurrences (relatively speaking) obfuscate the truth of the Theory.

Again, with the pot calling the kettle black, there are numerous instances of religious fraud but that doesn't stop people accepting what they regard as the 'truth'.



posted on Sep, 21 2009 @ 07:40 PM
link   
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 


If you had taken your time to read The Origin of Species, which I can clearly tell you have not. You would realise that "races" was by no means connected with the human race, the use of the word is now closer to what we would today refer to as "varieties" in species.

Reading a text that is over a century old requires you to understand the meanings of words as they stood at the point in time they were written.

Take your misinformation and go do some reading.




posted on Sep, 21 2009 @ 07:40 PM
link   
reply to post by refuse_orders
 


The refusal to accept the blatantly obvious is due to religious indoctrination of the masses. Now, as to the question why, this
thread expertly explains why people blatantly refuse to accept data that is contradictory to what they 'believe'. My acceptance of the Theory of Evolution has nothing to do with Darwin (the messenger), but instead because of the incredible amount of unbiased data available that supports it. While those opposed do much to try to disprove it, I have yet to see a scientific theory that challenges or replaces it.

reply to post by Stylez
 



Originally posted by Stylez

Originally posted by ZombieOctopus
Creation... scientist.. oww the irony makes my brain bleed. There are people who call themselves creation scientists? Do they go to confession and ask forgiveness for lying to themselves and their peers when they do it?


Creation scientists.. ya and I'd like you to meet my friend the morbidly obese Olympic track coach.


If you can refrain from the childish meanderings of the typical Darwinist tactics of Ridicule and debate John Matrix like an adult, Ill bet you won't come out looking so smug. Care to try?



Originally posted by Stylez

Originally posted by infinite
Apologise for my vocabulary, but I read other books apart from the Bible



Yeah but we don't take Dr. Seuss all that serious here.


Care to practice what you preach? Or is smugness only reserved for you and your friends? Typical...

[edit on 21-9-2009 by JaxonRoberts]



posted on Sep, 21 2009 @ 07:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sigismundus
Hi Novacs4Me and John Matrix & other 'zionist-biblical' creationists on this thread:

You don't have to be a 'bible' believer to believe in a Creator or in Creation; you could be one of 6-Billion people who DO NOT believe in YHWH the clan god of post Exilic Judaiesm ('the clan-god of the bible') as the 'creator' of the universe.

I for one cannot see why people automatically jump on the Yahweh bandwagon and keep spewing out the 2 Creation Myths in Genesis as factual science (Gen 1:1 to 2:4a, creation myth #1, and Gen 2:4b through end of Gen chapter 4:26 = creation myth #2) when for one thing, the two creation myths of the Jews don't even match.

We will forego the other pre-scientific thinking of these semi nomads who believed in talking snakes and domes over a flat earth and the impossibly arrogant and thoroughly racist idea of a 'chosen people' (i.e. a master race) that has the monopoly on 'truth'. The fact is that there are more than 6,000 creation myths out there in the world today, most of them far older than the adaptations of the post Exilic Hebrew writers who re-wrote many of them for their own self-serving ends.

And anyone who thinks that Plants, Trees, Herbs etc. were all created BEFORE the sun, moon, and the stars (Gen 1:5-6) is not in touch with the tenets of modern science in the 21st century who hold to things such as photosynthesis, of which the ancient Israelites had the slightest notion. They were too busy exterminating Amalekites on Yahweh's explicit orders !!


Can you source your vitriolic verbiage for us, or is that your expert opinion? Qualify please!

Fact is, people who believe in God do not come about it by accident, belief in God comes from God. God grants us a measure of faith which leads us to repentance. You are obviously one who refuses the gift of eternal life. You are too proud to humble yourself and accept His gift. You are one of those who are under a strong delusion(see my post a few pages back)....it's called evolution....and you would rather believe in lies instead of the truth.

I doubt you read any of the evidence posted in the last 10 pages. If you had, you would have seen how the mathematical odds of the spontaneous random generation of one polypeptide is beyond human ability to comprehend. 2000 such random events would have to occur simultaneously in rapid succession for a single living cell of the most basic form to have basic metabolism and reproduction capability.

Nothing you said is qualified. It's pure bias and prejudicial motivated opinion, and therefore completely worthless delusional ramblings against that which you have no clue about.


[edit on 21/9/09 by John Matrix]



posted on Sep, 21 2009 @ 07:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by infinite
Are you suggesting that humans are all equally the same, regardless of their environment?



Yep that is true, you can take an Navajo Indian and a Kenyan from mombasa and their DNA will be 99.99 --- % the same species. You think Blacks have darker skin because they are in Africa? I suppose the humidity made their hair curly?

We aren't arguing being able to get a sun tan, guy, we are saying we will ALWAYS have the basic form we have now that we have since we first appeared on this planet and until they can finally prove otherwise without lying and cheating using fakes and frauds it is a hypothesis, not a theory and certainly NOT A FACT!



posted on Sep, 21 2009 @ 08:00 PM
link   
reply to post by JaxonRoberts
 


Go read all the post and then come back....make sure you check our sources. You have arrived here late and are obviously misinformed concerning the evidences we have discussed.

All you have done is given a bias opinion. You offer no evidence...and before you do, it is very likely someone has already offered the evidence, which is usually shown to be no evidence at all. Give us something new to chew on, not just an unbridled, unqualified, bias, rambling opinion.

We want the meat of your argument. We are hungry. Prove evolution and collect 250K from Kent Hoven. No one ever has collected it Sir.



posted on Sep, 21 2009 @ 08:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by Stylez

Originally posted by infinite
Are you suggesting that humans are all equally the same, regardless of their environment?



Yep that is true, you can take an Navajo Indian and a Kenyan from mombasa and their DNA will be 99.99 --- % the same species. You think Blacks have darker skin because they are in Africa? I suppose the humidity made their hair curly?

We aren't arguing being able to get a sun tan, guy, we are saying we will ALWAYS have the basic form we have now that we have since we first appeared on this planet and until they can finally prove otherwise without lying and cheating using fakes and frauds it is a hypothesis, not a theory and certainly NOT A FACT!


No, we are suggesting that no matter how many adaptive responses there is no speciation and no evolution....that goes for adaptive mutations as well. A human is still a human, a bird is still a bird, a frog is still a frog., a bacteria is still a bacteria.,,etc.

There is variation within all species, but this is not evolution at work, it's designed into our DNA by a designer.



posted on Sep, 21 2009 @ 08:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by John Matrix
Give us something new to chew on, not just an unbridled, unqualified, bias, rambling opinion.

We want the meat of your argument. We are hungry. Prove evolution and collect 250K from Kent Hoven. No one ever has collected it Sir.


Since Evolution has been debated to death here, and it has yet to be debunked, I see no need to just keep repeating the same circular argument over and over again. And unless you are a biologist, anything you post in opposition to it is just "an unbridled, unqualified, bias, rambling opinion."

Since you and yours have yet to disprove Evolution, how about trying to prove something besides it???? You know, backed with scientific data and observations, laboratory experiments, full use of the scientific method... You know, the whole ball of wax. Oh, and check your schema at the door....

[edit on 21-9-2009 by JaxonRoberts]



posted on Sep, 21 2009 @ 08:14 PM
link   
I have read your evidences as you presented them in other posts.
There is no evidence to support creationalist theory.
Therefore it remains a theory, with not one piece of skeletal or genetic or tool remains to support it.
If there was, It would be known and taught.
There are smarter creationalists out there not on ATS that stilll have not been able to debunk it.
Not one piece of evidence is acceptable fact.
Not one.
Stop being lied to.

You come from a lemur.
You are a Hominoid.

One clutches to their beliefs so hard only when they are enslaved to what they were taught.
I promise giving up religious doctrine doesnt cause the earth to open up and swallow you.

You can actually have both concepts, like the Catholic church has done






[edit on 21-9-2009 by zazzafrazz]



posted on Sep, 21 2009 @ 08:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by JaxonRoberts

Originally posted by John Matrix
Give us something new to chew on, not just an unbridled, unqualified, bias, rambling opinion.

We want the meat of your argument. We are hungry. Prove evolution and collect 250K from Kent Hoven. No one ever has collected it Sir.


Since Evolution has been debated to death here, and it has yet to be debunked, I see no need to just keep repeating the same circular argument over and over again. And unless you have a biologist, anything you post in opposition to it is just "an unbridled, unqualified, bias, rambling opinion."

Since you and yours have yet to disprove Evolution, how about trying to prove something besides it???? You know, backed with scientific data and observations, laboratory experiments, full use of the scientific method... You know, the whole ball of wax. Oh, and check your schema at the door....


bravo........

not much more to add to that, its a circular argument..

if evolution could have been debunked someone much smarter than most of us....would have done it already..end of story. i would have to say the same for creationism.....hence circular argument.

check please?

[edit on 21-9-2009 by phi1618]



posted on Sep, 21 2009 @ 08:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by JaxonRoberts

Originally posted by John Matrix
Give us something new to chew on, not just an unbridled, unqualified, bias, rambling opinion.

We want the meat of your argument. We are hungry. Prove evolution and collect 250K from Kent Hoven. No one ever has collected it Sir.


Since Evolution has been debated to death here, and it has yet to be debunked, I see no need to just keep repeating the same circular argument over and over again. And unless you have a biologist, anything you post in opposition to it is just "an unbridled, unqualified, bias, rambling opinion."

Since you and yours have yet to disprove Evolution, how about trying to prove something besides it???? You know, backed with scientific data and observations, laboratory experiments, full use of the scientific method... You know, the whole ball of wax. Oh, and check your schema at the door....


You ignored the Math bud. The math buried Darwin and the whole of evolution theory several pages back. You should have got up to speed before you opened your mouth. Spock would be embarrassed by your having put your mouth in gear before having engaged your cranium.

Spock (the TV and movie character) was great at Math. By your avatar one would expect that you have a respect for that character and the intelligence portrayed....so go to it bud.



posted on Sep, 21 2009 @ 08:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by phi1618
if evolution could have been debunked someone much smarter than most of us....would have done it already..end of story. i would have to say the same for creationism.....hence circular argument.

check please?



We presented the sources which have debunked it using Math....people with Phds in Physics etc. I think they more than qualify. Check the links on my profile page and enjoy the wake up call.



new topics

top topics



 
29
<< 24  25  26    28  29  30 >>

log in

join