The Evolution Delusion: conspiracy ?

reply to post by nophun


The bible and evolution are in complete harmony if you ask me. The description in Genesis matches that of evolution look for yourself.
Sea creatures.. whales ..flying birds.. land crawling beings.. bla bla bla you would have to be completely blind and ignorant too overlook it. I don't know what is going on, but for some reason the entire church world is blind to it, along with the secular world!

I'm a believer in Yeshua but I'm not religious.

Religious ignorance has "mis-translated" the passages of Genesis. But again it doesn't disgree at all with Creation.

Bottom line God started the whole bang anyway and a bunch of Angelic beings most likely helped move things along here on earth.. no biggie to me.

[edit on 27-2-2010 by firegoggles]

reply to post by DeathShield


Hi Death,
I think I gave a pretty good example of evolution disproving creation here.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

I am not directly trying to disprove Ralph( nophun's creator) there in no conspiracy, we just have the answer to the question. Ralph is just not a legitimate option anymore.

I would like to say I am not trying to disprove anyone beliefs here.
My OP was I really want to know what neo-creationist / young earth movements are thinking is there a conspiracy going on.

You are correct I am so vocal because neo-creationist / young earth movements.

I really do not care if you believe in god or 6 days of creation, but please do not deny the fact and claim the truth is a lie.

Young earth movement is a non-stop attack on science they know the facts but lie about them to try to pass there message as scientific fact.
This is wrong.

Hai guys

Please understand I was asking a simple question in this thread, that had very little to do with evolution its self. this got derailed into Evolution Vs. Creation.

Don't get me wrong I am happy to answer any questions or debate the topic to the best of my ability

What was trying to ask was do you think there is some kind of cover up going on ? because a massive amount of evidence is showing evolution is real, and a REALLY massive percent of the worlds scientist agree with it.

reply to post by nophun

Please understand I was asking a simple question in this thread, that had very little to do with evolution its self. this got derailed into Evolution Vs. Creation.

Don't get me wrong I am happy to answer any questions or debate the topic to the best of my ability

What was trying to ask was do you think there is some kind of cover up going on ? because a massive amount of evidence is showing evolution is real, and a REALLY massive percent of the worlds scientist agree with it.

duly noted. And i apologized if i derailed your thread here.


As far as a cover up goes? ? I think there are attempts at coverups going on. But they are not very successful. Go down to your local newsstand. Popular science, Discover magazine, national geographic, at least every month they report a new discovery or a re-hash in regards to evolutionary science. Discovery Channel runs countless programs about evolution every year. Their is evolution taught as scientific fact in catholic schools, there are books written by people such as Richard Dawkins or Sam harris that staunchly defend evolution. The scientific community accepts Evolution and an old earth model in one form or another as a scientific fact. Even christian scientists accept evolution and old earth as fact ( i recommend www.answersingenesis.org if you want a good example of old earth creationists, in fact they often rebut young earth "science"). The best thing they have gotten as far as public education goes is a disclaimer sticker. The mere fact that people like richard dawkins or Christopher hitchens are even allowed to publish and sell books in the USA and other countries is proof that if there is a cover-up going on it is FAILING.


Evolution has nothing to fear. Even the largest church in the world (the catholics) accepts evolution as theological and scientific fact.

Originally posted by maria_stardust
reply to post by dzonatas

 

Oh, please. You're playing a worn out game of semantics.

I'm offended that you would consider techniques of programming skills something of mere semantics. Logic execution, arithmetics, and circuits have nothing to do with semantics.

Just because you throw the word "if" at the beginning of your philosophical musing doesn't necessarily mean it adds a sheen of validity to it.

I told you I'm not being 'philosophical'. It would be nice if you respect that and allow me to show an demonstrate my position before you jump the gun and assume too much about me that you really don't know.

The point is you can't compare

For you to tell me I can't is either: 1) to deny my freedom to explain it without abstraction or 2) an invitation to leave ATS

to validate

As I have shown in other threads:

Earth is to mass as Haven is to energy. "In the beginning, " we created mass and energy, and called it the Big Bang!

That is a scientific viewpoint of the bible.

It's comparable even in that analogy.

You can attempt to look at this any way you want, however it is impossible to take the philosophy out of a faith-based belief.

Depends on what story you mean. The atoms of the bible is matter. Let's study cover of the bible. Looks like the bible contains a leather bound cover. If evolution is true, then the leather bound cover contains DNA of some species. We can trace the DNA and create gene maps. These gene maps are also called words. They are very very long words if we spell out the DNA code, just like program code.

I see no philosophy.

reply to post by DeathShield


okay, I will try to stay calm in this post.
If you believe Ken Ham and the rest of his clowns my post is directed to you.

This is just stupid at its finest, this idiot brainwashes other idiots children into believing dinosaurs and man lived side by side and all kinds of retard #.

Okay I am not being calm I will drop the Ken Ham website.

Popular science, Discover magazine, national geographic, at least every month they report a new discovery or a re-hash in regards to evolutionary science.

Yup, you proved science is working! good job.
None of these monthly reports discredit evolution or natural selection.
If they do please post a example. thanks.

Trying to silents Richard Dawkins does not change the fact that he is right and you are wrong.

PS
Ken Ham is a dbag and I hope he gets a case of the Ebolavirus and get to feel first hand how "irreducibly complex' it really is.

reply to post by nophun



Okay first, when i said "evolutionist" I did not mean it derogatorily, i myself am a supporter of many facets of evolution and find it more fascinating the more i read of it.

also, if i came across as not skeptical., i have not meant to, i am always skeptical, cautious and questioning, those who aren't wont make much progress without faith!

you infer taht by me saying accidental/or pure chance that it is a creationist way of thinking? sorry but A, i am not a "creationist" and B, this is simply what evolution is, althoug there are many complex processes, evniromental, cellualr, and otherwise, it comes down to pure blind chance, as is clear by the-fact that naturel selection, a blind process and non random, "acts" on random mutations..it is pure luck whatever way you want to put it, if its true its an amazing accident that is apperntly still gong on,,

Now about those examples, i will give you a full list littearly loads tomorrow, have to dig up my evolution research folder, you must of course know about the obvious one, you know Coelacanths, hasn't changed at all in millions of years, come back tomorrow for more examples...

Finally when you reply to my question on how randomness leads to purpose etc, you have to, as well as post a video(which i will be watcing in 2 minutes, thanks) actually ponder what i said, it is a mysterious thing, at least to me...

Originally posted by maria_stardust
The point is you can't compare a personal faith-based belief (Creationism) to a scientific theory (Evolution)

I only use science for my beliefs in Creationism. I don't believe in faith.

Originally posted by dzonatas
That is a scientific viewpoint of the bible.

Absolutely. I don't believe in an all-seeing, all-knowing, omnipotent being that has just always been there. I take a scientific approach to the bible and use other sources to corroborate the bible and its writings.

reply to post by nophun

I think you are misunderstanding what i said, there is no conspiracy ( at least not an effective one) that is covering up evolution in the public eye and scientific because there are thousands of christians in science and outside of science who accept the theory of evolution as scientific and theological fact. Not to mention the scientists who are proponents of evolution are very vocal about it and to date have not been silenced despite the massive presence of christians and other religious groups in our global society. The fact that the catholic church has openly endorsed evolution is proof that there is no viable conspiracy.

My whole point was that there if there is a cover-up going on in regards to evolution then the Christians are failing massively at it. Their is ample scientific evidence and epiphanies based on previous data, being discovered and reported that support evolution to one degree or another. There are entire churches that endorse the theory of evolution as scientific and theological fact. Believers of christ such as myself feel that evolution has given us a deeper understanding of god. Thus to cover it up would be equivocal to trying to cover up god himself.
Like i said. Evolution is under no threat at all from religious cover up because it is a scientifically observable fact/phenomenon.

Trying to silents Richard Dawkins does not change the fact that he is right and you are wrong.

Seriously dude? I expected better from you. That would be like me saying " the bible is right you are wrong."
There's no need to be hostile here. I never said richard dawkins was wrong. Personally i think he is wrong about many things. But the existence of evolution is not one of them.


Or did i misunderstand your question? Are you saying that because evolution is so readily accepted by scientists and so prominent in mainstream scientific knowledge that it is covering up the truth about creationism? I.E. creationism is a scientific fact? If so i think it is possible but i would have no clue how to expose that since it would be a massive conspiracy to uncover. It would require one hell of a smoking gun, something like Dawkins or another prominent atheist openly acknowledging that there is empirical evidence for creation.

Originally posted by Zenithar
reply to post by nophun

 

you infer taht by me saying accidental/or pure chance that it is a creationist way of thinking? sorry but A, i am not a "creationist" and B, this is simply what evolution is, althoug there are many complex processes, evniromental, cellualr, and otherwise, it comes down to pure blind chance, as is clear by the-fact that naturel selection, a blind process and non random, "acts" on random mutations..it is pure luck whatever way you want to put it, if its true its an amazing accident that is apperntly still gong on,,

Organisms go though random changes and changes that are beneficial get passed onto the next generations, yup.

It is not random chance or accidental. If is was blind chance we would see negative changes being passed onto the next generation and this does not happen

If I may paraphrase prof. Dawkins.
You cannot go down "Mount Improbable".

What natural section does is keep the good eliminating the bad
Not so random when you think of it this way ?

This is what I was trying to explain with the slot machines but like I said I am not the best at explain or writing.

Maybe this will help too..

You are right that it is random changes but only natural selection only keeps the beneficial changes. so natural selection is not random.

Can you understand what I am trying to say?

EDIT:
I missed the secondd half of your post I will BRB with a reply

[edit on 27-2-2010 by nophun]

Without "proof" of alien visitation to earth, what happens to those in the scientific community when they state publically that they believe. Or at the very least pursue the possibility?

They are generally ridiculed by the rest of their peers.

So would there be any difference if the subject of Aliens was replaced with that of God, and perhaps question evolution as a whole or in part. Ridicule? perhaps.

Science, like most things, is swayed by more than just evidence. Ego and money also play a factor. There has been alot of time, money and effort invested in evolution. Evolution is big business. In print, in grants, in study, education etc. as is religion. Perhaps Evolution is the new religion(not literal).

To answer the OP question. It is entirely possible that there is a conspiracy. If religion/God was ever to be proven false, I could see someone making a profit. Not to mention, billions of people looking for a new savior. In the absence of a God/s, that savior would have to be mortal. Can you imagine any mortal man wanting to become a savior? Not like that has happened before...

What would be even more interesting? For one of the big three religions to be proven true. If god appeared and declared himself to the world, and proved he created all, what would become of science or evolution?

Originally posted by dzonatas
I'm offended that you would consider techniques of programming skills something of mere semantics. Logic execution, arithmetics, and circuits have nothing to do with semantics.

The problem I have with your argument is not that of logical execution, arithmetic or circuits. The problem is with the way you are attempting to present your case in a way that is simply not plausible.

"Let's say Creationism is proven true..." That alone is an impossibility. Why venture down an avenue that can't be tested, much less proven, to be true?

I told you I'm not being 'philosophical'. It would be nice if you respect that and allow me to show an demonstrate my position before you jump the gun and assume too much about me that you really don't know.

By all means, please continue to state your position. I'm merely responding to what you have posted.

For you to tell me I can't is either: 1) to deny my freedom to explain it without abstraction or 2) an invitation to leave ATS

Nice try, but as you can plainly see this site allows you a venue for intelligent discourse. We may not see eye to eye on this issue, but we are most certainly discussing it in a civilized manner.

To even attempt to claim that I, a fellow member, am somehow suppressing your freedom of speech simply doesn't fly. Remember, the door swings both ways. I am in no way inhibiting your ability to communicate, nor are you inhibiting mine.

Earth is to mass as Haven is to energy. "In the beginning, " we created mass and energy, and called it the Big Bang!

That is a scientific viewpoint of the bible.

It's comparable even in that analogy.

Comparing Heaven to energy is hardly scientific by any stretch of the imagination. It may be your viewpoint, but there is no science involved.

Depends on what story you mean. The atoms of the bible is matter. Let's study cover of the bible. Looks like the bible contains a leather bound cover. If evolution is true, then the leather bound cover contains DNA of some species. We can trace the DNA and create gene maps. These gene maps are also called words. They are very very long words if we spell out the DNA code, just like program code.

I see no philosophy.

The Bible is a book. Books can be made of organic matter. Organic matter is comprised of DNA. DNA is analogous to programming code.

That still doesn't prove that Creationism or Intelligent Design are anything less than faith-based beliefs (philosophy).

You are more than welcome to believe anything you want. But personal beliefs not rooted in verifiable fact will not disprove the Theory of Evolution. Therein lays the Creationism conspiracy.

What was trying to ask was do you think there is some kind of cover up going on ? because a massive amount of evidence is showing evolution is real, and a REALLY massive percent of the worlds scientist agree with it.

No coverup, just self delusion and religious ferver. Evolution is self evident.

Now about those examples, i will give you a full list littearly loads tomorrow, have to dig up my evolution research folder, you must of course know about the obvious one, you know Coelacanths, hasn't changed at all in millions of years, come back tomorrow for more examples...

No need. Evolution, it is general understood and accepted, is driven by adaption. If you dont need to adapt, you dont.
If it aint broke, dont fix it.
Crocodiles and turtles have remained largly unchanged for millions of years too, this dosent mean evolution is bunkum, rather that the design works well and the enviroment its living in is largely unchanged, hence no need to lose limbs, or grow wings, or feathers/fur, what have you.
Some folk tend to make a complex issue of things that are relatively obvious.

Originally posted by PowerSlave
So would there be any difference if the subject of Aliens was replaced with that of God, and perhaps question evolution as a whole or in part. Ridicule? perhaps.

I think I did good job explaining this with Ralph and my rock.
I will try again, but keep your post in mind this time.

I will still use my rock and Ralph my god, adding Alien visitors of earth.

So we got my rock that I use to think Ralph (nophun's god) created on the 4th day of creation.
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/8c85c4c660d1.jpg[/atsimg]

Since then I learned about splash erosion and have came to the conclusion that Ralph did not create my rock.

See Science did not go out of its way to disprove my rock being created by Ralph, It just became apparent that the cause of my rock being sphear is erosion and not a divine power.

err wait what the hell does alien visitation got to do with evolution ?

My point is evolution and splash erosion are proven by science !

Splash erosion shows Ralph did not shape my rock on the 4th day.
Evolution proves that the life takes a little longer to make it to human then 6 days.

sure some scientist may (or may not) believe in aliens currently visiting the same way some believe in a god. This does not change this know evolution is real.

There are lots of Muslim and Christen scientist out there that would love to prove god! But the facts are that evolution is real .

Science, like most things, is swayed by more than just evidence. Ego and money also play a factor.

Dude, Learn about what to look for, then look at the fossil records yourself!
Nothing is hidden, everything is open knowledge.

Feel free to drill me and other ats members with questions!
I am 100% sure you can go to the closest university and asked there teachers question, they would be happy to answer.

god appeared

I have said it in many posts before, if god showed up and proved himself to be god (raise the dead) I would convert in a second... I am still waiting.

reply to post by wayaboveitall


But doesn't saying that "no need for adaptation" imply that there is an inherent design? For example you mentioned reptiles not losing limbs. In a godless/creator-less environment ( such as proposed by atheistic/ natural evolution) where all physical change is dictated purely by genetic mutation then all species should still be evolving or mutating regardless of how well adapted they are to their particular environment. You can't say that they evolved something out of "need" or didn't evolve something out of "lack of need" without implying that the evolution or lack there of was deliberately activated or unactivated. It's like when whales evolved from land mammals to oceanic mammals. What was the likelihood that the right amount of whales would develop the right set of genetic mutations over a given period of time that somehow ends up making them more adept at hunting in the water? In order for it to work two whales would have to have an identical genetic mutation in order for them to pass the trait on to their offspring, and then their offspring would either run into the same problem or they would face the rigors and issues of inbreeding. How does the genetic mutation that forms the basis for an overall complex evolution get passed without being stonewalled by either chance or nature?

reply to post by DeathShield


I think I misread some of your post.
I get completely confused with this statement though.

Even christian scientists accept evolution and old earth as fact ( i recommend www.answersingenesis.org if you want a good example of old earth creationists, in fact they often rebut young earth "science").

answersingenesis.org - Ken hams site. He is the biggest Young Earth leaders out there. (like 110% literal interpretation of Bible)

Kenneth Alfred Ham (born October 20, 1951) is the Australian-born president of Answers in Genesis USA.[1] A vocal advocate for a young Earth and a literal interpretation of the Book of Genesis

en.wikipedia.org...

Your quote here gave me the wrong impression and I am still confused by your whole post. I blame the attention deficit disorder

reply to post by nophun


Oh jesus christ. I am so sorry, i always get that assholes website confused for www.Answersincreation.org. Trust me i bloody hate kent ham as well. It's all good mate.

Originally posted by DeathShield
reply to post by nophun

 

Oh jesus christ. I am so sorry, i always get that assholes website confused for www.Answersincreation.org. Trust me i bloody hate kent ham as well. It's all good mate.

TBH I never took the time to really read into your post enough after I read answersingenesis.

It is like a reflex when I hear MonkeyFish, Crocoduck, or answersingenesis

I am sorry for that

reply to post by nophun


I must disagree...the reason they are called random mutations is because they are just that.

Dawkins likes his mount improbable eh? and a good point you make, but technically there is no such thing as down, up or anyway in a random world, only further randomness you know!!!

of course bad genes get passed on, you even imply it yourself by stating that natural selection eliminates the bad, according to evolutionary theory the process of naturaly selection is purely blind...

the mutations are random then acted upon by the blind natural selection!

bad gens get passed on just as good genes do, just because a creature is a disadvantage does not mean it will not survive, even if chances are slim!!!