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.

 

Top home-school texts dismiss Darwin, evolution

page: 4
10
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 7 2010 @ 07:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by 911stinks
I always get a chuckle how evolutionists explain how the fish walked out of the water, dropped its gills, and got a tan instead of cooking from the heat of the sun.


And I too laugh at the notion the the perfect GOD almighty went to all that trouble to create certain animals only to have them become extinct.

Sure the concept of evolution might have a few flaws, but the Bible is also fraught with contradiction, mistranslations and misinterpretation.




posted on Mar, 7 2010 @ 07:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by NichirasuKenshin

Originally posted by 911stinks

Originally posted by kinda kurious


I always get a chuckle how evolutionists explain how the fish walked out of the water, dropped its gills, and got a tan instead of cooking from the heat of the sun.


[edit on 7-3-2010 by 911stinks]





Neither Darwin, nor any other scientist in the field of Biology since at least Lamarck (not even him in the way you imply) has entertained the notion that an individiual fish walked out of the water to become something else within his lifetime. You clearly don't understand evolution.

[edit on 7-3-2010 by NichirasuKenshin]


I'm 44 yrs old. I have spent most of my life trying to understand why, how, who, etc.

Evolution, to me, has wayyy to many holes. And the problem with it, to me, is it teaches survival of the fittest, to humans.

We see examples that that theory doesn't hold up all or even alot of the time.

And survival of the fittest creates mean people. People destined to build bigger and better killing machines, instead of a people who band together to grow food, make clothes, hunt and gather.



posted on Mar, 7 2010 @ 07:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by kinda kurious

Originally posted by 911stinks
I always get a chuckle how evolutionists explain how the fish walked out of the water, dropped its gills, and got a tan instead of cooking from the heat of the sun.


And I too laugh at the notion the the perfect GOD almighty went to all that trouble to create certain animals only to have them become extinct.

Sure the concept of evolution might have a few flaws, but the Bible is also fraught with contradiction, mistranslations and misinterpretation.


I've always felt that God put everything on earth for man to use. How we use it is up to us. Some resources will be used up, or even not useful to man.



posted on Mar, 7 2010 @ 07:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by 911stinks

Originally posted by NichirasuKenshin

Originally posted by 911stinks

Originally posted by kinda kurious


I always get a chuckle how evolutionists explain how the fish walked out of the water, dropped its gills, and got a tan instead of cooking from the heat of the sun.


[edit on 7-3-2010 by 911stinks]







Neither Darwin, nor any other scientist in the field of Biology since at least Lamarck (not even him in the way you imply) has entertained the notion that an individiual fish walked out of the water to become something else within his lifetime. You clearly don't understand evolution.

[edit on 7-3-2010 by NichirasuKenshin]


I'm 44 yrs old. I have spent most of my life trying to understand why, how, who, etc.

Evolution, to me, has wayyy to many holes. And the problem with it, to me, is it teaches survival of the fittest, to humans.

We see examples that that theory doesn't hold up all or even alot of the time.

And survival of the fittest creates mean people. People destined to build bigger and better killing machines, instead of a people who band together to grow food, make clothes, hunt and gather.



You haven't pointed out a single hole. Just straw-men.

Please list the examples that don't hold up, not just spread rumours about them.

People were mean long before Darwin came along. They've been building bigger and better killing machines for thousands of years before the advent of modern biology or the modern scientific method. Genocide predates Evolutionism.

In no time of history have people simply banded together to grow food, make clothes, hunt and gather. Please correct me if I'm wrong. But that's simply utopian poppicock. Or tell me what culture resp. what time in history you are referring to.?

[edit on 7-3-2010 by NichirasuKenshin]



posted on Mar, 7 2010 @ 07:38 AM
link   
reply to post by kinda kurious
 


Wow man, Darwin and evolution had been a never ending thing of retranslations, ajustments, contradicting ideas, flawed personalities. I got a big thick book right here about how Darwin stole the work of Wallas and passed it off as his own.



posted on Mar, 7 2010 @ 07:45 AM
link   
reply to post by 911stinks
 



Evolution, to me, has wayyy to many holes.


Like?


We see examples that that theory doesn't hold up all or even alot of the time.


Any specific examples?



And survival of the fittest creates mean people. People destined to build bigger and better killing machines, instead of a people who band together to grow food, make clothes, hunt and gather.


So basically, evolutionists don't have any morals type argument? Life is always survival of the fittest, but believe it or not, some people can choose to help other people as well.. Have people been not been "building bigger and better killing machines"? Evolution has nothing to do with people making clothes or banding together, regardless, I bet those groups of people that banded together probably fought other groups of people banded together every once in a while



posted on Mar, 7 2010 @ 07:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by Whyhi
reply to post by 911stinks
 



Evolution, to me, has wayyy to many holes.


Like?


We see examples that that theory doesn't hold up all or even alot of the time.


Any specific examples?


How about a quote.



But as by THIS THEORY innumerable transitional forms must have existed, why do we NOT find them embedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth?" -Charles Darwin


It's ironic to me that scientist "prove" the age of a fossil by the age of the organic material in the rock. Huh?



posted on Mar, 7 2010 @ 08:01 AM
link   
reply to post by 911stinks
 


Darwin didn't know how unlikely the preservation of fossils were. Big deal. We only started to understand how extraordinary the preservation of fossils was when we understood the process that lead to it.

So Darwin thought that we should find more fossils. Science evolved and explained why we don't. Presumably, Darwin, as a scientist would not have had a problem with accepting that.

And again. You point out that it's ONLY A THEORY.

Well, so is Gravity. Do you deny the existence of gravity too? or do you take that theory for granted? if yes, why?



posted on Mar, 7 2010 @ 08:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by rcwj1975

Originally posted by hippomchippo

Originally posted by Tyler 720
Fundamentaly, Religion and science CANNOT dissagree because they are FUNDAMENTALY the search for truth.

If you find an area where science and religion dissagree, YOU ARE INTERPRETING ONE OR THE OTHER OR BOTH WRONG.

Sorry for trolling or spaming or whatever you whipersnappers call it.

Yes, they both search for the truth
But they use entirely different methods for searching, one works, the other doesnt.


Your right, science can never seem to make up its mind and get anything right, it just keeps making things up as it goes. Those are the best theories...ones you can change for convienence.


Precisely rcwj1975, you and hippomchippo are both more or less correct, and ironically, it is this very quality of falsifiability which makes science the more logical approach according to over 99% of scientists and the United States supreme court, however it's evidence of observations of the natural world which persuades science, not convenience.

You see, scientists admit that if you give them enough evidence for a certain argument, they are open-minded enough to be persuaded by that evidence. So yes, this includes admitting that they were wrong, and as you point out, sometimes they are proven wrong.

In contrast, typically, young Earth creationists consider their beliefs to be etched in stone and no conceivable amount of evidence can possibly persuade them that those beliefs are wrong.

There's nothing wrong with having unwavering beliefs in a religion when it's treated as religion, however when it's presented to students as a form of pseudo-science based on unwavering precepts which can never be falsified, they are being taught an incorrect definition of science as defined by the supreme court of the USA.

The supreme court says that science by definition is falsifiable, that is, subject to change if you come up with enough evidence to prove a scientific idea is wrong.

Tyler 720, think about it, is young earth creationism a search for truth like science is? One side can be persuaded of what the truth is by evidence in the natural world, the other side's "claims are absolutely not subject to modification based on any conceivable observations of the natural world" as Dr. Hazen explains in the video, so how can that be a search for truth?

This is all explained very well by Dr. Hazen in this video, and you have him to thank (or blame) as co-author of the book "Teaching about evolution and the nature of science" which explains the educational and legal issues involved with teaching evolution vs. creation science in schools or at home.


(click to open player in new window)


"Dr Hazen explains the incompatibility of young earth creationism with science and evolution, but still encourages people to choose their own beliefs yet still understand the scientific method even if they don't agree with it."



posted on Mar, 7 2010 @ 08:15 AM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


Please, explain how the same cell that evolved in man, also evolved into trees.

Why are some plants edible, and some are not?

Who was the first male, first female? Did they evolve at the same time, so they could reproduce?



[edit on 7-3-2010 by 911stinks]



posted on Mar, 7 2010 @ 08:16 AM
link   
Patience, everyone. Don't you all see how this experiment is set up? Group "A" is taught a standard curriculum, including the sciences. Group "B" is taught a series of random curricula including superstitions of various sorts, but minus the sciences. The two groups are then released into 21st century society. The results will be self-evident in just a few years.



posted on Mar, 7 2010 @ 08:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by DJW001
Patience, everyone. Don't you all see how this experiment is set up? Group "A" is taught a standard curriculum, including the sciences. Group "B" is taught a series of random curricula including superstitions of various sorts, but minus the sciences. The two groups are then released into 21st century society. The results will be self-evident in just a few years.


Yes, in other words, group A establishes a rigid, this is how it is because we say so, and group B establishes an education that allows thinking outside the box, and that there is a certain magic and mystery to life that always keeps all inclusive knowledge just out of reach for a purpose.



posted on Mar, 7 2010 @ 08:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by drwizardphd
Different, indeed. But more importantly, they are not mutually exclusive fields of thought.

Evolution is a fact. That's pretty much universally accepted among the scientific and educated community. However, there is still no definite explanation for creation. Evolution is simply the progress life has taken since the point of creation. Evolution does not explain how creation occurred. To think you must believe one or the other is a logical fallacy.

I feel sorry for the children who are not being taught evolution because of their parent's beliefs. They won't ever get the chance to make up their minds, and their understanding of the world will be forever limited.


This post is simultaneously correct and incorrect from a Christian perspective. You see you have the smart Christians, these are the ones who recognise that evolution is a fact and is not a threat to their faith. They believe in a God and that God just set evolution up. These Christians can still become scientists, great scientists.

Then you have the hard line (extremist) Christians who believe every single word in the Bible is true and therefore evolution must be false because god made everything, world is only 6000 years old etc. Well i say they believe every word, but you still see lots of them wearing nylon


The sad part is that when these children grow up, maybe some of them, albeit it a very small percentage will want to go to university and maybe take a science discipline and when they do they'll have to write down their creationist beliefs and of course the professors will fail them. They will be ridiculed for their ignorance and it will set them back years as they discover that they need to learn about evolution, and they will have to unlearn the lies that creation textbooks teach them about evolution.



posted on Mar, 7 2010 @ 08:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by 911stinks
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


Please, explain how the same cell that evolved in man, also evolved into trees.

Why are some plants edible, and some are not?

Who was the first male, first female? Did they evolve at the same time, so they could reproduce?


Evolution is a proven fact as Dr Hazen explains, based on observations of changes in organisms observed in the natural world. The reason evolution is called a "theory" is that there is some debate about the exact mechanism by which these changes occur, but there is no debate (within the scientific community) about the fact that these changes do in fact occur.

I could literally write a book or several books about how that happened, but I have a 10,000 word limit here and plenty of books and papers have already been written on the subject. In short though, changes occur over time so vast that we really can't even comprehend how long it is, like millions of years.



posted on Mar, 7 2010 @ 08:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by NichirasuKenshin


So, since the same is true for gravitiy, I take it that you're not bound by it either, right?

Why don't you jump out of your window then? I mean, gravity is only a theory. You should not confine your worldview by believing in theories. Be free. Fly away.

www.bringyou.to...




[edit on 7-3-2010 by NichirasuKenshin]

Think of it. Gravity is only a theory. But they teach our kids like it's a fact? Where will this lead? For god's sake, keep theories out of the classroom.

[edit on 7-3-2010 by NichirasuKenshin]

[edit on 7-3-2010 by NichirasuKenshin]


I note your sarcasm, but it's baseless here.
You argue semantics. I'm educating him on the fact that, scientifically speaking, it IS the THEORY OF EVOLUTION.

Yes, JUST LIKE YOUR arrogant body mass, and everything else on this planet, and elsewhere, I am 'bound by gravity'. Just like I said, I adhere more to the THEORY of evolution, and, given the information I have, I have decided that it is the most likely explanation/theory, in my opinion. Just as the theory behind gravity is the best known way to describe the forces which keep us 'bound' to this planet, and clearly much much more...

At no point have I said I don't 'believe' in gravity, so your arrogance, and sarcasm was undue, and, to be honest, idiotic.

HOWEVER,

Since YOU have now brought something to the table, I will turn it back towards you...

Since YOU are the one now debating GRAVITY, I believe the ball is now in your court, as it were, to jump out your window, and PROVE to me otherwise...

Until then, perhaps you should read the posts you argue against


[edit on 7-3-2010 by jephers0n]



posted on Mar, 7 2010 @ 08:37 AM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 



Evolution remains and undemonstratable idea. Its majior force has not been evidence but rather a very loud clammer about its quest for truth operating behind a shield of scientific enquiry.



posted on Mar, 7 2010 @ 08:38 AM
link   
reply to post by ImaginaryReality1984
 


The "smart" Christian will realize that man and earth is only 6000 yrs old because the bible give a chronological record of man up to the time of Jesus.

When God created earth, He and other gods approved.

When God created man, we were created in His image, to be like God. The other gods are probably aliens, or the gods of other beings.

Is God a scientist? Quite possibly, and most likely. Is God an artist. Absolutely.
Can God have a sense of humor. I like to think so. Does God get angry. Do we?



posted on Mar, 7 2010 @ 08:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

Originally posted by 911stinks
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


Please, explain how the same cell that evolved in man, also evolved into trees.

Why are some plants edible, and some are not?

Who was the first male, first female? Did they evolve at the same time, so they could reproduce?


Evolution is a proven fact as Dr Hazen explains, based on observations of changes in organisms observed in the natural world. The reason evolution is called a "theory" is that there is some debate about the exact mechanism by which these changes occur, but there is no debate (within the scientific community) about the fact that these changes do in fact occur.


I will admit there is adaptability. For example, animals who live in colder climates will grow longer hair. But I will never understand how people believe that because that animal want to fly, his fur will turn into feathers.



posted on Mar, 7 2010 @ 08:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by kinda kurious

Originally posted by jephers0n
I'm not a creationist, and I adhere to the evolution THEORY, personally.
But since there isn't a way to PROVE it without ANY doubt, it is still just that...
A widely accepted THEORY ...


So then you must naturally agree that the story in the Bile (Christianity) is also just a theory since there are so many other religions, correct?

BTW, I agree with you.

[edit on 7-3-2010 by kinda kurious]


I believe that the bible is just another long-running game of 'Broken-Telephone'. If the original 'word' was actually somehow given to man, by God/Creator/what-have-you, I believe that he/she/it would be ultimately pissed off about how the word has been blasphemized and re-written over the centuries to serve a different purpose...but that's another story...

It served more purpose in ancient times to give people an explanation to the biggest questions (and a lot of smaller ones) of the time. These peoples struggled with many questions which couldn't be answered in their time, whereas in our time, we posess the technology to actually assess the situation and information better. We are not smarter, by much, we just now posess more technology to show us these things, and more words now, to explain them better.

There are no magical pillars holding up the sky, for instance.
We know now that the sky is just a reflection of our own abundance of water on earth.
As above, so down below, or something to that effect.

I also believe that science and religion are no longer the different worlds that people usually tend to lump them into. The best quote of the thread:


Originally posted by Tyler 720

Both sides clearly choose fiction over fact every day.


Think about it. They're merely, different ways to explain the world/universe as we know it. One is based on evidence, and our current ability to put that evidence to use, and analyze. The other is based on the evidence, and what the ancient people 'knew' about the world/universe with their limited (compared to us) understanding of the world around them.

Don't get me wrong, I believe that all religions, fundamentally, are a tool to bring people together, and give us hope that we are all here for a reason.

BUT,

The main reason for religions, in my eye, is to teach morals.

Simple, and true.


*Edit to add quote from earlier page*





[edit on 7-3-2010 by jephers0n]



posted on Mar, 7 2010 @ 08:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by ImaginaryReality1984

Originally posted by drwizardphd

I feel sorry for the children who are not being taught evolution because of their parent's beliefs. They won't ever get the chance to make up their minds, and their understanding of the world will be forever limited.


The sad part is that when these children grow up, maybe some of them, albeit it a very small percentage will want to go to university and maybe take a science discipline and when they do they'll have to write down their creationist beliefs and of course the professors will fail them. They will be ridiculed for their ignorance and it will set them back years as they discover that they need to learn about evolution, and they will have to unlearn the lies that creation textbooks teach them about evolution.


The church of evolution has been shown to be one whos membership is full with fabricators, plagiarizers, liers, manufactures of evidence, undisciplined thinkers and dreamers. Their ministers like chicken hawks, await new arrivals from the outbacks, evey year at university.

[edit on 7-3-2010 by Logarock]



new topics

top topics



 
10
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join