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.

 

The Ignorance of Creationists

page: 10
35
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 9 2011 @ 09:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
reply to post by Ubeen
 


The thing about bad science is that it is exposed by good science. It's laid bare quite quickly and leads to people losing their jobs.

Now, this argument isn't about bad science, it's about very good science. There isn't a shred of contradictory evidence against evolution, so there's nothing for the scientists to ignore.


"There isn't a shred of contradictory evidence against evolution"?

Oh really?

What about all the gaps in the fossil records?

Do we have billions and billions of fossils showing each step from singel cell to human?

How does evolution magically kick in to over drive at certain times, is also another interesting question.

While these unknowns don't disprove evolution, until they are answered, they sure do provide an opportunity to find a "shred" of contradictory evidence, wouldn't you agree?

Now, back on topic, which belief is more ignorant?:

A. Atheists who believe in abiogenesis? - i.e. that we came from nothing; or that we came from proteins (abiogenesis) - which in turn came from nothing.

or

B. A Christian or any other religious persons belief that a supernatural being - who has no beginning or end - created us?




posted on Jan, 9 2011 @ 09:48 AM
link   
reply to post by mrvdreamknight
 


ABSENCE OF EVIDENCE IS NOT EVIDENCE AGAINST

What with you quite apparently theist, I would expect you to grasp this.

(EDIT - okay, so I skimmed your post and replied without reading fully. Sorry for that)

Further, surely creation by a timeless, non-living conscious entity can equally be called "Abiogenesis", since it makes life from, well, non-life. It just does it from dust (dry matter) as opposed to a reactive sea of organic compounds (moist... kind of like every living organism except for dormant tardigrades... huh.)

edit on 9/1/2011 by TheWill because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 9 2011 @ 09:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by TheWill
reply to post by mrvdreamknight
 


ABSENCE OF EVIDENCE IS NOT EVIDENCE AGAINST

What with you quite apparently theist, I would expect you to grasp this.

(EDIT - okay, so I skimmed your post and replied without reading fully. Sorry for that)

Further, surely creation by a timeless, non-living conscious entity can equally be called "Abiogenesis", since it makes life from, well, non-life. It just does it from dust (dry matter) as opposed to a reactive sea of organic compounds (moist... kind of like every living organism except for dormant tardigrades... huh.)

edit on 9/1/2011 by TheWill because: (no reason given)


Thanks for re-reading my post.

Did you answer the question with a question?

Or are you saying B?

If it's B. - please show me one time where the science (not a being called this) of Abiogenesis has created life?

Please - enlighten us - show us one time where Abiogenesis has actually created life?



posted on Jan, 9 2011 @ 09:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
A while back there was a thread "The Gullibility of Evolutionists"

Well, I'd like to actually call into question the amount of education and research that the majority of creationists on here have with regard to the sciences.


I wonder how we can remedy this.


You cannot remedy this. Wilful and deliberate ignorance cannot be remedied. However there is a new programme that the world-class programme on the the origins of life thatis made by the BBC. It is called "David Attenborough's Origins of life" it has a lot more info on the case for evolution than I received as a sophomore in the late 70s.

Do you wonder why numeracy is declining in the west?
Do you wonder why so many need to import foreign national who are scientists (good for them)?

Anyway believing in God dos not automatically mean that is a need to denounce evolution. Some scientists are also religious.



posted on Jan, 9 2011 @ 10:04 AM
link   
There is a problem with scientific illiteracy. the creationists attack Darwin which is fine but they never keep on top of the literature and look at modern science which builds on his work. Attacking the roots of a physical tree will cause the whole thing to topple but science does not work like this. It is almost the reverse case like the branches are stronger than the roots.

But you know the informationis out there in the wonderful internet. But these creationists just do not get it.



posted on Jan, 9 2011 @ 10:04 AM
link   
reply to post by mrvdreamknight
 



If it's B. - please show me one time where the science (not a being called this) of Abiogenesis has created life?

Please - enlighten us - show us one time where Abiogenesis has actually created life?


I wasn't saying A or B, but please, enlighten us, show us one time where a deity has created life?



Seeing as the genetic similarities between all known life on earth give it a single common ancestor, a non Y.A.C viewpoint would suggest a single origin of life, which would, in turn, mean that there is only one example available - and if God was there, he ain't telling whether he did it or not.

There is no absolute evidence that life originated of it's own accord, but considering that there are cell-like... things that we have trouble classifying as life or non-life (viruses, nanobacteria, prions), there is rather more to suggest that life came from some sort of organic liquid than some conscious dust-moulder. So while beliefs are your right, the one that dismisses the suggestion that life originated from a non-biological, non-conscious organic sea (some, possibly circumstantial evidence) is more ignorant than the one that dismisses the suggestion that life originated because something wanted it to (no evidence).



edit on 9/1/2011 by TheWill because: I ain't french, neither.



posted on Jan, 9 2011 @ 10:06 AM
link   
reply to post by mrvdreamknight
 


Originally posted by mrvdreamknight
"There isn't a shred of contradictory evidence against evolution"?

Oh really?

What about all the gaps in the fossil records?


How is that evidence against evolution?



Do we have billions and billions of fossils showing each step from singel cell to human?


We don't need that to prove evolution. In fact, we don't even need a fossil record to prove evolution, we have evidence of it actually happening today, we have genetic evidence, etc.



How does evolution magically kick in to over drive at certain times, is also another interesting question.


Population isolation, we've known this for quite a while.



While these unknowns don't disprove evolution, until they are answered, they sure do provide an opportunity to find a "shred" of contradictory evidence, wouldn't you agree?


Sure, they provide an opportunity, but that's only because it's a scientific theory and is open to critique. We actually know exactly what we'd need to find to disprove evolutionary theory.



Now, back on topic, which belief is more ignorant?:

A. Atheists who believe in abiogenesis? - i.e. that we came from nothing; or that we came from proteins (abiogenesis) - which in turn came from nothing.


Um...this isn't a thread about atheism vs theism, it's actually a thread about how creationists are, for the most part, completely ignorant of science. Secondly, this is a straw man. At no point does 'nothing' figure into the sequence when it comes to science. The proteins game from earlier carbon molecules, which came from atoms, which came from other atoms, which came from other atoms, which came from subatomic particles, which came from the big bang. Prior to that action, we're not sure. But that's because we're still working on it.



or

B. A Christian or any other religious persons belief that a supernatural being - who has no beginning or end - created us?


Well, considering that A is based upon scientific inquiry and B is based on an argument from ignorance...B is far more ignorant. There is no evidence for B.



posted on Jan, 9 2011 @ 10:19 AM
link   
Edit: Whoops, madness beat me to it.


Originally posted by mrvdreamknight
What about all the gaps in the fossil records?

Do we have billions and billions of fossils showing each step from singel cell to human?


No, and this doesn't disprove evolutionary theory. Gaps in the fossil record can be expected. The circumstances under which fossils are created are pretty uncommon.



Originally posted by mrvdreamknight
How does evolution magically kick in to over drive at certain times, is also another interesting question.


Factors that play a role in natural selection can change dramatically, especially when dealing with climate or natural disasters (for example; an asteroid wiping out all of the mega fauna, giving smaller animals more freedom to differentiate.)


Originally posted by mrvdreamknight
While these unknowns don't disprove evolution, until they are answered, they sure do provide an opportunity to find a "shred" of contradictory evidence, wouldn't you agree?


I wouldn't call these unknowns, they're perfectly explainable.


Originally posted by mrvdreamknight

A. Atheists who believe in abiogenesis? - i.e. that we came from nothing; or that we came from proteins (abiogenesis) - which in turn came from nothing.

or

B. A Christian or any other religious persons belief that a supernatural being - who has no beginning or end - created us?


I'm sorry, Atheism and the hypothesis of abiogenesis are not mutually dependent. Christians can accept abiogenesis as a plausible hypothesis, and Atheists are free to reject it.

As for which is more ignorant, I would opt for option B. We at least have evidence of abiogenesis being possible.
edit on 9-1-2011 by PieKeeper because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 9 2011 @ 10:23 AM
link   
What do creationists think created their fictional 'God' exactly? Super-God?
Or is it 'he just was, is and will be' crap?
Creationism is a fantasy rooted in an antiquated belief that was brought about as a way to control the 'ignorant peasants' of the time and provide explanations for the unknown, incredible to think some of them still exist in this day and age.



posted on Jan, 9 2011 @ 10:33 AM
link   
I googled “evolution of man” there were over 64k hits

www.bbc.co.uk...

listverse.com...

The second one is fascinating and I learnt a lot. IMHO proof of evolution just keeps unfolding.

This OP should have been changed to ask “Why can’t creationists use the web?”.



posted on Jan, 9 2011 @ 10:48 AM
link   
I asked Buddha for the answer and he said
“People can be stupid” paused smiled and said “don't you have more questions?”



posted on Jan, 9 2011 @ 12:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheWill
reply to post by mrvdreamknight
 



If it's B. - please show me one time where the science (not a being called this) of Abiogenesis has created life?

Please - enlighten us - show us one time where Abiogenesis has actually created life?


I wasn't saying A or B, but please, enlighten us, show us one time where a deity has created life?

Seeing as the genetic similarities between all known life on earth give it a single common ancestor, a non Y.A.C viewpoint would suggest a single origin of life, which would, in turn, mean that there is only one example available - and if God was there, he ain't telling whether he did it or not.

There is no absolute evidence that life originated of it's own accord, but considering that there are cell-like... things that we have trouble classifying as life or non-life (viruses, nanobacteria, prions), there is rather more to suggest that life came from some sort of organic liquid than some conscious dust-moulder. So while beliefs are your right, the one that dismisses the suggestion that life originated from a non-biological, non-conscious organic sea (some, possibly circumstantial evidence) is more ignorant than the one that dismisses the suggestion that life originated because something wanted it to (no evidence).



edit on 9/1/2011 by TheWill because: I ain't french, neither.



So, just to be clear, Abiogenesis has not created life, right?

So you rather believe "life originated from a non-biological, non-conscious organic sea"? Where the sea, a physical substance with mass, still had to be created itself.

Rather than life coming from super-natural being that did not need to have a beginning or ending?

Is that right?

Because the last time I checked life is here, we are here, things are here. So something had to create them.

You would rather believe in something that has never created life (that's a fact) and still needs to be created itself (another fatct).

I would rather believe in a super-natural being that may have created life (which is at least possible) and does not need to be created (which is at least possible).

Which of us is more ignorant again?



posted on Jan, 9 2011 @ 12:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by mrvdreamknight

I would rather believe in a super-natural being that may have created life (which is at least possible) and does not need to be created (which is at least possible).







Well, you are of course free to believe whatever you want...as long as you don't try to fool people into believing your belief is based on facts



posted on Jan, 9 2011 @ 12:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by MrXYZ

Originally posted by mrvdreamknight

I would rather believe in a super-natural being that may have created life (which is at least possible) and does not need to be created (which is at least possible).







Well, you are of course free to believe whatever you want...as long as you don't try to fool people into believing your belief is based on facts


Hi! Long time no talk to.

Agreed.

Just like I'm trying to make sure you guys don't fool people into believing your beliefs are facts too...



posted on Jan, 9 2011 @ 12:55 PM
link   
reply to post by mrvdreamknight
 


Return Of The Flash Notes


So, just to be clear, Abiogenesis has not created life, right?

So you rather believe "life originated from a non-biological, non-conscious organic sea"? Where the sea, a physical substance with mass, still had to be created itself.

Rather than life coming from super-natural being that did not need to have a beginning or ending?

Is that right?


Consider what happens when it rains.

Puddles form.

Did these puddles have to be created, or did they just get there?

Organic compounds can and do also form of their own accord. Take zwitterions, for example - crystalline forms composed of naturally occurring amines.



Because the last time I checked life is here, we are here, things are here. So something had to create them.


No. Unless you are going to argue that god spends his time making every raindrop, puddle, crystal, grain of dust, over and over again, rather than leaving it to the geographical processes which can do them quite well, no, you don't have to have been created to be here.

You have to have occurred. Occurrence simply requires an event, and makes no assumption about whether the event was intentional or not.

This is my position.



You would rather believe in something that has never created life (that's a fact) and still needs to be created itself (another fatct).


Are you making assumptions about my beliefs? Because it certainly seems that way.

I would rather KNOW what is to be KNOWN, and keep my - subjective, private, and unscientific - beliefs to myself.



I would rather believe in a super-natural being that may have created life (which is at least possible) and does not need to be created (which is at least possible).


As I have previously stated, you have a right to your beliefs. However, when people start trying to push those beliefs on others, there is a problem. Teaching should be done objectively. Science - althought not necessarily its proponents - is objective. Beliefs are not.


Which of us is more ignorant again?


As I said, he that rejects A is more ignorant than he that rejects B.

I do not claim to reject either. Within this criteria, it is impossible to quantify my ignorance - however, if rejection of either implies a certain level of ignorance, rejection of neither must surely imply less.

Do you understand?

(NOTE: If you do truly understand my viewpoint, and assuming that I am not deranged, then an understanding of my viewpoint is a recognition of its validity, and if you recognise its validity, you must surely accept it as your own.)

Not wishing to make any assumptions concerning your own personal beliefs, although noting that you do appear to be a theist, I make no statements concerning our relative levels of ignorance. You can assist me in this, however, by telling me whether you reject A, B, Both or Neither.

Until then, you will know what I would think, and I will reserve judgement.


edit on 9/1/2011 by TheWill because: (no reason given)

edit on 9/1/2011 by TheWill because: (no reason given)


(Just a note for Panthera tigris5, You can put stuff in a quote box by putting the word quote in square brackets at the beginning, and then putting /quote in square brackets at the end of said quote. It's easier for lazy people like me to see what's quote and what's not, that way.)
edit on 9/1/2011 by TheWill because: (no reason given)

edit on 9/1/2011 by TheWill because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 9 2011 @ 01:05 PM
link   
reply to post by mrvdreamknight
 

"So, just to be clear, Abiogenesis has not created life, right?

So you rather believe "life originated from a non-biological, non-conscious organic sea"? Where the sea, a physical substance with mass, still had to be created itself.

Rather than life coming from super-natural being that did not need to have a beginning or ending?

Is that right?

Because the last time I checked life is here, we are here, things are here. So something had to create them.

You would rather believe in something that has never created life (that's a fact) and still needs to be created itself (another fatct).

I would rather believe in a super-natural being that may have created life (which is at least possible) and does not need to be created (which is at least possible)."

Yes but yours is a faith-based arguement which is fine. THere is a massive difference between a faith based argument and a fact based argument. Fossils are facts, as is most of the supporting science for the hypothesis of evolution.



posted on Jan, 9 2011 @ 04:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by mrvdreamknight

Originally posted by MrXYZ

Originally posted by mrvdreamknight

I would rather believe in a super-natural being that may have created life (which is at least possible) and does not need to be created (which is at least possible).







Well, you are of course free to believe whatever you want...as long as you don't try to fool people into believing your belief is based on facts


Hi! Long time no talk to.

Agreed.

Just like I'm trying to make sure you guys don't fool people into believing your beliefs are facts too...


Well, sorry to burst your bubble there, but given that science has to follow scientific method and backup its theories and claims with EVIDENCE, science actually states facts...at the very least to an extent FAAAAAAR above anything religious believers provide, which amounts to pretty much zero



posted on Jan, 9 2011 @ 05:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by MrXYZ

Well, sorry to burst your bubble there, but given that science has to follow scientific method and backup its theories and claims with EVIDENCE, science actually states facts...at the very least to an extent FAAAAAAR above anything religious believers provide, which amounts to pretty much zero


Yes. You are 100% right.

FACT #1: Abiogenesis or biopoesis has never created life.

FACT #2: The theory of evolution does not try and explain how life began.

FACT# 3: No science at all has ever created life.

So I stand by my statements:

You would rather believe in something that has never created life (that's a fact) and still needs to be created itself (another fact).

I would rather believe in a super-natural being that may have created life (which is at least possible) and does not need to be created (which is at least possible).

Let me make these statements clear:

It is by far more ignorant to believe in things that have been proven false than to believe in things that may be in fact - true or at the very least it's still plausible.

Although I don't believe ignorant is the correct word to even be using here.

ig·no·rant/ˈignərənt/Adjective1. Lacking knowledge or awareness in general.

I think illogical is a much better word to describe your view:

il·log·i·cal/iˈläjikəl/Adjective: Lacking sense or clear, sound reasoning.









posted on Jan, 9 2011 @ 05:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by mrvdreamknight

Originally posted by MrXYZ

Well, sorry to burst your bubble there, but given that science has to follow scientific method and backup its theories and claims with EVIDENCE, science actually states facts...at the very least to an extent FAAAAAAR above anything religious believers provide, which amounts to pretty much zero


Yes. You are 100% right.

FACT #1: Abiogenesis or biopoesis has never created life.

FACT #2: The theory of evolution does not try and explain how life began.

FACT# 3: No science at all has ever created life.



FACT 1: ...or at least we haven't figured out how yet.

FACT 2: Exactly. It tells us that we have a common ancestor with monkeys and that we evolved over thousands of years.

FACT 3: This has to be the weirdest statement ever


And I don't take sides when it comes to how life started. There's only one correct answer to our knowledge, and that is "WE DON'T KNOW". Anything else is either a hypothesis that's being tested, or total blind belief. What I DO know is that the genesis account is 100% wrong...



posted on Jan, 9 2011 @ 06:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by mrvdreamknight
FACT #1: Abiogenesis or biopoesis has never created life.


We haven't seen it happen yet, but that doesn't mean it isn't impossible. We have evidence to support that it did happen though. You can't definitely say that abiogenesis has never spawned life.



Originally posted by mrvdreamknight
FACT #2: The theory of evolution does not try and explain how life began.


Because that's not the purpose served by the Theory of Evolution. The Theory of Evolution explains evolution, not the origin of life.


Originally posted by mrvdreamknight
FACT# 3: No science at all has ever created life.


Just because we have yet to create life does not mean it's impossible. Was man-made, powered flight impossible before the Wrights brothers? Absolutely not, it had just not been achieved yet.
edit on 9-1-2011 by PieKeeper because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
35
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join