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: 9
35
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 28 2010 @ 11:30 AM
link   
reply to post by Stormdancer777
 


Yes, it's possible, but there's no single piece of evidence to provide for our universe having a creator. And this thread is about the scientific illiteracy of creationists.




posted on Nov, 30 2010 @ 06:39 AM
link   
reply to post by Kailassa
 

I look at science as mankind's quest to understand the world God created. There is no conflict between science and religion to me. Evolutionists can not accept that and it makes them very judgemental and angry as if evolution is their religion. That is a personal problem as far as I am concerned.

We have plenty of scientists in our family who are not atheists. We have a brain surgeon who prays for God's mercy and aid before he starts chopping on people and he is way smarter than your average bear. He is able to see that there is more than meets the eye in pure materialism when it comes to human life and existence. He is as compassionate and loving as he is talented in his medical practice and research.



posted on Nov, 30 2010 @ 06:53 AM
link   
reply to post by sara123123
 


*facepalm*


Originally posted by sara123123
reply to post by Kailassa
 

I look at science as mankind's quest to understand the world God created.


Ok, go ahead and do that. But this thread is about scientific illiteracy.



There is no conflict between science and religion to me.


Never said there was. In fact, I've repeatedly stated that science is for everyone.



Evolutionists can not accept that


I'm sorry, but would you like to talk to evolutionary biologist Ken Miller about that? He's a Catholic and an 'evolutionist'. Or should we talk to Robert T. Bakker, a paleontologist who believes evolution and is a Pentecostal preacher?



and it makes them very judgemental and angry as if evolution is their religion.


No, no, no. Nonononononono.

Evolution is not a religion, it is not anything more than a scientific theory relating to biodiversity.



That is a personal problem as far as I am concerned.


Just like your personal misunderstanding of what evolution is would be considered a problem.



We have plenty of scientists in our family who are not atheists.


I'm sure you do. There are plenty of them out there (though statistically a scientist is more likely to be an atheist).



We have a brain surgeon who prays for God's mercy and aid before he starts chopping on people and he is way smarter than your average bear.


Ok, and I'm sure he also accepts the theory of evolution. Because it's science.



He is able to see that there is more than meets the eye in pure materialism when it comes to human life and existence.


This thread has nothing to do with that. It has to do with creationists not understanding basic science.



He is as compassionate and loving as he is talented in his medical practice and research.


And I'm sure atheist scientists and doctors are compassionate and loving to.

But your post doesn't really speak to....anything...anything at all in this thread.



posted on Nov, 30 2010 @ 07:13 AM
link   
creationists and evolutionists, you guys are like the original odd couple. I just want to stand up in the middle of one of your debates and yell out "okay you guys are both right." Maybe there is something like God that starts the process and then something like evolution that finishes it off. I mean that doesn't mean I'll start going to church or donating to Richard Dawkins because if you can be both right you can also be both wrong.



posted on Nov, 30 2010 @ 07:20 AM
link   
reply to post by filosophia
 



Originally posted by filosophia
creationists and evolutionists, you guys are like the original odd couple.


...there is no such thing as an 'evolutionist' anymore than there is something called a 'cell-ist' who supports cell theory. It's a scientific theory, not a religious belief.



I just want to stand up in the middle of one of your debates and yell out "okay you guys are both right."


Um...no....not really. Creationists have yet to demonstrate a single shred of scientific evidence in support of their belief.



Maybe there is something like God that starts the process and then something like evolution that finishes it off.


*Sigh* Maybe I should change it to 'The Ignorance of the General Public'
Evolution doesn't talk about anything starting, it is a theory that explains biodiversity.



I mean that doesn't mean I'll start going to church or donating to Richard Dawkins because if you can be both right you can also be both wrong.


No, evolution is not wrong. It has been around as a theory for 150 years and has yet to be falsified.



posted on Nov, 30 2010 @ 09:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by sara123123
reply to post by Kailassa
 

I look at science as mankind's quest to understand the world God created. There is no conflict between science and religion to me. Evolutionists can not accept that and it makes them very judgemental and angry as if evolution is their religion. That is a personal problem as far as I am concerned.

We have plenty of scientists in our family who are not atheists. We have a brain surgeon who prays for God's mercy and aid before he starts chopping on people and he is way smarter than your average bear. He is able to see that there is more than meets the eye in pure materialism when it comes to human life and existence. He is as compassionate and loving as he is talented in his medical practice and research.


"Gravitationalists such as yourself are all . . . . "
Doesn't that sound a bit silly?
You are writing about how nasty "evolutionists" are, and you begin by categorising them all together, and being nasty about them.



Evolutionism is a proven fact, not an "ism".
Even those who deny evolution still admit to the obvious, immediately observable instances of evolution, but they call that "micro-evolution".

People who are aware of evolution can no more be catagorised into one group than can those who are aware of gravity.
Some are atheists, some are agnostics, some are believers in any of a multitude of beliefs. The two things we have in common is a wish to study and discover this amazing world we live in, and an aversion to people pushing lies or unprovable beliefs as truth.

I have personal beliefs, but no "evolutionist" has been judgemental or angry about that fact.
Instead it's the creationists who put me down because my beliefs are not in line with theirs. I've lost count of the number of times I've smugly been told I'm bound for hell.

And just today Madness had this:
"2 Corinthians 4:4 - Satan, who is the god of this world, has blinded the minds of those who don't believe. They are unable to see the glorious light of the Good News. They don't understand this message "
quoted at him with smugly condescending "pity".



By the way, congrats on being related to a brain surgeon who is smarter than an average bear.

Is the intelligence hereditary, by any chance?
And does it confer any sort of advantage on the person possessing it?



Beliefs are like bras, not intended for public display, suited only to the individual who wears them, and likely to be padded with disingenuous illusions.




edit on 30/11/10 by Kailassa because: a colon was in need of repair.



posted on Dec, 2 2010 @ 09:18 AM
link   
So another piece of ignorance seems to be floating around relating to the 'Noah's flood' story. It's the idea of an atmospheric layer of water vapor. Unfortunately, every single possible thing about this conflicts with what we know about the conditions under which life exists.

Again, ignorant creationists.



posted on Dec, 2 2010 @ 11:31 PM
link   
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
 

If the atmosphere were supersaturated with water vapour, nothing would be able to breathe it--except fish, maybe.

Perhaps the moral of the Genesis flood story is that God likes fish.



posted on Dec, 14 2010 @ 07:45 AM
link   
Ok, I think I've had it with the motherloving creationist ignorance that I encounter routinely on this site to the point where I'm digging this up and I'll be taking specific creationist talking points and showing exactly how they are wrong and founded in either ignorance, deceit, or (SaturnFX points out) insanity.



posted on Dec, 14 2010 @ 08:49 AM
link   
Creation is for adults... Evolution is for children discovering the "Why"

hopefully it'll click,



posted on Dec, 14 2010 @ 10:27 AM
link   
reply to post by Cosmic.Artifact
 


See? This is exactly the sort of thing I'm talking about!

Instead of providing proof for your beliefs or a refutation of the other position, you just spout of nonsense about how your position is for adults and mine is for children.



posted on Dec, 14 2010 @ 10:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
reply to post by Cosmic.Artifact
 


See? This is exactly the sort of thing I'm talking about!

Instead of providing proof for your beliefs or a refutation of the other position, you just spout of nonsense about how your position is for adults and mine is for children.


I am just saying you are being quite adamant and even nasty to others in other threads... If it took this to have you step back and think what lies beyond Evolution then so be it.

Creationist are not ignorant, they have just been down that lonely road and found evolution serves no purpose in the betterment of Humankind.

it's a dead end. it's a small limb of new growth on the philosophical/religious tree... it's kinda like trying to sink a air craft carrier with a pebble and a sling shot.



posted on Dec, 14 2010 @ 10:48 AM
link   
reply to post by Cosmic.Artifact
 



Originally posted by Cosmic.Artifact
I am just saying you are being quite adamant and even nasty to others in other threads...


You know, plenty of people say I'm nasty, but they never say how I'm nasty.

I tell people about science, I expose ignorance and lies. How is that nasty?



If it took this to have you step back and think what lies beyond Evolution then so be it.


Well, plenty of science lies beyond evolution. It's a single scientific theory, I don't see it as the totality of scientific thought.



Creationist are not ignorant,


They typically are, as you're about to display and have already displayed in pretending that evolution is some sort of philosophical or religious system.

Creationists are typically ignorant about what science is, what evolution is, how science works, etc.



they have just been down that lonely road and found evolution serves no purpose in the betterment of Humankind.


Except for all of the implications it has for the biological science. Except in its explanation of biodiversity. Except in furthering our understanding of the universe.



it's a dead end.


Nope, it's quite the alleyway towards greater understanding.



it's a small limb of new growth on the philosophical/religious tree...


It's neither philosophical or religious. It's also not that small, with the near entirety of the scientific community supporting it.

There are in fact more scientists named "Steve" (or some variation thereof) that support evolution than there are those that reject it.



it's kinda like trying to sink a air craft carrier with a pebble and a sling shot.


No, that's what arguing against evolution from an ignorant perspective is like.



posted on Dec, 14 2010 @ 10:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
reply to post by Cosmic.Artifact
 



Originally posted by Cosmic.Artifact
I am just saying you are being quite adamant and even nasty to others in other threads...


You know, plenty of people say I'm nasty, but they never say how I'm nasty.

I tell people about science, I expose ignorance and lies. How is that nasty?



If it took this to have you step back and think what lies beyond Evolution then so be it.


Well, plenty of science lies beyond evolution. It's a single scientific theory, I don't see it as the totality of scientific thought.



Creationist are not ignorant,


They typically are, as you're about to display and have already displayed in pretending that evolution is some sort of philosophical or religious system.

Creationists are typically ignorant about what science is, what evolution is, how science works, etc.



they have just been down that lonely road and found evolution serves no purpose in the betterment of Humankind.


Except for all of the implications it has for the biological science. Except in its explanation of biodiversity. Except in furthering our understanding of the universe.



it's a dead end.


Nope, it's quite the alleyway towards greater understanding.



it's a small limb of new growth on the philosophical/religious tree...


It's neither philosophical or religious. It's also not that small, with the near entirety of the scientific community supporting it.

There are in fact more scientists named "Steve" (or some variation thereof) that support evolution than there are those that reject it.



it's kinda like trying to sink a air craft carrier with a pebble and a sling shot.


No, that's what arguing against evolution from an ignorant perspective is like.


try summerizing your post in one well written response... can you not do that ?

soon you may realize that Evolution is just 'one' thats right 1 question of Creation... Creation and Philosophy embody all of the fields of science.

ps: if ou think I and many others read your posts when they look like the one I am quoting here, you are sadly mistaken... Philosophical discussion requires much more finesse.



posted on Dec, 14 2010 @ 12:01 PM
link   
reply to post by Cosmic.Artifact
 



Originally posted by Cosmic.Artifact
try summerizing your post in one well written response... can you not do that ?


My post is one well written response, it's just a detailed response that dissects your post and displays its ignorance.

Summaries are useless in this sort of discourse that relies heavily on individual points.



soon you may realize that Evolution is just 'one' thats right 1 question of Creation...


Speaking of well written...what do you mean? That sentence actually makes no grammatical sense, so I have no way of understanding what you meant.



Creation and Philosophy embody all of the fields of science.


How so? That's an awfully big claim to make without support.



ps: if ou think I and many others read your posts when they look like the one I am quoting here, you are sadly mistaken...


Um...quite a few people do. If a lot of people don't, then that's their loss. I've been on here for about five years, I know who will and who won't read my posts.

I have my style, I show when people have arguments I disagree to. I take time and effort with them.



Philosophical discussion requires much more finesse.


Strictly speaking, this is a scientific and political discussion, philosophy plays absolutely no part in it.

And you don't seem to understand 'finesse' or 'philosophy' as you seem to simply post whatever comes into your head in response to entire posts. You don't bother addressing points, you don't bother addressing even the whole argument. You just spout off nonsense.
edit on 14/12/10 by madnessinmysoul because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 8 2011 @ 07:54 AM
link   
I think its about time we stopped burning "On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life ". People need to read the book and stop watching the movie. Darwin was wrong. I read the book and science will back me up the science parts. I will not even commit on the rest he was wrong about. But if you want you could look it up. The Theory of evolution is what left that still true add with all we have found out true since. Until the theory of evolution proves false or we rename it. It will always be the most correct we can make it. Any one who believes Darwin was right has no grasp on science. Yes madnessinmysoul your hero. Charles Darwin read his books.



posted on Jan, 8 2011 @ 09:11 AM
link   
reply to post by Ubeen
 


What I find particularly interesting about Much of OTOOSBMONS is that many of the areas where Darwin spends a very long time trying to explain mechanisms, a few basic points that have become popular since would have saved him a great many pages, if he had been aware of them.

In terms of him being specifically wrong, I would hesitate to say that. On points which he was not fully informed, he was not fully correct, but most of those that I noticed were to do with genetics and mechanisms of inheritence, and (most notably) his cautious suggestion, as per Lamarck, that selection produced new forms, which again would have been dealt with by a better understanding of genetics.

Point is, he may have been off-the-mark in places, but I feel that he - and his book - still deserve considerable praise for bringing to public attention the concept of evolution by natural selection.



posted on Jan, 8 2011 @ 09:59 AM
link   
reply to post by Ubeen
 



Originally posted by Ubeen
I think its about time we stopped burning "On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life ". People need to read the book and stop watching the movie. Darwin was wrong.


No, Darwin wasn't wrong, he was quite right. Now, on the specifics he was a bit off, but that was because he didn't have access to all the information due to the time period he lived in. But the general premise of evolution is correct. Saying he was wrong is silly, he was just the founder of a theory, meaning that we wasn't going to have everything on the mark. Just like Galileo improved on the works of Copernicus.



I read the book and science will back me up the science parts. I will not even commit on the rest he was wrong about. But if you want you could look it up. The Theory of evolution is what left that still true add with all we have found out true since.


Well, that's sort of the whole point of the book, that evolution is the mechanism for speciation. But he was the guy that proposed the idea. It's like saying Copernicus was wrong. He wasn't wrong, he just missed a few points. He didn't get the orbits right, but he wasn't entirely wrong.



Until the theory of evolution proves false or we rename it. It will always be the most correct we can make it. Any one who believes Darwin was right has no grasp on science. Yes madnessinmysoul your hero. Charles Darwin read his books.


Darwin isn't my hero, though I do admire his work. I've actually read his books, including his Voyage of the Beagle, The Descent of Man, and On The Origin. I do believe Darwin, but I don't think he's the final word in evolutionary biology. In fact, nobody thinks he's the final word in evolutionary biology.



posted on Jan, 8 2011 @ 08:40 PM
link   
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
 
I wish this was about the search for a better understand by acquiring all available data making rational decisions and drawing workable theories. It is not about that. That's what science is. Unfortunately the disregard of any contradictory evidence is Science too. Its called bad Science. The real laugh and tragedy is here we have bad science meeting evil religion. Will the human race survive the encounter is my fear not who is right. ( I got no dog in that evolution/creation race)
edit on 8-1-2011 by Ubeen because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 9 2011 @ 08:56 AM
link   
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.



new topics

top topics



 
35
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join