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.

 

Should "Creationism" be considered a sign of insanity?

page: 14
44
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 6 2010 @ 04:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by immortal coil
the missing link in human evolution.






posted on Dec, 6 2010 @ 05:02 PM
link   
reply to post by immortal coil
 


I continue to fail to understand, but please could you explain - of the three fundamental (and only necessary) aspects of evolution, which is it that you disagree with?



posted on Dec, 6 2010 @ 05:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by Maslo
reply to post by immortal coil
 





And I think you're confusing a theory with a law. If evolution was 100% agreed upon, it would be a law.


No, you are the confused one. The word theory in scientific jargon has nothing to do with something being true or not. Germ theory of disease is also "just a theory", and it is a fact. Evolution is a fact, described by the theory of evolution.

en.wikipedia.org...




In the sciences, a scientific theory comprises a collection of concepts, including abstractions of observable phenomena expressed as quantifiable properties, together with rules (called scientific laws) that express relationships between observations of such concepts. A scientific theory is constructed to conform to available empirical data about such observations, and is put forth as a principle or body of principles for explaining a class of phenomena.[1]


en.wikipedia.org...


A scientific law or scientific principle is a concise verbal or mathematical statement of a relation that expresses a fundamental principle of science, like Newton's law of universal gravitation. A scientific law must always apply under the same conditions, and implies a causal relationship between its elements. The law must be confirmed and broadly agreed upon through the process of inductive reasoning. As well, factual and well-confirmed statements like "Mercury is liquid at standard temperature and pressure" are considered to be too specific to qualify as scientific laws. A central problem in the philosophy of science, going back to David Hume, is that of distinguishing scientific laws from principles that arise merely accidentally because of the constant conjunction of one thing and another.

A law differs from a scientific theory in that it does not posit a mechanism or explanation of phenomena: it is merely a distillation of the results of repeated observation. As such, a law is limited in applicability to circumstances resembling those already observed, and is often found to be false when extrapolated. Ohm's law only applies to constant currents, Newton's law of universal gravitation only applies in weak gravitational fields, the early laws of aerodynamics such as Bernoulli's principle do not apply in case of compressible flow such as occurs in transonic and supersonic flight, Hooke's law only applies to strain below the elastic limit, etc.

The term "scientific law" is traditionally associated with the natural sciences, though the social sciences also contain scientific laws.[2] Laws can become obsolete if they are found in contradiction with new data, as with Bode's law or the biogenetic law.


* Bold for emphasis

In other words, not enough evidence has arisen to advance the "Theory of Evolution" into a stage where it becomes a law. Trust me, it's a big enough issues that it would be cleared up if at all possible.



posted on Dec, 6 2010 @ 05:14 PM
link   
reply to post by immortal coil
 




Wiki:
A law differs from a scientific theory in that it does not posit a mechanism or explanation of phenomena: it is merely a distillation of the results of repeated observation.





In other words, not enough evidence has arisen to advance the "Theory of Evolution" into a stage where it becomes a law. Trust me, it's a big enough issues that it would be cleared up if at all possible.


But thats not what the wikipedia article said.

Theory does not have anything to do with something being true or false, and scientific theories are not advanced into laws, thats nonsense.



posted on Dec, 6 2010 @ 05:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by SaturnFX

Originally posted by fonenyc
Should "evolution", still a theory, be considered a sign of stupidity? Maybe its a little of both. Who knows for sure? LOL

aka, I know you are but what am I.
I think we moved past that style of discussion after age 10..clearly some haven't



posted on Dec, 6 2010 @ 05:17 PM
link   
reply to post by SaturnFX
 


Not Insanity, It's Desperation

Desperation by the Christian Church because newer generations are NOT going to Church and therefore is severely affecting their Bottom Line. And this is also why they are pushing for Schools to take it on, hook them when kids are most vunerable.

In essence, it's all about getting bums on seats, and bums on seats means money.

If one needs any proof of this, all you need to do is have a real close look at the person who dreamed it up.

.



posted on Dec, 6 2010 @ 05:18 PM
link   
reply to post by immortal coil
 


Wikipedia:




Scientific laws are similar to scientific theories in that they are principles that can be used to predict the behavior of the natural world. Both scientific laws and scientific theories are typically well-supported by observations and/or experimental evidence. Usually scientific laws refer to rules for how nature will behave under certain conditions.[8] Scientific theories are more overarching explanations of how nature works and why it exhibits certain characteristics.

A common misconception is that scientific theories are rudimentary ideas that will eventually graduate into scientific laws when enough data and evidence has been accumulated. A theory does not change into a scientific law with the accumulation of new or better evidence. A theory will always remain a theory, a law will always remain a law.[9]


en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Dec, 6 2010 @ 05:29 PM
link   
reply to post by TheWill
 


One of the big issues I have is the amount of gaps in the fossil record. Human evolution is also pretty sketchy at this point. Right now we are at a "best guess" scenario which isn't good enough for me or a lot of people. Again, I take most of Evolutional Theory to be correct, but there seems to be a few missing variables not accounted for.

Anyway, I think I'm going to see myself out of this discussion as people rarely changed their minds on this kind of stuff and you end up going in circles.

Peace guys!



posted on Dec, 6 2010 @ 05:38 PM
link   
reply to post by SaturnFX
 


For the record, I believe evolution provides the only theory that can pass the test of science: observation, theory, experiment, and more observation.

That said, it does a disservice to religion, specifically "Creationism" to pit it against science in the same arena.

Religion is about faith; if someone tries to prove it, then they betray their lack of faith in my opinion. Science is about reproduceable observations and experimental results.

But I do not and will never hold the opinion that if someone holds a faith that cannot be proven that they are compromised mentally.



posted on Dec, 6 2010 @ 05:40 PM
link   
The biggest problem with the traditional evolutionary theory, which does not lead automatically to a traditional creationist POV by any means btw, is - the differentiation of species, or in creationist terms the idea that each was made unto it's own kind. We do not see much in the fossil record showing how all the species differentiated themselves from a common ansestor. There doesn't seem to be any common origin between an elephant and a gopher.



posted on Dec, 6 2010 @ 05:42 PM
link   
SPARKLE!!!


OK With the Debate of Evolution and Creation ! Its Both In DEGREES more or less of a Tug!

Humans Created by a Higher Being (from a Test lab of the Gods (Pick One) or Evolved ! ? It Both ! ok
Just look within Ourselves! It all about Adaption & Immunization on this Planet My belief is that The Sky Warriors are putting Their Creations Though Rigorous Test of Adaption s To cause Evolution from Creation !

as Scientist have Theorized the Explanation as to why Their is Usless Anomaly's in our Body's !
like the Aquatic Ape Theory
Evolution ? or Hybrid Creation ! from a Higher Being Test Lab! from a Different world or Dimension ?

Top 10 Useless Body Parts
www.scribd.com...

Useless Body Parts
What do we need sinuses for, anyway?
by Jocelyn Selim, Photography by Max Aguilera-Hellweg
discovermagazine.com...:int=1&-C=




VOMERONASAL ORGAN A tiny pit on each side of the septum is lined with nonfunctioning chemoreceptors. They may be all that remains of a once extensive pheromone-detecting ability.
EXTRINSIC EAR MUSCLES This trio of muscles most likely made it possible for prehominids to move their ears independently of their heads, as rabbits and dogs do. We still have them, which is why most people can learn to wiggle their ears.
WISDOM TEETH Early humans had to chew a lot of plants to get enough calories to survive, making another row of molars helpful. Only about 5 percent of the population has a healthy set of these third molars.

Read Artical for more.. above

Top Ten "Useless" Organs (Science Discovery)
science.discovery.com...


Now (WARNING For Creationist !
If you do not want to be Distracted from your Religion Please Skip this
as this Shows Evolution ! Somewhere in the Genetic Dna Code the Dormant Gene to Produce Limbs of a
Snake Somehow in a Extreme Few has Awaken !

The Must See for the Extreme Creationist that does not Believe in the Slightest of Evolution Adaption!
The Curious Case of the Snake with Foot

Snake with claw stuns scientists?, page 1
www.abovetopsecret.com...
ScienceDaily: Your source for the latest research news and science breakthroughs -- updated daily

Science News

New Fossil Snake With Legs, Reported In Science
www.sciencedaily.com...

or is it a Frog Leg ?
forgetomori.com...

We can go on about the Whale Dolphins Orcas , Mole Rat , Seals Etc.. or Birds Reptiles the Missing link

Archaeopteryx

or what was Found in China Recently



PBS
4 Winged Dinosaur (Watch video on the Site)
www.pbs.org...







edit on 6-12-2010 by Wolfenz because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 6 2010 @ 05:43 PM
link   
reply to post by mydarkpassenger
 


Creationism will never pass the test of science, just like science will never pass the test of Bible.

You believe in Science, other believe in the Bible, don't act like you are superior to them/



posted on Dec, 6 2010 @ 05:47 PM
link   
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
 





Yes, the militant YouTube atheists that are so militant that they 'preach' by...talking about how stupid creationists are

Do you believe that creationists are stupid? If so i take it you have all of the answers to to life?
Untill you can prove evolution or creation theory absolutely i dont think you can take the moral high ground (which for you seems to be a mountain, and i will laugh heartily when you fall of). I dont want you coming back with ooooh Creationists said that or Creationists said that...give me proof, one way or another!



posted on Dec, 6 2010 @ 05:54 PM
link   
reply to post by Jim Scott
 


God said he made the world in 6 days, He didn't say He did it in 6 consecutive days. it could have took Him 1 day to form the universe.

then after billions of years after the universe sufficiently expanded, he created all the stars, that took him 1 day.

after the stars matured and were strong enough to produce heat for the planets, He created all the planets in the universe, that took Him one day.

after millions of years when the planets finished fully forming he added plants and water and atmosphere to all the planets that He wanted life on, that took Him 1 day.

after millions of years when all the planets where to his liking and self sufficient, He added life, such as animals and fish to the planets He wanted life on, that took Him one day.

and then possibly, when everything thru millions of years of life cycles was perfect, he added humans. that took Him one day.

So, it is possible for God to make the universe and everything in it in 6 days.



edit on 6-12-2010 by randomname because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 6 2010 @ 05:58 PM
link   
reply to post by Maslo
 


Not necessarily true, although you are right about the apples and oranges aspect of theories/laws. Although, most of the laws that we have on the books now started off as theories.

A few examples of Laws derived from Theories:

Theory of General Relativity -> Hubble's Law
Theory of Molecular Genetics -> Mendel's Law

Anyway, not to stray too far off topic, Evolution is not directly observable phenomenon (yet) so we can only postulate a best guess at this point. Nothing more nothing less.



posted on Dec, 6 2010 @ 06:11 PM
link   
Well, let me also add that creationism, even in an atheist's eyes (not saying that in a negative way at all, I have run the gamut of world views), holds merit. Consider this: When you were born, you popped out of a vagina. A big bang, a center point of creation if you will. Scientifically speaking, you had a genetic code. This code created the material aspects of you, including those involving the brain, which for many, eventually leads to self-awareness. Also, your parents provided language and aspects of behavior and reasoning and emotion before your will was strong enough to not merely soak it up like a spongebob squarepants. When you were a little older, you were able to make choices, but they were deeply influenced by your creator, a trinity of genetic code and mother and father, if you were fortunate enough. Of course, with a weak young will, you merely adapted to the environment with a foundation of pre-set parameters influenced by this trinity of sorts. You EVOLVED, and you grew. Later on, if you are sufficiently self-reflective, you try to find what set you in motion, it being this trinity of sorts, at least given the context of my scenario. If your genetic code or mother or father is lacking (they always are), you might just try to think of how to change as a person. This is where personal spirituality and education and simply being open to the outside world can help. You can figure out a belief structure, a God if you will, that can change your life if only you have faith in a creator. Trying to to find THE creator, is, in my eyes, a bit like finding some miracle idea that lets you be yourself and be in harmony with the surrounding world. Of course, never perfected, because that would provide a limited view of a creator, would it not? Nevertheless, blah, blah, blah, what I am trying to say is that we all have faith in "unknowns," and this is part of the human condition. If not, you are merely on a "mission" of sorts. This mentality can lead to professional success, but I doubt it offers any personal fulfillment. Besides, if you want a head spin, did not scientists "create" the idea of evolution. The prover does prove what the thinker thinks. Perhaps as an alternative to creation. I am not saying evolution is not scientifically valid. I am just saying that, from a philosophical perspective, these concepts bleed over into places outside of their respective arenas, affecting the very psyche of people. Something to think about maybe?



posted on Dec, 6 2010 @ 06:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by randomname
reply to post by Jim Scott
 


God said he made the world in 6 days, He didn't say He did it in 6 consecutive days. it could have took Him 1 day to form the universe.

then after billions of years after the universe sufficiently expanded, he created all the stars, that took him 1 day.

after the stars matured and were strong enough to produce heat for the planets, He created all the planets in the universe, that took Him one day.

after millions of years when the planets finished fully forming he added plants and water and atmosphere to all the planets that He wanted life on, that took Him 1 day.

after millions of years when all the planets where to his liking and self sufficient, He added life, such as animals and fish to the planets He wanted life on, that took Him one day.

and then possibly, when everything thru millions of years of life cycles was perfect, he added humans. that took Him one day.

So, it is possible for God to make the universe and everything in it in 6 days.



edit on 6-12-2010 by randomname because: (no reason given)


Depend what God calls a Day LOL

My God its Full or Stars! David Bowmen 2001 Space Odyssey
(Milky way)

Yeah im Sure that God Created The Universe in 24 Hours x 6 Earth Days ..

He God Right ! also he Created the Other Galaxies

Talk about hard Work



posted on Dec, 6 2010 @ 06:17 PM
link   
reply to post by DrunkYogi
 



Originally posted by DrunkYogi
Do you believe that creationists are stupid?


Some of them are, the ones are YouTube definitely are.
More or less all of them are exceedingly ignorant though.



If so i take it you have all of the answers to to life?


Nope, but I don't claim to. That's the difference between myself and a creationist. I claim to have some of the answers.



Untill you can prove evolution


More than enough to prove evolution has been posted over here and that's just on a neglected sub-forum on a conspiracy forum.

There are literally millions of papers written on the subject of evolution. There is a mountain of evidence in support of evolution.

It is proven



or creation theory absolutely i dont think you can take the moral high ground


I take the moral high ground on this issues not because I'm on the side that's right (which I am), but because I'm on the side that's honest. Creationists, even on this site, regularly engage in dishonest tactics such as:

Quote mining (where someone takes just a snippet of a quote out of context to prove their position even though it really doesn't)
Outright lies
Straw man arguments
Arguments from authority
Misdefinition of evolution
Equivocation between evolution and atheism
etc.




(which for you seems to be a mountain, and i will laugh heartily when you fall of).


Well, good to know that you take pleasure in the suffering of others. I don't. I feel bad for creationists. I do not take pleasure in their ignorance and actively seek to correct it.



I dont want you coming back with ooooh Creationists said that or Creationists said that...


Well, clearly I didn't.



give me proof, one way or another!


Not the topic of this thread, but there's more than I can put in this thread.
Here's some, and I emphasize that this is only some, of the proof of evolution

That mountain I'm taking as the moral high ground? It's the mountain of evidence in support of evolution. It's quite easy to stand upon something that's tangibly there.



posted on Dec, 6 2010 @ 06:18 PM
link   
reply to post by randomname
 


He still got the order wrong.

Birds precede land animals
Plant life precedes the sun and moon

...also, according to the good book, the moon is a "light".



posted on Dec, 6 2010 @ 06:23 PM
link   
reply to post by NewAgeMan
 


I'm going to ask you to take one thing as read here, and that is that some of the closest living relatives of modern elephants are the hyraxes.

If you can go the the Natural History Museum in London (it's free, but depending what country you are in, it might cost quite a bit to get there) this is explained in more detail, and the evolution of elephants from an ancestral, quite normal-looking animal that is not unlike a large hyrax is shown through models of various fossil pachyderms.

Now google a hyrax and see if you can see a logical link to gophers.

(NB - I think you are talking about ground squirrels as gophers, which would be rodents and group with the lagomorphs. A number of burrowing animals - including snakes - can be referred to as gophers, much as the afrikaans refer to any "creepy crawl" as a Hoho. If you are referring to something different, please tell me roughly what it is, although once the elephant-hyrax link is made, they're all quite straightforward.




top topics



 
44
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join