It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


should "Evolution" be considered a sign of Ignorance ?

page: 5
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in


posted on Dec, 15 2010 @ 11:34 AM
I am curious as to why you're investing so much energy into baiting and what exactly your issue is with the theory of evolution.

posted on Dec, 15 2010 @ 11:43 AM
reply to post by traditionaldrummer

As am I. There's nothing specific given.

I mean, the claim that speciation isn't part of evolution shows a complete ignorance of the concept of evolution, which is entirely about speciation.

I'd like the terms 'creationism' and 'evolution' to be defined for this thread, just to see what is going on here.

posted on Dec, 15 2010 @ 12:22 PM
reply to post by madnessinmysoul

The sad part is that a non-acceptance of the theory of evolution can only derive from a lack of proper education about it. Those taking such a stance fail to understand that they're revealing their cards up front.

Additionally, I've never seen denial of evolution sourced to anything other than religion. I believe the OP to be a young christian who attends a church which feels threatened by science. I only hope that this church isn't encouraging baiting like we've seen from this poster

posted on Dec, 15 2010 @ 03:36 PM
I 100% agree with evolution, hopefully someone can help me clear this up. The tree truck lines, that indicate a trees life. If there has not been a tree (alive or dead) with those circles, that shows any time before 6000 years. That confuses me. Another thing that confuses me is radio carbon dating. There are studies that show it is not completely true. If anyone can help me clear those misconceptions, it will be greatly appreciated,

posted on Dec, 15 2010 @ 03:58 PM
reply to post by Maddogkull

I know one thing about the tree issue, is that trees, just like anything else, can die or have an expiration date. So the fact that trees we see that are only x year old doesn't mean that there wasn't any trees before that that were since destroyed. Also, there are certain trees that are older than 6,000 years old. I know there are two trees that are 9550 years old in Norway. There are trees that are 4,000 to 6,000 years old that are dead now, but all over the world. There are trees (root systems) that are well over 10,000 years old, the Pando colony is at least 800,000 years old if not closer to 1 million. And there are two trees in California that are over 10,000 years old. Australia also has trees that could be as old at 10,000 years. I'm sure there's more, but if you simply look at the Pando, then there is basically no question after that.

posted on Dec, 15 2010 @ 04:00 PM

Originally posted by Planet teleX
Get off your high horse

Funny you think he's on a high horse considering the many threads regarding Creationism.

I could care less one way or the other, but I just find the "It's ok if WE do/say it but not YOU" mentality of many ATS'ers annoying to say the least.

posted on Dec, 15 2010 @ 04:34 PM
reply to post by Maddogkull

Someone else had previously answered your question on trees, so I'll concern myself with this bit:

Another thing that confuses me is radio carbon dating. There are studies that show it is not completely true.

Carbon dating, and other dating methods based on radioisotope decay has never been reported by any reputable source to be completely accurate (I can make that statement because someone saying that it WAS completely accurate would not be a reputable source). Decay of radioactive elements does occur randomly, which is why we use"half lives" - as in the time it takes for half a sample to decay - rather than the time it would take any individual atom to decay.

That said, it is generally more accurate for dating archaeological and paleontological finds by depth, and so while it is not a perfect measure of how long ago something existed, it is the best method we currently have for estimating such.

posted on Dec, 15 2010 @ 04:38 PM
reply to post by Maddogkull

Well, the simple fact about trees is that...well, they die. Whether because of environmental forces, lack of nutrients, dehydration, lightning strikes, etc...they'll eventually die. It's phenomenal that we even have a few trees in the multi-millenia range, but that sort of thing is the exception rather than the rule.

As for carbon dating, it's typically misapplication of the dating method. Like dating a fossil (which contains no carbon at all) with that method, which would yield results for any carbon found upon the fossil. The other instances in which it isn't applicable are where the carbon ingested by creatures isn't at the same age as the carbon in the air. Typically trees have no issue with this, as they take airborn carbon. However, there are some marine animals that get their carbon in forms that are out of sync with the carbon cycle.

posted on Dec, 15 2010 @ 04:40 PM
reply to post by Frontkjemper

Well, considering that he's not doing the same thing that I or any other non-creationist is doing...

This posts lacks any context and is a badly worded parody of a thread I least the title is. Of course, there's no supporting argument or evidence of 'evolution' = ignorance, unlike my thread where, if someone were to ask, I could easily show that creationism is ignorance based.

posted on Dec, 15 2010 @ 09:58 PM
reply to post by Cosmic.Artifact

I am going to say not ignorance, no most evolutionists especially the ones posting on ATS are highly intelligent persons that have done a ton of research or are studied in the field of science.

No I would say faithless arrogance is a better description.

posted on Dec, 15 2010 @ 10:54 PM
reply to post by Blue_Jay33

Certainly faithless, evolution is based on fact and evidence, not vague non-solutions like faith. But arrogance, how so?

posted on Dec, 15 2010 @ 11:36 PM
reply to post by Tetrarch42

Well just look at this thread for one

posted on Dec, 16 2010 @ 12:09 AM
Evolution is one of the most fundamental concepts of life, very very simple to understand

For sexual reproducing species

A male and female have sex. They live long enough to have sex because

1. They weren't eaten by predators
2. They were able to fight off diseases and parasites

Their genes now recombine to produce one or many offspring. These offspring contain 50% of the genetic material from each parent. Any (if any) genetic mutation that occurs in the process is either

1. Neutral - immatieral to reproductive fitness (probably most common)
2. Deleterious, perhaps leading to a fatal disease therefore being selected against (about one in a million)
3. Serving to act as a unit of selection by promoting reproductive fitness (about one in a million)

Asexually reproducing species can only hope for a favorable mutation to fight off diseases and parasites, because they undergo no chromosomal recombination, though they have the advantage of growing exponentially.

It gets more complex than that if you examine the eccentricities of how the chemicals unify, intergender confllict evolution, and retrotransopons. And I highly suggest reading some Williams and Hamilton about the co-evolution of wasps and figs that are eminently mind-blowing and life changing.

But the most proximate answer to what is evolution is any quality that serves to promote reproductive fitness will on average disseminate in the gene pool for that species

posted on Dec, 16 2010 @ 12:41 AM
reply to post by Cosmic.Artifact

Op, I could've sworn I just read a post written by you whining to the moderators that thread titles like the one posted here were imflammatory and in need of deletion. I guess I shouldn't be surprised that I've run into yet another "do as I say not as I do" Christian, considering how many I encountered in the Catholic school I attended as a kid. Best money my parents ever wasted!

Seriously though, if you're a Christian parent hoping to pass your faith off to your children, don't send them to a religious school, it only hastens the development of their rationalizing skills. Witnessing adults and rich kids display the sort of behavior that the OP does on these forums is a real faith killer.

posted on Dec, 16 2010 @ 01:49 AM
reply to post by Maddogkull

Originally posted by kingofmd
we came from nothing based on nothing

Originally posted by Maddogkull
You call that logical?

I know you're not directing this question at me; still, the temptation to answer is too strong.

Yes, I do call it logical.

To get the simple stuff out of the way first: anyone who believes in a metaphysical reality should find no difficulty accepting that something comes from nothing--nothing, that is, in the physical sense. God created the universe ex nihilo, did he not? Platonic forms exist prior to their physical manifestations; the latter are based on the former. If mind has power over matter, why can it not create matter?

But what if you take a materialistic view of things? Well, wthout creator gods, immortal souls and disembodied minds, it's a little harder at first to imagine something coming from nothing. In fact, it's impossible--until science proceeds far enough to discover that it's happening all the time. Virtual particles pop into existence out of nowhere and disappear instants later in an event of mutual annihilation. Weird as this seems, the fact of it has been experimentally established through the famous Casimir effect.

Even weirder, perhaps, is the realization that the universe, in a sense, is nothing: its total energy is zero.

Given these strangely counter-intuitive discoveries from the world of physics, it is perfectly plausible that something could come out of nothing. Strange but true.

posted on Dec, 16 2010 @ 02:41 AM
reply to post by Cosmic.Artifact

Two pages ago, I asked you what it is that 'evolutionists' are ignorant of.

The post got a few stars, so clearly others are curious too.

Would you please reply the question?

Thank you in advance.

posted on Dec, 16 2010 @ 03:15 AM
reply to post by Maddogkull

I 100% agree with evolution, hopefully someone can help me clear this up. The tree truck lines, that indicate a trees life. If there has not been a tree (alive or dead) with those circles, that shows any time before 6000 years. That confuses me. Another thing that confuses me is radio carbon dating. There are studies that show it is not completely true. If anyone can help me clear those misconceptions, it will be greatly appreciated.

My pleasure.

Tree Rings
The oldest tree in the world is almost ten thousand years old.

Trees have lifespans, just like people and animals. All that lives is mortal. The tree rings count the years from the time the tree took root until it fell or was cut down. They don't represent the age of the Earth, just the age of the tree.

Trees have been around since the Devonian Era, 400 million years or so. Here's a tree fossil from the Devonian.

Radiocarbon Dating
Radiocarbon dating works by measuring the proportion of the radioactive carbon isotope C-14 in samples of vegetable or animal tissue. The proportion of C-14 to ordinary carbon in living things is pretty constant, because plants and animals are constantly taking in carbon (in all its forms) and excreting it while they live. As soon as they die, the C-14 starts decaying to nitrogen. The other carbon isotopes (C-12 and C-13) are stable and don't decay.

The rates at which radioactive elements decay are known. By seeing how much C-14 is left in a sample of organic matter compared with the other carbon isotopes, we can tell how long it is since whatever contained that matter died. There is a degree of uncertainty (a plus-or-minus factor) but this is always made clear.

There are some situations in which radiocarbon dating is not much use. If the sample is very old, there may not be enough C-14 left to measure with any accuracy. If the sample is very new, the decay may not be significant. There are a number of other technical problems, which Christian apologists make much of in their efforts to throw doubt on scientific data that prove the Earth is very old. Scientists are aware of these problems too, and have developed methods to corroborate carbon-dating and other forms of radiometric dating. These work pretty well, and though mistakes have indeed been made, such errors are not nearly sufficient to call into question the general accuracy of radiometric dating when properly used.

By the way, carbon dating doesn't work on fossils. You can't carbon-date a rock.

posted on Dec, 16 2010 @ 03:30 AM

Originally posted by Cosmic.Artifact
Or just a sign of no guidance nor vision ?

There are two points to this is obvious, the other you will have to speculate on.

Here is the question...should "evolution" be considered a sign of ignorance ? un-guided ignorance ? Should teaching children in a scholastic environment be considered willfully be teaching a known falsehood...

Personally I would rather be taught scientifically verifiable FACTS rather than nonsense about an invisible man in the sky who does magical things and is, by every definition of the term, a tyrant.

You are just a trouble-stirrer who is posting these threads looking for reactions. Get a life.

posted on Dec, 16 2010 @ 04:50 AM

Originally posted by Cosmic.Artifact
I want solid proof that any layman can understand in a youtube video or something, anything.

If you cannot comprehend given information unless the technical words are removed and it is a video less than 9 minuntes long, then you are never going to understand evolution. Not everything can be stupified to such levels. Seen any good youtube videos explaining how to perform laproscopic surgery lately or does that not exist?

Religion is unfalsifiable period...

Do you have a youtube video or something proving religion NOT false to begin with? You do know the burden of proof with this claim is on you, right? Neat how you put it all on yourself in just 3 posts.

posted on Dec, 16 2010 @ 05:51 AM
reply to post by Blue_Jay33

So instead of a simple lack of knowledge it's a blatant character flaw, wow, that's so much better.

What's so arrogant about actually accepting the scientific data that we have regarding biodiversity?

reply to post by Blue_Jay33

So because SaturnFX pointed out that one can only maintain creationist beliefs while entirely rejecting reality, people who accept evolution are arrogant?

Considering that you've repeatedly shown a denial of reality and all facts that don't conform with your belief, I'd say Saturn has a point...

new topics

top topics

<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in