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.

 

Creation/Intelligent Design vs Evolution/Science Your thoughts?

page: 4
2
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 13 2004 @ 03:00 PM
link   
Uh, have you ever heard of the tail bone? That is what he means, and yes, some humans are born with tails, when there spinal cord is longer than the body and so it grew out into a form of tail.

And since you are religous, you have been blinded by dogma, ignorance, and faith. Faith can be good, but when it warps your mind so much that you consider science evil and that evolution created gays and abortion, well, appear to be to far gone to rescue. Can you prove the the Theory of Evolution caused abortion and being gay? No, for it didn't, but you state it ever so cleary as fact with no research, no expirements, just faith.

And life doesn't begin at conception, unless you consider sperm to be human, which means billions of men are mass murderers. But sperm is not a human, and neither is the ity bity thing that is created when sperm meets egg, not until what, the last part of the second trimester does it become human and therefor no abortion unless death may result to the mother.

And what do you have against Dragonball/Z/GT? It is a great Korean(not Japanese) anime show.




posted on Aug, 13 2004 @ 06:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by James the Lesser
And since you are religous, you have been blinded by dogma, ignorance, and faith. ...

And life doesn't begin at conception, unless you consider sperm to be human, which means billions of men are mass murderers. But sperm is not a human, and neither is the ity bity thing that is created when sperm meets egg, not until what, the last part of the second trimester does it become human and therefor no abortion unless death may result to the mother.


The funny thing about ignorance is that it is not just a religious phenomenom.

Pro-life and pro-choice both agree the following is true:

  • An ovum is alive and contains human DNA. Thus, it is a form of human life.
  • An ovum is not a human person.
  • Similarly a spermatozoa is a form of life.
  • A spermatozoa is not a human person.
  • At or shortly after conception, a fertilized ovum is a form of human life. It is alive and has human DNA.
  • A pre-embryo is a form of human life.
  • An embryo is a form of human life.
  • A fetus is a form of human life.
  • A newborn baby is a form of human life.
  • A newborn baby is a human person.
  • Somewhere during the nine months between the ovum-spermatozoa stage and the newborn baby, human personhood begins.
  • After human personhood has begun, an abortion should not be allowed, except under very unusual circumstances, such as to save the life of the woman, or perhaps to avoid serious long-term injury to the woman.



The only real question is when the human person begins. You are entitled to your own opinion. But, you should at least be arguing the right points.



[edit on 13-8-2004 by Raphael_UO]



posted on Aug, 13 2004 @ 06:29 PM
link   
i would say that until the baby is born , it is classed scientifically as a parasite



posted on Aug, 13 2004 @ 07:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by James the Lesser
Uh, have you ever heard of the tail bone? That is what he means, and yes, some humans are born with tails, when there spinal cord is longer than the body and so it grew out into a form of tail.


I've never seen it, and I doubt you have either. Reading it in a book or off a website doesn't count. Besides, even if that did happen occasionally, there are other explanations for it besides evolution. The same goes for all of the strange genetic disorders. Haven't you ever considered the possibility that there were other humanoids existing in the past with which humans were capable of breeding? Perhaps some of the traits currently being passed down in certain humans did not oriiginate with mankind. There are even some who would argue that not all varieties of humans have the same origin. There are many different ways to view reality. But very few of them are sanctioned by the educational establishment and force fed to children..


Originally posted by James the LesserAnd since you are religous, you have been blinded by dogma, ignorance, and faith.


I could say exactly the same thing about you. Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't you merely believing what you have been told (through books, lectures, television shows, etc.), not necessarily what you have seen or experienced personally? Just like most everybody else in the world. I have questioned and doubted my faith quite often, and I have even lost it on more than one occasion. It is my personal experience, and testing the knowledge and wisdom containted in the Bible and other sacred writings against my real-world experience that led me to return to my beliefs once I strayed.


Originally posted by James the LesserFaith can be good, but when it warps your mind so much that you consider science evil and that evolution created gays and abortion, well, appear to be to far gone to rescue. Can you prove the the Theory of Evolution caused abortion and being gay? No, for it didn't, but you state it ever so cleary as fact with no research, no expirements, just faith.


I never said science was evil. Evolution is not science, science is not evolution. Also, I never said evolution caused homosexuality and abortion. What I meant is that the atheism and angosticism which the theory of evolution helped foster allowed for the influence of Christianity on western societies to be lessened to a great extent. It was merely one of many tools used by social and cultural programmers to achieve their desired result.


Originally posted by James the LesserAnd life doesn't begin at conception, unless you consider sperm to be human, which means billions of men are mass murderers. But sperm is not a human, and neither is the ity bity thing that is created when sperm meets egg, not until what, the last part of the second trimester does it become human and therefor no abortion unless death may result to the mother.


A form of life does begin at conception (when the sperm fertilizes the egg). That form of life contains human DNA (as mentioned by Raphael) will eventually become what is recognized as a human being so long as it survives. It will not become a cat, a fish, a turtle, or a monkey. it will only become a human. That is why I said "humans are human from the moment of conception".

[edit on 13-8-2004 by Ischyros]



posted on Aug, 13 2004 @ 07:21 PM
link   
Perhaps the creator...did it scientifically



posted on Aug, 13 2004 @ 08:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by LadyV
Perhaps the creator...did it scientifically


What do you mean by "scientifically"? If you mean that evolution is the only scientific way life can originate, then I would ask you to consider whether you have not been conditioned by the education system and the media to believe that evolution is the only scientific way in which life can orginate.



posted on Aug, 13 2004 @ 08:34 PM
link   
I believe that human kind got a jump start from an existing, already evolving race....but I was referring to a creator, creating the universe in a scientific way



posted on Aug, 13 2004 @ 09:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by LadyV

I believe that human kind got a jump start from an existing, already evolving race....but I was referring to a creator, creating the universe in a scientific way


I'm not sure if I understand you. Please define what you mean by "scientific".



posted on Aug, 13 2004 @ 10:00 PM
link   



posted on Aug, 13 2004 @ 10:02 PM
link   
I'm simply saying that pershps (though not my own view) bot sides are right...Perhaps science and religion are closer than most think.



posted on Aug, 13 2004 @ 10:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by LadyV
I'm simply saying that pershps (though not my own view) bot sides are right...Perhaps science and religion are closer than most think.


I see. I just don't believe that an all powerful creator would bother with something as clumsy and time-consuming as evolution. Think of the care that a writer, artist, or engineer takes with their designs and creations. Creating things is not only useful, it also fun and exciting. Why wouldn't God want to painstakingly assemble everything in the reality He created? I know I would. The way God allows us to 'evolve' is not by waiting to see what form our cells will mutate into, but what the outcome of our personal choices and decisions will be. He wants to know whether we will love Him and each other or not. That is the point of all creation. It is a testing ground for the souls and spirits He has created.



posted on Aug, 14 2004 @ 02:19 PM
link   
Ischyros, you have never heard of the tail bone? Wow, what school did you go to? Sacred Heart of Sheep? And it is like the genetic defect that causes hair to grow all over your body, it happens in about 1 out of 500 million. And of course I have never seen it in real life, if you had a tail would you be going around showing it off to people? I have also never seen a person covered with hair all over their bodies in person, does it mean it doesn't exist? I have never seen you in person, does that mean you don't exist? I have never seen gravity, I have seen it's effects, but I have never "seen" gravity, does that mean it doesn't exist? Just because you have never seen it doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Or heard of it. Have you ever heard of the Extintion at the K-T Boundary? Well if you haven't then obvioulsy it has never existed because you have never heard of it.

It is amazing how much damage religon can do. And you clearly stated in a earlier post that Evolution lead to abortion and gays. "Do you think it is a coincidence?" Does that ring a bell Ischyros?



posted on Aug, 15 2004 @ 02:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by James the Lesser
Just because you have never seen it doesn't mean it doesn't exist


So, do you believe in God and/or the supernatural? If not, what is the reason for your unbelief?



posted on Jan, 25 2005 @ 03:39 PM
link   
What is supernatural? Are ghosts/spirits supernatural? Or cryptozoology creatures? Psychic powers? From what I have read and exp. psychic pwoers are natural, not super natural, but to some it would be. And I believe in a being, not a god, goddess, whatever, but a being. I call it the Pebble People which explain why socks disappear in laundry and why the rocks in Death Valley move. Why? Because I can. I really don't care, as long as I don't kill, rape, steal, so forth, I am good. I don't need to follow the rules of a religon only 2,000 years old when the universe is billions of years old.

Also, why are there more creation/evolution posts popping up? Don't we have rules against posting the same thing again and again? This is almost a year old if not older.



posted on Jan, 26 2005 @ 12:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by James the Lesser
Ischyros, you have never heard of the tail bone?


If I may interject, the tail bone is hardly a vestigial organ. There are several muscles on and inside your buttocks that are connected to the coccyx.



Or heard of it. Have you ever heard of the Extintion at the K-T Boundary? Well if you haven't then obvioulsy it has never existed because you have never heard of it.


There is more than one explanation for the K-T boundary. Some believe that the boundary represents the sea level from before the global flood. How about devising a way to test this hypothesis? That would be the scientific thing to do.


It is amazing how much damage religon can do.

There are some things that should be damaged.

Just because evolutionism has a 'scientific' association and creationism has a 'religious' association do not by themselves make either one any more credible. Science is severely limited when it comes to determining history. Observational science is dependent on observation, and there is the potential for bringing in large amounts of assumption when the events concerned are believed to have happened millions of years ago. Only so much can be observed now, and only so much can be reliably extrapolated from present observations. Nevertheless, a huge model of the history of the world is presented as fact.

It is becoming quite apparent that material evidence alone will not resolve the controversy. Both sides are quick to denounce the legitimacy of the other side's evidence, and yet it is clear that both sides do have evidence in their favor in serious quantities. It is also clear that the evolutionists' current habit of using legal action instead of science to defeat the creationists is doing nothing to slow the acceptance of creationism, but is also retarding the resolution of this controversy.

The problem with putting modern creationism entirely in the religion box is that then it is protected from proper evaluation. It is not just religion, it is both religion and science. Testable scientific claims can be made over certain points, and so it has a scientific component. Whether it's good science or not is another matter, but it is not just religion. If it is wrong, it doesn't need to be protected by the first amendment, at least not the science part. If a creationist puts a scientific book on a shelf, the proper way to get rid of it is produce a thorough rebuttal of it. Fears of unscientific behavior might lead one to avoid bothering with trying to reason, but that just adds to the problem. Take the high ground and take the time to take it apart.

It can no longer be assumed that creationism was disproven eighty years ago. The theory has matured significantly despite the deficiency of favor in the scientific community.

I have pondered what it would take for a resolution to occur, and while it is likely that one may never happen completely, a publicized comprehensive comparison of the two worldviews would certainly do no harm.

I'm not talking about having more debates between scientists on news shows. I'm thinking of a massive joint project consisting of multiple experiments and tests spanning at least five years. Each side gathers 20 scientists with doctorates in an assortment of relevant fields. Together, these 40 scientists lead the Project. All experiments are performed jointly, run by a balanced representation from both camps (not necessarily all of them for every experiment). All funds given to the Project are pooled and spent at the discretion of the scientists.

Whenever an experiment is proposed, each scientist writes up a prediction of the results. The experiment goes on for however long it takes. After each experiment is concluded, all 40 get together and discuss it, sticking strictly to the results of the experiment, comparing them with their predictions, and not going to other topics. Broader discussions are held only periodically, maybe once every two months.

Of course, this sort of thing would require a massive pile of cash, which I do not have.



posted on Jan, 26 2005 @ 01:37 AM
link   
Well, again, micro evolution has been proven, meaning creation is wrong. The bible says creation, not creation and micro evolution but not macroevolution. So if any part of evolution is correct, then creation, and bible, are wrong. Also, as said, macro has been proven, the dolphin from land mammal to sea mammal.

Ok, forget the tail bone, what about appendix? That organ use to be used, but now is as useful as a second nose growing out of your armpit. Why did we evolve into a creature that the appendix was made useless?

It doesn't matter if you can prove macroevolution, micro was proven, meaning bible is wrong. Unless you find me a bible that says "And god came forth and created Adam and Eve, and then used microevolution to create micro organisms."



posted on Jan, 26 2005 @ 06:17 AM
link   


This of course is wrong, for there is no scientific proof of creation. Creation is based on religion, not science.


Dude,,,, I surely hope that you do not think that there is PROOF of evolution. That's why it's the THEORY of EVOLUTION, because they haven't proven it yet. It is a theory plastered with holes.



posted on Jan, 26 2005 @ 06:20 AM
link   


the last part of the second trimester does it become human and therefor no abortion unless death may result to the mother.


and there has never been one documented case where murdering an unborn child would save the mother's life. It's just another excuse by abortion advocates to be able to do what they want to do. Abortion is just killing in the name of convenience, but lets stick to the subject.



posted on Jan, 26 2005 @ 06:27 AM
link   


i would say that until the baby is born , it is classed scientifically as a parasite


Dude that's kinda cold,,,, good thing your parents didn't consider you to be a parasite.



posted on Jan, 26 2005 @ 06:33 AM
link   


I don't need to follow the rules of a religon only 2,000 years old when the universe is billions of years old.


How do you know that the earth is a few billion years old?



new topics

top topics



 
2
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join