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.


Creation/Intelligent Design vs Evolution/Science Your thoughts?

page: 9
<< 6  7  8    10 >>

log in


posted on Aug, 12 2005 @ 07:37 PM

Originally posted by deesw
So now I'm stupid huh james? Well dude it's bout' ta get real up in here. You can talk bad bout' some things, but when ya attacks a man's faith,,,,,, it's on. I will be waiting for an apology or someone to intervene.

Are you asserting it's your Christian faith that we did evolve from apes, or that it merely offends you to learn that's not part of evolution theory, but indeed a widespread bit of Creationist stupidity?

Plus, dude you run all over these forums calling anyone who doesn't agree with your anti-choice agenda a murderer without getting slapped as you should, so toughen up, wipe those tears Christian soldier and get back in there.

posted on Aug, 12 2005 @ 07:46 PM

Originally posted by James the Lesser
We didn't evolve from apes deesw this is just more christian stupidity. How come you haven't jumped off the Empire State Building? Gravity is just a theory therefor you should be able to fly all you wanted. But guess what? You will drop like a sack of potatoes. But gravity is only a theory, so is the earth being round and having a solid core. Yet being a hypocrit/christian you accept the THEORY of gravity yet want people executed for being smart.

Actually, there are Laws of Gravity...BUT...try asking a room full of scientists what gravity actually is, and you'll get just as many different guesses as there are scientists in the room. Nobody knows for a fact what gravity is...but, that it exists is a fact!

Sounds like some clerics I know, once they get started on religion. What God is will always be up in the air...but, that he exists is a fact.

[edit on 12-8-2005 by Toelint]

posted on Aug, 12 2005 @ 08:00 PM

Originally posted by deesw
But it is a theory none the less. It takes just as much faith to believe in evolution as it does creationism. The only difference is that evolutionists refuse to have faith in anything they cannot physicly prove. That denies the principal of faith. Faith is the firm belief in something that you cannot see or touch smell or prove. Try and prove that love exists. You cannot see it or touch it or prove it.

I trust for those paying attention I don't even need to analyze this.

That's the problem with using a skipping record for an argument. Once you deviate from the script in the slightest, you're bound to debunk yourself.

So the only problem with science in your view is it's not metaphysics?

Interesting. Scientists sure could save a lot of money on microscopes if they just walked around pondering the various forms of the unseen, but I don't know that there's much call these days for an expansion of the nature of Eros, Philia and Agape.

posted on Aug, 12 2005 @ 11:30 PM

Plus, dude you run all over these forums calling anyone who doesn't agree with your anti-choice agenda a murderer without getting slapped as you should, so toughen up, wipe those tears Christian soldier and get back in there.

You people call me names but yet piss and moan when someone says something off to you. You are like a bunch of three year olds. I've about had it with you rant. You seem to have made it a mission to jack with me in whatever thread I'm on. I must really scare you. Or is it the fact that there is something higher than you in this world that will judge you in the end?

posted on Aug, 12 2005 @ 11:33 PM
I didn't call you stupid, I called the idiots who say we evolved from apes stupid. Only christians believe this while us smart people know we had a common ancestor. That is a tactic the christians use to prove how little they know. Of course these same people say the earth is only 6,000 years old so taking anything they say without about 7-10 metric tons of salt is kind of silly.

And again Gravity is a theory so go jump off a tall building to prove the bible and not science is correct.

To uh, Toelint I think, it is fact, so is evolution, ask a scientist who knows what they are talking about. Gravity and evolution are theory, but fact, we know it happens, how/why/what the freak it is we are studying. Nice to have a conversation, a debate, with someone calm like you not a hate mongering sociopath who wants everyone with a brain executed. I think I have a WATS left, if I do you will get it.

I do so here you go. I tend to give WATS to people who disagree with me but do so in a civilized manner. Just ask Saint4God, me and him don't agree on much but he does it in a civilized manner so I usually give him one a month. Have a good day Toelint.

[edit on 12-8-2005 by James the Lesser]

posted on Aug, 12 2005 @ 11:38 PM

Originally posted by deesw
You people call me names but yet piss and moan when someone says something off to you.


Originally posted by deesw
I will be waiting for an apology or someone to intervene.

You want an apology? A mod to come help you when you call people names all day? Yet, I don't see a warn on your profile. :shk:

You are like a bunch of three year olds. I've about had it with you rant.

Don't let the door hit ya where the good Lord split ya.

posted on Aug, 12 2005 @ 11:41 PM
Oh I aint goin anywhere sucka. I'm here for the long haul.
So gets used to it.

posted on Aug, 14 2005 @ 02:50 PM
Hey Rant could I borrow your Cry Baby Award? Me and Deesw are in it over in PTS and I have crushed everything he had since he was wrong so he attacked my age. I figure he wins himself another CBA.

posted on Aug, 15 2005 @ 12:39 PM
What exactly have you crushed little fella? I hope your widdle head hasn't assumed you've won the debate here. I wasn't attacking your age, I was asking, and never replied to, as to how you are an authority on such things at such a young age is all.

posted on Aug, 15 2005 @ 11:39 PM

Originally posted by deesw
But it is a theory none the less. It takes just as much faith to believe in evolution as it does creationism. The only difference is that evolutionists refuse to have faith in anything they cannot physicly prove. That denies the principal of faith. Faith is the firm belief in something that you cannot see or touch smell or prove. Try and prove that love exists. You cannot see it or touch it or prove it.

Yes it is a theory, thank you for recognizing the theoretical validity (but apparently, you banter the term about without knowing the definition).

Creationism doesn't even qualify as a construct that explains observable evidence. However certainly, your definition of faith applies to such mythology. But it doesn't apply to evolution, millions of concrete observations are explained by evolutionary theory, in many sciences.

And as an aside, love is now observable and explicable by way of imaging technologies and biochemistry. Simply, one experiences love when another fulfills specific expectations, prompting various glandular secretions and neural responses. However, knowing this does not detract from experiencing the emotion, nor is it somehow denigrated.

posted on Aug, 16 2005 @ 02:17 AM
Aeon, how do you have -143 points in BTS????

Also, everyone explained Theory to Deesw but he is a christian therefor he can't understand it since it invloves more then "Give me money or you go to hell." He still believes it involves taking a hit of acid and then translating what you wrote the next day. Being a christian it isn't his fault someone didn't hit him hard enough in class when he was busy day dreaming aabout dead people raising from the grave and flying around. Hey, there is a great movie idea!! Attack of the Flying Zombies! Even better all the christians would boycott it since it makes fun of Jesus drawing millions of people to watch it just to piss them off.

posted on Aug, 16 2005 @ 02:52 AM

Okay, here is proof that Gravity exists, under the Laws of Universal Attraction and Repulsion.

You see, Gravity DOES exist. What we can't figure out is whether it's a particle...a wave...perhaps both...or perhaps neither!

Now do you get my point?

LOL Now, dun git me stahded on Gravitational theories again...'kay?

[edit on 16-8-2005 by Toelint]

posted on Aug, 16 2005 @ 01:35 PM
How do you know its gravity? It could be magnetic pull, or energy pull, our "Aura" being pulled to mother earth to keep us close to her.

You see, I can use magic and bs to explain science, just like christians do with evolution.

posted on Aug, 16 2005 @ 09:47 PM
James, I've been curious about the negative below top secret points too. Apparently something of a distortion in the matrix of space-time, just like gravity
No kidding, do the math. By way of dimensional analysis, gravitational attraction is demonstrated to manifest in the inverse of six dimensions. Unfortunately, the implications of such exceed the limitations of digression here.

Here's a couple of newsworthy links that are actually on-topic. First, from the BBC, A Question of Creation, then from, Evolution Still Being Debated in Kansas.

The fundies want to draw as much ire as possible. (It's a phenomenon that I am quite familiar with, they actually seek to be ostracized.) But it is dubious that they are ready for their opposition to disprove Biblical assertions. Of course, a wealth of material exists that does just this. Common knowledge is that science does just that. However many through history, even the American Founding Fathers, were adverse to Christianity. To quote Thomas Jefferson:

I have examined all the known superstitions of the world, and I do not find in our particular superstition of Christianity one redeeming feature. They are all alike founded on fables and mythology. Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined and imprisoned. What has been the effect of this coercion? To make one half the world fools and the other half hypocrites; to support roguery and error all over the earth.

Also John Adams:
"The doctrine of the divinity of Jesus is made a convenient cover for absurdity."
Adams signed the Treaty of Tripoli. Article 11 states:
"The Government of the United States is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion."

Here's Thomas Paine:
"I would not dare to so dishonor my Creator God by attaching His name to that book (the Bible)."

This particular rabbit hole is very deep and the resources are multiphased and quite old. Fundies don't even know what kind of morass they're opening...

posted on Aug, 17 2005 @ 01:38 AM
Deesw do you have proof "god" created anything? That is just more christian bs. Christians actually think that if somehow evolution were to be wiped off the earth that creation would be accepted.

What they don't realize that even if evolution went away creation would still be wrong because it is wrong. It isn't wrong because evolution is right, it is wrong because it is wrong. It's like saying if everyone forgot the earth was round that christians saying the earth is flat would be right. They aren't because the earth isn't flat even if we don't know it is round. The earth being flat isn't wrong because we know it is round it is wrong because it is wrong, the earth being round and us knowing that has nothing to do with it.

posted on Aug, 17 2005 @ 01:58 AM
Here is the way I see the Evolution/Creationism/Intelligent Design problem:
Maybe there are SOME concepts that will NEVER fully understand. Evolution can't be demonstrated in a lab. Also, until we really understand the concept of TIME, we will always be arguing about this. The last time I talked to a physicist, the theory at that time was that everything happens simultaneously. It is only for our own sanity that we consider time as linear.
Evolution depends on TIME. If we can't even really understand TIME, how can we EVER understand "evolution"?
Creationism and Intelligent Design do not rely so heavily on TIME. However, we can't prove that in a lab, either.
I don't think that any of the foregoing will be solved unless the ETs tell us....and even then, THEY MIGHT NOT KNOW IT ALL, EITHER.
I would not want to "teach" any of the concepts of how it all started with humans, since the ADULTS CANNOT AGREE ON ANYTHING. (I am a retired teacher, but never had to teach Evolution or Intelligent Design.)
Since the adults cannot agree, it should NOT be taught in elementary school or high school. In that way, the parents can teach their kids whatever they WANT their kids to know.
Save the discussions of these topics until COLLEGE.

posted on Aug, 17 2005 @ 02:13 PM
You don't need proof god did anything. The bible while full of lies and well, basically wrong, does have some things good for it. While I don't follow the 6 day creation and rest on the 7th or anything some things make sense.

posted on Aug, 17 2005 @ 09:26 PM
Agreed Jestaman. Sure, the Bible is a very old document(s) and deserves study along with other and even older inscriptions such as the Epic of Gilgamesh. And of course, there are biblical passages that are inspirational and so forth. However, after considerable study of the Bible, it is overwhelmingly clear to me that biblical sayings are best in short sections (i.e. "sound bytes"). That way, the manifold contradictions are not a problem, as I encountered from youth through adulthood. Even while I was a deacon at a First Presyterian Church, the contradictory miasma could not be ameliorated, other than by cognitive dissonance.

There is precious little scientific data in the Bible, save for vague descriptions of the general localities of a few mineral deposits, et al. Importantly, it is anathema to attempt to derive science from it, for its lessons stress the non-material, non-physical, but spiritual realm of life. Moreover, faith is also highlighted and not knowledge with respect to such realms. Of course, faith or belief is what occurs in the absence of proof. Actual evidence is physical or substantial in nature, the antithesis of faith.

posted on Aug, 18 2005 @ 10:27 PM
My experiences with religion were a valuable tool for personal growth. Though it is through abundant and disgusting experience with the Church and the Bible from whence my discontent foments. From the time I was a very "churched" boy to when I served as a deacon at a First Presbyterian Church, I could get no answers to the many "mysteries" of that faith (or those so replete in all the others). Not only that, I experienced the veiled and even blatant derision of the so-called upstanding members of those communities. As a result, my faith was flattened like a bug on a windshield. So my beliefs have become much more simplified, not like the raging cabal of religionists intent on "taking back" America.

President Bush is merely pandering to an electoral base of religionists. Yet the Presidential Science Advisor, Dr. John Marburger III, is engaging in damage control. On Aug. 2, The New York Times quoted a telephone interview with Marburger in which he said, "evolution is the cornerstone of modern biology" and "intelligent design is not a scientific concept."

An article today from clarifies the "apologetics" that were necessitated by advisors to Bush and advisory boards with excellent credentials:

Marburger also spoke with Dr. Marvin Cohen, President of the American Physical Society, and recipient of the National Medal of Science from President Bush in 2002. In an Aug. 4 release, Cohen explains that the APS is "…happy that the President’s recent comments on the theory of intelligent design have been clarified. As Presidential Science Advisor John Marburger has explained, President Bush does not regard intelligent design as science. If such things are to be taught in the public schools, they belong in a course on comparative religion, which is a particularly appropriate subject for our children given the present state of the world."

Furthermore, "President Bush, in advocating that the concept of ‘intelligent design’ be taught alongside the theory of evolution, puts America’s schoolchildren at risk," says Fred Spilhaus, Executive Director of the American Geophysical Union. "Americans will need basic understanding of science in order to participate effectively in the 21st century world. It is essential that students on every level learn what science is and how scientific knowledge progresses." (AGU, Aug. 2, 2005) AGU is a scientific society comprising 43,000 Earth and space scientists.

Likewise, the American Institute of Biological Sciences criticized the President: "Intelligent design is not a scientific theory and must not be taught in science classes," said AIBS president Dr. Marvalee Wake. "If we want our students to be able to compete in the global economy, if we want to attract the next generation into the sciences, we must make sure that we are teaching them science. We simply cannot begin to introduce non-scientific concepts into the science curriculum." (AIBS, Aug. 5, 2005) The American Institute of Biological Sciences was established as a national umbrella organization for the biological sciences in 1947 by 11 scientific societies as part of the National Academy of Sciences. An independent non-profit organization since 1954, it has grown to represent more than 80 professional societies and organizations with a combined membership exceeding 240,000 scientists and educators.

Science educators are equally dismayed. "The National Science Teachers Association (NSTA), the world’s largest organization of science educators, is stunned and disappointed that President Bush is endorsing the teaching of intelligent design – effectively opening the door for nonscientific ideas to be taught in the nation’s K-12 science classrooms. We stand with the nation’s leading scientific organizations and scientists, including Dr. John Marburger, the president’s top science advisor, in stating that intelligent design is not science. Intelligent design has no place in the science classroom, said Gerry Wheeler, NSTA Executive Director." (NSTA, Aug. 3, 2005) NSTA has 55,000 members who teach science in elementary, middle and high schools as well as college and universities.

The American Federation of Teachers, which represents 1.3 million pre-K through 12th grade teachers, was even harsher. "President Bush’s misinformed comments on ‘intelligent design’ signal a huge step backward for science education in the United States. The president’s endorsement of such a discredited, nonscientific view is akin to suggesting that students be taught the ‘alternative theory’ that the earth is flat or that the sun revolves around the earth. Intelligent design does not belong in the science classroom because it is not science." (AFT, Aug. 4, 2005)

There’s significant legal precedent from US Supreme Court that creationism - in any clothing - does not belong in the American classrooms. Teaching creationism is in violation of the separation of church and state, and has been ruled illegal by the US Supreme Court in several cases. It’s unfortunate that the President apparently does not understand that science is not equivalent to a belief system but is description of how the natural world works. Creationism, including intelligent design, is a religious point of view, not science.

At a time when industrial, academic, and business leaders are calling for more American students to train in engineering, mathematics, science and technology, we need to teach science in science classrooms. Let’s teach the scientific ideas that are supported by overwhelming evidence such as gravitation, relativity, quantum mechanics, and evolution. Creationist ideas/beliefs, such as intelligent design, don’t belong in science classrooms. In our haste to leave no child behind, let’s not leave science behind either.

posted on Jul, 26 2008 @ 01:25 PM
Evolutionists and anthropologists claim that the Stone Age lasted for at least 100,000 years, during which time the world population of Neanderthal and Cro-magnon men was roughly constant, between one and 10 million. All that time they were burying their dead with artifacts. By this scenario, they would have buried at least four billion bodies. If the evolutionary time-scale is correct, buried human bones should be able to last for much longer than 100,000 years. Like the dinosaurs presumably have, there should have been uncountable fossils.

By their time-scale, it is supposed that there should have been four billion Stone Age skeletons, and certainly countless buried artifacts. There should be multiple millions of them in fact, given the enormous time-frame they claim, yet only a few thousand bones and fragments have ever been found and these are far too few to fit the Stone Age theory and the thousands of years it was supposed to have taken place. Why worry about a “missing link” when the entire chain is missing!? In fact, not even one single set of transitional fossils (like reptiles becoming birds) has ever been found in all of human history. They can not find what has never existed.

An accidental world, with chance as a mechanism for life forms, must fall upward against science’s axiom that out of nothing comes nothing. Cause and effect demands some Causer prior to nothingness. Chance, to Emanuel Kant, is an excuse for ignorance. Chance is not even a noun, it can do nothing of itself, it has no power to effect, it is not an x-factor, as many are convinced. And chance is not composed of physical matter. Regardless of those facts, to those who believe in evolution or carry a disbelief in Creationism or Intelligent Design, chance was the x-factor in everything coming into existence. Otherwise, they must admit that they don’t know how matter, and thus life, came into existence. They simply don’t know and can only placate theories (subjective). We should expect science to deal only with facts (objective), approaching things rationally and logically. They have not. Evolution remains in the textbooks. Believing in something does not make it true. Humanity once believed the earth was flat, however their belief in that did nothing to change the fact that it was spherical.

Another consideration is that it is impossible for matter to create itself, spontaneously, out of nothing. Evolutional theory is of no help: it doesn’t explain how matter was formed and thus by extension, it can not explain the origin of life. In fact over time, cells do not gain additional DNA
(which, in evolution, must be present for transitional stages), they lose DNA integrity. Each cell is like a carbon copy of the original. With each passing day, the cells are making copies of each other and becoming a little less like the original. The cells are not evolving, they are aging. I’ve got more wrinkles today than ten years ago. Natural Selection produces extinction of the species, not a proliferation of it. Cells do not improve or become superior over time, but in fact do just the opposite. The Law of Entropy says that cells break down or smooth out over time and lose their cellular integrity. It is the polar opposite of a theoretical, evolutional process.

The general approach for those who don’t believe in a Creator, the argument or theory is an equation: Space + Time + Chance = Everything. How can, in what in reality is, 0 + 0 + 0 = everything!? The space did not cause matter to come into existence, nor did time. Neither can chance influence or create events. Can being come from non-being… spontaneous generation of matter from nothing? Can chance actually do anything or cause something to happen? No. Chance is only the likelihood of something occurring. There must first come “cause” before an effect can occur. An a cause logically demand a Causer…and a Creator. Chance is powerless.

[edit on 26-7-2008 by Jack Wellman]

new topics

top topics

<< 6  7  8    10 >>

log in