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.

 

Are Creationists hypocrites on evolution?

page: 4
1
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 14 2011 @ 08:43 AM
link   
reply to post by arollingstone
 

"Alternative beliefs" have no rational "framework" attached, its blind conjecture bred by a severe misunderstanding of the scientific theories being addressed, and an unwillingness to discover the evidence and reasoning behind such theories.

Its of extreme importance one understands the distinction between a scientific theory and a belief not bound to empirical methods and rational thought, before forming a belief system. Otherwise, essentially, one is saying "I don't feel like working hard, so [enter belief here] did it, and it makes me happy"




posted on Feb, 14 2011 @ 09:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by arollingstone
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
 


Ultimately, you cannot prove scientific theories outside of the conveniences deemed rational by the Church of Science - theories are beliefs.


What other system of proof would you suggest we use?


So why is the burden of proof on non-scientists


Because the non-scientists are the ones presenting the claim that evolution is impossible, or that intelligent design has been proven. Scientists have already presented their evidence for evolution. Thus, if you want to argue against evolution, the burden of proof is on you.


Science is much more rational than traditional religions were but what I'm saying is it that this still does not constitute absolute truth.


Absolutely. Scientists have never said that we understand everything about the universe. But this doesn't mean that the theory of evolution is wrong.



posted on Feb, 14 2011 @ 11:11 AM
link   
just a quick article, some might find interesting.

www.physorg.com/news/2010-11-darwin-theory-gradual-evolution-geologi cal.html

oh and here are three more, these came from a little study that i have been doing in histroy.

www.ucmp.berkeley.edu...
www.ucmp.berkeley.edu...

edit on 14-2-2011 by hounddoghowlie because: (no reason given)

www.ucmp.berkeley.edu...

edit on 14-2-2011 by hounddoghowlie because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 14 2011 @ 11:24 AM
link   
reply to post by hounddoghowlie
 


Um...the idea that change might not be solely gradual has been around for a while. Of course, that doesn't mean that evolution is incorrect, it just happens in a slightly different manner. And plenty of people had the idea for changes of species over time before Darwin, he was merely the first person to put forth the most cohesive arguments based upon extensive field work. And Darwin was unaware of his work, having published his book in 1858 and then discovering Matthew's work two years later.

Somebody was bound to discover, and it seems a lot of people in the same time period were coming up with similar ideas. Of course, Matthew's ideas regarding natural theology were poppycock.
edit on 14/2/11 by madnessinmysoul because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 14 2011 @ 11:37 AM
link   
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
 


look at the quotes from darwin in two of the bio's



"In last Saturday Gardeners' Chronicle, a Mr Patrick Matthews publishes long extract from his work on "Naval Timber & Arboriculture" published in 1831, in which he briefly but completely anticipates the theory of Nat. Selection. -- I have ordered the Book, as some few passages are rather obscure but it is, certainly, I think, a complete but not developed anticipation! . . . Anyhow one may be excused in not having discovered the fact in a work on 'Naval Timber'." Charles Darwin. Letter to Charles Lyell, April 10, 1860.




"In October 1838, that is, fifteen months after I had begun my systematic inquiry, I happened to read for amusement Malthus on Population, and being well prepared to appreciate the struggle for existence which everywhere goes on from long- continued observation of the habits of animals and plants, it at once struck me that under these circumstances favourable variations would tend to be preserved, and unfavourable ones to be destroyed. The results of this would be the formation of a new species. Here, then I had at last got a theory by which to work". Charles Darwin, from his autobiography. (1876)


so from his own words, he was aware
although the date from the letter to lyell is dated april 10 1860, there is some speculation if this was not part of a cover up he and his friends started that easter weekend,


edit on 14-2-2011 by hounddoghowlie because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 14 2011 @ 11:40 AM
link   
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
 


and this is my last reply to you, you will not draw me into the little game you like to play.
take it as you will.


edit on 14-2-2011 by hounddoghowlie because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 14 2011 @ 05:22 PM
link   
oh and noticing that you didn't acknowledge the post where i corrected you about
the word evolutionist in websters, i thought i post a link from oxfords

oxforddictionaries.com/view/entry/m_en_us1245329#m_en_us1245329

now this is the last post, well maybe.






edit on 14-2-2011 by hounddoghowlie because: fix link



posted on Feb, 14 2011 @ 05:41 PM
link   
reply to post by hounddoghowlie
 


Of course he was aware of Malthus, a lot of people were. Nobody is claiming that Darwin was the first person to come up with the idea of change in populations over time purely on his own, it was the result of some ideas that lead to the not just refinement but grand expansion of ideas.


...but look at the date on the first quote. 1860. Origin of the Species was published in 1858 (the 150th anniversary was back in 2008). He became aware of that work 2 years after his own was published....oh, you're playing the conspiracy card. Well, unless you can present evidence that a little known work was known to Darwin at the time prior to his writing of Origin of the Species I'll just have to dismiss your speculation as speculation.



posted on Feb, 14 2011 @ 05:42 PM
link   
reply to post by hounddoghowlie
 


I'll address it now: still stupid. Of course, you're not really making posts. You're just throwing out references devoid of any argumentation and support or point. How can you be an evolutionist if there is no such thing as a gravitist, cell-ist, germist, circuitist, etc? It's an irrational adjective/noun.

Even if Darwin didn't originate evolution or stole the idea, is it not still valid? Is it not still the basis for modern biology? Is his book on the subject no longer well written?



posted on Feb, 14 2011 @ 06:20 PM
link   
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
 


not sure what hounddog was getting it, he's questioning the original generating source of natural selection, which is irrelevant, and such would then become a debate on the nature of true inspiration, or innovative ideas being the fragmentation of ideas from contemporary culture

Darwin gets credit (along with a little Wallace) because he was the one who structured, organized, and analyzed the origin of species by natural selection in its most accessible and coherent scientific form; gather evidence, assess probability, present results



posted on Feb, 14 2011 @ 11:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by hounddoghowlie
just a quick article, some might find interesting.

www.physorg.com/news/2010-11-darwin-theory-gradual-evolution-geologi cal.html

oh and here are three more, these came from a little study that i have been doing in histroy.

www.ucmp.berkeley.edu...
www.ucmp.berkeley.edu...
www.ucmp.berkeley.edu...

Congrats on your little study in history, these 4 URLs.

Together, they do a nice job of showing the stupidity of creationists who label those who argue against them as "Darwinists".

Farmers were using artificial selection to breed better produce and livestock long before Darwin was born. Naturally, a time came when people would start looking into such breeding from a scientific viewpoint, and start drawing conclusions about the possible, long term results of selection, and how this applied to the natural world.

Darwin did great work in this regard, but he was a man of his times, and only one man at that. It's taken thousands of diligent researchers since then to find evidence, debate the implications, discover new means of analysis, and test the hypotheses made.

Darwinism and Darwinist are words, sure, just like evolutionist, because idiots invented them and enough misguided people use them to give them a place in dictionaries.

If I was to call you an oompahoompa, meaning yellow-haired braggart with purple nose-hairs, and used that term in a book and a few web pages, and got a hundred or so other people using the word in their writings, all giving it a similar meaning, that word would start appearing in dictionaries.

A dictionary is merely a list of the words/terms in current usage and their popular definitions.
It is usage that creates, evolves and defines words, not dictionaries.



posted on Feb, 14 2011 @ 11:38 PM
link   
It's incredibly painful to watch these threads turn into 50 page arguments with a creationist saying NO NO NO NO NO and someone else saying LOOK LOOK LOOK LOOK




top topics



 
1
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join