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.

 

In U.S., 46% Hold Creationist View of Human Origins

page: 19
30
<< 16  17  18    20  21  22 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 6 2012 @ 02:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by Masterjaden
I am personally not of a mind to accept creationism; however, I KNOW that what they teach in school about evolution is absolutely untrue. They do not teach it as a theory any more. They do not teach the real evidence behind it, they teach contrived bull#e that doesn't come anywhere close to the truth.


You KNOW that what they teach in school is absolutely untrue? Prove it.
Are you talking about grammar school where they only teach the very basics and broadly generalize the theory? The process is proven, sorry if this hurts your belief system.




posted on Jun, 6 2012 @ 02:32 PM
link   



I wonder if they would be as confident to jump out a 12th floor window, to test the "just a theory" of gravity?




edit on 6-6-2012 by Cogito, Ergo Sum because: for the heck of it.


Law of Gravity.

Law of Biogenesis.

Law of Thermodynamics

Theory of Evolution.

The difference between gravity and evolution is easy to understand by science's own definitions. No need to make fun of others, be kind and show respect to all.

God Bless,



posted on Jun, 6 2012 @ 02:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by Masterjaden
The theory of gravity is NOT the theory of whether gravity exists or not, when you try to use this to parallel the theory of evolution, you showcase your lack of intelligent, logical thought.

The theory of gravity is an attempt to explain the observed phenomena of gravity, not to theorize its existence.



This thread just gets funnier and funnier. The theory of evolution is NOT the theory of whether evolution exists or not. You are serious about that argument?


The theory of evolution is an attempt to theorize the origin of life and is not based on observable phenomena except in the most removed sense...

No its not! Evolution is a biological process of genetic mutations and natural selection that can change organisms over time, a process that is observed, tested and falsified by genetic mutation rate studies.


So please stop showcasing your lack of intelligence by comparing apples and oranges please because the theory of gravity and its cause has some major holes in it as well that requires almost as much circular logic and contrived formulae as the theory of evolution does.

Every single "hole" in the theory of evolution is pretty much made up by dishonest creationist websites, and shows nothing more than clear misunderstanding about the theory itself and the scientific method as a whole. If you've got an issue with the theory please post it and cite the original scientific source that the claim comes from.


Law of Gravity.

Law of Biogenesis.

Law of Thermodynamics

Theory of Evolution.

The difference between gravity and evolution is easy to understand by science's own definitions. No need to make fun of others, be kind and show respect to all.

God Bless,


Ummm no. Laws are measurements, formulas or absolute facts that do not change. Theories DO NOT BECOME laws. The law of gravity explains the mathematical equation for gravity. The THEORY of gravity explains how it works, what causes it, and also includes the LAW of gravity. At least learn your scientific terminology before attempting to discredit a field of science you haven't even read the basics about. Theories aren't just made up because they sound good, they are based on processes that have been proven to exist, such as evolution.
edit on 6-6-2012 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 6 2012 @ 02:41 PM
link   
Not all Christians are Creationists. It's not a pre-requisit to accepting the love of God in the person and spirit of Jesus Christ. Let's be clear about that much, because there's a lot of ignorance here, and bashing, on both sides.



posted on Jun, 6 2012 @ 02:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by NewAgeMan
Not all Christians are Creationists. It's not a pre-requisit to accepting the love of God in the person and spirit of Jesus Christ. Let's be clear about that much, because there's a lot of ignorance here, and bashing, on both sides.


I tend to agree with that, regarding pre-requisits or lack thereof. But from the statistics, it follows that majority of Christians are indeed creationist. Just wanted to point this out.



posted on Jun, 6 2012 @ 02:46 PM
link   
Another ridiculous poll I see. Don't count me in that 46%. So how many people did they poll? A few hundred? Few thousand? These polls are rubbish. They in NO way reflect the beliefs or thoughts of a majority of Americans. You can't poll a few hundred or a few thousand people then claim they speak for all of America.



posted on Jun, 6 2012 @ 02:48 PM
link   
reply to post by buddhasystem
 

It's wierd, because even Jesus' teachings were filled with allegory and metaphor dealing with evolutionary growth principals in terms of human psychological and spiritual development.

It would be funny if it wasn't so sad and so rooted in a level of ignorance of the most simplistic variety, but what I notice equally, as a type of Christian philosopher of sorts, is the amount of ignorance on the other side, which would try to lump all Christians into the same heap of stupidity, which seems to make the atheists feel better for some reason, but from my perspective, it's hurtful, rude, and ignorant.



posted on Jun, 6 2012 @ 02:52 PM
link   
I personally believe in a literal interpretation of the Bible and proudly declare myself a Traditionalist Roman Catholic, albeit one prone to sin. It makes me happy to know that about half of my fellow Americans agree with me, whether they are Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, or what have you, about God's direct creation of man. At the same time I can also understand and sympathize with those who view God as having a direct role to play in macro-evolution. Altogether about 80% of Americans believe in God's involvement in our development, even if one-third have a more 'liberal' interpretation of it.

As for South Korea, may I remind all those here who enjoy bashing us Creationists that the South Koreans are arguably the highest academic achievers in the world, especially in mathematics and science, along with the ethnic group holding the highest IQ level. To conclude they are ignorant truly represents the height of intellectual elitism. Funny how this intellectual elitism comes from the same group of people most commonly defending and advocating for equality.



posted on Jun, 6 2012 @ 02:54 PM
link   
reply to post by Barcs
 


With how many pairs of chromosome's?

in reference to your response on page 18.
edit on 6-6-2012 by NoJoker13 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 6 2012 @ 03:04 PM
link   
reply to post by Erectus
 





It is a fact that 1 in 2 adults never reach the final stage of cognitive development. They are incapable of reaching original conclusions. Instead they believe what their trusted institutions tell them. Such institutions include family, government, and church


And the Education dept of the US. All hail the US dept of education! Oh by the way, it is also FACT that secular humanism has to hide under the shield of science because people caught on that they were teaching their belief system in the schools as fact. Another interesting fact is that John Dewey is the biggest contributor to the way schools educate today, and he was a signer of the Humanists Manifesto, and he himself talked about it as a faith. Another interesting fact is that Values Clarification was designed not to teach kids real math and science but to train them to become cogs in the collective of the State.
That is all fact and the reason why little Johnny Can't Read.



posted on Jun, 6 2012 @ 03:07 PM
link   



Ummm no. Laws are measurements, formulas or absolute facts that do not change. Theories DO NOT BECOME laws. The law of gravity explains the mathematical equation for gravity. The THEORY of gravity explains how it works, what causes it, and also includes the LAW of gravity. At least learn your scientific terminology before attempting to discredit a field of science you haven't even read the basics about. Theories aren't just made up because they sound good, they are based on processes that have been proven to exist, such as evolution.
edit on 6-6-2012 by Barcs because: (no reason given)


I am a scientist, I have studied a multitude of scientific material. Your tone is so revealing of your character, I have never known a truely intellegent person who is so quick to talk down to others intellect, that character is not a smart one.

Since we are talking about laws inside theories.

The Law of Biogenesis
The Law of Biogenesis, attributed to Louis Pasteur, states that life arises from pre-existing life, not from nonliving material.

How can this law of science be totally thrown out when we talk about the moment in time an inanimate amino acids became a living single celled organism, for step one of the Theory of Macro Evolution requires this suspension of scientific law to accept?

This is just one example of how certain things like scientific laws can be disregarded because it goes against the theory that built the foundation their entire professional careers lays upon. Can't let a scientific proof like biogenesis interfer with my faith in Evolution.

God Bless,



posted on Jun, 6 2012 @ 03:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by NewAgeMan
reply to post by buddhasystem
 

It's wierd, because even Jesus' teachings were filled with allegory and metaphor dealing with evolutionary growth principals in terms of human psychological and spiritual development.

It would be funny if it wasn't so sad and so rooted in a level of ignorance of the most simplistic variety, but what I notice equally, as a type of Christian philosopher of sorts, is the amount of ignorance on the other side, which would try to lump all Christians into the same heap of stupidity, which seems to make the atheists feel better for some reason, but from my perspective, it's hurtful, rude, and ignorant.


Wow, someone like me! I am open to all ideas and am continually redefining my outlook on life, to include scientific discoveries, and the health benefits that come from them.



posted on Jun, 6 2012 @ 03:12 PM
link   
there was a flood.

THERE WAS A FLOOD!

proof that god is real.



posted on Jun, 6 2012 @ 03:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by Pardon?

Originally posted by Tbrooks76

Originally posted by voiceoreason
Bwa ha ha ha ha.


You all don't seriously think that 46 percent of Americans hold creationist beliefs; do you?

Has anyone that believes this gone to any of the major population centers of the USA recently?


I can believe that 46 percent of the rural areas of the US do.



One of two ways..

A. It just was always here with no begin or end and our universe is in a constant state of changing. No big bang or anything, it's just always been.
B. Or it had a beginning in which something outside this universe put everything in motion. (a.k.a GOD)

)

]

Soooooooo, since there isn't yet an explanation for A it must be B?
Or to put it another way, since you don't understand A which may be proven eventually then you'll go for the simpler B which is impossible to prove or disprove?
Your logic is very illogical.
And worrying.



A. doesn't require an explanation, our universe just has always been here with no begin or end…its just here

only B requires and explanation and yes I've read up on new hypothesis but they all require some external source to jump-start our universe, or give our universe energy. Sense we cannot prove or disprove what that external source is, God is just as valid as a hypothesis as some multiverse running into us. To me personally an intelligent designer seems more likely, but to each their own. It’s wrong to assume only stupid people would believe in God when there is no way to prove or disprove intelligent design vs other theories.

edit on 6-6-2012 by Tbrooks76 because: fixing grammer



posted on Jun, 6 2012 @ 03:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by SplitInfinity
reply to post by Lionhearte
 

First...I believe in a persons right of belief and their chosen Religion.

Second...we are on a board which encourages debate and although I respect your Religious Beliefs...I would ask you not to discount FACTS.

You know something? I agree with the above 100% - but don't assume I'm discarding what you think are "facts" because of my beliefs in Christ or because of what a book tells me - I believe in Christ and what the Bible says is true BECAUSE of the facts. There's a difference.


FACT...Humans have existed on Planet Earth in one form or another for close to 5 Million Years.

There is no evidence Humans have existed for longer than 5,000 years, as that's as far as our historical records take us. If you want to play the "Carbon Dating" card, you'll be sorely mistaken and I'll be glad to correct you for the benefit of others here, who are interested in TRUE FACTS.

Another is the "Neanderthal man" and "Lucy" - the former of which looks exactly like a human with just larger bone structures - this isn't a problem for creationists as the Biblical account states that man used to live for over 900 years, and our skull and brow ridge NEVER stop growing - this is true to this day. As for "Lucy", I bet you didn't know they found those bones scattered over a 50 mile radius, and with some "creative imagination", drew what they think she looked like based on a preconceived idea - a primitive ancestor.


FACT...Evolution stopped being a theory a while back and we use genetics every day and have a very good grasp of how all life on this Planet Evolved with some specific Found Viral DNA encoding that proves that all life Evolved form a Single Celled Organism or Animal.

Evolution is still a theory to this day, as it is not based on one theory but a collection of theories, including Cosmic, Stellar, Chemical, Organic, Macro- and Micro- Evolution, yet only the last of it is a proven fact - because it is observable and testable.


FACT...By recreating the enviromental conditions that existed Billions of years ago...GENESIS...the act of Life Evolving from Lifelessness...has been reproduced in multiple lab conditions. But in order for the Scientific Method to Prove this was not tainted via improper controls...the act of GENESIS must be repeated more than once and even if that is achieved must be verified...this takes awhile but within 12 to 20 months...verification will take place.
The only "lab test" I'm aware of where "they created life" only created a small red gel at the bottom of the tube which contained amino acids necessary for life.. only 2 of them, however - instead of the 20 that we need to live - AND it was so toxic, that no life could have survived, as it contained tar and other poisonous substances. In addition to this, they kept it so contained that oxygen could not enter in - because they know that life cannot start with oxygen, YET needs oxygen to live. Not only that, but RNA needs DNA and DNA needs RNA - explain which came first, please.


FACT...a VIRUS is not ALIVE yet it has DNA..thus it shows us a stepping stone from Lifeless Aminoacids existed as a Molecular Compound yet have DNA just like all LIFE..the Two Men who Won the Nobel Prize in VIROLOGY won this award in the Nobel Prize for CHEMISTRY not BIOLOGY.

This part is true, except for the underlined part - that is an assumption based on your preconceived idea of the universe. You think complex life arose from "simple" life, which is not the case. If I had a pond in my backyard, with worms, fish, ducks, etc - and a bulldozer came in and dumped a huge load of mud onto it, and after a few years I dug it up and found the ducks at the top, the fish in the middle, and the worms at the bottom, am I going to assume that the worms evolved into fish and the fish into ducks?

I would if I was insane.


FACT...Civilizations on the Asian Continent especially in China and Japan have Records that predate BIBLICAL ASSUMPTION of how old the EARTH is and all the BEGETS in the listing of the first People of the Bible.
I'd like to see this information if you could provide it.


FACT...The KING JAMES BIBLE IS LOADED WITH MISTRANSLATIONS...
I didn't say it wasn't perfect, just optimal - the original text in Hebrew and Greek are the ones that are the best. Also, if you could list a few mistranslations from the KJV, that would be appreciated, as an example.


FACT...EASTER...was the Christian Attempt to change a Pagan Fertility Holiday of Spring known as the Festival of ESTER

Not a fact. Easter was created by Emperor Constantine who was still a pagan after supposedly "converting"

Your facts are not facts and don't prove we evolved from rocks billions of years ago.



posted on Jun, 6 2012 @ 03:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by Barcs

Originally posted by Masterjaden
The theory of gravity is NOT the theory of whether gravity exists or not, when you try to use this to parallel the theory of evolution, you showcase your lack of intelligent, logical thought.

The theory of gravity is an attempt to explain the observed phenomena of gravity, not to theorize its existence.



This thread just gets funnier and funnier. The theory of evolution is NOT the theory of whether evolution exists or not. You are serious about that argument?


The theory of evolution is an attempt to theorize the origin of life and is not based on observable phenomena except in the most removed sense...

No its not! Evolution is a biological process of genetic mutations and natural selection that can change organisms over time, a process that is observed, tested and falsified by genetic mutation rate studies.


So please stop showcasing your lack of intelligence by comparing apples and oranges please because the theory of gravity and its cause has some major holes in it as well that requires almost as much circular logic and contrived formulae as the theory of evolution does.

Every single "hole" in the theory of evolution is pretty much made up by dishonest creationist websites, and shows nothing more than clear misunderstanding about the theory itself and the scientific method as a whole. If you've got an issue with the theory please post it and cite the original scientific source that the claim comes from.


Law of Gravity.

Law of Biogenesis.

Law of Thermodynamics

Theory of Evolution.

The difference between gravity and evolution is easy to understand by science's own definitions. No need to make fun of others, be kind and show respect to all.

God Bless,


Ummm no. Laws are measurements, formulas or absolute facts that do not change. Theories DO NOT BECOME laws. The law of gravity explains the mathematical equation for gravity. The THEORY of gravity explains how it works, what causes it, and also includes the LAW of gravity. At least learn your scientific terminology before attempting to discredit a field of science you haven't even read the basics about. Theories aren't just made up because they sound good, they are based on processes that have been proven to exist, such as evolution.
edit on 6-6-2012 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



I'm sorry, you're just wrong...

I don't even know what creationist websites state. I don't visit them.

The holes in much of science is clear with an historical analysis of their own published theories.

It would literally take volumes to illustrate those holes here.

I'm not going to.

You just keep on worshiping the god of Man and listening to the falsehoods he indoctrinates you with.

Or, you can look at the history of these theories and look at how the theories have evolved to see that they are all circular in argument and just not logical at all.

The only evolution is in the theories over time as they have been proven incorrect and modified to fit new information instead of being discarded as they should have.

Jaden


That last part about the theory of gravity versus the law of gravity makes me laugh... You don't even realize you made an argument AGAINST the theory of evolution there do you???

The theory of gravity states that gravity is caused by the mass of an object...

PLEASE check historical reference for gravitational theory and the motion of bodies.

ALL estimates for the composition of planets and their masses are based on the theory of gravity, INCLUDING OUR OWN and the relationship to mass. Formulae were created with this in mind and as the formulae were proven inaccurate over time, new numbers were plugged in to get the formulae to work for the variables. New compositions were established etc...

This is the truth about almost EVERY science. Those who live off of it rarely even acknowledge the problems with the paradigms, then they use the fallacy of appeal to authority [their authority as experts (more like indoctrinates)] to shout down anyone who points out the circular basis of their arguments.

The absolute best is when they state that they can ascertain fact with multi-variable inductive logic...lol...

They showcase their idiocy or their corruption with that one.


edit on 6-6-2012 by Masterjaden because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 6 2012 @ 03:27 PM
link   
The Influenza virus, providing a clear example of evolution every year for over 2000 years.


Originally posted by Masterjaden
I'm sorry, you're just wrong...

I don't even know what creationist websites state. I don't visit them.

The holes in much of science is clear with an historical analysis of their own published theories.

It would literally take volumes to illustrate those holes here.

I'm not going to.

You just keep on worshiping the god of Man and listening to the falsehoods he indoctrinates you with.

Or, you can look at the history of these theories and look at how the theories have evolved to see that they are all circular in argument and just not logical at all.

The only evolution is in the theories over time as they have been proven incorrect and modified to fit new information instead of being discarded as they should have.

Jaden


So, you don't have any evidence to combat evolution with, good to know. Someone gives you an intelligent answer to your misgivings and all you have left is "you're just wrong"? If you can't defend your own asenine beliefs, then you shouldn't have them.
edit on 6-6-2012 by Orderamongchaos because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 6 2012 @ 03:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by boymonkey74
Oh and to the people who want proof of evolution, I could post all the info that would stand up in court but whats the point you will just dismiss it.
Sometimes all the evidence in the world could slap some people in the face and they will still be ignorant to the truth.

You have no evidence.

If it consists of fossils, throw it out - in a court of law they would laugh at you, as you do not know if that fossil you found was the ancestor of ANYONE, because you do NOT know if it reproduced or not.
If it consists of bacteria, it is guaranteed to be an example of Micro-Evolution, yet you will use it to prove Cosmic, Stellar, Chemical, Organic, and Macro- Evolution.
If it's about Three-Spined Sicklebacks, the same applies - Micro, not Macro.
If it's about Carbon Dating, I'd love to share with you examples of how Carbon Dating has been consistently proven wrong for many decades.
If it's about any other dating methods - such as Ice or another chemical dating method, there are many examples of THESE proven wrong for decades as well.
If it's about the Geologic Column, I must laugh, as that does not exist anywhere in the world, except in the text books.
If it's about horses, I'll share with you examples that logically prove it isn't the case of Macro Evolution, but variation.
If it's about peppered-moths.. LOL. Dead moths glued to a tree, lovely.
If it's about Abiogenesis, know that it has never occurred nor has been proven - even in a lab under "intelligent design" - it simply hasn't been done.

All of the rest of your "theories" can be summed up in one word - Assumption. No one was there during the creation of the universe, so no one can prove how it was created, or how life started, or how stars were made, or how chemicals came into being, or how life originated from non-life.. The only thing we can prove, is that it WAS "created" - and both Evolutionists and Creationists agree on that.

Your assumptions, however, are built up on two major problems - your belief in the gods of "time" and "chance" - until you remove those two factors (Millions of years ago.. life started - WHAT?), no one can help you.

There's more I can say, but what's the point - you said it best, "Sometimes all the evidence in the world could slap some people in the face and they will still be ignorant to the truth."



posted on Jun, 6 2012 @ 03:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by ElohimJD
I am a scientist, I have studied a multitude of scientific material. Your tone is so revealing of your character, I have never known a truely intellegent person who is so quick to talk down to others intellect, that character is not a smart one.

What field of science do you study? Kent Hovind was technically a "scientist", but he was dead wrong on everything he's ever said about evolution. I'm not talking down to anybody, I'm defending science, which is constantly under attack by fundamentalists in this section. Your view of theories and laws in science are simply not correct, and when I see people misunderstanding the scientific method, I'm going to correct them. It's nothing personal. It's called denying ignorance, the purpose of this web site. Biogenesis is NOT a scientific law. It may have been originally proposed as one but it is not a law, today. Today, it is known as Recapitulation theory and is considered a disproven hypothesis.

en.wikipedia.org...


Biogenesis is the belief that living things come only from other living things, e.g. a spider lays eggs, which develop into spiders. It may also refer to biochemical processes of production in living organisms.


en.wikipedia.org...


The theory of recapitulation, also called the biogenetic law or embryological parallelism—and often expressed as "ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny"—is a disproven biological hypothesis that in developing from embryo to adult, animals go through stages resembling or representing successive stages in the evolution of their remote ancestors.


"Life can only come from life." is an unproven, unfounded statement in science, and has absolutely NOTHING to do with evolution. You are getting into abiogenesis now, which deals with the origin of life. Evolution is a process of change over time, not how life began.



posted on Jun, 6 2012 @ 03:38 PM
link   
edit - double post removed.



edit on 6-6-2012 by NewAgeMan because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics


active topics

 
30
<< 16  17  18    20  21  22 >>

log in

join