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: 20
30
<< 17  18  19    21  22  23 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 6 2012 @ 03:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Orderamongchaos
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)


First off, I did, if you reread the edit.

Secondly, if you're going to make an argument, let's agree on definitions.

Evolution: defined as: Change over time to adapt to the environment.... That is true science. It can be observed and as you have pointed out, it HAS been observed...

Evolution: defined as" MASSIVE change over MASSIVE UNOBSERVABLE periods of time... That is where there is all kinds of problems and where it is ABSOLUTELY correct to say it is just a theory... It is NOT fact, it is NOT observable and it is asinine to make the huge leaps in logic necessary to state that it is anything other than a belief.

Jaden




posted on Jun, 6 2012 @ 03:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by Barcs

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.


Wrong again. Evolution as an observable phenomena is as you defined.

The THEORY of evolution includes abiogensis. It is separated as the theory of abiogenesis, but it is still a part of the theory of evolution at least as evolution is commonly referred to.

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



posted on Jun, 6 2012 @ 03:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lionhearte

Originally posted 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. This is not a belief, but is, unlike some things, empirically supported (that means there is actually evidence). This is a fine example of what is wrong with this nation. Half the population can't even think for themselves.


I agree with this statement - it's a shame 54% of America still believes in fairytales and clings to their Religion of Evolution.

Poor guys :\


I hear this a lot from fundamentalist Christians, that Evolution is just another kind of religion.

NO IT'S NOT!

Religious beliefs require blind faith.

Science requires faith only in observation. Believing that what you observe is actually there.

Most people practice science for the majority of the day. They expect the ground to be there with every step they take. Why? Because they've observed and tested it in the past.

For whatever reason, when it comes to more complex processes, like the origin of life, a lot of people don't use the same kind of reasoning and critical thinking.

I guess it's just much easier to believe a fairy tale, no matter how unlikely it is. Its also comforting for people to believe the answer has already been given to them. The unknown is one of the most frightening, although necessary, aspects to the human experience.

Religion is an easy way out. Basically the opposite of critical thinking. Science is much more difficult to embrace.

If narrow is the way, then ironically, science is the way.



posted on Jun, 6 2012 @ 03:46 PM
link   

To BOTH Sides of this Argument

- HOLD ON A MINUTE!


It should be noted, that the ultimate cosmological framework within which all forms of life have arisen, as per the introductory statement in the Book of Genesis (believed to have been written by Moses)


"God said, ‘Let there be light,’ and there was light."

.. may contain an entirely valid and extremely DEEP cosmological FACT that is in agreement with the findings of modern science.

Read about it here
Brilliant Disguise: Light, Matter and the Zero-Point Field, by Bernard Haisch


On the emerging science of God and the true nature of the human being, for further grokking

"The God Theory" by Bernard Haisch
www.amazon.com...=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1249274834&sr=8-1

Haisch is an astrophysicist whose professional positions include Staff Scientist at the Lockheed Martin Solar and Astrophysics Laboratory, Deputy Director for the Center for Extreme Ultraviolet Astrophysics at the University of California, Berkeley, and Visiting Fellow at the Max-Planck Institute for Extraterrestrial Physics in Garching, Germany. His work has led to close involvement with NASA; he is the author of over 130 scientific papers; and was the Scientific Editor of the Astrophysical Journal for nine years, as well as the editor in chief of the Journal of Scientific Exploration.

an excerpt


If you think of whitte light as a metaphor of infinite, formless potential, the colors on a slide or frame of film become a structured reality grounded in the polarity that comes about through intelligent subtraction from that absolute formless potential. It results from the limitation of the unlimited. I contend that this metaphor provides a comprehensible theory for the creation of a manifest reality (our universe) from the selective limitation of infinite potential (God)...
If there exists an absolute realm that consists of infinite potential out of which a created realm of polarity emerges, is there any sensible reason not to call this "God"? Or to put it frankly, if the Absolute is not God, what is it? For our purposes here, I will indentify the Absolute with God. More precisely I will call the Absolute the Godhead. Applying this new terminology to the optics analogy, we can conclude that our physical universe comes about when the Godhead selectively limits itself, taking on the role of Creator and manifesting a realm of space and time and, within that realm, filtering out some of its own infinite potential...
Viewed this way, the process of creation is the exact opposite of making something out of nothing. It is, on the contrary, a filtering process that makes something out of everything. Creation is not capricious or random addition; it is intelligent and selective subtraction. The implications of this are profound..

If the Absolute is the Godhead, and if creation is the process by which the Godhead filters out parts of its own infinite potential to manifest a physical reality that supports experience, then the stuff that is left over, the residue of this process, is our physical universe, and ourselves included. We are nothing less than a part or an extension of that Godhead - quite literally.

Next, by Ervin Laszlo

Science and the Akashic Field, an Integral Theory of Everything, 2004
www.amazon.com...=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1249275852&sr=8-1

And, his other seminal work
Science and the Reenchantment of the Cosmos: The Rise of the Integral Vision of Reality
www.amazon.com...=sr_1_6?ie=UTF8&qid=1249275852&sr=8-6

Ervin Laszlo is considered one of the foremost thinkers and scientists of our age, perhaps the greatest mind since Einstein. His principal focus of research involves the Zero Point Field. He is the author of around seventy five books (his works having been translated into at least seventeen languages), and he has contributed to over 400 papers. Widely considered the father of systems philosophy and general evolution theory, he has worked as an advisor to the Director-General of the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization. He was also nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize in both 2004 and 2005. A multidisciplinarian, Laszlo has straddled numerous fields, having worked at universities as a professor of philosophy, music, futures studies, systems science, peace studies, and evolutionary studies. He was a sucessful concert pianist until he was thirty eight.

In his view, the zero-point field (or the Akashic Field, as he calls it) is quite literally the "mind of God".

Naming Hal Puthoff, Roger Penrose, Fritz-Albert Popp, and a handful of others as "front line investigators", Laszlo quotes Puthoff who says of the new scientific paradigm:


[What] would emerge would be an increased understanding that all of us are immersed, both as living and physical beings, in an overall interpenetrating and interdependant field in ecological balance with the cosmos as a whole, and that even the boundary lines between the physical and "metaphysical" would dissolve into a unitary viewpoint of the universe as a fluid, changing, energetic/informational cosmological unity."

an excert from Science and the Akashic Field, an Integral Theory of Everything


Akasha (a . ka . sha) is a Sanskrit word meaning "ether": all-pervasive space. Originally signifying "radiation" or "brilliance", in Indian philosophy akasha was considered the first and most fundamental of the five elements - the others being vata (air), agni (fire), ap (water), and prithivi (earth). Akasha embraces the properties of all five elements: it is the womb from which everything we percieve with our senses has emerged and into which everything will ultimately re-descend. The Akashic Record (also called The Akashic Chronicle) is the enduring record of all that happens, and has ever happened, in space and time."

Laszlo's view of the history of the universe is of a series of universes that rise and fall, but are each "in-formed" by the existence of the previous one. In Laszlo's mind, the universe is becoming more and more in-formed, and within the physical universe, matter (which is the crystallization of intersecting pressure waves or an interference pattern moving through the zero-point field) is becoming increasing in-formed and evolving toward ever higher forms of consciousness and realization.

--------------

Within this context (of a fully informed zero point field), if life and evolution, as an accurance in space and time is, at the deepest level a type of non-local, holographic, organic, cosmological unity, then the formative causation of all creation can be seen arising as a manifestation or a creation of the Godhead who, via type of intelligent and thus conscious limitation from the absolute and infinite, formless potential, may be seen operating in the role of Creator - which would make of the creationist story a very simple and crude approximation by ancient man of a valid God-driven, evolutionary hypothesis or a old variation of a newfound understanding of Intelligent Design!


Edit to add: Of course this post will be completely ignored by ignorant people on both sides of the "debate"..



edit on 6-6-2012 by NewAgeMan because: edited



posted on Jun, 6 2012 @ 03:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by Morg234



Creation and evolution are both just theories, based on two completely irreconsiliable sets of evidence. Yet still, just theory.
reply to post by Osiris1953
 


Creationists need to be banned from this "Deny Ignorance" website. It is social trolling.


"Only a fool says there is no God".
Fool = ignorant

2,000 years ago it was written that God would allow a strong delusion in order to facilitate the rising of the one who falsely claims to be God, and that this delusion will be accompanied with the lying signs and wonders of the 'prince of the air'. There are several specifics given about this 8th king who is the Beast:
1. This individual who is the 8th king was, is not, and will ascend out of the bottomless pit, and eventually go to destruction.
2. Everyone on earth will marvel at his appearance, except God’s people

In the Greek the word "Strong" means “working, efficiency, power” and the word "Delusion" means “wandering, straying about, mental straying, error, deceit, delusion”. This "strong delusion" is powerful, so much so that it gets the world to believe the "mental straying, error, deceit, delusion" as TRUTH when it is a LIE. This "strong delusion" makes people accept the coming "lawless one", and those who reject the Truth (Jesus) WILL BELIEVE IT. So the "strong delusion" must involve a false religious belief system because people will accept another as "God". What religious belief is taught to every child in the western nations once full of God-fearing people? The theory of evolution, the 'creation story' of atheism. Millions have been convinced that there is no God, and many of them, with NO EVIDENCE, have today been convinced that extraterrestrials are our creator. How did this happen? The theory of evolution's logical conclusion, which is that "if life EVOLVED HERE, THEN IT HAD TO HAVE HAPPENED ELSEWHERE" drivel. But that's not the end of it, for shows, books and films now preach that somehow "ancient aliens" had a hand in either our creation or evolutionary past. Let's just take a stab in the dark as to who is going to be proclaimed as "god".

Yes, the motto of this board is "deny ignorance" which is just completely hypocritical when the vast majority of its readers have already succumbed to believe lies as truth. They want to believe that aliens are our 'gods', yet cannot accept that God told us thousands of years ago that not only was He going to allow it, but that the vast majority would believe it because they never learned to love TRUTH. These same people routinely deride Christ yet champion aliens as directly involved in our past.



posted on Jun, 6 2012 @ 03:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by Misoir
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.


Highest achievers? You are talking statistics, right? So there is probably a spread of metrics even within the group of Koreans picked for the study, IQ testing etc.

As far as Korea is concerned, I would personally like to know what are the opinions, with regards to creationism, of the half that scored the highest points in, as you put it, mathematics and science. It just may be that your argument is self-defeating.



posted on Jun, 6 2012 @ 03:53 PM
link   
reply to post by blackcube
 


I've said it on similar threads and I will say it again...

Who cares?



posted on Jun, 6 2012 @ 03:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by theconspirator
It seems like everyone on here loves ron paul and the idea of liberty and freedom, but if you hear about someone beleiving in god, that goes out the window, and you all talk about how its dumb to beleive in that stuff. If someone beleives in god, why are you butt hurt. Why does it matter if religion is their freedom.


People may call it dumb but they are not telling anyone they don't have the right to believe in it. I feel that religion is a societal fairy-tale but as long as you don't try to force it down my throat I am cool with you believing in anything you want....

There is no connection to calling something stupid or dumb and freedom.... its just as much a freedom of anyone on here to call what you believe in dumb or stupid.



posted on Jun, 6 2012 @ 03:56 PM
link   
Evolution vs Creation….Dumb debate…

You all do realize it’s 100% speculation. None of us were there, no go good accountable records with details were taken so anything someone choses to believe about it is pure speculation based on what ‘facts’ the want to believe. There is no 100% fact trail to follow, each side of the debate has tons holes in their theories rather they want to admit it or not. An Evolutionist cannot explain or recreate how the first cell got life, a creationist can’t explain how/why God made the universe so huge and light from stars billions of miles away is hitting the earth. When you look at debates on this, Creationist have damm good point that Evolutionist ignore and well Evolutionist have great points Creationist ignore. Debating it stupid because all you do is point the holes in each other theories…

It boils down to is which set of ‘facts’ you want to follow to get the desired outcome your happy with.
Evolution vs Creation is all personal preference.



posted on Jun, 6 2012 @ 04:00 PM
link   
reply to post by WhoKnows100
 

Good point, but there is another possibility, that even the so-called believers don't really know God (as Jesus knew God), and that the human being was made, in the fullness of an eternal cosmic evolutionary process, to contain and reflect nothing less than the spirit of the living God with Jesus Christ operating as God's own intercessory Grace in human form, both as a model and a pattern, and as a reconciliation and atonement, so that we too can be restored to our right relationship with God the first father of creation, and as children of God who were made in the image and likeness of God, who for us resides in the personal spirit of Jesus Christ, where it may be said that in recieving Christ into our hearts, that there is no amount of Christ capable of ruining a human personality!


Also, please see my otherwise ignored post above, for the scientific basis for a new, third option in the form of a valid intelligent design theory of evolution, but one where God is intimately involved in the creation, and is not set apart from it, or from us.

Regards,

NAM
Your brother in Christ.


edit on 6-6-2012 by NewAgeMan because: edit



posted on Jun, 6 2012 @ 04:02 PM
link   

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

I'm assuming you have some scientific resources that suggest otherwise?


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.

Okay, I guess you said it, so it must be true.


You just keep on worshiping the god of Man and listening to the falsehoods he indoctrinates you with.
Science has nothing to do with people's personal beliefs. I personally don't mind if you belief in the giant space turtle creating everything. As long as you use that belief to make your life and others better, more power to you. I just absolutely get annoyed when people talk about science as if its some religion and isn't based on facts. If not for science, we wouldn't even be having this conversation.


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.

I'd absolutely LOVE to see the evidence that suggests evolution is a circular theory. The process is proven. End of story.


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...

Once again, you need to back up your claims. I'm well aware that gravity is directly reflective of the mass on the object, but that does not mean that A) we know the exact cause or B) evolution is wrong.


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

I suggest you do the same, and instead of attacking a theory from the 1800s, look at the theory as it is TODAY.


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...

What does that prove about evolution? You really want to debate semantics? Evolution is based on tangible evidence and data as well, and yes the theory does change over time just like all science?


Wrong again. Evolution as an observable phenomena is as you defined.

The THEORY of evolution includes abiogensis. It is separated as the theory of abiogenesis, but it is still a part of the theory of evolution at least as evolution is commonly referred to.
You are sure quick to call me wrong, and not back up a single thing you mentioned. No the theory of evolution does not include the hypothesis of abiogenesis, nor is any part of the physical process of evolution based on it.


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



posted on Jun, 6 2012 @ 04:02 PM
link   
Wow really ? Just WOW.
I am ashamed of my fellow country men. I truly thought we were smarter than that. I know that there are a lot of people who are religious and hold true to church teaching. (cough cough ) But I really thought that the 10,0000 year thing would have been rejected by even the most religious. What do they say about things like carbon dating ? How do they explain the human remains found that are way older then 10K. ?
Does anyone know what the Vatican says about this? I know creation but about the 10K years? Recently they said that the story of Adam and Eve was just a story. I dont know how that affects original sin and all but now I wonder what they say about the 10K years.



posted on Jun, 6 2012 @ 04:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Tbrooks76
Evolution vs Creation….Dumb debate…

You all do realize it’s 100% speculation. None of us were there, no go good accountable records with details were taken so anything someone choses to believe about it is pure speculation based on what ‘facts’ the want to believe.


Oh, if you apply THAT sort of logic, then we can't be sure of anything at all. Where does this giant crater in Arizona come from? Could it be Devil's handiwork? Or was it a large meteorite that crashed into Earth at high speed? What do you think? Is this really that much of speculation? Also, the oldest sequoia trees -- can we really claim they are a few thousand years old (or hundreds, or whatever)? Nobody really planted them and than kept logbook on their growth. Maybe they are as young as 40 years of age, is that also a speculation?

We can't see inside molecules with our own eyes. So, by your logic, all of chemistry is speculation as well.



posted on Jun, 6 2012 @ 04:05 PM
link   
Just as I thought - completely ignored, while the thead rolls on for another 10 pages of absurdity and strong contemptuous bias, on either end of a spectrum of ignorance and stupidity.


edit on 6-6-2012 by NewAgeMan because: typo



posted on Jun, 6 2012 @ 04:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by NewAgeMan
Just as I thought - completely ignored, while the thead rolls on for another 10 pages of absurdity and strong contemptuous bias, on either end of a spectrum of ignorance and stupidity.


edit on 6-6-2012 by NewAgeMan because: typo


I saw it, thank you.



posted on Jun, 6 2012 @ 04:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by Masterjaden
Evolution: defined as: Change over time to adapt to the environment.... That is true science. It can be observed and as you have pointed out, it HAS been observed...

Evolution: defined as" MASSIVE change over MASSIVE UNOBSERVABLE periods of time... That is where there is all kinds of problems and where it is ABSOLUTELY correct to say it is just a theory... It is NOT fact, it is NOT observable and it is asinine to make the huge leaps in logic necessary to state that it is anything other than a belief.

Perhaps you'd care to enlighten us what these "all kinds of problems" are, how the fossil record (both in progression and lack of 100 million year old fossils of contemporary animals) doesn't serve as an indirect observation (same goes for genetics and distribution of species), and what these "huge leaps in logic" are?
edit on 6-6-2012 by rhinoceros because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 6 2012 @ 04:15 PM
link   
This whole debate is getting old. If you really read the Bible, Torah, and/or the Koran and look at how they describe "God" it really doesn't make sense. Why would "God" create man, knowing that he's just going to screw up and then get mad when he does? If the god of Abraham is actually the deity described in those texts, then he's one of the most immature, egotistical and sadistic characters in history. Also why would that god put in to place physical laws that discount his existence.

If there is in fact a being that can be described as "God" it exists on a level that we can not comprehend and therefore we can have no knowledge or proof of it."

There has been no empirical evidence for "God". If he really wanted us to believe why wouldn't he just appear to us all and say, "Hey ya'll what's up it's me Yahweh!". To me it seems that atheism or agnosticism is the only logical line of reasoning.



posted on Jun, 6 2012 @ 04:20 PM
link   
reply to post by Lionhearte
 


Cherrypicking the bible much are we?

Deuteronomy 22:22 states: "If a man is discovered committing adultery, both he and the woman must die. In this way, you will purge Israel of such evil."

Exodus 21:17 states: "And he that curseth his father, or his mother, shall surely be put to death."
Exodus 31:14-15 states:
"Ye shall keep the sabbath therefore; for it is holy unto you: every one that defileth it shall surely be put to death: for whosoever doeth any work therein, that soul shall be cut off from among his people.

Six days may work be done; but in the seventh is the sabbath of rest, holy to the LORD: whosoever doeth any work in the sabbath day, he shall surely be put to death.
Deuteronomy 22:20-21 states:
But if this thing be true, and the tokens of virginity be not found for the damsel:

Then they shall bring out the damsel to the door of her father's house, and the men of her city shall stone her with stones that she die: because she hath wrought folly in Israel, to play the whore in her father's house: so shalt thou put evil away from among you



posted on Jun, 6 2012 @ 04:21 PM
link   
reply to post by WhoKnows100
 


Who wrote that 2000 years ago ?
There cannot be only one religion if God really exists.
If God exists than the religions of the tribesman of the Amazon or Africa are true religions that he loves. The religions of the people of China are true religions that he loves and none of them count on Jesus to get the point across.
Christianity is a true religion and so is Islam. Every effort of worship is a true religion because if God exists he exists for everyone and not just the Christians. If God is real he is God for everyone and not just a select few. What true loving parent would reject more than half their children? Your religion was developed to control you and has nothing at all to do with reality.
Point: It used to be that the Gods were gift giving loving supporters of the people of the planet. Now the one God sits in judgement and punishes. How's that for evolution? Doesn't that just scream, we developed this to control you ?



posted on Jun, 6 2012 @ 04:23 PM
link   
reply to post by Wide-Eyes
 


I'd say that twenty pages proves that someone does. Clearly that is not you but apparently there are some.



new topics

top topics



 
30
<< 17  18  19    21  22  23 >>

log in

join