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.
Originally posted by Opfor
I wonder if this 46% is the reason America is lagging so far behind in science and math? Nah!!!
Originally posted by bbracken677
I have perused many of the comments here, and i am surprised that no one has commented on the parallels between modern theory and Genesis.
If you read Genesis, with an understanding of modern cosmological and evolutionary theory you should notice that they do, indeed, agree.
Originally posted by camarosquid
I hate this but at the same time I dont. I feel like I want to believe in God but at the same time I want to believe in Evolution as well.
Originally posted by Lazarus Short
Our side can argue fairly and logically, but it will only be thrown back in our faces. Some on this forum really need to look at what they are writing, and think about their own intent.
Originally posted by camarosquid
I hate this but at the same time I dont. I feel like I want to believe in God but at the same time I want to believe in Evolution as well.
How about God in His infinite wisdom invented Evolution?
Originally posted by Barcs
Originally posted by Lazarus Short
Our side can argue fairly and logically, but it will only be thrown back in our faces. Some on this forum really need to look at what they are writing, and think about their own intent.
That's funny, because I haven't seen a single creationist present a logical case for creation. I haven't seen a single one that doesn't rely on fallacies and misunderstandings of science. This thread isn't based on a straw man, it's based on a hasty generalization. The poll only asked a few thousand people, not nearly a large enough sample size to suggest 46% of people are creationist.
Originally posted by blackcube
Jesus? Jesus is overrated. I will so much more Hindu deities
You sound like only Jesus is the moral example of "good behavior" in our human history.
The only thing that made he special was he give himself the title "THE son of god" lol take about prepotency.
Originally posted by Lazarus Short
Originally posted by Barcs
Originally posted by Lazarus Short
Our side can argue fairly and logically, but it will only be thrown back in our faces. Some on this forum really need to look at what they are writing, and think about their own intent.
That's funny, because I haven't seen a single creationist present a logical case for creation. I haven't seen a single one that doesn't rely on fallacies and misunderstandings of science. This thread isn't based on a straw man, it's based on a hasty generalization. The poll only asked a few thousand people, not nearly a large enough sample size to suggest 46% of people are creationist.
You have yet to understand what I am trying to say to you. Are you using a script?
Originally posted by Barcs
Originally posted by Lazarus Short
Originally posted by Barcs
Originally posted by Lazarus Short
Our side can argue fairly and logically, but it will only be thrown back in our faces. Some on this forum really need to look at what they are writing, and think about their own intent.
That's funny, because I haven't seen a single creationist present a logical case for creation. I haven't seen a single one that doesn't rely on fallacies and misunderstandings of science. This thread isn't based on a straw man, it's based on a hasty generalization. The poll only asked a few thousand people, not nearly a large enough sample size to suggest 46% of people are creationist.
You have yet to understand what I am trying to say to you. Are you using a script?
Present your fair and logical objective argument for a creator. All you have to do is read the top 10 threads in this section and you'll see the constant misinformation that creationists put out there to attack science. I honestly have not seen one that is based on objective science, yet. Maybe you have. Good luck with your presentation. I'm just defending science, don't take it personally. Claims like that need to be backed up.edit on 8-7-2012 by Barcs because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by Lazarus Short
I suspect, given your posts so far, that you would not admit it if you saw a creationist argument which was based on objective science. I think your ideology would exclude it, but why not surprise us sometime? A rational discussion requires that we be on the same page, which we are not. We are not even in the same library. Anyway, real science should not need amateur defenders. If you are doing this as a job, then you are a professional, and if so, then excuse my presumption.
Originally posted by Lazarus Short
Anyway, real science should not need amateur defenders. If you are doing this as a job, then you are a professional, and if so, then excuse my presumption.
Originally posted by Lazarus Short
Anyway, real science should not need amateur defenders.