Creationists = Evolutionists, page 2

Pages: << 1 2 >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 1 times

reply posted on 9-6-2012 @ 10:23 PM by rickymouse

reply to post by UltimateSkeptic1

We are conditioned to be competitive, it keeps us from making alliances with each other so we can't chalenge those in power. Just one of many techniques used by the ones in control.......I actually think that humans aren't nearly as intelligent as they think they are. Neither of these two theories are even close to right. We can't find the truth till we get rid of our competitive nature and unlock the restrictions imposed on testing procedures.

reply posted on 10-6-2012 @ 12:12 AM by EncompassAll

reply to post by UltimateSkeptic1

Evolutions do not know for a fact that there isn't a creator. Creationist don't know for a fact that we didn't evolve.

I think both are true. Evolution is simply a proccess. This proccess had to be sparked off by something. I call this "something" the absense of nothing. We know there is,nt nothing because we are here proving it. So whats the opposite of nothing and how would it know it existed? It creates something so it can see its creation and know it exists. Then the thing its created is proof that "Something" created it.

So there is the creator which started the proccess of evolution and its this proccess that led to us.

reply posted on 10-6-2012 @ 12:29 AM by Noncompatible

Originally posted by UltimateSkeptic1
Somebody gave you book to read. They told you the book was true. Or maybe you found the book yourself. Or maybe a speaker in front of a room told you what he or she believed was true.

It made sense to you. It resonated. You looked for facts to prove it was true. Your belief strengthened.

So here's the question:

Why is it so important for you to "prove" you're right, and the "other side" is wrong?

Why try to force your "truth" on the rest of us????

Because the denial of ignorance matters. You cannot force the truth, the truth simply is.

But you cannot discover the the truth by NOT expanding the horizons of knowledge.

reply posted on 10-6-2012 @ 05:17 AM by protocolsoflove

Let's say that thoughts and ideas are things.

Creationism and Evolution are both things.

Sure they're the same because they're just 2 more things in the universe.

Now, if you were to say that the precepts were identical you would be sorely mistaken. Evolution has been scientifically studied and recorded. We know for a fact that environmental factors will eventually influence the DNA of a species over generations.

Creationism? Well...that takes faith.

I think these two ideas can coexist quite well.

edit on 10-6-2012 by protocolsoflove because: sp

reply posted on 11-6-2012 @ 12:43 AM by Astyanax

reply to post by UltimateSkeptic1

Why is it so important for you to "prove" you're right, and the "other side" is wrong? Why try to force your "truth" on the rest of us?

Ideas and beliefs have massive consequences. They raise civilizations, form and alter cultures. They profoundly affect our lives and the manner of our dying.

The truth or falsehood of an idea or belief affects the consequences that flow from it. The truth that is denied and the lie that is believed can usually be shown to have a deleterious impact because their consequences when acted upon are other than those expected. The truth that is upheld, on the other hand, forms a valid basis for action that actually produces the expected results. It is a more reliable foundation on which to build.

It is as simple as that. Do we really have to argue about the relative merits of truth and falsehood? Surely you are not one of those naive people who believes that 'everything is relative' and there is no such thing as truth? That is just a lie used to justify other lies.

All this, of course, begs the question of whether creationism or evolutionism are truthful narratives.

One narrative makes sense and is supported by facts. The other contains logical and physical impossibilities and is supported only by folk tradition. Which is which?

I couldn't care less what some individual person believes. But I do care – I care very deeply indeed – about intellectual freedom, and about which of the two narratives forms the basis for scientific education, future scientific research, the development of the humanities, the policies of governments (not just with respect to science but with respect to everything) and the direction human history will take in the future. I would like such things to be based on truth and not on some false belief.

Can you understand the difference? Therein lies the answer to your question.

edit on 11/6/12 by Astyanax because: how soon is now?

Pages: << 1 2 >> ^^TOP^^