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 lonewolf19792000
Bill Nye is a tool. There is science in the Holy Bible, you folks just do not know what you are looking at. The science in the bible started being proven with the invention of the electron microscope and period table of elements.
Hitler believed in murder and genocide. He wasn't a Christian - he was taught by catholics
Lonewolf: WOW! This is the first I have ever heard an electron microscope and the periodic table in the bible. Care to offer any proof of that?
I would like to know that you are judging God's version of creation with reason and not just because you've been taught to hate. So, please, tell me what you think we teach about creation and we'll see how much you know.
Rig Veda 10:129.
Who really knows, and who can swear,
How creation came, when or where!
Even gods came after creation’s day,
Who really knows, who can truly say
When and how did creation start?
Did He do it? Or did He not?
Only He, up there, knows, maybe;
Or perhaps, not even He.
NO Genetics has provided us with insights in to genetics. Evolution is a separate faith science. Evolution has not provided us with insight into genetics
Evolution has nothing to do with genetics.
The power of a scientific theory is fuelled by its predictive power and verification of predictions provide the important and necessary support in the testing of a theory. The theory of evolution has provided such predictions.[63] Four examples are:
Genetic information must be transmitted in a molecular way that will be almost exact but permit slight changes. Since this prediction was made, biologists have discovered the existence of DNA, which has a mutation rate of roughly 10−9 per nucleotide per cell division; this provides just such a mechanism.[64]
Some DNA sequences are shared by very different organisms. It has been predicted by the theory of evolution that the differences in such DNA sequences between two organisms should roughly resemble both the biological difference between them according to their anatomy and the time that had passed since these two organisms have separated in the course of evolution, as seen in fossil evidence. The rate of accumulating such changes should be low for some sequences, namely those that code for critical RNA or proteins, and high for others that code for less critical RNA or proteins; but for every specific sequence, the rate of change should be roughly constant over time. These results have been experimentally confirmed. Two examples are DNA sequences coding for rRNA, which is highly conserved, and DNA sequences coding for fibrinopeptides (amino acid chains that are discarded during the formation of fibrin), which are highly non-conserved.[64]
Prior to 2004, paleontologists had found fossils of amphibians with necks, ears, and four legs, in rock no older than 365 million years old. In rocks more than 385 million years old they could only find fish, without these amphibian characteristics. Evolutionary theory predicted that since amphibians evolved from fish, an intermediate form should be found in rock dated between 365 and 385 million years ago. Such an intermediate form should have many fish-like characteristics, conserved from 385 million years ago or more, but also have many amphibian characteristics as well. In 2004, an expedition to islands in the Canadian arctic searching specifically for this fossil form in rocks that were 375 million years old discovered fossils of Tiktaalik.[65]
Richard Lenski observed that some strains of E. coli evolved a complex new ability, the ability to metabolize citrate, after tens of thousands of generations.[66][58] The evolutionary biologist Jerry Coyne commented saying, "the thing I like most is it says you can get these complex traits evolving by a combination of unlikely events. That's just what creationists say can't happen."[66]
A crazy religious believer started scientific study of genetics; Gregor Mendel. Not evolution. Crazy crackpot thing to say.
Evolution is a faith, a religion. It should be explored and tested,right or wrong. Thats is what science does, as should creationism.
Science has no patron.
Originally posted by Pinke
Science deals with what is, what can be observed, and what can be tested.
Originally posted by Serdgiam
reply to post by Pinke
What are your thoughts on the big bang theory, which is based in mathematical philosophy?
How do we investigate it or observe it directly and not just through models?
Originally posted by BriGuyTM90
There's no need to teach Creationism or Darwinism or intelligent design or anything for that matter. All of those ideologies are biased and I look at them basically as propaganda.
Originally posted by Banananananana
reply to post by RoboticNomad
I agree with you that kids should be taught evolution, just not in the manner as it is currently practiced, which tends to be a seemingly absolute that is dogmatic in itself. I just feel evolution and creationism should be taught side by side, but from a philisophical context rather than scientific fact. You mentioned that not teaching evolution would hold back kid's abilities to form their own opinion in that subject, and I agree, but I am also curious as to whether you believe that not teaching evolution will "hold us back" in any other regards.
As for my statement on persecution, perhaps that was a bit out of place given the nature of the thread, but if you would like I can also clarify and better illustrate what I meant. Regardless, I do think that the increasing dichotomy between "new world" rationalism and "old world" dogmatism will play a heavy role in the future.
Originally posted by SplitInfinity
reply to post by Raelsatu
Intelligent Design was a concept designed by those who are NOT INTELLIGENT! Evolution stopped being a THEORY for some time now and Intelligent Design...and I have read that book...is beyond STUPID! It has not one concept that has any scientific basis of thought.
Split Infinity
Originally posted by Murgatroid
Originally posted by BriGuyTM90
There's no need to teach Creationism or Darwinism or intelligent design or anything for that matter. All of those ideologies are biased and I look at them basically as propaganda.
The truth is never biased, only LIES are biased.
Both can be wrong, but only ONE can be right.
Atheists will defend Darwin to the death because Darwinism must be true for Divine Creation to be false.