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 TsukiLunar
reply to post by centrifugal
Intuitively I would say intelligent design makes perfect sense, I am a computer programmer so I can have an appreciation for good design. My belief in intelligent design has no direct conflict with the theory of evolution.
Humans a hundred and fifty years ago believed differently.
Do we reconcile our beliefs with modern science so that they can keep making sense in context with known facts? Do we keep looking for holes to insert the unexplainable in an attempt to keep our gods alive?
Originally posted by TsukiLunar
reply to post by centrifugal
The simplest solution to origins is that we were placed here as it makes the fewest assumptions. I am sure you have heard of Occam's razor. William Ockham himself believed in God.
I am not sure what you mean. Making "the fewest assumptions" to come to the conclusion that an omnipotent deity "did it" explains nothing. And is counterproductive to the core concept of science.
Originally posted by rhinoceros
A creationist will never answer the following questions: If species were created as are, then why is it that we don't find 100s of millions of years old fossils that are similar to contemporary species such as humans, elephants, rhinos, bears, dolphins or dogs? Why is it that the newer the fossil, the more similar it is to contemporary species, as if these lineages somehow changed over time?
Originally posted by TsukiLunar
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
I feel the need to inform you that the hang up you seem to have is about Abiogenesis, a science so underdeveloped that spellcheck doesn't even consider it a word. That is not evolution.
Well yes, one could insert a God into that hole. But that goes a long way to explain nothing. Its a step backward in scientific inquiry if we start explaining things as a "unexplainable".
You understand why "critical thought" about religion has nothing to do with religion itself, you are a smart man.
In a scientific discussion religion is on the low ground. You can not contest the mechanism in which God created the world. You can not write up a paper on the mechanism in which Jesus walked on water. It just is, no need to explain the intricacies, that is religion.
Its a far cry from science.
edit on 28-8-2012 by TsukiLunar because: (no reason given)
Regardless though my belief in God is derived from my own intuition.
Essentially if we determine there are unexplainable anomolies(And im not saying that I know that to be the case) in the theory of evolution that means one two things. A) Evolution is wrong or B) Evolution is only part of the story and an artificial event took place.
The *VAST* majority on this rock of ours do not see life as an accident or some weird coincidence of fate, and so children would be WELL SERVED to be educated on at least the EXISTENCE of the theory that the majority of human beings ascribe to, in one way or another.
Denial of that for education is the gleeful and willful spreading of ignorance, not the eradication of it. Let the kids decide...and if they can't, THAT is the problem right there, not the offering of alternative views.
Originally posted by TsukiLunar
However, one could argue, that the theory of creationism, having no objective proof, could not be counted as a scientific theory. It would be irresponsible, and indeed, misleading to put it on the same level as evolution because it is not something that has any grounding in scientific discussion.
Originally posted by rhinoceros
Originally posted by TsukiLunar
However, one could argue, that the theory of creationism, having no objective proof, could not be counted as a scientific theory. It would be irresponsible, and indeed, misleading to put it on the same level as evolution because it is not something that has any grounding in scientific discussion.
Calling it a theory is just flat out wrong. It's not testable. It doesn't make predictions. It's just a baseless idea.
Originally posted by MCL1150
Here's a good example : Some butterflies have eyes painted on their wings to ward off predators, give the impression they're bigger than they really are.. evolution is blind and does not see, Creationism see's and direct evolution how to progress, you really can't have evolution without Creationism, they really go hand and hand!
Originally posted by rhinoceros
Originally posted by MCL1150
Here's a good example : Some butterflies have eyes painted on their wings to ward off predators, give the impression they're bigger than they really are.. evolution is blind and does not see, Creationism see's and direct evolution how to progress, you really can't have evolution without Creationism, they really go hand and hand!
You start with a population of butterflies that shows variance in wing patterns. Generation over generation, the butterflies that have patterns more similar to eyes on their wings get caught less and thus reproduce more, increasing the frequency of "eyes on wings" trait. Natural selection is not blind.edit on 28-8-2012 by rhinoceros because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by gosseyn
reply to post by rhinoceros
In science, a law means that something is observed but we don't know how it works
What? Man, it's the contrary. A law in science is something proven without a doubt, like the law of gravity. A theory is something we are not sure about, like the dark matter theory or the multiverse..edit on 27-8-2012 by gosseyn because: (no reason given)
Bill Nye: Creationism is not appropriate for children.
Of course kids don't run everything. Thats so silly to say I'm at a loss as to where your argument here even comes from. Until recently, the skill of critical thinking and analysis of information to make sound judgement calls was part of and encouraged within the school programs in a variety of ways. Unfortunately, critical thinking skills would seem to be something specifically glossed over now in favor of spoon fed and FORCE fed indoctrination as much as anything.
When what is presented is pre-screened, pre-edited and presented to show only the view most favored by the current ruling party or Government as a whole, it's flat out indoctrination.
A variety of viewpoints and respect for each that others may hold used to be equally important.
Poor kids....They don't even know how badly screwed they're getting here. They'd need those critical thinking skills being denied them to realize it.
A random explosion of nothing exploding in space (which is something, where did space come from?) cannot, and will not create order.
Originally posted by FlyersFan
Bill Nye: Creationism is not appropriate for children.
It's none of his business if people of faith wish to teach their children creationism.
It doesn't hurt anyone and it's their right as parents to pass along their faith.
What alternative does he suggest? Evolution?
Evolution is a THEORY just as creationism is a THEORY.
The guy is a weeenieeee.