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 Vandettas
I've watched all the videos and still don't see how DNA killed evolution.
The OP's point is basically, "because DNA is so complex, god did it".
The OP's point is "because science cannot prove it, god did it".
The OP's point is "every scientist for the last 100 years has been faking discoveries and evidence".
There used to be a time where when you got sick, they'd say god was punishing you.
Until we figured out what a "cold" was, until we classified it, understood it, knew where
it came from, people were shouting god! god! Like seriously, its childish way of thinking.
In Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, the first direct challenge brought in United States federal courts to an attempt to mandate the teaching of intelligent design on First Amendment grounds, Behe was called as a primary witness for the defense and asked to support the idea that intelligent design was legitimate science. Some of the most crucial exchanges in the trial occurred during Behe's cross-examination, where his testimony would prove devastating to the defense. Behe was forced to concede that "there are no peer reviewed articles by anyone advocating for intelligent design supported by pertinent experiments or calculations which provide detailed rigorous accounts of how intelligent design of any biological system occurred" and that his definition of 'theory' as applied to intelligent design was so loose that astrology would also qualify. Earlier during his direct testimony, Behe had argued that a computer simulation of evolution he performed with Snoke shows that evolution is not likely to produce certain complex biochemical systems. Under cross examination however, Behe was forced to agree that "the number of prokaryotes in 1 ton of soil are 7 orders of magnitude higher than the population [it would take] to produce the disulfide bond" and that "it's entirely possible that something that couldn't be produced in the lab in two years... could be produced over three and half billion years."
Behe has acknowledged using "sloppy prose", and that his "argument against Darwinism does not add up to a logical proof". Irreducible complexity has remained a popular argument among advocates of intelligent design; in the Dover trial, the court held that "Professor Behe's claim for irreducible complexity has been refuted in peer-reviewed research papers and has been rejected by the scientific community at large".
But it is hard to discuss evolution without talking about the beginning of life to give examples of my position.
The absolute disregard for empirical evidence in order to incorporate superstitious notions is the most disturbing part of ID and the canard of "irreducible complexity". It takes a special type of ignorance and delusion to hold such beliefs and a complete failure in education of science and the natural world (meaning reality) . . . and the U.S. takes the cake on failure to educate and conflation of pseudo-science and superstition.
Originally posted by th3onetruth
reply to post by UnifiedSerenity
let me guess, you believe the Earth is ~6000 years old...
edit on 14-8-2013 by th3onetruth because: added picture
Originally posted by th3onetruth
reply to post by UnifiedSerenity
let me guess, you believe the Earth is ~6000 years old...
edit on 14-8-2013 by th3onetruth because: added picture
No I don't and the bible does not say it is. Those who teach that are biblically illiterate, and as such cause a lot of problems.
Originally posted by Magister1
I am still amazed at the amount of work the creationist go through to try to "prove" that their ancient mistranslated book is "scientific" The need to understand a topic before you misquote it would seem to be only responsible. DNA is the mechanism for evolution.It works due to the interactions of random events both in the DNA of individuals and the environment. Those individuals who have variations in the DNA may have a minor advantage to survive and reproduce. These minor changes over millions of years causes the species to adapt to the changes in the environment. There is significant geological record of this but you would have to read more than one book to find it.
I do understand the need for creationist to fight the natural laws. If everything worked through natural laws and the random events that the universe runs on then they wouldn't feel so special. It is a clear cut case of arrogance. " I am made in god image. my book says so. But if god had set up natural laws and I was just a part of that I wouldn't be special"
So, here is the real problem, science shows that god,or kinder nature set up natural laws (like the theory of gravity) so that the universe wouldn't need to be micromanaged (as the creationist believe) . If a god did set up a system where he had to be the janitor to keep it running every day and be the servant of his creations then he would need to read up more on how to design a more intelligently universe, and would definitely not be very impressive.
I also find the idea that just because the systems used in living organisms are too complicated for some people to grasp must prove the existence of a god to only be the proof of a belief in self impressed ignorance.
Consider that we understand these system because we have studied the biochemistry of living cells. This is where modern science is at. Unlike the creationist, science will tell you we do not have all the answers yet; science is a process and not an end. However, science is constantly learning and advancing whereas the creationist is stagnantly stuck in an eon before electricity and an understanding that there are other planets or even molecules. The writers of the religious text even disregarded the scientific knowledge of their own time; so, I do not see how it could be relevant to scientific principals that those writers couldn't have even know about.