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.

 

Evolutionists ! Explain this and make sense at the same time.

page: 12
20
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 10 2013 @ 06:24 AM
link   
reply to post by solomons path
 


okay, try an experiment to verify this for yourself. go to any university and ask to sit in on their biology classes. then during question and answer period (if there even is one anymore), bring up the spectre of intelligent design and observe the response-- FROM THE PROFESSOR (the students don't count as they are just parroting what they are taught just like religious people do).

if it is not hostile, you will have personal evidence (and that's always the best kind since it isn't word of mouth) that the universities are NOT hostile to questions (well you would need a few more examples for sample size but at least you would have established a starting position for a track record and that's the beginning of any research).

if hostile, you may have to rethink just how far that hostility goes. people who have encountered hostility at this level, have personal evidence, and thus share it with others. when others who have experienced this intellectual tyranny, watch/listen to/read other accounts of similar problems, the evidence begins to mount. enough evidence and we have ourselves a theory.


edit on 10-9-2013 by undo because: (no reason given)




posted on Sep, 10 2013 @ 06:39 AM
link   
reply to post by undo
 


I don't need to do that experiment. I've already received a degree and even taught classes.

The amount hostility will be dependent on the instructor and their experiences with those that express intrest. However, all will at least scoff. And that is because there is no evidence to support and the only people that bring up ID are usually Christian Funde's. If you frame the question in reference to aliens, you may receive less flack, but the answer will be the same.

The concept of ID stems from creationism. There was no ID until the supreme court ruled that it was unconstitutional to try to teach creationism in science class. Even though there are those that now say "Why does the creator have to be a god" . . . that's not how the concept came about or where the idea of ID comes from. Here's a video that talks about that change.


edit on 9/10/13 by solomons path because: (no reason given)

edit on 9/10/13 by solomons path because: (no reason given)

edit on 9/10/13 by solomons path because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 10 2013 @ 06:49 AM
link   
reply to post by undo
 


Also, if you are talking about "Expelled" specifically. That film was produced by Premise Media, Motive Marketing, and the Discovery Institute. That agenda would take too long to cover right now . . . I've got to get ready to go to the office. However, they are all funded by conservative evangelical groups and their mission is to sway public opinion to get creationism on the same level as accepted science. They pay scientists and teachers who are also Christians to promote the idea that ID has any merit.

I really should do a thread about their deception. Maybe later this evening.

You can read their strategy here . . .
Discovery Institue - The Wedge



posted on Sep, 10 2013 @ 06:54 AM
link   
reply to post by solomons path
 


this is the dilemma, and it is characteristic of any ingrained belief system, regardless of source (maybe we can chalk it up to human prediliction but i'm not convinced it is entirely a human response):

when an institution responsible for the dissemination of data becomes popularized and mainstream, it suffers from mob mentality issues. it is affirming to assume likeness of mind equals fact and theoretically, this can represent reality or it can represent manufactured reality with a dash of truth here and a dash of not so true there, to outright bull# mixed in. but once it is mainstream and held up by an institution, you end up with dissenting scholars in prison cells, burned at the stake, fired from jobs, relegated to mental hospitals and so on.

this same thing can be said for religion, as religion tends to be organized into popularized, mainstream groups. and interpretation of the data can result in variations of truth, mixed with half truths, mixed with outright bull#.

so scientists or religious persons, who continue to ask questions even after the issue has been settled in the popularized mainstream, are viewed as troublemakers and depending on the level of questioning, and the seriousness of the topic, can even be viewed as a dangerous mutation to be excised from the body of believers. THIS HAS ALWAYS BEEN TRUE OF HUMAN SOCIETIES.

the usa was originally designed to allow everyone to ask questions without fear of reprisal, because without questions, the keepers of mainstream, popularized knowledge, become bloody tyrants.

edit on 10-9-2013 by undo because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 10 2013 @ 07:00 AM
link   
reply to post by solomons path
 


K, for now Solomon, you just kicked my ass with the pic of the little girl
bottom page eleven. I have a weak spot for kids so, I need a break.
I'm pretty sure I do see what you're talking about in the vid also.
To be continued.
edit on 10-9-2013 by randyvs because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 10 2013 @ 07:14 AM
link   
solomon's path



and the only people that bring up ID are usually Christian Funde's


i want you to examine your sentence here. that is what is known as a half truth with the goal being to isolate out a target for prejudice. first you say the "only" people and then you say "usually"
these two things don't jive, but it allows you, intellectually, to wiggle out of any data to the contrary by pointing to the statement where you say "usually".

if i am being open minded about it, i read that sentence as an attempt to make a specific group look like they are singularly responsible for a deviation in mainstream thought. not only do some christians believe in evolution, some atheists believe we were designed by intelligent aliens who may or may not have evolved elsewhere in this particular universe or any other universes for that matter. you gave yourself an out with that by tagging "fundie" to the end of the statement, suggesting that the ONLY people are christian and fundie who believe in intelligent design. that is a crock of bs and you know it.

not only that, there are countless religions, besides christianity, who believe in intelligent design of some kind. there are also countless variations on this theme and to suggest it is a war solely between christian fundies and mainstream science is evidence of your prejudice.

in the expelled video, mr. stein doesn't consider it an attack against christian fundies as much as he thinks it is designed to attack jewish people in particular with the christian fundies being a mere side note. you need to change your reading glasses or hearing aid, cause your prejudice is clouding your reasoning faculties.


edit on 10-9-2013 by undo because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 10 2013 @ 07:28 AM
link   

randyvs
Sounds like putting the cart before the horse to me. No holes in the story left by creation. To try an fill as we go along. Look to me your riduculous. Sorry if that offends you but maybe if you quit believing the lies you paid to believe in we might get some where with you. And actually give you something to look forward to.


Why is that ridiculous? When you are filling a hole in the ground with dirt do you either A) Grab a giant lump of dirt and just dump it in all at once or B) Fill it in with one shovel full at a time? Same concept here. Theories work by filling in one part at a time. That is how reality works. I am not going to abandon gritty reality where we can't explain everything to embrace some fantasy just because it claims to have ALL the answers. See here is another problem with Creationists. You all carry on like Evolution is supposed to have all the answers. That isn't how it works. As we learn more, we are able to fill in the blanks. Why is that so hard to grasp? That's how you go about learning anything. We just don't look at some evidence and suddenly have the answer to EVERY question possible. Not to mention religion doesn't have all the answers. I've addressed several questions in my previous posts that you continue to ignore.

I am not offended by your belief, I was offended by your ad hominem attacks that you were using in your previous posts. They are unnecessary and detract from your argument. Also no one is paying me to believe any lies. I just look at as much evidence as possible and come to a conclusion based on the evidence.

You still fail to address all my points in my posts. You seem to focus on one or two points in my posts try to argue the same points over and over against them and operate like that is all I said. How about adequately addressing some of my other points, like that evolution is a tool used by God to develop life. Or that there are many inconsistencies in the bible that are just straight up paradoxes and don't make any sense. Or that you don't have any proof for your own theory, so I best you are just disproving evolution, but not adding any merit to your own theory.

So now that I have brought up my additional points again, you will promptly ignore most of them in favor of trying to ridicule me and tell me that you are right and I am wrong without a post of any substance. Prove me wrong.



posted on Sep, 10 2013 @ 07:45 AM
link   

undo
solomon's path



and the only people that bring up ID are usually Christian Funde's


i want you to examine your sentence here. that is what is known as a half truth with the goal being to isolate out a target for prejudice. first you say the "only" people and then you say "usually"
these two things don't jive, but it allows you, intellectually, to wiggle out of any data to the contrary by pointing to the statement where you say "usually".

if i am being open minded about it, i read that sentence as an attempt to make a specific group look like they are singularly responsible for a deviation in mainstream thought. not only do some christians believe in evolution, some atheists believe we were designed by intelligent aliens who may or may not have evolved elsewhere in this particular universe or any other universes for that matter. you gave yourself an out with that by tagging "fundie" to the end of the statement, suggesting that the ONLY people are christian and fundie who believe in intelligent design. that is a crock of bs and you know it.

not only that, there are countless religions, besides christianity, who believe in intelligent design of some kind. there are also countless variations on this theme and to suggest it is a war solely between christian fundies and mainstream science is evidence of your prejudice.

in the expelled video, mr. stein doesn't consider it an attack against christian fundies as much as he thinks it is designed to attack jewish people in particular with the christian fundies being a mere side note. you need to change your reading glasses or hearing aid, cause your prejudice is clouding your reasoning faculties.


edit on 10-9-2013 by undo because: (no reason given)


I knew I shouldn't have checked in before leaving for work . . .

I'll post a separate thread on "Expelled" this evening, exposing their dishonesty and detailing their propaganda that you seem to love.

As far as Stein . . . you must be referring to the Eugenics/NAZI fallacy that is promoted in the film. Just know that he didn't write this doc. He was merely paid to present it and he was only asked/paid to do it based on market research regarding him being a known quantity to those asked. Basically they asked focus groups "Do you recognize this person" and he had the highest percentage.

BTW - here is a statement from the ADL on that Eugenics fallacy:


The ADL press release also said, “Using the Holocaust in order to tarnish those who promote the theory of evolution is outrageous and trivializes the complex factors that led to the mass extermination of European Jewry.”


None of what I'm saying is a "crock" . . . The agenda pushed in this film, by who, and why is quite well documented and I even know someone that was interviewed for the film.

You're getting into a area that I'm quite familiar with . . . Look for the thread this evening.

Enjoy your day!
edit on 9/10/13 by solomons path because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 10 2013 @ 07:48 AM
link   
reply to post by Krazysh0t
 





As we learn more, we are able to fill in the blanks.


agreed, but as it is the human predilection to have a confirmation bias, they are so cock sure of their prior results, they don't even bother to examine any evidence to the contrary. normally, this would be okay. for example, it's okay to recognize the laws of science. these are self evident, such as gravity or velocity, and so on. we shouldn't have to examine the evidence of gravity every time we encounter the effects of it, although we still do at some level (like a baby learning to gauge distance and the effects of dropping their spoon off the table on their high chair).

where the issue arises is the tendency to no longer ask questions that may disagree or throw doubt on the subject. and when this does happen, the criteria for change are very specific.

for example, stephen hawking's belief at one point, that matter can be created and destroyed, in direct contradiction to prior "laws of science" (conservation) that stated that matter can be neither created or destroyed, that it just is and always has been and simply changes state. his findings were refuted shortly thereafter when it was discovered that matter is recycled via a mechanism known as super massive black holes. existing matter is sucked into the black hole, reconfigured (state change) and spewed back out again to form new things.

notice how the questions involved, don't appear to have any direct bearing on evolution or religion, as either position could be argued there. this is why the question was allowed to arise. that alone should give you pause.



posted on Sep, 10 2013 @ 07:54 AM
link   
reply to post by solomons path
 


as someone else said in the thread: "that's moving the goal post"
it doesn't matter who promoted it, if it's the truth. if it''s only occasionally true, those times when it is true, are still evidence that it happens. and if it happens, we should address it.



posted on Sep, 10 2013 @ 08:06 AM
link   
reply to post by undo
 


Gravity isn't a law of science it is a theory just like evolution.Theory of Gravity Also just like Evolution, we don't fully understand it. As new things are learned about gravity, we fill in the hole for it, just like Evolution.

You see, the reason that Creationists are never taken seriously is because they NEVER provide the proof for their own theory. They spend all their time trying to pick apart the theory of evolution but don't provide a counter-theory that fits all the holes that evolution leaves open without creating new bigger holes. While you are correct in that fringe science ideas can take a while to gain traction, if the science is sound they WILL gain traction.

Why should I disbelieve a theory that has more supporting evidence for it in favor of a theory that has to be interpreted a certain way from a book that was written centuries ago? For instance, I could interpret the bible to fit the Big Bang theory, Abiogenesis, and Evolution. But Creationists swear up and down that these three theories are compatible with religion.
edit on 10-9-2013 by Krazysh0t because: meant to say compatible



posted on Sep, 10 2013 @ 08:08 AM
link   

undo
reply to post by solomons path
 


as someone else said in the thread: "that's moving the goal post"
it doesn't matter who promoted it, if it's the truth. if it''s only occasionally true, those times when it is true, are still evidence that it happens. and if it happens, we should address it.


Only none of it is true . . . Not one person in that film is telling the truth about why they lost their positions. That film is one big lie. And I'm the one that wrote the comment about "moving the goalposts"!

I wrote that because you and Murgatroid brought conspiracist ideation to a conversation about the Nephilim skulls! Nobody is being silenced. That is a fallacy to get public sympathy for their movement. They want to mix philosophy/theology to stand on equal ground with science. Problem is: it is not science and doesn't belong in a science class . . . As an instructor, I have a job to teach the subject at hand (let's say Biology). I am to instruct based on known facts, not universal truths or conjecture about the supernatural. There is no evidence for such things, so they shouldn't be lumped together with fields that deal in empirical evidence. So, drop the persecution complex.

It will be a long post . . . lots of info. I'm off, but I'll post the thread in this forum.
edit on 9/10/13 by solomons path because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 10 2013 @ 08:16 AM
link   

Krazysh0t
reply to post by undo
 


Gravity isn't a law of science it is a theory just like evolution.Theory of Gravity Also just like Evolution, we don't fully understand it. As new things are learned about gravity, we fill in the hole for it, just like Evolution.

You see, the reason that Creationists are never taken seriously is because they NEVER provide the proof for their own theory. They spend all their time trying to pick apart the theory of evolution but don't provide a counter-theory that fits all the holes that evolution leaves open without creating new bigger holes. While you are correct in that fringe science ideas can take a while to gain traction, if the science is sound they WILL gain traction.

Why should I disbelieve a theory that has more supporting evidence for it in favor of a theory that has to be interpreted a certain way from a book that was written centuries ago? For instance, I could interpret the bible to fit the Big Bang theory, Abiogenesis, and Evolution. But Creationists swear up and down that these three theories are incompatible with religion.


a creationist can't provide proof because 1) the questions have been tainted by past mainstream, popularized interpretations. examples being religions that have a set of doctrines that are not in keeping with reality -- i.e. flat earth (although a theoretical physicist could argue flat earth from the position of the bending of 3d space time). 2) the dim view generally held of past knowledge, also the result of mainstream, popularized interpretations. examples being enlightened university professors teaching their students that ancient greeks couldn't write and then when it was discovered that they could write, the mainstream ignoring the evidence. these things need to be addressed but they aren't because of the human predilection to confirmation bias. do you not hear what i'm saying? why is this the one area where people tend to ignore their own failings?



posted on Sep, 10 2013 @ 08:31 AM
link   

Krazysh0t
reply to post by undo
 


Gravity isn't a law of science it is a theory just like evolution.Theory of Gravity Also just like Evolution, we don't fully understand it. As new things are learned about gravity, we fill in the hole for it, just like Evolution.


It is both a law and the theory is to explain why it works:




We can use Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation to calculate how strong the gravitational pull is between the Earth and the object you dropped, which would let us calculate its acceleration as it falls, how long it will take to hit the ground, how fast it would be going at impact, how much energy it will take to pick it up again, etc.

While the law lets us calculate quite a bit about what happens, notice that it does not tell us anything about why it happens. That is what theories are for. In the language of science, the word "theory" is used to describe an explanation of why and how things happen. For gravity, we use Einstein's Theory of General Relativity to explain why things fall.
source


You see, the reason that Creationists are never taken seriously is because they NEVER provide the proof for their own theory. They spend all their time trying to pick apart the theory of evolution but don't provide a counter-theory that fits all the holes that evolution leaves open without creating new bigger holes. While you are correct in that fringe science ideas can take a while to gain traction, if the science is sound they WILL gain traction.


First of all, one does not have to have an answer for something with another theory to prove something else is not true. Secondly, proofs have been offered, but you all reject them or ignore them. I have made many posts regarding the order within nature, plants, animals, earth, galaxy of the Fibonacci sequence and Golden ratio, but I have yet to see one pro evolution person actually take on this issue. So, proof has been offered and either rejected or ignored.


Why should I disbelieve a theory that has more supporting evidence for it in favor of a theory that has to be interpreted a certain way from a book that was written centuries ago? For instance, I could interpret the bible to fit the Big Bang theory, Abiogenesis, and Evolution. But Creationists swear up and down that these three theories are incompatible with religion.


Actually, much of the evidence pointing to proving evolution is based on circular arguments such as age of fossils and strata which use one another to prove themselves. You all say you use the strata the fossil is found in to date the fossil and that you use the fossils to date the strata. That seems pretty convenient and circular to me especially given that newer aged fossils are found under ones that are accepted from an older age and when this "anomaly" happens you all just toss the new one in favor of the older one. The dating system also is flawed that things we know happened 150 years ago are dated as happening 250,000 years ago when we KNOW that cannot be true.

In Darwin's day they believed in spontaneous creation like molds and maggots. They believed in "simple" cells because they could not see inside them as we can today. Had Darwin seen just how complex a cell is, he would not have believed his own theory of common ancestry.

Darwin said,


"…Natural selection acts only by taking advantage of slight successive variations; she can never take a great and sudden leap, but must advance by short and sure, though slow steps." [1] Thus, Darwin conceded that, "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down."
Charles Darwin, "On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life," 1859, p. 162.


Darwin admitted :


"To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree."
Charles Darwin, "On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life," 1859, p. 155.


edit on 10-9-2013 by UnifiedSerenity because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 10 2013 @ 08:32 AM
link   
reply to post by solomons path
 


so you're saying it never happens? i want to be sure what your position is on the subject, so i can decide if the film was just a way to misdirect the evidence of it happening in the first place.



posted on Sep, 10 2013 @ 08:35 AM
link   
reply to post by undo
 


No I hear what you are saying. But like I mentioned earlier, fringe theories don't just gain large scale support over night. They need to be tested and retested many times. These theories also tend to have bigger holes in them then the mainstream theories. Plus as you mentioned it can be hard to get a scientist to abandon his favorite pet theories in favor of a newer theory (they are human after all). HOWEVER if the science is sound and the new theory really does answer the questions better then it will become mainstream eventually. It may take a century or so, but it will happen. The problem with the Creationist viewpoint, is that their science ISN'T sound. They usually completely ignore the scientific method in favor of using their own confirmation bias to show that they are right. In fact one could argue that Creationists tend to utilize confirmation bias far more than scientists. At least scientists have the scientific method to back them up, if a scientist used confirmation bias in a research paper, as soon as it was peer reviewed, he'd be ridiculed to no end.

To be honest I'd really like to know why this couldn't be the case: God said "Let there be light." Then the big bang happened (big bang implying that it was a rather large explosion would emit quite a bit of light). God creates life on the 6th day through Abiogensis. Finally God creates Adam and Eve through Evolution. The opening passages of Genesis are so vague, that you could interpret it anyway you wanted. Why can't both creationism and evolution exist concurrently? Why does it HAVE to be one or the other? If Christians would just accept evolution as the answer to HOW instead of WHY, atheists would get along with them far better.



posted on Sep, 10 2013 @ 08:43 AM
link   
reply to post by Krazysh0t
 


okay follow me here for a moment:

textual evidence. that is what we both have in common. neither of us were present during creation or evolution, therefore, we are basing our opinions, at least in part, on the textual evidence of others. the way the evidence is collected is similar:

1. the scientist collects evidence that he / she views with his / her own eyes. this is tested by comparing it to prior textual evidence.

2. the creationist collects evidence that he / she experiences in their own lives. this is tested by comparing it to prior textual evidence.

some of the science is not correct. some of the creationist evidence is not correct.
that doesn't refute either position entirely. it simply suggests we ask more questions.



posted on Sep, 10 2013 @ 08:47 AM
link   
reply to post by Krazysh0t
 


First of all let me say that most Christians hold to the standard dogmas and I do not. I do not believe in evolution because of the systems in place both on the cellular level, the massive amount of time needed for evolution and lack of intermediate fossils showing this slow progressive change all while species suddenly appear en mass fully developed.

I also truly believe that as complex as cells are and what is needed to function such as extremely complex proteins and the mathematical probabilities of getting them by chance proves design. It seems science throws away common sense when it comes to evolution. If you were walking down a path in a dry wilderness and saw rocks stacked up on top of each other and placed every two feet and followed them and they led you to water you would not think, "OH wow, look how nature did that!" No, you would logically deduce that someone intelligent put them there to help you get to water.

How much more complex is a cell? How about the perfect Fibonacci sequences in the world? Over and over completely different systems have them and yet it's just chance? What about the very primitive creatures shown in fossils that have highly advanced eyes? Where are the less advanced eyes of that same creature thus proving at least the eye evolved?



What about the Coelacanth? This was supposed to be proof of evolution and yet we find them still as they were and no intermediates? Shouldn't we at least find some intermediates for an ancient fish that still exists? There are a lot of holes in evolution and if you disbelieve the bible and creation because of supposed holes in it, why do you accept evolution?




posted on Sep, 10 2013 @ 08:52 AM
link   
reply to post by UnifiedSerenity
 


I've read your posts before. I've seen many pro-Evolution people argue your points before, the reason you believe no one answers your questions is because you always ignore their responses.

You are correct that you don't necessarily have to have an answer to the question while proving the first one wrong, but it certainly helps. Your position is creationism, argue in favor of that for once, instead of against evolution. Arguing against evolution is only half the work. All you are going to do with your argument (if successful) is to get me to disbelieve evolution. You won't get me to believe in creationism though. Not to mention, I'd still like to know why you can't just accept evolution as the tool that god uses to develop life. Why does it make more sense for god to just poof all life into existence instead of it developing slowly bit by bit over a long period of time? Isn't that how the snowballs for snowmen are made? You start small and roll it around in the snow and make it bigger and bigger? You just don't pick up a bunch of snow and compact it into a big snow boulder.



posted on Sep, 10 2013 @ 08:54 AM
link   
i



new topics

top topics



 
20
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join